World Food Situation

HL Deb 18 November 1992 vol 540 cc658-77

5.31 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie rose to call attention to the world food situation and the state of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to open this debate in the knowledge that we are speaking about an immensely important subject. I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. I must admit that I am a little astonished that there has not been a greater response. However, I look forward with great pleasure and anticipation to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Geraint.

Perhaps I may give one of the reasons for putting down this Motion. For many years I had a great friend named David Lubbock. He was a close kinsman of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot. For years he was secretary general of the FAO. He worked on missions all over the world for that organisation. On his death bed he was still working. He asked me to have a debate put down. He has since died after a lifetime of devotion to the cause of feeding the world. I am very glad that I am able to have this debate and to give the Government a chance to reaffirm their devotion to food production, to the feeding of people all over the world and also to stress the importance of the subject.

Over the centuries we have had various eras of expansion. It is very useful to look back at what happened at the time of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Industrial Revolution in this country sparked a tremendous demand for food which also sparked a tremendous advance in techniques and a big rise in the supply of food. That was done in an extraordinarily sustainable way which is the way of the modern world. The practices and rotations were such that the land was actually improved and not impoverished. That resulted in the four-course rotation in Scotland and Norfolk and the six-course rotation in my native county of Aberdeenshire. In 100 years they turned what was described by travellers as a "blasted heath" into one of the most productive areas of Scotland. That also included Angus but it had a better start.

Then the wretched Vanderbilts built railways across the prairies and enabled the land to be mined. The results were sent to this country and we were able to buy them. That was considered a great boon in that there was cheap food. Because we were an expanding industrial nation we were able to buy that food to the great profit of the industrial population of this country.

However, the lesson to be learnt is that it did not do much good to the great prairies. They turned into dust bowls and eventually required a tremendous revolution in the method of cultivation in order, not to bring them back to their previous fertility, but simply to hold a little the erosion of the soil which still takes place in very large amounts.

Therefore, we have to realise that although the green revolution has been enormously successful in many areas of the world, there are perils which we have to watch. The breeding of new strains of wheat short enough and strong enough to sustain the application of quantities of fertilizer has raised the production of wheat per acre enormously. In fact it has doubled in the past 20 to 30 years. It has enabled countries like India to make great strides and to produce a very large proportion of its own food. In fact it is exporting some of it, although there are troubles there which I have no doubt that my noble kinsman will be highlighting when he speaks next.

The fact is that the green revolution, the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and the breeding of new strains, has been enormously successful in the production of food. But we have to watch that we do not repeat the dust bowl in another way. Perhaps I may give a small illustration of the kind of thing that can happen. I used to grow a lot of strawberries. When the new herbicides came in, which enabled one to keep the strawberries clean over many years, I thought that was a tremendous boon. Instead of ploughing up the strawberries after three years I kept them down for five years or six years. I thought that that was a very smart thing to do.

However, when we ploughed up the plants after six years I noticed an extraordinary thing. After the plough there were no gulls or rooks at all. When I went to investigate this I noticed that the earthworms had disappeared. One of the points of this story is that we cured the problem without going back to basics. We did it by learning about the use of herbicides and reducing the quantities. We used new types of sprayers which give the same results but in much smaller quantities. The lesson is that one cannot discard scientific advance. One has to use it properly so that it can be of benefit and reduce the damage. In our case we had solved the problem because the soil continued healthy with large numbers of earthworms.

All these advances have enabled us to feed the world. The trouble is that we have not fed anything like all of it. We could do. The situation in many parts of the world is quite desperate. I shall concentrate today on Africa from where we have had the most incredible scenes reported on our screens and in our newspapers showing poverty and appalling famine. A great deal of it is caused by civil war, bad government and a whole range of other factors, quite apart from the ability to grow food.

All the voluntary bodies are very concerned; in fact they are dismayed at what is happening. For example, Christian Aid is saying that 480 million people face acute problems at every level; political, environmental, economic and social. Africa contains 32 of the world's 47 poorest countries. Christian Aid simply states: Sub-Saharan Africa's economic disaster has been well-documented… per capita real gross domestic product declined by almost 20 per cent. in the region between 1974 and 1984. That is the greatest sustained development failure of the century".

It goes on to show that the growing of cash crops for export is not always particularly beneficial to those countries. That can be illustrated by what happened in Nigeria where sudden wealth from oil enabled the Government to import large quantities of grain, most of which attracted a levy in the form of a percentage paid corruptly to the people who allowed the imports. That ruined the economy of the area around Kano where earthnuts used to abound in great piles and which used to have a substantial and reasonably well fed peasant economy. But that was simply ruined as a result of the buying-in.

When one looks at the whole question of feeding the poorer nations, one must realise that home production not only produces the sort of food that they want to eat, but also is absolutely essential socially because, unlike us who have had the Industrial Revolution, such countries have no growing industries where people can find better employment and better conditions. Errors have been made all over the world in the sort of policies that we have been advocating. I have illustrated the good policies which have had beneficial results in India and elsewhere, but in many cases the policies that we have been advocating have ruined the peasant economies and have displaced populations, with dire results for the cities to which the people have moved. If one wants an example of that, there is no question but that Lagos is the best example. It is the most dangerous city that I have visited because there is no employment, yet the displaced peasant population has flocked there.

So we must look at what we are doing and not simply take what appear to be the straightforward facts—that if one breeds a drought-resistant wheat and feeds it, one can produce more food in an area. It is not as simple as that. Oxfam and all the other voluntary agencies are absolutely convinced that we must make a major effort to protect such communities involved by using our scientific knowledge to improve their own methods. We should allow them to develop along traditional lines instead of causing the sort of destruction that can be wrought by introducing new methods which are totally unsuitable in those areas.

We must also consider the fact that we do not know what we are doing to the world's climate. Anyone of my age who flew over Africa 15 years ago and who flies over it again today can see that the expansion of man's activity is enormous—and not always beneficial. Various forecasts have been made about the rain forests and there is no question about the part that they can play in the climatic change which we have undergone and which we may undergo. If things continue at the present rate, the rain forests may disappear in 50 years.

All of these are facts which pertain to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. One of David Lubbock's main preoccupations was that the organisation which he loved and for which he had worked for many years was in absolutely dire straits. A lot of good people were still there and a lot of good work was still being done, but it was not the body that it should be. I have looked at the original constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. It started off with high ideals, which were pursued by a great many able and dedicated people, starting with Lord Boyd-Orr, a former Member of this House.

The preamble to the FAO's constitution states that its purposes will include, raising levels of nutrition and standards of living of the peoples under their respective jurisdictions, securing improvements in the efficiency of the production and distribution of all food and agricultural products, bettering the condition of rural populations, and thus contributing toward an expanding world economy".

We are talking about 1945. The constitution continues: There shall be a Conference of the Organization in which each Member nation shall be represented by one member. Each Member … shall only have one vote". All this is important, although your Lordships may think that I am quoting at random.

The constitution also states: There shall be a Director-General of the Organization who shall be appointed by the Conference by such procedure and on such terms as it may determine. Subject to the general supervision of the Conference and its Executive Committee, the Director-General shall have full power and authority to direct the work of the Organization".

This is very relevant to the situation that exists today.

This is the director-general's third term and he has been in office for some 15 years. There has been the most extraordinary amount of criticism from governments, magazines and the staff. The magazine, The Ecologist, not all of which I agree with, last year devoted a whole issue to an attack on the policies and personnel of and the work performed by the director-general of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. It gave some quite interesting figures. Each year the FAO currently handles some 500 million dollars in core and extra budgetary funding. That gives it very great influence over the recipient nations. At the moment, as all your Lordships know, its headquarters is in Rome in a sumptuous building—nothing wrong with that. It has a staff of 6,483 people. If divided roughly, two-thirds of them work in desk jobs while one-third are involved in field work. When one gets that sort of proportion one begins to think, Something is rotten in the state of Denmark".

The United States is the biggest single contributor and is very unhappy about its contribution. I believe that Britain contributes about 6 per cent. of the total. Indeed, only a few industrial countries—non-recipients of the benefits —contribute 70 per cent. of the budget.

The Ecologist's attack continues and includes the projects. One economist from the FAO's development department states: The quality of projects is not the concern here. We are expected to process projects as quickly as possible. What counts is quantity, even if that means funding a badly conceived operation".

The director-general insists on full diplomatic privileges and on being called "Your Excellency", which I daresay is a fine human weakness but is not, I should have thought, the kind of thing that adds to the efficiency of this great and important organisation. The contributing nations have been trying to do something about it but the fact is that the FAO dispenses favours. When one has a one nation, one vote situation, the director-general, if he is so inclined, can canvass his favours around; in other words, it is a kind of pork barrel operation.

I have made these criticisms because many people who are passionately interested in the work of the FAO have said this to me. It is the United Nations organisation which should be able to co-ordinate all the work and which should be able to assemble the information and to forecast where the trouble is coming from. This it has failed to do, certainly in Africa. Of course it will fail to do it unless the organisation is right, unless it can get the best people to work for it and unless people know that they are working for an ideal and that they are directed by someone who is also working for an ideal. Without a competent and absolutely upright organisation and leadership it cannot do its job. That is the criticism that I am making. I hope that the Government will be able to give us some answers as to what they are doing about it. I look forward now to hearing the rest of the debate. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

5.52 p.m.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, it is not often that I follow my noble kinsman in a different way. He did not have to declare an interest because he is now a political farmer and not an actual farmer. I am still in the business. I have just finished my 65th harvest and I am very much interested in what will happen in the future. When I came to the House today I expected to see a long list of speakers for the debate. I therefore made only a few notes because I expected to speak for not more than two or three minutes. I was horrified to see only four other names on the list. I have had to expand my notes considerably so I may be a little disjointed in what I have to say.

During the time I have been farming—I started in 1926—I have come through many a crisis. I always remember my old father, who also farmed for many years, saying that he also came through a good many crises—so many, he said, that he had begun not to believe in crises. I am trying to adopt that attitude as well. From 1926 through to the early 1930s there was a deep depression in the economy which affected agriculture to a tremendous extent. A huge number of farmers went to the wall at that time. I do not know the figure but I remember that things were bad and that a good few neighbours where I farmed went bankrupt. That era, from the late 1920s to the early 1930s, was a very bad time indeed.

I am not sure but I do not think that the recession was quite as bad as the one we are experiencing at the present moment. We have had this terrible uncertainty. There has been no agreement on GATT and we are not sure exactly how the CAP review will work. I must admit that there are different interpretations of what is going to happen, but the main thing about farming—my noble kinsman mentioned this—is that it is a long-term business. If one is going to produce a field of wheat, it is a year's job. If one is going to breed cattle to sell as adult animals, it is a three to three-and-a-half year job. One cannot do what the motor industry does. If that industry feels that it wants to stop producing cars, it can stop producing cars. Production of a car can be stopped and then restarted a year later. Therefore I want to emphasise the long-term nature of farming.

Perhaps I may tell a story which I think I once told in the House many years ago. I think it is worth telling again. It is about a friend of mine who was giving his father and mother a golden wedding celebration. After the meal the bridegroom of all those years before was talking to his brother, who had been his best man. The brother said, "You know, George, you think you have been married for 50 years. You're wrong. You've been married for 51 years". "Nonsense", said John, "Arthur, my son, has the marriage lines". In Scotland we call the certificate the marriage lines. Arthur pricked up his ears and said, "Of course I have them. They are on my desk. I'll get them". While he was away the brother said, "Look, on the day you were married"—in those days everyone was married on Hogmanay because you were allowed one day's holiday in agriculture—"I was ploughing the lea at the back of the stable. And it's in turnips this year. Seven sevens is 49 and two is 51. Arthur can produce any certificate he likes". The certificate was duly produced whereupon it was found that the registrar had been careless. They were married in one year but registered the marriage in the next year. He put the same year for the marriage and the registration. That just shows what forward planning in agriculture was doing in those days.

During the time I have been in farming we have mostly been encouraged to grow more food. That policy was created by the two wars to a certain extent. Now we are discouraged from growing food, particularly by the dreadful set-aside policy. I am afraid that I disagree slightly with the figures of my noble kinsman on whether there is enough food in the world to feed starving people. I have received figures from several sources; some from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who we all know was director of Oxfam for a long time; some from the FAO, which my noble kinsman does not have much faith in. Nevertheless, there are between 1 billion and 1.5 billion starving people in the world today. If we divide the difference between 1 billion and 1.5 billion the figure is 1.25 billion. That is five times the population of America. It is also four times the population of Russia. Is anyone telling me that there is surplus food in the world today to feed that number of people—to feed America five times? I do not think the food is there. That is why I think that set aside is a bad thing.

I have been trying to look at the situation. In the spring of 1981 a debate on the subject took place in which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a very good point. He said that there were people to feed, which was a long-term project, and there was the job of teaching them how to grow their own food, which was also a long-term project. Somebody else said that population control also came into the picture long term. The figures that were quoted then have nearly doubled over the last 10 years. It is an ongoing thing that we have not managed to tackle at all in the last 10 years. It is vital that it should be tackled in a strong way.

My noble friend Lord Judd gave some figures, particularly the dreadful one about a baby dying every two-and-a-half minutes, or something like that. I also have a friend who did a lot of work in the west of South America and in the north of South America with a charity that does not take out anything. They go out and try to teach the people how to develop. He said that the situation there was very bad indeed. I met somebody from India not long ago who said that along the foothills of the Himalayas there is an enormous scarcity of food. Whether they cannot get their surpluses there or not I do not know.

I have been trying to interest people in the whole of this dreadful situation. I wrote twice to the Independent. The first time I got just one reply, somebody wrote to me, and the second time there were only two replies. One was an interesting one. I wrote to The Times but the paper would not print the letter. There is a suggestion—and there have been suggestions; I got the reply from the other side not very long ago—that the food that we might have in surplus the starving people would not eat. Of course that is absolute nonsense. If you are starving you would not turn up your nose at our bread, our wheat or dried milk from our cows, but that point has been made.

The other point that was made to me not too long ago was what was the sense of sending out dried milk when the water is all stinking. For goodness sake, we are a manufacturing country and we make good water purifiers. Let us get them out there to help. This farmer who wrote to the Independent said that we should find out what foods might be suitable that we could grow on set aside and that we should go about growing that food especially for export to those countries. I cannot imagine starving people turning up their noses at any of the food that we may produce in this country and send there. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that set aside should be stopped.

The other thing that I found by talking to a lot of people is that there is not much co-ordination in growing food for these starving people. If there was more co-ordination then proper food could be grown. There is no question but that there is an immense problem in getting the food to them. The tremendous work that the charities do is to be highly respected in every way. They deserve every help that we can give them. They are doing a good job. I have spoken to some of the people who have been out there in various places and they said that there is a grave lack of co-ordination and that there could be tremendous help here.

This country should give a lead either through the EC or the United Nations to get a co-ordinating committee of some description that could help the charities to the extent that they could double their work, as one person put it to me. Of course we have the old story of who is going to pay for it. About three weeks ago the Observer had an article putting the point that there were just short of 100,000 millionaires in this country. What about getting an average of £5,000 from each of them? That would be £500 million. That would help a bit, and I am sure they would not begrudge it. I know that the Government are not keen on any fresh taxation, but if they really understood the situation in these countries a lot of people would not object to being taxed to help the situation.

I do not think that I can add much more to what I have said, except to say that if we help these countries and help them to develop, when they become developed they may be of tremendous use to this country in trade. That is a practical point that we should remember. These people will not forget if we go ahead and give all the help we can to people who are starving.

6.6 p.m.

Lord Geraint

My Lords, it is with some trepidation that, after 18 years in the other place, I rise to speak for the first time in this House, having always admired the calm, reasoned approach to debate here and the knowledge and wisdom that informs the words spoken by so many noble Lords. After leaving the hurly-burly of the other place and its highly-charged atmosphere (rather sooner than I had planned, to be honest) I wondered how I would adapt to the more serene and dignified surroundings of your Lordships' House. I find that this has been accomplished with very little pain —indeed, much pleasure—and this is due to the warm welcome and ready friendship that has been extended to me by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I thank you for that.

Perhaps I may also express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Mackie for introducing this debate on a subject that is not only close to my heart but should also concern every single one of us on both sides of the House. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute just a few brief comments.

I am a farmer from the Welsh hills. Many of you may have read George Borrow's book about when he walked Wales from one end to the other. When he came to our village, the village of Ponterwyd on Pumlumon slopes, he stopped and said: This is an area where men will live when crows do die. I have spent most of my working life on the land, and my whole instinct is geared towards producing as much as I can from this land to help fulfil this country's food requirements.

Coming as I do from this background, I find it difficult to accept the situation where farmers like myself in the developed world are being offered good money to stop production, when hardly a day goes by without a harrowing report of famine and devastation in other parts of the world. In our affluent Western society food is thrown away or rots in intervention while, every day, in the poorer countries of this world, children are starving to death. How can we stand by and let that happen?

As a youngster many years ago, being a chapel goer—like many of your Lordships I profess to being a Christian—I remember listening to the minister's sermon on poverty. I remember his words: It is a great shame that politicians in this country and in America are keen to pay the farmers not to produce, while others die by the thousands in other parts of the world". His message to us that morning was, "You have got to do something about it". But here we are, 30 or 40 years later, just talking about the subject. It is still in my mind that we should do more for those people who are less fortunate than ourselves.

As one report produced by the FAO rightly points out, famines very rarely come without notice. The report continues: Mostly they grow from steadily deteriorating conditions, the results of which can be anticipated and prevented through appropriate action. When governments—and the international community as a whole—fail to respond to such indicators, famines must be considered human-induced disasters". The latest information is discouraging. While Europe enjoyed record harvests last year, global figures show a downward trend in food production. The FAO annual review for 1991 shows global cereal harvests down on 1990 (which was a record year); world output in 1991, estimated at 1.881 billion tonnes—a drop of 91 million tonnes (4.6 per cent.); wheat fell by 50 million tonnes to 551 million tonnes (down 8.3 per cent); coarse grains fell by 4 per cent; and rice (paddy) fell by 7 million tonnes (down 1.4 per cent.); developing countries' cereal production fell by 2 million tonnes (0.2 per cent.); and developed countries' cereal production fell by 89 million tonnes (9.6 per cent.). I turn to food aid. In 1990–91 it was 12 million tonnes (up 700,000 tonnes on the previous year, but well short of the 13.5 million tonnes in 1987–88).

I had the privilege of visiting Somalia and other starving countries a few years ago. When visiting the refugee camps, I found it impossible to convince starving mothers and children that our policy of cutting back food production is the right policy to pursue until we are able to help those people who are less fortunate than we are. Let us always remember that our wasted food belongs to the hungry and those with empty stomachs.

We talk about aid. We have the choice of food aid or financial aid. From my experience, what is wanted in the short term is food aid with financial aid later. Therefore, let us go forward to try to help those people in the undeveloped countries who need food aid. I believe in the old adage: "Where there's a will, there's a way". We can solve these problems only if there is a political will to do so. We in this country should look first to our own record. Why cannot we increase our official development assistance to 0.7 per cent. of GNP over the next five years, and aim to increase it further over succeeding years? That is surely possible.

As your Lordships are aware, today is a crucial day in the GATT discussions. The results will have a profound effect on world trade and on the future of developing nations. It is not my intention to enter into the whys and wherefores of the dispute that has arisen, but merely to wish the negotiators well in their difficult task. However, I should like to make one point. I hope that the outcome of those talks will not result in such a fierce cutback in food production that we shall no longer be able to respond to emergencies by providing food aid in the short term to the countries that so desperately need our help.

I thank your Lordships for listening. Let us all, on all sides of the House, commit ourselves this evening to doing everything within our power to help those people in other parts of the world who are less fortunate than ourselves.

6.17 p.m.

Lord Palmer

My Lords, the noble Lord's speech was an emotional speech to have to follow but it is my great honour and privilege to congratulate on behalf of the whole House the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, on his excellent maiden speech. I echo much of what he had to say. He is, like myself, a farmer; but, unlike me, he is an expert. There is nothing that he does not know about sheep that is worth knowing. He was the Liberal Party's agricultural spokesman in another place for longer than most Members of Parliament can remember. He endeared himself to farmers, not just in his native Wales but throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. I feel certain that his emotional and brilliantly delivered speech will have endeared him to many of your Lordships tonight.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Palmer

My Lords, let us hope that we hear from the noble Lord again, and often.

It is not just your Lordships' House, but really I think the whole world, who should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for bringing this important subject before us this evening. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and his noble kinsman Lord John-Mackie, I find it quite extraordinary how few people put their names down on the list to speak tonight. I am pleased to see at least one right reverend Prelate in his place. I thought that we would have a tremendous innings from the Members of those Benches. As the noble Lord said in his maiden speech, the timing of the debate is so crucial with the outcome of the latest GATT round just about to be announced.

I have already declared an interest, as I try to produce food, albeit not very satisfactorily. It was not long ago that we were told to drain the wetlands and grow more. A few years later we are told, "Stop, set it all aside". It is madness. It depends upon whose figures we believe. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will have another set of figures. I am reliably told that there are today 780 million chronically under-nourished people in the world. I stress the figure 780 million. In other words, that is 156 times the population of the native Scotland of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. This year, 11 million children will die from starvation; and yet, on paper, there is enough food in the world to feed everyone.

Surely, as the 20th century draws to a close, it is an international scandal that anyone should be starving, let alone die of starvation. It is a scandal of which we should all be bitterly ashamed. Of course, there is no easy answer. Like so much of life, it is itself a very delicate balancing act between providing urgent humanitarian aid and creating an environment of food security in the developing world. I am sure that many of your Lordships would agree that the western world simply is not doing enough, and surely this is where Britain should and must take the lead. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is not here tonight as I feel sure she would agree.

As the EC strengthens its global, political and economic position we must, I believe, persuade it to accept the responsibilities and obligations pertaining to its power. It is no longer acceptable—even if it ever was—to treat the reform of the CAP as an internal matter to be decided during long, secretive discussions dominated by powerful domestic lobbies. Decisions taken in Brussels have profound implications for vulnerable communities and commodities in developing countries. I believe the interests of these communities must be included on the agenda for CAP reform. However, I have seen first hand how the vast Brussels bureaucratic machine works, and I still question whether bureaucrats well cushioned in Brussels can realistically decree what is to happen in the Greek islands and the Outer Hebrides, but that is the subject of another debate.

There is a gathering consensus in Europe that, despite the new reforms of the CAP, much unfinished business remains. Public pressure is building for a more sustainable form of farming geared towards lower levels of output, reduced inputs of agro-chemicals and higher levels of environmental care. This provides a fertile soil for a coalition of interests spanning the third world development agencies, environmental and consumer groups and, not least, organisations of small farmers to press for the debate on reforming the CAP to be reopened. The aim of that debate must not be simply to postpone the next CAP budget crisis, which is bound to be round the corner; it must, I believe, be to develop an alternative vision for European agriculture based on sustainability at home and justice for the developing world.

6.24 p.m.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject this evening. I congratulate him on the speech he made in introducing it. If I do not follow him too closely in his strictures about the way in which the FAO is currently being administered it is because I believe he has stated the case clearly and concisely and it is now a matter for the Minister to say what is the reaction of Her Majesty's Government to that statement of the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, in a very fine maiden speech brought back memories of an excessively political boyhood when I used to spend time listening to political speeches rather than doing homework. His speech recalled for me the oratorical trick of the local Member of Parliament, David Kirkwood (then acutely Left-wing), who subsequently became a Member of your Lordships' House. The trick was to use a kind of leitmotif. Throughout a speech he repeated the phrase "poverty in the midst of super-abundance". In a sense I think that that is what this debate is about.

Lord Geraint also gave the FAO's figures for food production in 1991 which show that there is not the surplus of food in the world that we are sometimes inclined to think there is, especially in the context of the common agricultural policy. That point was echoed by the pleas of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, about the unwisdom of reducing production as a so-called solution to our farming problems.

If food surpluses are measured against population growth, the figures are not as excessive on a world scale as we are led to believe. However, the availability of food is another matter, as is the question of distribution and price. The dominance of certain types of food production by groups of suppliers, usually to be found in the developed countries of the Western world such as North America, the European Community and the Cairns group of countries, is dangerous in economic terms. Yet it is vitally necessary in a global context to ensure that the world has the capacity to produce food.

In my opinion the food problems of the third world are made more difficult by the collapse of stability in Eastern Europe and the emergence there of nationalist and religious quarrels. Those quarrels do not bode well for the immediate future. For example, the resulting diversion of resources, particularly of the United Nations, to former Yugoslavia seems tragic in its own right but doubly so in the context that it exacerbates third world problems.

I also believe that a distinction needs to be made where food shortages arise from civil war, droughts, maldistribution, poor farming, fragmentation of land holdings, illiteracy, population explosions and poor government methods. Developing countries undoubtedly have a duty to assist, whatever the cause of food shortages may be. That point has been made by all speakers tonight; but in general it will be easier to convince people of that duty if the shortages are due to natural causes rather than civil strife, whatever justification may be made for such strife. It is also vital that food aid should reach the needy and is not hijacked by the greedy and the dishonest.

The Western world must take account of the effect of its food policies on growers in the third world. I believe that that point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. High interest rates as a policy may help to reduce inflation but the ripple effect will make life harsh for even efficient farmers, let alone the subsistence variety. The common agricultural policy, like its counterparts elsewhere—and we are not alone in the world as protectionists in the production of food—is particularly unfair to growers, especially those in developing countries, even when allowance is made for easements granted by the EC to ACP countries on an individual commodity basis. EC food aid generosity is partly conscience money, bearing in mind the effect on world markets of what we are pleased to call restitution payments—a euphemism for subsidies—especially when certain food surpluses are drastically reduced by the Community over a short time.

The GATT talks are mainly considered in the context of possible consequential trade wars between developed countries if they fail. We must all hope that the talks currently taking place do not fail. Third world nations have a vital interest in trade and agricultural production provided that they are fair and free. GATT matters no less for them, and a consequential trade war in the event of failure is the worst possible scenario for the third world.

One of the consolations in all this is that distance from markets is not the debilitating factor for developing countries it once was; for example, food cargoes flown by air can reach the West in hours as opposed to weeks. This is an added reason for third world countries to market well. In a United Kingdom context our track record for both aid and assistance is good in my opinion. One would still wish to see it improve, even if the magic 0.7 per cent. of GDP is currently beyond us. It is vital to ensure that good use is made of the help that we are undoubtedly giving.

The ministry for overseas development once had an established post for an adviser on co-operatives. I knew both incumbents, who held the job over many years. They were well trained in the field having been officers in former Commonwealth countries, and for a time the ministry also had an advisory committee on co-operatives. Both those activities have now been discontinued on the grounds apparently that they were no longer necessary. Yet, as I see it, the need for co-operatives in agriculture, especially in the third world, is as great as ever, maybe even more so.

Co-operatives can contribute across the whole range of food supplies as well as in the important area of agricultural credit. A new body has been established in Britain entitled the United Kingdom Co-operative Council, and it now exists thanks largely to an initiative of the former registrar of industrial and provident societies, Mr. Keith Brading. It was formed, as I say, almost by accident when the Co-operative Development Agency was prematurely wound up by Her Majesty's Government. But now the United Kingdom Co-operative Council has its own role. It embraces all types of co-operative, which is very important; that is to say, consumer, agricultural societies, producer societies, credit societies and housing co-operatives, with representatives from national organisations in each case.

At the moment the council is mainly concerned with revising the 1965 Industrial and Provident Societies Act which is a near mammoth task, not least because of some of the difficulties in getting agreement between the parties as to what changes they would wish to see. I feel, however, that with modest help and encouragement the United Kingdom Co-operative Council could assist the ministry for overseas development in the promotion of agricultural societies and other types of co-operative, especially in Commonwealth countries. The need for this is there. The expertise is undoubtedly there and the ministry for overseas development could, I think, by acting as a kind of marriage broker, convert this body into a very important organisation, not excluding the status of a non-governmental organisation, on the world scene.

The year 1991 was the Food and Agriculture Organisation's conference year and some 161 member countries participated in that conference. They gave unanimous support for making people's participation a priority by reinforcing rural institutions, including, as mentioned in the report, farmers' unions and co-operatives. They commended the role of non-governmental organisations and promised an increase in the Food and Agriculture Organisation's collaboration with them. I applaud that. In this context, what help could the United Kingdom's national farmers' unions give to solve world food shortages in, say, third world Commonwealth countries? British farming is due to become less intensive. A 15 per cent. set aside, for example, with limits in certain cases on livestock headage, would seem to indicate, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has said, some reduction in the intensity with which we farm in Britain.

Nevertheless the expertise of British farmers remains high and it would be a great pity in my opinion if, because of the solutions—if one can so call them—decided upon in order to solve common agricultural policy problems, this expertise were in any way to suffer as a result of under-use. I have never been able to decide, nor have ever heard anyone say very much, about what kind of farming policies third world countries should follow. Should they, for example, if they have a choice, farm intensively to boost supplies which are urgently needed in certain countries in the short term, or should they farm extensively in order to absorb labour and to stop the drift of population from the country to the towns? I must confess that I have yet to hear anyone say which of those policies is correct, or whether both are correct, but the circumstances in which they may apply are different and as a consequence it is impossible to be specific about the areas in which either policy should be applied. Nevertheless it is something which must be taken into account.

The United Kingdom, fortunately, has experience of both systems. We certainly know how to farm intensively and as a result, as I have said, of what has happened recently with the CAP, we are due to become—I am sure we will become—successful extensive farmers. Therefore I ask, could not this dual capacity encourage national farmers' unions to play some part whereby suitable British farms would take farm workers from developing countries, particularly Commonwealth countries, for, say, a year of practical training in basic farm work? I raised this as a supplementary question with the noble Earl the other day and he promised to have a look at it. I repeat it now in the hope of persuading him that it is worth an examination, even though one would be reluctant to claim that it represents either great originality or a suggestion of world-shaking importance.

Such workers, as I see it, could come to Britain, live on the farm and at the end, say, of a full year's cycle of farming return home with more basic skills than they came with. The cost of modest schemes of this kind would not overwhelm the overseas development ministry budget and even an experiment on a modest scale for two years would, I think, be worth while.

These are a few thoughts on this subject. No one is going to believe that this discussion tonight, or previous discussions, or future discussions, will come anywhere near solving a problem whose immense character is daunting and about which, if one were to think too much, the resultant mood would be one of bitter depression. Nevertheless, as I said at the outset, discuss it we must. We are in a position to assist and I hope the debate tonight will contribute towards that assistance. I look forward to the reply of the Minister.

6.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)

My Lords, this is a timely debate on a topic of importance to every man, woman, and child on this planet. We all need, and deserve, adequate access to food. Ensuring this is one of the major challenges currently facing the international community.

I begin with the world food situation. We must not be complacent. But the signs are that, following two bad years, things are beginning to improve. In a message to the recent session of the governing body of the World Food Programme in Rome, Dr Saouma, the Director-General of FAO, stated that, according to present indications world food production in 1992 would be higher than last year and cereal availabilities would be sufficient to meet the global demand". This is confirmed by the most recent reports from the International Wheat Council.

Year-to-year fluctuations in production and stockpiles will continue. So far, technical improvements and economic incentives have defeated those who have repeatedly painted Malthusian pictures of overpopulation and famine. Many of your Lordships will vividly recall the despair that was felt 20 or 30 years ago about the prospects of India or Bangladesh feeding their people. Yet, thanks to its own efforts supported by aid from Britain and elsewhere, India has been on balance self-sufficient in cereals for some years, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, rightly mentioned. Bangladesh looks likely to be so for the first time this year. The Sahel also offers grounds for optimism, in that 10 years ago it seemed set into a pattern of permanent crisis, similar to that now affecting the Horn. Now, however, unless another climatic disaster occurs, prospects seem reasonable.

In the medium term, much will depend on the outcome of the GATT negotiations, as the noble Lords, Lord Geraint, Lord Palmer and Lord Gallacher, so rightly emphasised. Any increase in world prices that may result could encourage food production in importing countries, particularly in the developing world. But, at the country level, we cannot afford to be complacent. Chronic malnutrition is all too common, and acute food shortages persist, particularly in Africa. In many countries, particularly in the developing world, stocks of cereals have been sharply reduced in recent years and the expected levels of supplies this year will not be large enough to replenish these.

The Government remain deeply concerned about the risk of starvation in Africa and fully share the sentiments expressed by noble Lords this afternoon. No one can fail to be moved by graphic images of starving faces on the television screen of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie—the harrowing sight of hungry and malnourished children and helpless parents. My noble friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who has first-hand and recent experience in Somalia and elsewhere, is today chairing the EC's Development Council in Brussels, which is addressing some of these issues. I shall inform the House later of its conclusions.

We are all united in wishing to relieve hunger and suffering. Humanitarian aid is not subject to political considerations. Donors have made considerable efforts to help. For example, we have pledged more than 200,000 tonnes of food aid nationally this year and our total relief aid to Africa amounts to some £107 million.

The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to the UK's record. In 1991 the UK had the fifth largest aid programme in the world. In a difficult financial climate the public expenditure outcome is good for overseas aid. The ODA's overall budget is set to rise in cash terms by 1995–96 by more than £200 million compared with this year. The European Community is also providing some 1.8 million tonnes of food aid this year to countries with severe food shortages. The NGOs too, with help from the British public, are untiring in their efforts to provide much-needed food.

The real problem in many of these countries—in Somalia, Mozambique, Angola—is not so much the availability of food as grave security difficulties and problems of food delivery. That problem was rightly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. Ports are congested; there is frequently poor local infrastructure and transportation networks, a lack of sufficient vehicles and adequate fuel and spares. All these are aspects of poverty and underdevelopment. They take time and sensible economic policies to overcome, as well as aid and investment. Food aid operations are also complicated by the rapid movement and growing numbers of refugees—for example, in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia—and by the resettlement of demobilised soldiers, as in Mozambique. These factors all add to the pressure on already limited and near exhausted food supplies.

A significant development this year has been the establishment of a Department of Humanitarian Affairs within the UN, with a new Under Secretary General, Mr. Eliasson, in charge. This arose from an Anglo-German initiative within the General Assembly and reflected widespread concern about the need for improved co-ordination machinery to deal with emergencies.

The DHA and Mr. Eliasson have made a promising start, but much needs to be done. My noble friend the Minister for Overseas Development is flying to New York tomorrow to participate in this year's General Assembly debate on humanitarian assistance. She will be pressing, on behalf of the European Community as well as the UK, for the establishment of better lines of communication between the DHA and the executing agencies, closer co-operation with NGOs and the creation of a co-ordinated structure of relief and development.

I should like to commend in particular the contributions of the Global Information and Early Warning System of the FAO and the World Food Programme, which are of great value both to the developing countries and to donors in planning for food shortages. The Global Information and Early Warning System provides information on food needs and availability. The World Food Programme supplies a number of essential services to donors in the provision of relief food aid. An encouraging feature of 1992 has been the increased level of co-operation between FAO and the World Food Programme in, for example, the mounting of joint missions for crop assessment and relief needs. We very much welcome that development.

However, not all food aid is provided for relief purposes. We have considerable doubts about the value of much non-emergency food aid, which often seems a poor use of scarce development resources and which can in certain circumstances harm local production. In this connection I refer your Lordships to a speech made by my noble friend the Minister for Overseas Development to a meeting organised by the NGO CARE in London on 2nd November. In that speech she launched a campaign for "real food aid", arguing that greater priority should be given to meeting relief food aid needs and that, when non-emergency food aid is provided, much greater effort must be made to ensure that it is used wisely and well. Ministers and officials will be following up this speech, particularly within the European Community. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, in a most thoughtful and inspiring maiden speech, recognised that food aid is not necessarily the answer to food shortages. We need to accept first of all that, except in circumstances of an almost total breakdown of civil structures, as in Somalia, food insecurity is normally one aspect only of the overall poverty problem. Even in drought-stricken areas it is unusual for food not to be available to those who can afford it. The problem is that, bereft of their livelihood through drought, few have the resources to buy food. Thus poverty-focused development programmes, aimed at improving the incomes of the poor, have the most direct impact on access to food and malnutrition.

In this connection I draw your Lordships' attention to the EC Development Council which took place today under the chairmanship of my noble friend the Minister for Overseas Development. As well as considering particular emergencies in Somalia and Mozambique, the Council is agreeing a substantial statement to guide development policy in the Community during the 1990s. That statement will ensure that the poverty focus throughout the Community's development programmes is strengthened.

It is also important to encourage governments of developing countries to introduce policies aimed at encouraging local production of food in a free market. All too often in the past heavily subsidised food for urban areas, supported by food aid donors who should have known better, has meant that prices for locally produced food have become so depressed that it has not been worth while for local farmers to grow food. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to that problem. Many of the structural adjustment programmes, supported by the World Bank and others, seek to correct this, and a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round which will reduce the dumping of agricultural surpluses on developing countries by the US and others will also help. Measures already being taken by the European Community under the recent reform of the common agricultural policy represent another helpful move in this direction.

The noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie, Lord Geraint and Lord Palmer, criticised the policy of set aside. We had a short debate on that subject recently following a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. I made the point then that even when EC surpluses have been reduced there will be ample food in the world. I just make the further point that most of the food in surplus is unsuitable for use as food aid. The quality and type of food does not always match what recipients need. Also it may not represent the best value for money. Surely it is better to provide food which people are used to. The Government's aim, after all, is to feed the starving, not to offload surpluses in the Community.

Having said that, the stocks that we have in the Community are used where possible and where they are cost-effective. But we prefer to see more triangular transactions or local purchase which reduces the risk of creating dependency on imported foodstuffs and has benefits for the country from which the food is purchased as well as for the recipients.

That view is underpinned by many of the voluntary agencies, including Oxfam in its 1987 paper entitled Common Ground: How changes in the Common Agricultural Policy Affect the Third World Poor. Oxfam stated: it is in the interests of the third world to reduce eventually to zero the EC's surpluses, leaving land fallow, and promoting alternative non-competing crops, such as trees, would be best". It explicitly recognised that setting up aid programmes was more beneficial to poor people than exporting EC surpluses.

I now turn to the FAO. This is the largest of the UN specialised agencies and has a vital role to play in assisting countries in their endeavours to eradicate poverty. It is involved at every level of agricultural development from demonstrating to subsistence farmers new techniques for cultivating food crops to advising governments on how to achieve more stable and equitable trade in agricultural commodities.

It is not an aid agency, or an agricultural bank or indeed a global ministry of agriculture. The FAO is, however, a unique source of expertise and information. In addition it gives direct and practical help in the developing world through technical assistance projects in all areas of food and agriculture. It has four main tasks, and it is worth reminding ourselves what these are: to provide technical advice and assistance for the agricultural community; to collect, analyse and disseminate information; to advise governments on policy planning; and to provide an opportunity for governments to meet and discuss food and agricultural problems.

Britain joined the FAO in 1945 at its foundation. We pay an annual contribution to the FAO's regular budget of some £11 million. We will continue to provide such support.

We have also provided additional financial assistance to FAO to help it spearhead a campaign in North Africa to halt an invasion of the new world screw worm fly, the most dangerous insect pest of livestock in North America. This has been a highly successful programme to which we were pleased to have contributed.

At the same time, we have concerns about the effectiveness and management of the FAO. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, expressed his concerns. Our concern, in common with his, is that it should do better what it was set up to do.

In 1989 the FAO undertook an extensive review of goals and operations. The resulting resolution and decisions did not in our view go far enough. There is still a need for the FAO to prioritise its programmes in line with the agreed priorities identified by the FAO conference and to curtail or stop completely those activities that are not identified as a priority or those which would be better undertaken by other organisations or institutions both within and outside the UN system. We, along with other like minded countries, continue to work towards those ends.

The FAO has the expertise and skilled people required to carry out those essential functions. Its expertise is not reflected sufficiently in its policies; for example, in the Tropical Forestry Action Plan where considerable improvements are required to allow it to fulfil the hopes placed in it. We want to ensure that, through effective leadership, it does so. We are working with other member states to pursue these objectives. The FAO needs to look again at its priorities in the follow-up to the Rio Earth Summit. It can only do so through the guidance, imagination and foresight of its new director-general, whoever he or she may be. We want to see Doctor Saouma whose term of office ends next year, followed by a new director-general who will rise to those challenges and lead the FAO effectively and imaginatively into the 21st century.

6.55 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It was more satisfactory than many replies from that Bench. I should like to say again that the people of the world are very fortunate in the noble Baroness who leads the overseas aid programme. I hope that she will receive all the backing that she needs, both financial and otherwise, in her excellent work. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken.

My noble kinsman produced his expertise and the nice old story which I have used many times, just as he did. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, spoke enormously good sense. They agreed on set-aside. I also am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, who gave us the benefit of his expertise on the absolutely essential role of co-operation in agriculture. My noble friend's maiden speech impressed me greatly. One can always trust the Welsh to make a polished and rounded contribution. It is the envy of stuttering chaps like me when I hear a speech such as that delivered by my noble friend.

It has been a good debate. I thank all who took part in it. I wish that there had been more contributors. Nevertheless, I shall now do what I have to do and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.