HL Deb 16 April 1975 vol 359 cc445-75

7.51 p.m.

The Earl of LONGFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what further steps they have in mind for tackling the world food crisis. The noble Earl said: My Lords, when one introduces a Motion one has the opportunity of a final word and one then thanks the speakers, as has just been done so gracefully. On this occasion I shall not have that oppor- tunity, so I shall thank the speakers in advance, feeling sure that their contributions will be of the very high level which one expects upon looking at the list of speakers. I wish, in particular, to wish all success to the right reverend Prelate who is to make his maiden speech. I hope I am not out of order in saying how fortunate we are to be presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, who dealt with kindred topics, which bear on this one, in the impressive debate which we had the other day on fish farming.

My Lords, you will all recall that in January there was an important all-round debate, touching on many matters, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Brock-way. He touched on this subject among several others. The noble Lord has expressed his regrets at not taking part, but he has already spoken today, although we would always want to hear him on this topic. On the occasion of the previous debate I ventured to express strong criticism of Britain's poor record of attainment in falling so far below the United Nations aid target of 0.7 per cent. of our gross national product. I maintain that criticism today, and indeed I must amplify it. I am indeed sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Healey, in a Budget—which I hasten to say I much admired, taking it all round —felt it necessary to announce yesterday that our contribution to aid was to be cut by a far from negligible sum in the next two years. It was an unhappy blemish on a fine effort. It is not, however, my intention to dwell today on the general question of the proportion of income to be devoted to aid, but others may intend to do so. I shall certainly return to it on more occasions than one, but today I want to take up some of the other topics raised in the January debate.

There is certainly a great and very healthy concern—and overdue concern— about the world food situation, as evidenced in the Foodshare Campaign, which is jointly supported by all the Churches, the World Development Movement and the voluntary agencies. I am sure that all speakers in this debate, and many other Members of the House, are lending their full support to this campaign, and I hope that the Government may find it possible to say something sympathetic and constructive about the campaign and their good will towards it.

The World Food Conference in Rome last autumn was an extremely significant milestone in the effort to plan the provision of sufficient food for all the world's people. Many resolutions were passed, which, if acted upon, could provide a framework for much increased world production and food security. Certainly in this busy and forgetful world we must on no account forget those who are called "the wretched of the earth". My intention today is more one of interrogation than accusation. It is to seek information on the progress of some of the principal initiatives and resolutions begun at the World Food Conference and carried forward later at the Commonwealth Conference on Rural Development and Food Production, in March.

It may be that other speakers, certainly my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, or the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, may well have a lot to say about the Lomé Convention between the EEC and the 46 developing countries. It has been hailed as providing much encouragement to rural development and, generally speaking, as an indication that the EEC is showing a much more sympathetic attitude to the developing countries. But it did not, for reasons I am not altogether clear about, include what I think are called the big, poor countries—certainly they are big, poor countries—like India and Bangladesh. I can only regard this as a serious omission, and I wonder whether there is any chance of setting it right. I believe there are other plans to assist India and Bangladesh and other Asiatic countries through the generalised preference scheme with the EEC. Perhaps the Government can tell us something about the effect of the Lomé Convention and, in particular, what is being done for these very poor countries that fall outside it.

It now seems to be generally agreed that the developing countries must increase their food production if they are to have any chance of keeping up with the demand for food. I am sure that all sorts of good points have been made in this connection at the various conferences. As a result, it has been agreed that British aid priorities should increasingly reflect an emphasis on rural development. That I believe is the correct formulation. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to tell us what it is likely to mean in practice when it comes to the distribution and administration of the aid programme. Furthermore, the World Food Conference proposed that an agricultural development fund of 1,000 million dollars be set up, jointly funded by the industrial world and OPEC. I understand that this is to be discussed in Rome on 5th May. Would my noble friend—whom I am so glad is to reply to this debate—give some indication of the Government's attitude towards this proposal for a 1,000 million dollar fund? And will he tell us what support the Government are to give it in the light of the new declared emphasis on aid policy? Might I suggest that the Government should lend their full weight to the fund, if it can be used to assist those countries which are least developed and which are most seriously affected by the rise in oil prices?

Secondly, I wish to return—and I make no apology for doing so—to the question of fertilisers, which was dealt with strongly on the last occasion. It has become clear that if there are to be greatly increased yields in the developing countries this year an abundant supply of fertilisers is essential. But now there are reports that surpluses in fertilisers are beginning to develop because farmers in developing countries cannot afford to buy them. I am glad that the Government are assisting in funding fertiliser plants in developing countries. But there is room for far more than this. Can the House be assured that the Government will raise the promised 35,000 tons of fertilisers still further to at least 50,000 tons to be provided under the aid programme this year? The noble Lord has had at least a few hours' notice of most of these questions. I personally cannot help feeling that 50,000 tons is quite insufficient, but at any rate it is a great deal better than 35,000 tons.

Thirdly, I should like to touch on the point of food security. Over the next few years, as food production is expanded, there will be a continuing need to keep stocks of grain to cushion shortfalls in supplies. So far, the countries in the greatest need—like India and Bangladesh —have been able to cover their position until the end of the crop year through the provision of some food aid and quite a lot of financial help through the OPEC countries, and through the World Bank and the United Nations Special Fund. This position, which is altogether precarious, could be greatly improved if the developing countries could be helped to build up storage capacity and stockpiles within their own borders. Then they will be able to deal far more quickly with a threatened shortage than if they have to wait for slow transhipment from the other side of the world. In one of the most imaginative proposals put forward by Dr. Boerma, Director-General FAO, at the World Food Conference it was agreed that these stockpiles should be Internationally co-ordinated. This proposal for the co-ordination of national stockpiles, I gather is to be discussed by the FAO later in May. May I ask my noble friend Lord Strabolgi what progress has been made on this proposal and to what extent our Government are playing a full part in implementing it?

Finally, I should like to emphasise that the world food situation is not something rather unpleasant a long way from here in a part of the world that we know little about, and which requires no change in our own agricultural and our own personal lifestyle. The fact that the affluence of our own and other industrialised societies has created a huge appetite for meat fattened on imported grain is a matter for deep moral concern, not only to the Church but also to others with no religion. Whatever may be said about the intricacies of the world trade in grain, it is quite possible, as was pointed out in an article in The Times on this issue on 4th April, to make much more use of homegrown animal feedingstuffs. I am now quoting from The Times article: If these alternative feedingstuffs were more widely used so as to reduce the consumption of grain by British livestock, this would enable the Government at least to eliminate our dependency on over 4 million tons of imported grain for animal feed each year. This quantity of grain, if directed towards the poorer nations of the world, could feed 20 million people for one year.

This, I am sure, has the support of us all. How are we to do it? By purchasing that grain to assist in building up grain stock piles and helping to provide storage capacity in developing countries. I hope that the Government will take steps to introduce changes along the lines I have suggested.

It is certainly true that we can all do our little bit, set our small example in our own circle. I was speaking at a well-known public school the other day, at the school dinner. An excellent meal, very rightly, was provided. I was giving a talk after dinner on Christianity and social questions and the word "starvation" was among the social questions. As we proceeded with this dinner, it occurred to me that I was in danger of not setting the best of all possible examples as I was to deal with starvation; so I abstained from eating meat, without thinking a great deal of it— although I am trying, with moderate success, to give up meat. I thought no more of that, but a few days ago I received a letter from a master at the school who said that my gesture in not eating meat had created such an impression that he and some other masters and a number of the boys, and some of the monks from the abbey —it was a religious school attached to a monastery—had organised themselves and sent me a list of about 400 signatures in support of the Food-Share Petition. I hope that without departing from the Christian ideas of humility, I can merely indicate what an example, quite casually given, can bring about. The influence of the Government is greater than anything that can be done by an individual. I may have misheard the previous Minister, but I thought that he said something about sacro-egoismo. I hope he was denouncing it. I hope he was not actually applauding it; for what we do not want is any egoismo—which is bound to be far from sacred. What we want is national unselfishness inspired by the Government.

8.5 p.m.

Earl COWLEY

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to him, for asking this Unstarred Question on what is a very important subject. I believe that the time has come for this House to examine what the Government have achieved since the Rome Food Conference last November and since the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, last January and the debate on fish farming initiated by my noble friend Lady Emmet last week, which I think has tremendous relevance, as the noble Earl has said, to the present topic under discussion. I should like also to say how pleased I am that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester has decided to make his maiden speech on this subject this evening, because I heard him make his other maiden speech on this topic to the General Synod last February and I have also read his book Enough is Enough. I agree also with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his opinions on the Food-share campaign. I think it is of tremendous importance and benefit in making this country aware of the issues involved in the present world crisis.

This debate comes at an opportune moment since the Commonwealth Heads of State, who will be meeting together in Jamaica at the end of the month, will be discussing a Report from the Commonwealth Ministerial Conference on Food Production and Rural Development which was held in London at the beginning of March. The London meeting, which was attended by Ministers from some 33 countries, came to some important conclusions. Most important was that at long last it was recognised that priority should be given to agricultural and rural development in the Third World by the Governments of both the underdeveloped and the developed countries.

For too long there has been a relative neglect of the agricultural sector of the developing countries' economies in their development programmes. In general, they pursued industrial development and urbanisation in the belief that it was the best way to create a modern and developed country. The image of the industrialised world became the pattern for that development. Instead of questioning this general approach taken by the developing countries, the industrial countries encouraged it because it was the easy way out. It was what the developing countries seemed to want and it also maximised the capital exports from the developed States. Thus only some 3 per cent. of the bilateral aid from the donor countries was specifically directed to agricultural development. The cost of this approach has been high both in human terms, from the point of view of the levels of unemployment and poverty, and in terms of the growing disparity between the levels of development in urban and rural areas of the Third World countries. The results of this process have been the steady economic decline in the countryside and the massive migration of population to the cities and towns of the Third World countries. It is estimated that some 1 million people drift to the cities of Brazil from the rural areas every year. Thus the cities and towns of that country become encircled by slums and choked by the unemployed and the under-employed.

Among other things, the present world food crisis has highlighted this problem. While the immediate crisis is not as serious as at first thought at the time of the Rome Food Conference, the growing grain gap this year has only just been covered. The prospects for next year's harvest may be hopeful but the future still bodes ill. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the world's population is increasing by some 70 million people every year. What I now believe is generally recognised throughout the Western world is that the priority for the developing countries must be a massive increase in food production. However, the current escalation in the price of oil and fertilisers, especially nitrogenous fertilisers, has made the green revolution as it was originally conceived on expensive luxury for some countries, and an unobtainable dream for some others. For example, the additional cost of oil represents 24 per cent. of India's total imports.

While the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to cut back Government expenditure, and this necessarily meant cuts in Britain's overseas development programme, the decision to reduce Britain's aid by £20 million over the next two years means that we must be certain that our aid is used to the greatest possible effect and reaches those people for whom it is intended. It has been reported that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development has set up a rural development unit. Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, replies to this Unstarred Question he could tell the House when this unit will be in full operation, and what its main duties will be; and also whether it has been staffed by people brought in from outside, or officials already in the ODM who have been transferred from other Departments.

It is now questionable whether the large agricultural estates produce the greatest amount of food per acre. Further more, if it was true, these large estates are dependent for their success upon advanced and, consequently, expensive technology which not only demands massive energy imports but also skills which many of the peasants do not have. Because the large estates tend to be capital intensive rather than labour intensive, they also help to compound the problem of unemployment in the rural areas. What is in fact needed is land reform on a massive scale but this would of course create huge political problems in those developing countries where vested interests are involved. However, it has been shown in Taiwan and other developing countries that small estates can produce the food that is required. The increased cost of oil imports makes the use of intermediate technology even more attractive since it avoids the capital and oil intensive systems of agriculture. The idea behind intermediate technology is that it makes the best use of the resources available and, in the case of developing countries, the main resource is human labour.

I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he could say what the Government's attitude is towards the use of intermediate technology in the present situation of the current world food crisis, what support they are at present giving to it and whether they are contemplating increasing that support. Intermediate technology is not particularly economically attractive and if it is to be successful and widely used it needs official support and backing. For the technology which is supplied by the developed countries to be effective, it must be widely reproduceable from the resources that are easily available to the rural communities as a whole. If one is to have any hope of solving the long-term food crisis, increased food production must be treated within the context of rural development as a whole. I believe that the time has come for the Government to re-examine the existing priorities of Britain's overseas aid programme in favour of an all-out effort to raise agricultural production in the Third World countries. The objective must be surely to assist hungry people to help themselves. This will involve increased agricultural research, rural education and technical assistance. Much of it we shall have to provide and pay for ourselves, and because it seems politically unlikely that there will be an increase in official aid, it will involve transferring resources from other uses.

While the developed countries can offer advice and encouragement, it is for the developing countries to take the lead in adopting more balanced strategies of investment which give greater priority to agricultural and rural development. However attractive industrial expansion and urban growth may seem to the Governments of the Third World countries, I believe that in the long run the neglect of the rural and agricultural sectors of their economies will provide an effective break to their total development. While food aid will alleviate some of the symptoms of the immediate crisis, it will provide no cure for the long-term problems. The present necessity for continuing food aid or, for that matter, increasing it, is obvious, but it tends to weaken the agriculture industry of the recipient State if the aid is too much and over too long a period. Food aid does, however, provide an effective buffer while the agricultural economy of the countries can be developed.

Although the immediate crisis is of great concern and importance, especially for humanitarian reasons, it is essential that the long-term problems are solved, otherwise the present crisis will always be with us. I fully accept that these solutions entail changes that may be political anathema to the Governments of many developing countries; but the food problem will not just go away like some bad nightmare. Of course many of the difficulties of reorientating Britain's bilateral aid programme towards rural development are not lessened by the fact that official aid flows are from Government to Government. Although individual projects have to be approved by the present Government—as by their predecessors—the development plans of the recipient country are the responsibility solely of that country's Government, and it should be so. Thus part of the solution must lie in persuasion and negotiation.

While the Ministry of Overseas Development have some officials in the developing countries, they are not enough. Much of the work—which is not the most attractive for the budding diplomat climbing the FCO ladder—has been left to the officials of our embassies and high commissions. I really feel that there is room for improvement at this level, and I ask the noble Lord to consider seriously whether more aid experts could be appointed to our embassies abroad to offer advice and assistance to our officials and voluntary agencies working out there, as well as to the members of the Government concerned. I hope that, when the Report from the Commonwealth Ministers' Meeting in London is discussed in Jamaica, the Government will play an active and constructive part in helping to find the solutions to the present crisis. Before the World Food Council meets later this year, I hope the Government will show to our Commonwealth colleagues—many of whom are countries affected in the worst possible way—as well as to the world outside, that this country really cares about the present world food crisis.

8.19 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of WINCHESTER

My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Earl, because it was his magnetism that originally drew me, many years ago, to this House. I knew he was speaking on a subject which lay close to my heart and I was allowed into your Lordships' Chamber. I listened to the noble Earl with due awe and great admiration. This is not the easiest theme on which to obey the injunction that a maiden speech should be non-controversial; for any serious search for a practical method of distributing the global supplies of grain, protein and fertilisers, so that a half of mankind shall not be condemned to famine, cannot avoid being controversial. But I trust that in this House the humane, not to say divine, imperative it not a matter of controversy.

Thanks to television and the charitable organisations, we do not need reminding of the physical face of starvation. There is a film made by that most sensitive artist of the Indian cinema, Salvajit Ray, which I hesitated to mention at first, wondering whether there was a ban on "commercials" since one has already been given on my own book. The film, currently showing at the Academy 2 cinema in London, presents in the most delicate understatement another aspect of food shortage; namely, its erosion of community and mutual trust. The long and tragic falling-apart of Northern Ireland is not unrelated to the sociological effects of the potato famines of the past. So it is not simply a food crisis that we face, but a crisis of peace—peace for our children.

Any programme for redressing the appalling imbalance must contain three elements: direct food aid, fairer terms of trade and a less prodigal consumption of food resources by the richer countries. With regard to food aid, there is now the most urgent need to make good the agreement reached last November at the conference in Rome, to make available from the rich countries, and those which have stocks, 10 million tons of grain each year for the next three years, and to refuse to make use of any of the escape clauses and other ambiguities in that agreement. At the same time, in our negotiations with the OPEC countries, we must seek to bring pressure on them to invest some of their wealth to enable the poorer countries to purchase more of the food they need. Fairer trade is a more long-term and permanent requirement. I say "fairer trade" and not "hand-out" or "giveaway" trade. The poorer countries want to buy their imported food in the world markets. They do not want those markets manipulated so as to make ordinary laws of supply and demand incapable of working. They want to sell their goods in order to pay for their survival.

If we have respect for that desire, it is incumbent on the richer nations to give far more liberal access to their products, especially the products of their more labour-intensive industries. If we are to apply discrimination in our import policy, it should favour not rich European neighbours, who can fend for themselves, but the weak countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. As we approach the referendum on our membership of the European Community, let it be seen at least that we have asked the very necessary questions about the liberality or tightfistedness of the Community's policy on trade with the under-developed countries.

More searching, but ultimately much more determinative, is the question of our disproportionate consumption of scarce supplies. This is a comparatively recent problem to raise its head, for as our affluence increases our food consumption become more unnecessarily high. The average person in Britain expects to eat far more protein than he needs, and protein of the most extravagant sort. As the noble Earl has already explained, the very nature of our farming needs questioning at this point. I think I understand the problems of the British farmers about beef and poultry, and their position must be considered in any equitable plan. But we cannot, with a good conscience, allow so much of the world's inadequate grain stocks to be consumed by cattle and poultry, fed intensively.

If we choose to design our own domestic food policy in terms of, "They have no bread? Then let them eat meat", that is our own funeral—and a funeral usually resulting from thrombosis. But let us limit that lunacy to our own fields and fishing grounds, and not stretch out to grasp other men's larders. Our people may need to learn to pay more for their proteins and to eat them less often, in order that other human beings may eat the grains they so desperately need. By the same token, Britain should show her concern for the most needy peoples of the world in the contribution she makes at the Conferences on the Law of the Sea. It is the people of Chile, West Africa and Bangladesh, for example, who most need a 50-mile extension of their coastal fishing rights, together with enough technical and economic aid to exploit these for themselves. One has only to make such proposals as these—a bare minimum in humane terms—to realise that no Government dare implement them unless the assumptions and expectations of the ordinary citizen, deliberately engendered by the policies of the last thirty years, have been challenged and reversed. We have to become a people who not only expect less but who also know how to be content with less or, to put it more positively, with our own fair share.

I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I end with a story from the Holy Writ which seems peculiarly appropriate at this point: Said the prophet to the King: "There were two men in the city, the one rich and the other poor, and there came a traveller to the rich man and he spared to take from his own flock and from his own herd to prepare for the wayfaring man, but took the poor man's one ewe lamb. 'And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man when he heard of it and Nathan said, ' Thou art the man'. Ultimately, we have to realise the inherent sickness of an economy based on the false stimulation of unreal wants for more and more.

8.27 p.m.

Lord SAINSBURY

My Lords, it is my great pleasure and privilege to be the first to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester on his maiden speech. He has shown great knowledge of the subject, a sensitive approach to it and great compassion in its expression. It would indeed be sad if a Member of the Bishops' Bench had not taken part in this debate, because the Christian Churches have done so much to support the World Development Movement in its very many forms and organisations. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has long made contributions to our debates which have been characterised by humanitarian concern. We must all be very grateful to him for raising this most fundamental of issues. I feel I must apologise to the noble Earl and to the other speakers in this debate if I cover very much the same territory as they do, because it is difficult to avoid doing so.

Six months ago, in our debate on the Queen's Speech, a number of your Lordships spoke, as I did, about the importance of the imminent World Food Conference in Rome. We were assured that Her Majesty's Government would treat the Conference seriously and not cynically. That Conference ended with the noble pledge that: … within a decade no child would go to bed hungry, no family would fear for its next day's bread. These were fine words and admirable ideals, but in my opinion the tragedy of the Conference is that little has been done to alleviate the critical short-term problems caused by the world food crisis. And this at a meeting of nations which estimated that 40 million to 50 million people in under-developed countries might die of starvation by July of this year! The stark facts are that stocks of cereals are at their lowest for 22 years, and, as has already been said, the world's population is growing by 70 million a year, the most rapid rate of population growth being in undeveloped countries.

Many of us who followed the Rome Conference with acute concern felt disquiet at Britain's inadequate role there. Three major issues challenged the Conference. The first was the need to provide at least 10 million tons of grain a year in the short term to avert unparalleled famine in 20 countries. The other two issues were the provision of 1,800,000 tons of fertiliser and donations of 5 billion dollars per annum for 10 years in order to improve food production in the poor nations themselves. The only contribution this country made was 25,000 tons of fertiliser—and here I am not certain of my figure: I thought it was 25,000 tons; my noble friend Lord Longford said 35,000 tons, and perhaps my noble friend Lord Strabolgi when replying for the Government will tell us which figure is more accurate—and £3 million out of the aid budget to pay for the fertiliser. The Government were not prepared to increase that contribution, although they could have donated 50,000 tons without affecting supplies to agriculture here. They were not prepared to contribute to the agricultural development fund, arguing that our own economic difficulties precluded help to families actually starving to death.

Perhaps most unfortunate of all, and I refer to it with a certain hesitancy, was the fact that the Secretary of State for Agriculture explained that Britain could not reduce her own meat consumption thereby releasing valuable grain supplies. This, he told delegates from developing countries—and I quote his actual words as reported in The Times— is because I believe the people of Britain are not eating enough meat. I do not want malnutrition to appear in Britain. We are no longer a very rich or powerful nation compared with some other advanced industrial countries, but this is no excuse for not playing our full part. The age of cheap food has passed, as I said in your Lordships' House some months ago. It passed because it depended on British buying power as the only large market for surpluses. Because of this, for years Britain benefited from cheap food to the detriment of the standards of living of the producing countries. Our responsibilities are considerable, both because of our past advantages and because of our present affluence. The fall in prices of such commodities as zinc, tin and rubber over the past year has weakened, and continues to weaken, the terms of trade for developing countries exporting those commodities. That weakening makes the responsibilities of the relatively strong countries all the more grave.

When a small nation such as Israel was able to donate four times as much fertiliser as Britain to developing countries; when Iran offered 150 million dollars to an agricultural development fund and is the only nation to have offered funds so far, then it may well be time to review our present commitments and see whether we can do more. We know Israel's economic difficulties. And Iran, for all her oil wealth, has a tragically low per capita income. These are magnanimous gestures and affluent Western nations ought to respond to them by increasing their own efforts to conquer starvation in the poorest countries. In the light of this, it is surely regrettable and sad, as my noble friend Lord Longford has already said, that in yesterday's Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a reduction in overseas aid over the next two years. Talking at the World Food Conference or at the coming Commonwealth Conference is not enough. Action is what is needed.

In my opinion, it has long been a regrettable mistake that some food aid organisations have sometimes confused short-term aid with the overall need to create within underdeveloped countries greater awareness of the importance of producing more domestically. Here I must support Mr. Fred Peart's statement to the Rome Conference in which he argued that, while food aid may have a very important temporary role to play in helping to meet the world food supply problem, the real and longer-term answer lies in helping to create conditions in which more food can be grown. He added: And just as important, to assist in providing those people who cannot for one reason or another grow food with the opportunity of producing something which will bring them money to buy it. Unfortunately, some countries most in need are those lacking both foodstuffs and foreign exchange.

The prospects for conquering mass starvation are not entirely bleak. The opening last Tuesday of the London soya bean meal futures market draws attention to the scope for expansion in fields not yet fully exploited. At present, only the United States, China and Brazil produce soya in significant quantities. But other countries are becoming aware of the potential of soya beans, and the EEC is currently encouraging its production within the Community. Soya beans have a high protein content, are largely resistant to bacteria and do not require fertiliser to any extent. On a global level, we could do well to look at the potential of soya for feeding human beings in the Third World rather than livestock in the West. It is a tragic irony that although shortage of protein is the main cause of malnutrition in underdeveloped countries, these countries have been the traditional source of vegetable protein for feed for livestock in the developed world.

I cannot wholly accept the contention of Pierre Lardinois that the world food crisis is not a question of shortage but rather of maldistribution. None the less, Western Governments must ensure that essential foodstuffs are fairly and justly distributed. Her Majesty's Government would do well to assess whether present disparities of supply are justified in humanitarian terms. It takes 8 lbs. of feed grain to produce 1 lb. of beefsteak, and the disparities between livestock in the West and human beings around the globe must be a particular concern.

Food aid undoubtedly has a vital role to play in averting the continuing threat of starvation, but it must be used in conjunction with appropriate measures of agricultural reform to diversify and increase local food production. In under-developed countries, this means a shift from the barest subsistence economies to greater self-sufficiency. This introduces problems of storage, distribution and transportation. Also, it involves seeking out new sources of energy supply which are less dependent on imported fuel oil, and new ways of maintaining soil fertility. The West has done much, but it must do a great deal more before no child goes to bed hungry and no family fears for its next day's bread. This country's power and influence may have diminished over the years. We must show that our ability to speak for humanitarian ideals remains unmuted.

8.45 p.m.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure this evening for me to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester on his maiden speech, because he happens to be my landlord. I think I am right in saying that he is the Visitor to New College. Not only do I live in a New College house but I farm a New College farm, and for many years I was churchwarden of a New College living. I must warn him that I am told I am one of the most awkward and objectionable of his tenants so no doubt in future I shall be taking him to arbitration as my landlord! However, today I have to admit that I am delighted to be able to say that I happen to agree with him, even though he is a Bishop, and that is a very strange and happy situation for a churchwarden to be in!

I think I should declare an interest in this matter. In so far as I have said I am a farmer, presumably I have a vested interest in keeping all your Lordships from starving. However, not for the first time in my life the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has made me try to think, even though I do not think that I was born to believe in quite the same things as he does. One point which I should like to make, which has already been raised by the noble Earl, by the right reverend Prelate and also by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, concerns the question of imported feedstuffs. I, as a farmer, use vast quantities of imported feedstuffs at a very bad return. All this is quite right, but there is a terrible snag. To use grass, which is presumably what your Lordships are asking me to do, is a highly skilled operation. I should like to discuss this matter with them afterwards in the Lobby and tell them of the great technical difficulties involved.

At the risk of being shot at by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, one of the problems is fencing. The question I should like to ask the Government relates to a problem that has been causing me the odd qualm of conscience, and it is this: Do the Government agree that at the moment the world food crisis applies basically to the Third World? Do they agree that, compared with the Third World, we in Britain and in Europe are often in surplus? Certainly, I for one live like a glutton. Will the Government therefore agree that the terms of trade, which have already been discussed tonight and, with which I agree, were weighted in the past—and still are, for that matter —in our favour and should, if possible, be altered to favour the Third World who are the primary producers?

If, in order to relieve the world food crisis, it is desirable to give a better price to primary producers—and I am afraid that this means a higher one—will the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, please tell me how a policy of unrealistically cheap, subsidised food, which is the policy which we have followed in the past, and in particular consumer food subsidies as introduced by his Government, helps primary producers, particularly in the Third World? I think that the noble Earl criticised his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for reducing aid to the Third World. I have to admit that I admire the Chancellor of the Exchequer for taking a first step towards reducing food subsidies. Can the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, assure me that I have no cause for worrying that these consumer food subsidies make the primary producers of the Third World starve more? I think that they do.

There are moments when I wonder whether we, as a generation, will be accused of pursuing a policy that has made the Third World much worse off. If primary producers received a fair price, which as I have said before means a higher one, for their primary product, compared with manufactured goods, they would be able to invest more and so get off the bread line. While we, through our selfish policies, keep primary products down, in particular by these consumer food subsidies, surely we make their position worse. I shall give an example of this which is very simple; namely, the milk subsidy. The Government subsidises milk to the consumer, more milk is therefore drunk here; no more milk is produced because the producer is not getting any more. Milk supplies get short. We have to import cheese, to start with, then butter, then milk, so taking supplies away from those who are not subsidising food, basically the poorer countries. I hate to say this because I think I really believe in it, but it may be that some modified system of intervention, coupled, of course, with no import controls—which is what the EEC have—might be worth considering.

Subsidies given to produce more—in particular, capital grants and financial help to primary producers to even out supplies, so ensuring a continuity of supply—to my mind are very different matters from consumer subsidies. I ask whether the Government have taken these points into consideration when formulating their long-term plan for British agriculture which I believe is about to come out? If the noble Lord were to answer all my questions in the affirmative, I am not at all sure that I should like some of the consequences.

Lord HOY

And the noble Lord would be very surprised!

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, most of the time I am like everybody else; I am selfish and I am greedy and I think only of the present time. I make the right noises when I see the starving millions on "telly"' and, occasionally, I put the odd 50p in the plate to show willing. I hope the noble Lord can assure me that I can continue to watch these horror films on "telly" in the knowledge that I, as a person and, in particular, we as a country, have pursued economic policies that have relieved rather than made worse the food crisis which at the present moment—and I emphasise "at the present moment" —really applies only to the Third World, but quite honestly it does not take much stretch of the imagination to see ourselves in that position in the future.

8.53 p.m.

Lord RITCHIE-CALDER

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to thank the right reverend Prelate, because I feel this is a theme on which those of us who are trying to deal with this in a very secular way need a great deal of support from the Churches. One of the reasons is that there is now creeping into the thinking on this issue a very dangerous attitude of mind, and it was just beginning to come through in the last speech. It was: are we in a position to calculate what, in fact, we have done right or wrong and therefore to readjust and restrict what we are doing? This is expressed in the word "triage" and if your Lordships have not heard it you are very lucky, because you are going to hear it again, and again, and again and again. This is the relentless two-syllable word which has become fashionable in American academic circles and it means just this. It is a French term dredged up from the mud of the First World War, from the Marne, the Somme, Verdun, Passchendaele, and Chateau-Thierry. It applied to the field ambulance stations in the front line and to the battlefield conditions under which doctors and medical orderlies practised casualty surgery.

Triage defined three categories: first, minor casualties who, with a bit of stitching and bandaging, with antitetanus shots and analgesics, could be returned to active duty in the trench, the machinegun nest or the cockpit; secondly, those casualties who with emergency surgery, the tourniquet, the splint, the removal of bullets or shrapnel, amputations and drugs, could be transferred to base hospital; and, thirdly, the casualties so badly wounded that at best they would need extensive surgery, which was probably impracticable and certainly surgically hazardous under battlefield conditions and, of course, time consuming. This third category, under triage, was expendable.

This is now becoming the classification in the talking in scientific circles in America, and in Washington in particular in the kinds of discussion and public debate as to how far we can go and what attitudes we can adopt in the sharing out of what is manifestly the food in short supply. How do we do it? We do it under triage. Yesterday, almost by a coincidence, I was in the Palais des Nations in Geneva when I suddenly stumbled over a bin and it was marked "triage". I said to one of the attendants, "What does 'triage' mean?" and he said, "That is where you put in the shredding". We know what "shredding" is because we have heard all about it in the Watergate trial, when they sliced up all the evidence. That is what "triage" means. They are just shredded. So far as the world's conscience is concerned, they are totally expendable. I am talking very seriously because this is not just a casual word; it is the introduction of a concept which is now being rationalised. Crudely, in terms of food shortages it means that available food supplies should be distributed, first to those who, with first-aid supplies, would get back to work, as we did with the starving Ruhr miners after the Second World War; secondly, to those who, helped out, would rehabilitate their economies and become food-viable; and, thirdly, the rest who would be expendable.

Of course, the arguments are much more complicated than that; first-aid would not include famine relief, which of course is deviant sentimentality, since it means keeping people alive to need more food. Rehabilitation is not simple either. It would involve a discrimination against those Governments which did not produce food for a zero population— and here my noble friend Lord Longford and I may have many arguments about population, but we have never got to the stage of insisting that there should be compulsory birth control before you can get food supply. It raises the dilemma that if people are encouraged to produce more food and acquire a taste for better food—that is, for adequate nutrition—they will destroy the ecology. That is another one of these mystical words we used to respect which has now become degraded into this kind of approach, which is quite false in our situation. It raises questions of politics and trade relations.

The Americans, for example, are still smarting over the Russian wheat deal, in which they said they were double-crossed in granting supplies to the USSR, which at that moment happened to be short of food. If a country decided to take land out of cash crops and turn it over to food crops for domestic consumption it would affect the supplies of raw materials for industrialised countries, which was in fact what I heard ringing in my ears a few moments ago when we were talking about giving people the capacity to produce the food or the capacity to produce the things to buy their food. One of the things which has been the misery of the world, and culminating now in the extended misery of the world, is that we have convinced far too many people that they should produce cash crops as the raw materials for Western industries instead of producing food. Category 2, therefore, is discriminatory and not some natural law.

Category 3, which is the final triage, is genocide. Scholars and lawyers may hassle about the meaning of "genocide" but its meaning in the context of triage is perfectly clear. In full awareness of the facts, whole races are being marked for extermination as a matter of calculated judgment. The people of Bangladesh are written-off. The Tauregs of Sahel are doomed as a race. The Sahel, because it will be a continuing horror, poses the question of whether we can give the people of the Sahel what is politely called "technological fixes" in the way of large-scale dams and pumps, and so on, or do we go on feeding them? Manifestly, we cannot go on feeding them indefinitely, so perhaps we should not feed them at all because if we do, they will ask for more and we cannot give them more.

This is terrible thinking. This is shifting the responsibility of this whole matter from an area in which we had some sense of responsibility for what might be the economic mistakes we have made, such as bad planning and bad distribution. I do not think all the speeches I have ever heard in this House were completely cynical about this issue. We never quite get to the stage of saying, "We will take a solemn decision, sitting round the table, the converse of Rome, and say we are going to cut off people's food". To me, this is one of the really dangerous ideas in circulation. I hope it is not to be generated here. I hope it is not to be reflected, even as a slight echo, in our thinking about our drastically reduced budget. I hope we are not to apply that kind of measurement by which one judges people's lives by this kind of triage.

My Lords, there are alternatives which we ought to be looking forward to and doing something about. The situation is not entirely hopeless. We have at this moment a new grain which we can produce here in Britain as well as worldwide. It is a grain called triticale; a cross between wheat and rye. It is drought resistant; It is cold resistant, basically; it is heat resistant; it is sturdy; and has a much higher protein content than normal wheats. This is being developed for whisky in Canada. There is something else coming up, which makes me very excited. It follows the kind of approach of the noble Baroness who is sitting on the Woolsack at the moment to acquaculture. In the Gulf of California they have discovered a water grain, an oceanic grain which is a kind of eel grass and which produces underwater a grain equivalent to ears of wheat and ears of corn. It was used by the Seri Indians; we have only just got around to it anthropologically and to looking at it botanically. This might be an important source of food. It does not use that other scarce commodity, fresh water. One could have, as it were, another prairie State in America, the Gulf of California.

9.4 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, we must be very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for putting down this Unstarred Question. I certainly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, who spoke for the Opposition that this very important and, indeed, tragic subject merited a separate debate. Indeed, if I may say so, I think we have had a most notable and thoughtful short debate. The Government will pay the greatest attention to all the points made by noble Lords from all sides of the House. I will do my best to answer them. To begin with, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester on his maiden speech, which was a notable one. He obviously feels deeply about these matters, as, indeed, we all do. I hope we shall have the opportunity of hearing him on many other occasions.

May I say, first of all, how pleased I am that we have had this opportunity to discuss the matter. As the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said, although the matter was raised at the beginning of January, it really merits a debate of its own rather than being one of a number of subjects in a debate on environmental problems. I am very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has given us this opportunity to discuss these issues which are really of the greatest concern to us all. There is certainly no disagreement that this country must play its part in the International struggle to banish hunger from the world. However, the debate makes it quite clear that there are honest differences of opinion, not only as to whether we in this country are doing enough to help but also as to whether what we are doing is right.

I must begin by reminding your Lordships that the aid programme is now very substantial indeed. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and my noble friend Lord Sainsbury have mentioned the cuts made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement last night. I must point out that these cuts were £10 million a year for two years, making a total of £20 million. We must see this in the context of the whole aid programme for the current year, which is expected to be something in excess of £450 million, against the corresponding figure of about £350 million last year. It is the firm intention of the Government that an increasing proportion of the programme should be devoted to the countries most seriously affected by the recent price rises, and to the development of the rural sector in the developing countries, as the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, suggested. May I say here how much I agreed with, what he said, and I should like to deal with some of his points a little later.

So far as the amount of our help is concerned, one of the main causes for criticism in this debate has been the fact that our official development assistance has been running only at something like half of the United Nations' target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. In the Queen's Speech at the beginning of this Parliament, the Government stated that they recognised the economic problems confronting developing countries and would seek to increase development aid. But the speed at which we can move towards this target will have to be determined in the light of our own economic circumstances, and we cannot give a date for its achievement.

My Lords, the limitations imposed by our present economic situation also affect our attitude to the Foodshare Manifesto, to which my noble friend Lord Longford referred. Although, of course, we are sympathetic, there is a limit to the amount of money we can spend on buying cereals for those developing countries in the worst financial situations, simply because the funds we have available are limited and there are many other pressing calls upon them. Other aid-giving countries have, of course, similar problems. My right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development has supported the EEC Commission's proposal to increase Community food aid this year by 25 per cent. over last year, but other EEC Governments have still to agree. Financial considerations must, of course, also be taken into account by those Governments. But, my Lords, we shall continue our efforts to encourage the maximum response by the Community.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester asked about the target of 10 million tons of grain. May I say here that speaking to meetings of the FAO and of the World Food Programme in Rome in March last, the Director-General of the FAO, Dr. Boerma, said that with the food aid commitments for 1975, which were known to the FAO at that time as standing at 8.8 million tons, the world was already within striking distance of the target of 10 million tons for this year. He also said that there was no reason for complacency, but I think it is an extremely welcome sign of an increased sense of responsibility on the part of the international community.

My Lords, I think Britain's response to immediate food aid to the developing countries has, therefore, been as good as most. Last year, for example, we spent £20 million on food aid, compared with £5 million the year before. My right honourable friend has recently announced special grants to the World Food Programme of £5 million, to be spent on food for Bangladesh, and a further £3 million for other countries with serious and urgent food problems. Our spending on food aid this year will be even greater than last, and this will be a very positive response to the needs of the most seriously affected developing countries.

My noble friend Lord Longford asked about world food security. The World Food Conference endorsed the objectives, policies and guidelines of FAO's international undertaking on world food security, which envisages international co-ordination of cereal stocks as one of the measures necessary to ensure adequate availability of basic food supplies, following the discussion of various countries' proposals to establish a world food bank. The Government have advised the Director-General of the FAO that they are prepared to co-operate on the implementation of the objectives, policies and guidelines contained in the undertaking. However, I may say that there are many practical difficulties to be resolved before the stockpiling aspects of the undertaking can be implemented, and international discussions are continuing.

I may say here that the World Food Conference also adopted a resolution recommending the setting up of a World Food Council at Ministerial or plenipotentiary level to co-ordinate work on food matters. The Council will be supplemented by a new committee on world food security, as a standing committee of the FAO Council, to keep under constant review the demand, supply and stock position for basic foodstuffs, and also by a committee on food aid policies and programmes to be formed by the reconstitution of the intergovernmental committee of the World Food Programme to help evolve and co-ordinate food aid policies and programmes. I am glad to say that the United Kingdom has been elected to the Council and attaches great importance to its use as an instrument to co-ordinate international action to deal with world food problems. Both my right honourable friends, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Overseas Development, plan to attend the first meeting at the end of June which will discuss the major topics which arose at the Rome Conference.

I was asked by my noble friend Lord Longford about the International Fund for Agricultural Developments. He also asked why India and Bangladesh were not in the Lomé Convention. I should like now to answer those various points. The setting up of the International Fund for Agricultural Development—IFAD— was recommended by the World Food Conference to finance agricultural developments primarily for food in developing countries. The Fund will become operative when the Secretary-General is satisfied that it holds promise of generating sufficient aid resources on a continuing basis. We have said that we shall be very glad to contribute if it seems likely to be effective and useful.

Then there is the question of the Lomé Convention. The countries covered by the Lomé Convention are those listed in Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession to the European Community. This Protocol envisaged economic co-operation between the Community and the developing countries of the Caribbean, Africa—that is, Africa South of Sahara—and the Pacific Islands. A separate Protocol provided for trade relations with the Asian Commonwealth countries, in particular through the generalised system of preferences. Since the United Kingdom joined the EEC a number of improvements have been made which have benefited these countries. There has therefore never been any question, I am afraid, of applying the Lomé Convention to India or Bangladesh at present. We do, however, regret that the Community has not yet implemented its resolution in favour of providing those countries, among others, with financial aid as well as food aid. The Council of the Development Ministers is expected to discuss this subject at a meeting in June.

The noble Earl suggested, and indeed other noble Lords have suggested today, that if people in this country ate less, in particular less meat, more grain would thereby be released for the hungry of the world. However, even if meat consumption could be reduced without resorting to rationing, and livestock numbers were eventually reduced, it would take some time before any significant quantities of grain would be released. Moreover, much of the feed grain saved would be unsuitable for human consumption. Even to the extent that this is not the case, it would still have to be paid for, transported to and distributed within the developing countries.

The Government have taken the view, as indeed did all Governments represented at the World Food Conference, that our efforts should be devoted primarily to the increase of food production in developing countries themselves, and here I am at one with the noble Earl, Lord Cowley. May I say how much I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said about waste, and waste of food in the developed countries. All noble Lords in this House will join me in condemning needless waste of food. There is something really rather disgusting in the conspicuous and flagrant waste which we see in so many countries of the West, when people in other parts of the world are little more than emaciated skeletons. But I think that the current problems will at least have focused people's attention on the need to avoid waste.

Here, too, I must say that there is much that needs to be done also in developing countries, and we ought not to forget that a significant contribution towards solving the world food problem can be made by helping those countries to avoid waste in store once the food reaches them. I am glad to say that this is an area where Britain is very well qualified to offer advice and technical assistance. Our Tropical Products Institute makes available a wealth of relevant experience, and I hope that increased use can be made of it.

My noble friend Lord Longford also spoke about fertilisers. This subject of course was mentioned in the debate last January. Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the important contribution which fertilisers can make in increasing food production. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd pointed out in the last debate, the United Kingdom has been doing what it can. Despite having to import a large proportion of raw materials to manufacture our fertilisers, and despite difficult supply problems, we are supplying 25,000 tons of fertiliser (and here I am glad to confirm to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury that it is 25,000 tons and not 35,000 tons) at a cost of £3 million to the developing countries through the FAO fertilisers supply scheme. In addition we have paid for 10,000 tons to go directly to Bangladesh.

Commercial exports to the development countries were more than 100,000 tons greater in 1974 than in 1973. Britain has also been giving aid for the construction of fertiliser plants in the developing countries. For example, we have committed £25 million to build three plants in India, all of which should be in production during the coming months. In spite of this the Government are not complacent. We are considering what more we can do and we shall certainly consider very carefully what my noble friends and other noble Lords have said. Then there is the question of rural development. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, referred to this subject. The Minister of Overseas Development has made it clear that the Government's aid strategy is to give priority to rural development, particularly in the poorest countries.

The Ministry has a newly created Rural Development Department. There is no question that a higher proportion of British aid will be directed in this way. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, asked me for some more details about the Rural Development Department. It began work only this month. Its initial staff is an assistant secretary and a principal. The staff will be reinforced as and when necessary. The Department will be required to co-operate with those desks in the Ministry which are concerned with particular countries so that we can achieve a much more positive promotion of the many wide-ranging aspects of rural development. We will, of course, pay particular attention to what the noble Earl said about having this development staff attached to certain of the embassies in countries which need it most.

But with regard to rural development, in the final analysis successful development in the agricultural and rural sectors depends very much upon the policies of the developing countries themselves. In addition to capital aid, technical assistance has for a long time been provided under the aid programme. British experts have been provided to serve in posts relating to agriculture and the services of British consultants engaged to carry out surveys and studies in the agricultural sector. Of course research is also important to agricultural production. International agricultural research is supported by the United Kingdom by giving grants to several international research institutions whose progress is coordinated by the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research; and the United Kingdom is a member of that group. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, also asked about intermediate technology. I am glad to say that the Minister for Overseas Development very much favours and encourages the use of intermediate technology in the developing countries for simple, low cost, do-it-yourself technology. Its use is relevant to the current emphasis on rural development, and this is very well applicable to small scale technology in both agriculture and small industry with its emphasis on labour intensive rather than labour saving methods.

My noble friend Lord Sainsbury also referred to the speech of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Peart. My right honourable friend's views were seriously misreported. He said that the best way to improve the food situation in the developing countries was to increase food production there. He did not think it was realistic to expect a reduction in consumption at home, particularly while there were people in this country who were still not getting enough to eat. He said that he would like to see such people eating more meat and he certainly did not say, as I think has been reported elsewhere, that there were schoolchildren suffering from malnutrition in this country.

Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that since we last discussed these questions Commonwealth Ministers have met here in London at the invitation of the Minister of Overseas Development to discuss food production and rural development. They agreed that national plans should emphasise the importance of these subjects and that the developing Commonwealth countries should review their policies towards institutions designed to help integrate rural development—land reform, better irrigation and other needs, incentives for farmers and towards training and research. They also agreed that priority for development aid from richer Commonwealth countries should be for agriculture and rural development. I am sure that this is the right approach to the problem.

If we fail to devote our effort and available resources to the encouragement of food production in the developing countries themselves, we shall see the world faced with a steadily worsening situation as the population continues to grow and we shall arrive at the kind of situation which my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder described. The groundwork must be done now if results in those countries are to be forthcoming, and forthcoming in time. Let no one think that food aid from the developed world could meet the extra needs of the developing countries beyond the 'eighties. My right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development has recognised the urgent need quite clearly in saying that she wishes to see a greater proportion of British aid going into the rural sector. That, I submit, must remain our chief aim and although we and the hungry areas of the world have a long way to go, I believe that we are beginning to move in the right direction.