EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (No. 2) ORDER 1975

HL Deb 27 November 1975 vol 366 cc402-8

3.42 p.m.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE rose to move, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 2) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th October, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think that it may be for the convenience of the House if I give a brief explanation of the order. It is introduced under the terms of Section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972, and its object is to specify as "Community Treaties" within the terms of the Act, the various treaties and agreements set out in the Schedule to the order. Definition gives effect to these treaties and agreements in United Kingdom law so that, where applicable, the rights and obligations which they create may be enforced in British courts. If this were not done, these agreements would be effective only at the international level. Noble Lords will realise that all the treaties in the Schedule to the present order are concerned with development matters, and it is in two parts. The items in Part I are already in force and the order takes effect with regard to them from the date the order is made. The items in Part II will come into effect following ratification as necessary by Member-States of the Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific States. The order takes effect with regard to them on the date of entry into force of the Lomé Convention.

If I seem to be unduly technical it is because, as noble Lords concerned with these matters know, this is a highly technical and complex field. Items 1 and 2 are for the extension for a further year of the two component parts of the International Wheat Agreement, of which the Community is a Member. Both the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention came into effect on 1st July 1971 for a period of three years, and were extended by Protocol for one year. The objectives of the Wheat Trade Convention are to further international co-operation on wheat problems, to expand international trade, to contribute to the stability of the international wheat market, and to provide a framework for negotiations on price and the rights and obligations of members. The object of the Food Aid Convention is the provision of food aid in the form of cereals for the benefit of development countries. All members are obliged to supply specified amounts of cereals, or their equivalent cash value, annually.

At present a Preparatory Group established by the International Wheat Council is examining the elements on which a new Agreement might be based. But I must tell the House that the issues involved are complex and will take time to resolve. In the meantime it is highly desirable that international co-operation in wheat matters and food aid should be continued. I should also perhaps explain that these two Protocols are included for technical reasons. The basic Conventions were designated Community Treaties and it is desirable that the extending Protocol should be also. The remaining items on the Schedule are connected in one way or another with the Lomé Convention and Item 4 is the Convention itself. At this point may I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to reserve discussion on the Lomé Convention itself until we debate the Motion to be put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, since we have two Reports from our Select Committee to discuss, and we can deal now, more briefly, with these extraneous matters.

I shall now continue my explanation of the order. Items 3 and 5 provide for duty and tariff-free access for ACP exports of products within the field of operation of the European Coal and Steel Community. Separate arrangements for these products are necessary because the ECSC is juridically separate from the EEC. I warned your Lordships that this was technical! Items 6 and 7 are agreements between the Member-States on the way in which the Community's obligations under the terms of the Lomé Convention are to be implemented, including the financing and administration of Community Aid.

I ought perhaps to add, as the House will know, that the Lomé Convention, which is at the centre of this complex of agreements, is the successor to the two Yaounde Conventions of 1963 and 1968. Under the terms of Protocol 22 to the Treaty of Accession which took us into the Community, 22 independent Commonwealth countries were given the option of joining with the existing Associates in negotiations for a new Convention to replace Yaounde II. I think we can take pride in the fact that all these countries accepted the invitation. Negotiations opened in October 1973 and 16 months later on 28th February this year the new Convention was signed at Lomé. Before the Convention can enter into force, it must be ratified by the Parliament of the nine Member-States and by two-thirds of the ACP States. With that explanation I ask the House to indicate its approval this afternoon of this order. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 2) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th October, be approved.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)

3.49 p.m.

Earl COWLEY

My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, for explaining in such detail the very serious technicalities of this order. I should like to raise a few points in relation to Item 2 under Part I of the Schedule; that is, the: Protocol for the further extension of the Food Aid Convention 1971, to which the United Kingdom acceded on 18th Jun this year. We on this side of the House are in favour of such food aid—especially as a short-term measure to help the various countries in the world which cannot produce enough food for themselves —provided that at the same time, as a long-term aim, financial aid and technical assistance are also given to the same countries to improve their agricultural production.

As the noble Baroness well knows, food aid can have certain drawbacks since it can not only depress the food production but lower food prices within the recipient country. But if these drawbacks are continually borne in mind and agricultural production is encouraged, then food aid is a necessary and a valuable form of assistance to the developing countries. At the present time, I understand Britain gives some £35 million worth of food aid, three-quarters of which is distributed through the existing European Community food aid programmes. It is important to note, however, that the majority of food aid from the Community is distributed to the non-associated developing countries, and yet this action is not complemented by the granting of financial aid for their long-term development from the Community as an institution, although of course individual Member-States have their own bilateral aid programmes. Thus, in many ways one is providing the aspirin without providing the long-term cure. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell the House what negotiations the Government are having with our European partners to improve this state of affairs.

The final Resolution of the World Food Conference last year recommended that: …all donor countries make all efforts to provide commodities and/or financial assistance that will ensure in physical terms at least 10 million tons of grain as food aid per year starting in 1975, and also provide adequate quantities of other food commodities ". Could the noble Baroness say whether this country's accession to the Food Aid Convention is an implied acceptance of this request from the World Food Conference'? Also, if one looks at the Protocol for the further extension of the Food Aid Convention and refers to Article 3, one sees that there is no mention of the United Kingdom. Could the noble Baroness tell the House what contribution the United Kingdom is to make under the Food Aid Convention? Or is it just to be a redistribution of the country's existing food aid programme; and, if so, what will be the effect upon our contribution to the world food programme? The Government have described this in their aid White Paper as being: …more successful than any other organisation in the difficult task of using food as an instrument of economic and social development ".

3.53 p.m.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. The whole House knows and appreciates his deep knowledge of these subjects. Indeed, some- times he positively frightens me with the depth of his knowledge. As the noble Earl said, the purpose of the Protocol is to extend further the Food Aid Convention of 1971, and we must remember that this, together with the Wheat Trade Convention, forms the International Wheat Agreement of that year, 1971. Owing to the vagaries of the world grain markets and other factors, it is difficult to calculate the exact cost to this country of the extension, but we think that in the financial year 1975–76 it could be about £20 million. Although the United Kingdom withdrew, as the noble Earl will know, from the second and current 1971 Convention, as soon as we acceded to the EEC we became a party to all the various trade agreements of the EEC then in force, which included the International Wheat Agreement of which the Food Aid Convention is a part.

The noble Earl knows, I think, that we share his misgivings about food aid as such, especially vis-à-vis other forms of aid which can have a much more ongoing component in them. But we recognise that, in the present state of the world food shortage, food aid is essential now. So in the short-term we must continue to participate in EEC food aid programmes, and we have supported Commission proposals to increase these programmes. In all our EEC discussions, it is our policy to press for aid to the poorest countries —this is basic to our whole approach to aid, whether it be food or any other form of aid—and, of course, particularly to those who have been hit severely by the rise in oil prices. I hope the House will agree that, in these circumstances, the Government are right to extend the Food Aid Convention for a further year, until 30th June 1976. I may comfort the noble Earl by saying that we are expecting progress in the multilateral trade negotiations in the framework of GATT and the International Wheat Council, and when the outcome of these talks is known consideration will be given to the possible renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention. I think he will probably welcome that.

The noble Earl was kind enough to give me notice of some of his questions and, if I may, I will deal with the British contribution under Article 3 of the Protocol. He is quite right; the British contribution does not appear. The EEC's minimum contribution is 1,287,000 tonnes. Out of this, the United Kingdom's contribution is 98,400 tonnes. The noble Earl may be disappointed to know that this is not additional to our general food aid programme, but is part of it. The noble Earl also talked about the relationship of the Food Aid Convention to the world food programme and EEC food aid. My Lords, we offer food aid to the developing countries in two ways: first, obviously by taking our full part in the programme of the EEC; and, secondly, by making substantial and wholly bilateral pledges to the world food programme—and I can reassure the noble Earl on this point.

After the World Food Conference, the Commission proposed that EEC food aid should be increased by about 25 per cent., as he knows. The Government have given their full support to these proposals, and have pressed for their adoption in the Council of Development Ministers. As the whole House knows, we are particularly disappointed that this proposal has not met with unanimous EEC approval. We have, however, increased our bilateral pledge to the world food programme for the current biennium by nearly 300 per cent.—from about £3 million to nearly £9 million—so I think the noble Earl can rest assured that we are doing all we can. I might even point out that last year 70 per cent. was for the benefit of the Indian sub-continent, which I know is a problem which worries many noble Lords; and we are currently the eighth largest contributor to the world food programme. Without going into any further technical details, I very much hope that what I have said answers the points made by the noble Earl.

Lord ROBBINS

My Lords, without saying a word to derogate from the merits of the food aid programme, may I inquire of the Minister whether it is realised in Government circles that all these measures are temporary expedients, if they are not combined with aid in regard to the propagation of family planning in those parts of the world in which the increase in population bids fair to be as great a menace to human happiness as the menace of nuclear warfare?

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, I think perhaps the noble Lord ought to have said, " Before the noble Baroness sits down ". But, in any case, I totally agree with what he has said.

On Question, Motion agreed to.