Developing Countries: Aid (Hansard, 24 February 1982)

Lord Oram
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, following the Cancun Summit we have been working to achieve a consensus on the launching of global negotiations at the United Nations. We have also ratified the Common Fund Agreement and, with our Community partners, are taking action to alleviate world hunger and to improve food production in developing countries.

Lord Oram
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he not realise that, apart from what he has just indicated to the House, the Government are completely failing to take essential initiatives in relation to developing countries? Instead, are not the Government really putting things in reverse by, for instance, refusing to restore the cuts in the aid programme and, more recently, drastically reducing the contribution to the International Development Association following the American decision in this matter; and has this not produced the mood of frustration and despair which is evident in the meeting now going on in Delhi of third world countries?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I think it is too early to draw conclusions from the meeting in Delhi, to which the noble Lord refers. I think that meeting was taking place yesterday and today, and, naturally, I have not yet had any reports on what has transpired. It is strictly a meeting of the Group of 77, as they are called; and one of the things to which I hope they will apply themselves is a response to the recent American proposals for moving forward the global negotiations. But on the more general problem of our aid budget generally, we have nothing to be ashamed of in connection with the sums of money that we make available for this purpose. In 1982–83 they still exceed £1,000 million, which in our straitened circumstances is a very considerable achievement.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, in view of the fact that for nine years now there has been deadlock in the negotiations between the industrialised countries and the developing countries and there has been no agreement except the delayed agreement about the Common 932 Fund, is it not time that we looked at this matter in a much more fundamental way in relation to the Brandt Report and the new international economic order which has been proposed by the Committee of 77, now a committee of 130?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I do not agree at all that there is deadlock between North and South, as the noble Lord suggests. Many of the nations of the so-called North have substantial aid programmes, not least ours, to which I have already referred. A number of negotiations and discussions in various fora have made significant progress over the years, and all in all I think we have nothing of which to be ashamed.

§ Lord Brockway
But, my Lords, is it not the case that during this period literally hundreds of thousands of people have died from hunger in the third world countries, and that something much more fundamental than aid is necessary to solve the problem?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the problem is not as simple, I think, as the noble Lord would have us believe. It was not long ago that the noble Lord was referring to, for example, the recent UNICEF report, which he drew to your Lordships' attention and which made one or two rather simplistic proposals to which the noble Lord referred. The problems are not by any means as simple as people would have us believe, and I think that the efforts which have been made by most, if not all, of the members of the so-called North bear close scrutiny.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has just said about United Nations initiatives, will he say to what extent Her Majesty's Government support a policy of transferring third world problems, especially those involving trade and money, from United Nations agencies such as UNCTAD to other agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF? If in fact the Government support that policy, can the noble Lord say what the consequences would be for the poorer countries? For example, would he not agree that substantial loans to third world countries, which have no other source to go to but the IMF, might have very harsh conditions attached to them?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, all the specialised agencies have their role to play. There has been a good deal of discussion recently about the World Bank and the IMF, for example, to which the noble Lord referred. We think it would be a mistake to detract from the expertise which is available within those organisations by, for example, weighting the voting procedure in some way. It is important that the conditions which the IMF, for example, sometimes see fit to attach—in fact, always see fit to attach—to the facilities that they make available are carefully considered. Although I know there are sometimes moves by some of the third world countries to draw money from the IMF, for example, on less stringent conditions, I believe that the conditions they would seek to avoid are sometimes in their own interests.

Lord Oram
My Lords, of the institutions to which the Minister has referred, is not the International Development Association the one that is most helpful in offering soft loans to developing countries, and is it not therefore reprehensible that it is that organisation's funds which have so recently been savagely cut?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have not the precise figures in front of me in respect of the International Development Association, but it is of course the case that when money is made available through any medium on concessional terms the costs of providing those concessional terms have to fall on somebody.

§ Lord Hankey
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that almost the best form of help to the third world is to hasten the recovery from the recession in the developed countries and to bring about an increase in world trade from which they would benefit? May we take it that the Government will continue to resist moves towards greater protectionism?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the Government's views about free trade in the world are well known. I agree with the opinion of the noble Lord and also with his earlier view, that in the long term the future for these third world countries lies in the restoration of prosperity among the remainder of the world.

§ Baroness Gaitskell
My Lords, is it not true to say that it is not money that is the first principle to go for and that what the third world needs—and I have discovered this at various conferences I have attended—is the know-how, the scientific know-how, and information? That is what these countries need more than anything else. They usually pooh-pooh the idea of money alone.

§ Lord Trefgarne
I think, my Lords, that probably the truth lies somewhere between the two of those assertions. It is true that these countries can and do benefit from transfers of technology, but in some cases money is needed to exploit that technology.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that the best and the most immediate way of helping the underdeveloped countries would be to improve the efficiency and productivity of their agriculture? If they could achieve a quarter of the increases in productivity achieved in this country in recent years the problem of poverty in the underdeveloped countries would disappear.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. An improvement in the efficiency of agriculture in the third world would go a long way to solving some of their problems. For that reason, an important part of our aid programme is directed towards that end.