House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Feb 1993

Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West) : I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert

(except Title XVII on page 40 of Cm 1934)'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes) : With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following : Amendment No. 194, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 3(q)'.

Column 1076

Amendment No. 233, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130x(2)'.

Amendment No. 241, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130w'.

Amendment No. 242, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130x(1)'.

Amendment No. 389, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130u as referred to in Article G on page 40 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 390, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130v as referred to in Article G on page 41 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 391, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130x as referred to in Article G on page 41 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 392, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130y as referred to in Article G on page 41 of Command Paper number 1934'.

New clause 60-- Development co-operation --

Her Majesty's Government shall report to the House of Commons annually on the implementation of the objectives of article 130u, including the campaign against world poverty, respect for human rights, and compliance with the United Nations, having regard to the co-ordination and consultation required by Article 130x.'. New clause 66-- Development Co- operation Annual Report--

Her Majesty's Government shall make an Annual Report to Parliament on the operation, including income programme and activities, of the Development Co -operation as set out in Articles 130u-y of the Treaty on European Union, which shall include-- (

(a) a report on the activities of the European Investment Bank in respect of Development Co-operation and the criteria adopted by them in the preceding year for their financial operation relating to these Articles,

(b) the steps taken by the various official bodies of the European Community or Union in respect of co-ordination of national development policy, and

(c) initiatives taken by the Commission and its activities in relation to the initiation or conclusion of agreements with third parties on behalf of the European Community.'.

8 pm

Mr. Meacher : Amendment No. 16 is a probing amendment and relates, together with the associated amendments and new clauses, to article 17 of Command Paper 1934 and EC policy on development co-operation. This is an important issue because of the damaging interaction between EC aid policy and Britain's own aid contributions. I shall spell out why.

The EC has decided that its aid to Asia, Latin America and Europe and its food aid should go up by 60 per cent. in real terms by 1999. That decision, which was made at the Edinburgh summit in December, would have been good news in normal circumstances, but the British Government are not proposing to increase their aid budget to pay for their part of that increase. The total aid programme is planned to fall in real terms in 1994-95.

On that basis, the EC increase will be funded by large cuts elsewhere in the British aid programme, with the EC share of British aid rising perhaps to as much as 40 per cent. That may mean that, by 1999, Britain's own bilateral aid will, in real terms, be equivalent only to three quarters of its 1990 level. That would also mean that severe cuts would be made to aid given through other multilateral channels such as the United Nations. African countries, in economic crisis and in desperate need of balance of payment support, would be most hard hit by cuts in aid.

Column 1077

Projects in low-priority countries would also be hit, for example, the well regarded British agricultural project in Bolivia. It is significant that the policy of switching aid contributions to the EC is a volte-face. EC aid has regularly been criticised, not least by the Minister for Overseas Development. By contrast, Britain's own bilateral aid programme is well regarded, as Ministers so often tell us, and receives support, for example, in the most recent review of British aid by the OECD Development Assistance Committee.

An increase in EC aid is, of course, welcome, but only if it is an increase and not merely a reallocation at the expense of the poor. The evidence clearly suggests that the latter will occur. The EC aid comes from two pockets. Almost all aid to Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, the poorest regions, comes from the European development fund, which is negotiated on a multi-year basis under the Lome convention. The rest of the aid, including food aid, is called EC external spending and comes from the EC budget. In 1990-91, EC external spending, which excludes Lome aid, took only 9 per cent. of the Overseas Development Administration's budget. By 1999, it could be 29 per cent., unless the Government increase the aid budget faster than currently planned. If one adds the Lome aid, the total EC share of the British aid budget would then rise from 18 per cent. in 1990-91 to about 40 per cent. in 1999. That is a big increase but its effect obviously depends on what is cut. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the Government intend to do.

Even if the share of other multilateral aid, such as that provided by the International Development Association of the World bank and UNICEF, were cut by one third, Britain's own bilateral aid would have to fall from 60 per cent. in 1990-91 to around 45 per cent. of the total. That, in turn, would mean that Britain's bilateral aid in 1999 would, in real terms, be equivalent to about three quarters of its level at the start of this decade.

I would be the first to recognise that the cuts could be shared on a different basis and I hope that the Minister will say how he believes that that will be done. But, however it is done, the effect is dire. The Committee should concentrate on why there has been a switch so that the EC provides a much bigger share of Britain's aid policy. There is a lingering suspicion that it has little to do with aid policy.

When the deal was agreed at the Edinburgh summit, the Government were under pressure from their EC partners to increase spending in a number of areas. With the Maastricht debate in Parliament in its current fairly balanced state--I put it as sensitively as I can--the Government were under equal pressure to minimise any increase in the net British payments to the EC.

It just so happens, by an accounting quirk, that that overseas aid contribution is not included in the total net payments to the EC, which is reported annually to the United Kingdom Parliament in the public expenditure White Paper. One must ask whether that aid increase was agreed as an increase that was easy to hide. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's reply. I would simply say that it is also an expensive type of EC spending for Britain,

Column 1078

because that money is not subject to any rebate from the British rebate mechanism which was secured by Baroness Thatcher.

Despite the drawbacks for Britain's aid programme generally, the British Government's policy is firmly set on shifting aid more and more into an EC context. The Council of Ministers resolution on development policy of 18 November 1992, under the British presidency, centred on increasing co- ordination between EC member states' aid policies for the first time--a significant development. That is disturbing when, as I said, the EC's aid record has been severely criticised, not least by the Minister herself, for several good reasons.

The quality of EC aid--with certain notable exceptions--does not have a good reputation. British non-governmental organisations in particular have difficulty securing emergency money from the EC, and its funds very little rehabilitation--the essential work after a disaster or conflict that is often most important in preventing further conflict.

The same criticism is directed at ECHO, the Community's recently created Humanitarian Office. It is flawed by its definition of emergency aid as being independent of development processes, as well as by its notorious lack of consultation with local organisations in developing countries. Both limitations make it an inappropriate model for the kind of humanitarian intervention that is so desperately needed. The suspicion persists that the establishment of ECHO has more to do with extending EC competence than any enhancement of EC aid policy.

There are other major criticisms of current EC aid policy. The European development fund continues to devote too high a proportion of its budget to capital-intensive projects rather than to projects aimed at improving the productive capacity of poor people. The implementation of EDF programmes is often slow and notoriously inefficient and bureaucratic, in most cases. While I do not dispute the principle behind the Stabex fund, it has not been able to compensate for the collapse of commodity prices in the 1980s. The importance of that can hardly be overstated. The price of tea, coffee and cocoa fell by an average 11 per cent. a year in the 1980s, with stunning impoverishing effects on 48 out of 55 African countries that depend on those three commodities for more than half their total export earnings.

Another criticism is that much EC aid focuses on assisting infrastructure development rather than human development, such as primary education, health care and community action. Food aid is also used as a channel to flush down common agricultural policy food mountains, and for that reason the proportion of total EC aid that is food aid is far too high. There continues to be an imbalance in aid to the poorest countries of Africa, compared with those of Asia.

Mr. Cryer : My hon. Friend's remarks reflect entirely the EC's general policy towards Lome convention countries. The Community's aim is not to advance them but to keep them impoverished, as primary producing countries. Although their raw agricultural products are allowed into the EC without tariff, as soon as a Lome country develops an agricultural industry in which food is processed and packaged, or refined in some other way--an essential move for any country wanting to improve its

Column 1079

infrastructure and agricultural industry-- the EC slaps on tariffs to protect preferentially its own domestic agricultural industries.

Mr. Meacher : My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall refer later to the high tariff levels imposed on agricultural products in general. The EC tariff on cocoa is very low, at about 3 per cent., but once that commodity is processed, the tariff is about 16 per cent. Such a policy discriminates against countries attempting to escape from the poverty caused by mono-dependence on single primary commodities.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : It is important that the Committee understands the hon. Gentleman's meaning, because he no doubt represents the Opposition's view on this important amendment. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is unhappy for the Community to provide so much food aid, or that it is merely too high a proportion of the total cost of food aid? I believe that we should provide more food aid, albeit that I am also sympathetic to the view that we should increase other forms of aid to developing countries. I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the level of food aid to people starving in many parts of the world should be reduced. 8.15 pm

Mr. Meacher : Of course I am not saying that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify my comments. At this very moment, many countries are in a dire state of emergency, with starvation rife in many parts of Africa. I am merely arguing that the proportion of EC aid that takes the form of food aid is too high, and reflects EC interests in reducing food mountains. That policy is not primarily concerned with developing countries.

The biggest criticism of all is that the common agricultural policy of offloading huge surplus supplies from EC food mountains on to world markets does far more to destabilise the commodity prices of developing countries and to undermine their fundamental economic interest than the whole of the EC aid programme does to assist those countries.

This stringent critique of EC aid policy is not mitigated by the anodyne language of the first paragraph of article 130x : "The Community and the Member States shall co-ordinate their policies on development co-operation and shall consult each other on their aid programmes".

That is too vague and generalised to be of any value. Either the Bill or the treaty--and perhaps it is not appropriate for the Bill--should contain sharper, more precise commitments of the kind found in the White Paper "Horizon 2000".

First and foremost is the commitment to devoting 0.7 per cent. of gross national product to aid, plus a statement of intention to move beyond that. It would be highly embarrassing for the British Government to press for that in view of their lamentable record of cutting aid by nearly half as a proportion of GNP--from 0.51 per cent. in 1979 to 0.3 per cent. today--but still such a commitment should be sought.

Moreover, there should be a statement that aid for central and eastern Europe should not divert money, time or expertise from work with the poorest countries. The EC increased the share of its external assistance budget to eastern Europe from 38 per cent. in 1992 to 42 per cent. in

Column 1080

the current year, and it seems likely to continue that trend. At the same time, the United Kingdom's aid budget for developing countries has been frozen for the next two succeeding years, and that is unacceptable.

Mr. Randall : I am a little confused. Article 130x says that the Community and member states should co-ordinate their policies and develop aid programmes in a co-operative way, based on joint action and so on. That is very laudable, but my hon. Friend seems to be saying that he wants the policies to be built into the treaty. Although what he says makes sense to me, I wonder whether it is appropriate for that level of policy detail to be incorporated in a treaty document of this kind.

Mr. Meacher : I agree. I said that it might well not be appropriate to incorporate such detail in the protocol or the text of the treaty. I am trying to explain that this section of the treaty reflects--or should reflect--the contents of the EC White Paper "Horizon 2000". I am commenting on what I consider to be the deficiencies and inadequacies of that. It is one thing to co-ordinate policies, but, if the policies involved are deficient--or, indeed, thoroughly inadequate--in important respects, and if their objectives are unclear or insufficiently high, co-ordination of those policies will be far from sufficient, even if the wording of the text is anodyne.

Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : Successive studies carried out by the Commission itself have recognised that a failure to co-ordinate has prevented the effective use of the aid that is there. I am thinking particularly of something that costs nothing--the way in which accounts are done for food aid. I do not mean emergency food aid ; it is important to distinguish between that and other types of aid. It is also important, however, to co-ordinate how such aid is accounted for between the United Nations, the various bilateral agreements and the Community. As I know only too well, the resources of countries that genuinely benefit from Community aid are being overstrained.

Mr. Meacher : My hon. Friend has made a good point. We believe that there should be regular and systematic independent evaluation of EC projects and programmes--in respect of food aid, and in other respects-- with specific tests in the form of social and environmental audits. That should be combined with a commitment to transparency and accountability in EC aid, in policy development as well as its application--again, at both EC and member state level. That is why we tabled new clause 60 : we wanted to remedy the lack of accountability to the House of Commons, and to ensure that EC aid policies were fully understood in detail and could be assessed by the House. Although the treaty specifically mentions a poverty focus as an important aim of the aid programme, in reality the commitment will be undermined because of a lack of sufficient staff--particularly trained experts--to monitor EC aid in Brussels and the regions of the world. I think that that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) was making. He is not alone in remarking on the confusion and lack of co-ordination between Directorate General 8 and DG11 ; both directorates have relatively few staff.

Mr. Cryer : My hon. Friend may not agree with me, but I think that we should put the EC into context. The EC is

Column 1081

no friend of the poor countries of the world ; indeed, it connives at their exploitation. Moreover, when emergency food aid is supplied to particularly dire areas of the world, the Community resolutely refuses to get any from its stockpiles, or to have emergency strategic stockpiles from the huge food mountains created by the absurd common agricultural policy, because everyone knows that certain areas will be in danger. Instead, the Community uses EC money to buy food on world markets.

On several occasions, I have tried to encourage Commissioners to have stockpiles of food, and to pay for their storage in strategic areas where such pressures exist. Of course, the Commission has resolutely refused, because it wants to pay the money for storing food to wealthy farmers in the Community rather than to poor countries that might benefit.

Mr. Meacher : My hon. Friend may be surprised to learn that I am extremely sympathetic to his view. I feel strongly that EC food mountains should be used at times of extreme starvation to provide food at very low, perhaps virtually nil, cost. It is astonishing that they cannot be used at a time when up to half a million people have starved to death in Somalia. Having visited the area, I know that that starvation is partly due to an inability to distribute food, but it is also due to extreme delay in its availability. Certainly vastly greater quantities could have been made available much earlier, at an extremely low cost. It seems extraordinary, and perverse, that food mountains can be allowed to accumulate when people in desperate need, dying of starvation, are denied that advantage.

Mr. Enright : May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to an important point--one that is difficult to grasp, and certainly has not been grasped by the majority of the British public? If we simply shift our surpluses, we shall put peasant farmers out of business. That is wrong. We should do what the Community is doing in some of the poorest countries--I am thinking particularly of Guinea Bissau. We should encourage the local farmer to build up his stock, and to buy locally. In many cases, it is impossible to store food, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and many of the surpluses that we produce--particularly powdered milk--are totally unsuitable for use in such countries.

Mr. Meacher : I am grateful for the opportunity to expand on this point. I stand by what I said in regard to areas where starvation is rife, but I take my hon. Friend's point : of course we should not offload supplies on countries with a moderately flourishing local agriculture. Of course we want to support local farmers. I was thinking exclusively of countries where, as a result of civil war and armies crossing their territory two or three times--as happened in south and south-west Somalia-- farmers have not sown any seed, and hundreds of thousands of people are unable to obtain access to food. In such circumstances, it is extraordinary that the EC has not taken the opportunity to make some of that food available.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher : No.

Column 1082

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : It follows from that point.

Mr. Meacher : I am sure it does, but we have already discussed the point, and it is only one aspect of the general policy. [ Hon. Members : -- "She is leaving now."] I was trying to analyse-- [Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. The Committee has become somewhat noisy, and it is difficult to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Meacher : Thank you, Dame Janet. I hope that the remainder of the Committee will stay to listen to my analysis of other aspects of EC aid policy.

We think that there should be a statement on response to emergencies. There is no mention of emergency action or co-ordination in the treaty--or, indeed, in the White Paper--although we are lurching from crisis to crisis, in Europe as well as in developing countries. That, too, is a major point. In the last week or two, the Foreign Secretary has rightly said that a proliferation of crises--crises of ethnic nationalism, and regional conflicts--is erupting across the globe.

8.30 pm

The principle of humanitarian intervention is one where I believe the EC, alongside the United Nations, should be seeking to make its contribution both in establishing the political parameters as well as administrative and military logistics.

Perhaps the major weakness, however, of article 130x is its extremely limited perspective on the concept of development co-operation in general. Aid is only a small part of development co-operation. Much more important is trade. According to UNCTAD, the value of developing countries' exports is 17 times greater than the total aid that they receive.

The developing world's share of global GDP has fallen in recent years from 22 per cent. in 1980 to 18 per cent. in 1988, largely as a result of two factors, the collapse in commodity prices and the rise in western protectionism. The EC is the world's biggest trading block. It accounts for 37 per cent. of world trade and one third of its imports and exports are with the third world. It is therefore in a position to make a substantial contribution to the developing world, and I submit that at present it is failing to do so.

A second great omission from EC policy on development co-operation concerns the whole issue of debt reduction. More than a third of the commercial debt of the 17 highly indebted countries, such as Argentina and Mexico, is to EC companies. The fall in commodity prices in the 1980s has been so great that it is now estimated that 42 per cent. of the developing world's debt is the result of deteriorating terms of trade. That is a staggering statistic. Servicing that debt accounts for as much as a third of the foreign exchange earned by African and Latin American exports.

Apart from the Trinidad terms on official debt, proposed by Britain and which I think we all support, but which apply to a minimal part of the debt of the least-developed countries, the EC has not played an active part in proposing debt reduction initiatives.

If the commitments made at Maastricht and Rio are to be translated into action, certain fundamental objectives must be incorporated. One is putting the poor first. With

Column 1083

more than a billion people in the world now unable to afford the bare essentials of life, the first aim of EC development policy should be to reduce poverty. Addressing poverty is a key element in achieving sustainable development, yet at present only 7 per cent. of the bilateral aid of the richest countries in OECD goes into primary health care or basic education and safe water programmes ; 41 per cent. of aid is directed at high or middle-income countries and 50 to 55 per cent. of EC aid, which is worth about $10 billion, is tied to the purchase of goods from the aid donor.

That is much more about satisfying the interests of donor countries than about satisfying the interests of the poorest in the southern world. If poor countries are to break out of the cycle of poverty, they must be able to sell their goods in EC markets to gain resources for development, yet over the last decade there has been a considerable growth in western protectionism and it is the developing countries which have suffered most.

Studies show that non-tariff barriers raised by industrial countries more often discriminate against goods from developing countries than they do against goods from industrial countries. World bank figures show that the overall share of exports in developing countries facing non-tariff barriers is roughly 20 per cent., and that is twice the share for exports from the industrialised countries.

The worst affected are third-world agricultural exports and more than a quarter of these face non-tariff barriers. It is estimated that the cost to developing countries of northern protectionist policies amount to $100 billion a year. That is far more than the total of EC aid policies. Third- world countries also have had their own production undercut by the dumping of subsidised agricultural goods on world markets.

Mr. Michael Spicer : The hon. Member is making these points as if they were some kind of backdrop and interesting factual analyses against which other things can be discussed. He is actually making a fundamental attack on the institutions, the policy and philosophy of the EC. That is what the EC is about--the CAP and protectionism of trade and farming. This is a fundamental attack. How can he support the whole momentum of the EC when he is making this kind of attack on its very essence?

Mr. Meacher : I am glad to answer that. My views about the impact of the CAP, the unloading of surpluses on third world countries and the effect on prices are well understood, and shared, I think, in many and most parts of the Committee. The effect and the enormously damaging way it undermines any good that EC policies do is iniquitous. It is of course not EC aid policies as against UK aid policies. UK aid policies are not entirely free from a lot of these criticisms. UK aid policy, in a number of respects, is better than EC aid policy for the reasons that I have given, but I am not suggesting that EC aid policy is something to be decried, but something to be enormously improved and linked also with different policies on trade and on debt relief. That is as much an attack on the United Kingdom, France and Germany in their bilateral relations with third-world countries as it is on the EC.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) rose --

Mr. Meacher : Since it is my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he would like to have a place in this debate, I give way to him, but this is the last time.

Column 1084

Mr. Spearing : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is surely approaching the pith of this debate. Does he agree with me that this treaty means the end of British aid policy as such and the advancement--and its takeover--by the overseas aid policy of the European union?

Mr. Meacher : No, I do not believe that that is a fair conclusion. It is certainly not the end of United Kingdom bilateral aid policy. I am saying that it leads to a diminution. Despite the low level of United Kingdom aid, the fact that it has been cut and the criticisms that Labour hon. Members have so often made, we believe that it has a real value but that it needs to be linked with trade reform and debt relief. I have also made the point that it will lead to a significant reduction of that aid in the interests of EC aid which is, in our view, of significantly less value. We think the balance is wrong and would like to see it changed. Those are precisely the criticisms that I have made, but I do not think that it leads to the end of the United Kingdom aid policy.

It is because we have all these stringent reservations that I have tried to explain about EC aid policy in principle and in operation, that we have tabled new clause 60. It requires the Government to report to the House annually on the implementation of the objectives of article 130u, including the campaign against world poverty, respect for human rights and compliance with the United Nations, having regard to the co-ordination and consultation required by article 130x.

Where more and more British aid is being fed through EC channels--I agree that it is something we deplore--this new clause is the minimum in terms of accountability that can be properly demanded, but it puts in place a check that is urgently needed.

I shall be asking my right hon. and hon Friends to support it in the Lobby tonight and I hope that it will carry support on all sides of the Committee.

Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) : Speaking on the 13th day of the debate, one feels a little like a schoolboy from the fifth form, who has burst in on a pillow fight in the sixth form, only to find that the real battle is outside on the playing field.

I oppose the amendment because I find it illogical to delete from the treaty the first chance that we have had of codifying overseas aid and development policy in statute. Far from handing powers to a federal union, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggested, we have an opportunity to influence the debate that perhaps we have never had before.

I believe that many of the world's problems are caused by over-population and by the population growing out of control. I shall describe the nature of the problem, why it matters and how the treaty can help. In 1930, the population of the globe was just 2 billion. By 1975, it had grown to 4 billion and by the year 2000 it is estimated that it will reach 6 billion, having passed 5 billion in the mid-1980s. The simple reason for this sudden spiralling of the population is that the death rate has declined as a result of the introduction of modern medicine. That has set up what is known as population momentum, which means that tomorrow's parents have been born and that the population of the world will continue to grow. The population of the continent of Africa is doubling every 23 years, and the result is a downward spiral in its economic growth. If a country's population grows by, say,

Column 1085

3 per cent. per annum, its economy must grow by 3 per cent. per annum just to stand still. If it fails to do so, the result, quite simply, is poverty.

Why should we be concerned about population growth? Why does it bother us, here in a country where the population is stable at about 50 million? The first reason is that the growing population, particularly in Africa and along the area south of the Sahara desert, is causing deforestation. Mobile tribes who cannot find wood for fuel cut down trees. Other countries are removing the rain forest as a result of the ever-increasing demand for the income that that produces.

The second reason why population growth has an impact on us is the global pollution that it is now causing. It is estimated that, by the year 2025, developing countries will emit about 44 per cent. of the world's CO output. The economic drive of China, which has just arrived in the top 10 exporting nations, is based on coal-fired energy. Its coal-fired power stations have none of the sophisticated desulphurisation equipment that ours have and are emitting neat CO into the atmosphere.

The third reason is that environmental decline is having an impact on global warming. No less an expert than Sir Crispin Tickell, backed by environmental experts such as Dr. David Bellamy, believes that by the year 2025 we shall witness a 1.5 deg. rise in temperature as a result of the erosion of the ozone layer and CO emissions. That will have an impact on patterns of disease and of climate. Cholera outbreaks in Peru might be explained by the 1 deg rise in the temperature off the coast of Peru, which has allowed the vaccilus to burst into light.

The fourth reason why we should be concerned about population growth is that it increases immigration tensions. It is estimated that there are 17 million political refugees and about 10 million environmental refugees in the world and that is probably an underestimate. The pressure will be felt in southern Europe. In 1945, about two thirds of the population around the Mediterranean shores was in southern Europe, but such has been the population growth in northern Africa that two thirds of the population in the Mediterranean now live on the northern African shore. They are all trying to get over into Europe, which will inevitably create tensions in southern Europe. We shall have to raise barriers as they seek to enter Europe.

Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe) : What barriers?

Mr. Ottaway : Exactly.

8.45 pm

The fifth reason is the erosion of renewable resources. It is estimated that in 1988 the annual fish catch exceeded sustainable yields and that the oceans can no longer provide the fish that the world requires. No fewer than 39 developing countries have insufficient water for their requirements. In his excellent book, "The Third Revolution", Paul Harrison said that there are three factors at work in the environment : population, or the number of people involved ; consumption, or the amount that those people consume ; and technology, which decides how much space and resources are used. They all interact.

The question is, what are we going to do about it? I believe that action on population is the most promising avenue. Stabilising the world's population will offer slower

Column 1086

growth and slower environmental impact. By slowing growth, we lower infant mortality and persuade mothers to have fewer children. We must impress on developing countries the economic benefits of lower population growth. In the 1980s, the incomes of the 50 per cent. of countries with slower population growth rose 2.5 per cent. per annum faster than the 50 per cent. of countries with faster population growth.

What is needed is action on a global scale. It is imperative that we increase funding for global family planning programmes, I am a great supporter of the programmes of the Overseas Development Administration. It has an unparalleled record of success in boosting population programmes, and the growth in population programmes in the past 14 years probably far exceeds that in other public expenditure programmes. It starts from a low base indeed, and we should be seeking to make a positive contribution to the World bank's family planning programme, which estimates that it will cost $10 billion a year to stabilise the world's population growth early in the next century. In global terms, $10 billion a year is a relatively insignificant sum. I argue that a better purpose could not be found for that expenditure.

That money should be given to the United Nations fund for population activities, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and non- governmental organisations that specialise in the subject. They want to get down to the brass tacks of providing sex education and contraception on demand to developing countries. There is an unmet demand for family planning services. It is estimated that 300 million people cannot get the contraception that they require. If all OECD countries spent 4 per cent. of their aid budgets on family planning policies, it would raise about $2 billion a year, which, coupled with the existing family planning budgets of developing countries, would make a total of $5 billion dollars a year-- halfway towards the target at which we are aiming.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : The Committee is well aware of my hon. Friend's commitment in this area and of his interest in aid and in limiting the world's population. I have been listening extremely carefully to his well-structured and well-prepared speech, but it seems to me that he has not paid any attention to the cultures of various countries that have population problems--problems as he sees them. I am thinking of religious problems and the traditions of countries. It is very easy to talk about making more contraceptives available and about providing more people to flog international parenthood ideas, but I must ask my hon. Friend whether he accepts that countries have different cultures and traditions and that his simple approach is not always the best one.

Mr. Ottaway : My hon. Friend recognises my commitment in this area, and I recognise his opposition. I would never for one moment advocate anything other than a voluntary programme. My hon. Friend is right to say that we have to recognise people's cultures. However, he should realise that almost every developing country now recognises the need for the introduction of family planning to stabilise population. I deliberately use the word "stabilise" rather than "limit". What my hon. Friend has said implies some mandatory, oppressive regime.

Next Section

Home Page