§ 3.42 p.m.
§ Earl FERRERS rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th July, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should explain that the International Wheat Agreement 1971 comprises two conventions, the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention. The objectives of the Wheat Trade Convention are to further international co-operation in connection with world wheat problems, to promote the expansion of international trade in wheat and wheat flour, to contribute to the fullest extent possible to the stability of the international wheat market and to provide a framework for the negotiation of economic provisions in a new Wheat Trade Convention. However, this convention is simply a forum for discussion in that it has no economic provisions to enable direct action to be taken on the market.
§ The objective of the Food Aid Convention is to carry out a food aid programme with the help of contributions for 350 the benefit of developing countries. In practice the convention lays obligations upon its members, who are all donor countries, to make available specific minimum quantities of cereals as food aid each year.
§ The International Wheat Agreement came into operation on 1st July 1971 for a period of three years. Since 30th June 1974 it has been extended periodically by protocols, each extension being subject to Parliamentary approval to give it the force of law in the United Kingdom. The most recent extension expired on 30th June 1979. Protocols extending both conventions for a fifth time, for a further two years to 30th June 1981, were established by a conference of member Governments in March this year and entered into force on 1st July. The main purpose of extending the conventions is to keep the machinery of the International Wheat Council and Food Aid Committee in being; these are, respectively, the governing bodies of the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention. Their continued existence provides fora in which discussions on new conventions can continue.
§ After a number of years of negotiations within the International Wheat Council in London, it was decided to convene a negotiating conference in Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in February 1978. The aim of this conference was to conclude a new international grains agreement which would comprise a new Wheat Trade Convention with economic provision, a new Food Aid Convention with an objective of 10 million tonnes of aid annually and a consultative arrangement on coarse grains trade. Three sessions of the negotiating conference were held in Geneva and, by the end of the third session, negotiations on coarse grains and food aid were nearing conclusion.
§ Discussions on the economic provisions to be included within a new Wheat Trade Convention, however, ran into difficulties and it became apparent that certain fundamental issues could not be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties to the negotiations. The chairman of the conference therefore suspended proceedings until such time as a basis for their resumption should emerge.
351§ It is perhaps not surprising that the suspension of negotiations has been widely deplored by other international organisations concerned with world food security. It is apparent that failure to stabilise the wheat market must place developing importing countries at risk as to the availability of supplies at prices which they can afford. We are therefore anxious to ensure that negotiations should continue as soon as there is a reasonable basis for further discussion.
§ The International Wheat Council is making every effort to address itself to the outstanding issues, but in the meantime the extension of the present agreement is not only the best which can be achieved, but it is in itself a contribution to world food security since it provides for the continued availability of food aid to those who need it, and it also encourages Governments who are parties to the agreement to keep a careful eye on the developments of the wheat market. I therefore hope that your Lordships, who have approved the extension of the agreement on a number of previous occasions, will feel they can do so today. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the European Communities (Defininition of Treaties) (International Wheat Agreement) Order 1979, which was laid before both Houses on 25th July, 1979, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
§ 3.47 p.m.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and, as with the previous order, I believe it essential that the Government should have this one. The noble Earl mentioned food aid, and there has been difficulty over this, as he said, I have with me a whole brief on the subject which I have collected myself, including details of the whole impact on the Tokyo Round. For example, in the Financial Times on 17th January appeared the headline, "Wheat talks discord threatens trade pact." There are considerable difficulties over this. We are part of the Community, but wheat and cereals are very important politically and economically in the world and naturally we should play our part.
I notice another former Minister of Agriculture, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in his place; no doubt he remembers standard quantities when we used to import wheat from the United States. 352 I was in a similar position. I see now, however, that we are going to export cereals on a considerable scale, and I have with me the excellent British publication Farmer and Stockbreeder. Though it is the NFU's publication, it is very good and I would advise anyone who wants to know about cereals to read its marketing page. For example, one headline reads, "Cereals exports big again." So we are to go in for exporting considerably—and I am all for that. I always believed when I used to go to Europe that Britain should export more though many people thought we should contract.
I welcome this move, but I hope we can argue these and other matters in a one day debate devoted specifically to agriculture. I do not think one can raise big issues of this sort when discussing an order of this type in the way one can in a full day's debate, I hope therefore, perhaps early in the New Year, we will have a full day on agriculture. After all, Labour Governments and Oppositions have always treated agriculture much better than their Conservative counterparts. I am delighted that I can put this marker out, so to speak; I do it with the best of intentions, and in my view the Minister deserves to have his order.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, I really am indebted again to the noble Lord, Lord Peart. When I realised he was going to answer for the Opposition on these orders, I knew the depth of his knowledge and, considering the intricacies of the Ministry of Agriculture, I wondered what he would say. All I would say is that when he wished the Government well with the order and commended the NFU for their publication and made his nice little point about the Labour Party looking after agriculture better than the Conservative Party, I thought that that was not quite what I was expecting from the noble Lord. I would only tell him that of course he would be entitled to discuss these very complex wheat problems on this order, but I am obliged to him for being able to find that he would not wish to do so. And of course if he wishes to have a debate on agriculture in the future, that may be a very good thing; I am sure that could be arranged through the usual channels, of which he is a pillar. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his agreement to this order.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.