HL Deb 19 June 1985 vol 465 cc263-4

2.50 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their present position on the funding of the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

Baroness Young

My Lords, we are ready to contribute to the second replenishment of the IFAD's fund as soon as the other participants agree.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I note that the noble Baroness said that the British Government "are ready to contribute". Is it not a fact that the budget which is proposed for the IFAD for the next three years is approximately half what it has been receiving over the past three years, and half what it has been requesting? Can the noble Baroness tell the House what specific monetary offer has been made by the British Government to this budget, and what specific monetary offer has been made to its special sub-Saharan African programme?

Baroness Young

My Lords, we intend to provide the same share as we did of the first replenishment—namely, 4.8 per cent. of the share of OECD countries. Depending on the size of the replenishment and the dollar-pound rate of exchange used, the cost of the aid programme seems likely to be about £14 million. That compares with £12.9 million which we contributed to the first replenishment, and to £18 million which we provided towards the initial funding. On the second point which the noble Lord raised about the special programme, we shall of course consider that in due course. However, our first priority is to get the second replenishment in place.

Lord Oram

My Lords, is not the reason why there is a hold-up in this replenishment the refusal of the United States Government to bring forward their contribution? Is it not the case that in recent years the United States Government have been displaying a particularly negative attitude to international aid agencies? I instance the International Development Association, UNESCO and the World Bank's Special Fund for Africa. Is there any reason why United Kingdom action in these matters should be tied to decisions by the United States? Can we not take a more robust stance in this respect and be independent of American decisions?

Baroness Young

My Lords, the position is that the United States are not yet willing to accept the proposed 60:40 burden sharing between the OECD group and the OPEC group. All the other donors, including ourselves, are willing to do so. I do not think that I would accept that the United States Government have been less than generous in the funding that they have given throughout the world.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, did I hear the noble Baroness aright that the offer made by the British Government this year to this invaluable international fund, which has been universally accepted as being cost-effective, is less than it was in previous years? Can it be possible that, in this year of famine, the British Government are reducing their contribution to the IFAD from, if I heard the noble Baroness aright, £18 million originally to something over £14 million this year? When the noble Baroness says that the British Government will consider contributions to the special programme for sub-Saharan Africa in due course, does she not realise that in due course literally millions of Africans will be dying?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord misunderstands the position because if we increased our own contribution, in practice it would not benefit anyone. The overall total of the replenishment would remain the same, and it would merely enable another OECD country to reduce its contribution at the United Kingdom's expense.