| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1087
Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), when he was describing the hon. Gentleman's remarks, talked about a simple approach. That is a view which is not held by many hon. Members, who genuinely accept the reality of the problem and support the voluntary approach that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
Mr. Ottaway : I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comment. I believe that his view is shared by the overwhelming majority of hon. Members.
Two problems are experienced in the introduction of these programmes. There is some short-termism in the overseas aid provided under development programmes. It is very easy just to provide more tractors and food, but a long-term approach involves considering how many people want to use these facilities. That is a subject that most governments are unwilling to address. It is a politically sensitive issue in respect of which they are usually unwilling to bite the bullet.
Historically, the opposition to these programmes has come from two sources. First, over the past 12 years--the Reagan-Bush era--there has been opposition from the United States Government. Regrettably, in the United States there has been some confusion between the abortion issue and the population issue. The United States Administration, under Presidents Reagan and Bush, took the view that money provided for family planning programmes could go to abortion programmes, to which they were ideologically opposed. Thus, regrettably, they withheld funds from the United Nations and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. It is to the credit of the British Government that this country leaped to the aid of the IPPF in the mid-1980s and provided it with a home after the United States withdrew its funding.
However, I congratulate President Clinton on his victory. If I were a United States citizen, I should not have voted for him, but I wish him well in the next four years. In any case, he is reversing that policy. On this front, opposition from the United States Administration has probably fallen away, and that gives us much hope for the United Nations conference on population which is to take place in Cairo in 1994. I hope that on that occasion there will be a more positive response from the United States than was evident at the earth summit in Rio.
The second type of opposition is that from the Roman Catholic Church. It is the type of opposition to which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield referred. I do not criticise the Roman Catholic Church for this stand. It is a fact of life ; it is what the church believes. I believe that opposition to artificial methods of family planning exists only at the top of the church. The vast majority of Roman Catholics would probably support the use of artificial methods of family planning. The Church supports natural rhythm methods ; it is only techniques and methods about which we are talking.
How does all this relate to the treaty? [Laughter.] I hope, in the last minute, to demonstrate that the treaty probably has more impact in this area than in any other area being discussed in this debate.
At the Council of Ministers, support for European population programmes has been blocked primarily by the Roman Catholic countries of France, Italy and Spain. That is why the European Community has a poor track record on population policies. Whatever one may think about qualified majority voting, that block is now going to
Column 1088
disappear. We shall now be able to have co- ordinated EC programmes on family planning. The initiative on this issue is most likely to come from Europe, so I believe that, by rejecting this amendment, we shall be taking a lead on a fundamental issue.Mr. Randall : My contribution will be very short. I should like to refer the Committee to the aims of development co-operation, which are set out in paragraph 1 of article 130u. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred primarily to article 130x, which deals with co- ordination of EC policies on development co-operation and how consultation should take place. To my mind, the objectives set out in article 130u are very commendable. The article says :
"Community policy in the sphere of development co-operation, which shall be complementary to the policies pursued by the Member States, shall foster :
-- sustainable economic and social development , and more particularly for the most disadvantaged ;
--the smooth and gradual integration of the developing countries into the world economy ;
--the campaign against poverty in the developing countries." These are extraordinarily laudable objectives.
As the EC becomes more unified as an institution, its role in the world context must become more focused. We have seen the cuts in aid programmes through the United Nations. The United Nations does terrific work. Many people tend to think of that organisation as only sorting out war situations, but its role in the health, hygiene and other development work in the world is remarkable. I regret very much that over the past 10 years the Conservative Government's contribution, as a proportion of GNP, to the United Nations has been deplorably bad.
Now that the European Community is probably the biggest and most sophisticated trading bloc in the world, and is certainly extraordinarily healthy, its contribution must be co-ordinated and effective. I should like the European Community--or the European union--to stand out as a beacon in the world. It should stand out as a rich bloc unquestionably, but also as a magnanimous unit which aims to improve the lot of the poorer countries.
Mr. Spearing rose--
Mrs. Currie rose--
Mr. Randall : I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
Mr. Spearing : As my hon. Friend knows, I agree in principle with much of what he is saying, but will he amend his earlier description of the admirable objectives as the objectives of the Community? Article 130u states only that the member states shall "foster" these objectives, and article 130v states that they shall be taken account of. As he knows from other spheres, there is a great difference between that and making them the objectives on which policy is predicated.
Mr. Randall : Not having taken part in the construction of the Maastricht treaty, I believe that the wording and intensity of the sentences is appropriate, bearing in mind that we are talking about complementary action among member states. There will be co-operation, so I am not perhaps as worried about the weakness of the wording as my hon. Friend who exercises his terrific brain on these matters.
Column 1089
9 pmMrs. Currie : I want to take up a point made earlier by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). He said that the European Community, being a rich area, should be making a contribution to the rest of the world. I am sure that many of my colleagues would agree with that. But if the hon. Gentleman has any influence with the new President of the United States, might it not be wise to say the same to the Americans and to tell them to pay their contributions to the United Nations?
Mr. Randall : The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. In the next few months, many of us in the House of Commons and in the country will be watching to see how the new President performs because we are worried about isolationism and we know that the American economy is in a dreadful state--
The Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently experienced not to be tempted to follow that train of thought. I regret having to bring him to order, but will he return to the amendment?
Mr. Randall : I shall refrain from describing the backcloth to European policy, which I believe is necessary to put the issue in context. I shall not describe how President Clinton might perform. Expectations of the European Community are unquestionably very high because of its growing richness and wealth. As we said earlier, the Community will attempt to raise the standards of its poorer countries, but the key is to do all that we can in the world at large. The question of aid and development must rest on the economic development of the poorer countries. My wife and I have worked with Oxfam for many years. It is clear from a number of cases in which we have been involved that the development of water and sewerage systems to ensure good health as a first step is a prerequisite to economic development. Such systems are often preceded by aid programmes. Article 130u states that member states shall deal first with the "most disadvantaged" countries. I welcome that priority.
Somalia is a very good example because it reveals the terrific difficulties in attempting to tackle such problems. A war there has prevented agencies from carrying out their work, but the ending of the cold war is important to world aid. One of the main problems for aid and development was the sale of arms, which has held up the economic development of many countries. In Somalia, it prevented the agencies from even getting to various parts of the country. It is commendable that we can now divert money from arms into the economic development of such countries. It also provides a greater justification for using Community money when we know that it will not be frittered away on arms.
Finally, I want to say a word about trade. I believe that trade with poorer countries is vital. The future of Europe can and must be a very exciting one, but we must ensure that there is an opportunity for trade to take place. As I said earlier, article 130u talks about the smooth and gradual integration of developing countries into the world economy. For that to happen, trade must be allowed to take place. It is the easiest thing in the world to stifle that
Column 1090
trade by introducing very high tariffs. I hope that we will ensure that we are fair to those countries and will allow trade to take place.Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : I am most grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, particularly as he has intimated that he is coming to the end of his admirable speech, with which I believe many of us agree. Is there not a bit of a contradiction, however, in suggesting that the European Community should do all it can to assist developing countries and to assist in freeing trade with developing countries, while at the same time hedging the European Community round with a wall of tariffs and restrictions?
Mr. Randall : That is the very point that I was making. It seems to me that, if we were to introduce a barrier of tariffs--this is the point that was made about the United States, where one sees that happening--the effect on poorer countries could be very serious indeed.
The Maastricht treaty is not a policy document. In my view, it is a framework for decision making. I hope very much that when it comes to developing policies they will fit in the the objectives here. I will personally be very happy with that and I hope that it will lead to the alleviation of poverty and a better world in which there is an opportunity for development and greater prosperity in those countries. The Community could serve as a beacon, and I welcome the whole thing in principle.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd) : I am very pleased to intervene at this stage.
There was a moment in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in moving the amendment, and indeed in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), when I thought for one glorious moment that Maastricht was all over, the debates were finished and we had nothing more to conclude in the Committee stage of the Bill ; that we were back to the old debates on aid policy and the arguments which the hon. Member for Oldham, West has advanced before on the levels of aid and all those matters that I debated with his predecessor on many occasions. Sadly, I have never debated with him in a discussion which the Opposition might have launched.
We were saved from that situation by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), but even he, I am afraid, drifted into general aid policy, although I agree with much of what he said about the provisions that we are discussing tonight.
I recognise that this is a probing amendment and, for that reason, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West for giving us the opportunity to debate this area of the treaty--the five articles in title XVII on development co-operation.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was the first to put his finger on one important feature of the hon. Member for Oldham, West's speech.
It would be quite wrong to have built into any treaty or into our legislation the policies that anybody on which Britain had influence was to administer. It would be a constraint on future action, apart from anything else, because no doubt it would require amendment to change policies, and it would lead to great inflexibility. I heartily agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that that would be quite wrong.
Column 1091
That brings me to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West said about emergency action. Of course emergency action is high on the United Kingdom's agenda in its relationship with the EC, and high on our own agenda of aid policy. It was debated at the Development Council under the United Kingdom presidency, and it will be debated again at the next Development Council. There will be a meeting of senior officials of European Community member states next week to discuss the subject. It is of course covered implicitly by title XVII, but there is no need for the explicit reference that the hon. Gentleman seemed to want. That would be wrong. I saw the hon. Gentleman nodding earlier when I said that it was wrong to specify aid policy within the treaty or within the legislation, but that was the inference that one must draw from what he said.Mr. Meacher : I did not say that the treaty should include the detail of aid policy. If we are talking about the co-ordination of aid policy with the EC, it is important to be clear what we are co-ordinating. I was commenting on the nature of those policies ; I did not propose that they should all be in the treaty.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I shall say more about co-ordination in due course.
I judge that the hon. Gentleman's speech was enormously coloured by hostility to the whole idea of a European Community development policy, and to the idea of the incorporation by implication of those articles into the Maastricht treaty and into our legislation. Mr. Meacher indicated dissent.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he was enormously sympathetic to his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) made that point most forcefully.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West was sympathetic to the criticisms expressed, and those who listened to his speech with care will draw the inference that he showed hostility to the European Community. It was a perfectly honourable hostility--a disagreement with the success of the policies that we have been implementing in the EC over many years. The hon. Gentleman denies it, but many hon. Members had that impression. We all felt it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South accurately drew attention to it.
Before dealing with other aspects of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I shall say something about the five articles under consideration ; I think that the Committee would like an explanation. The first important point is that, in the five articles, development policy is specifically included in the scope of the treaty of Rome for the first time. I see the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) nodding, and I suspect that that is a rather ominous nod. I want to dispel the ominous nature of that nod. Development policy is specifically included, but the hon. Member for Newham, South should note that the text reflects a long-established practice.
We are incorporating into the treaty, and legislating for, long-established practice. For the first time we are setting out the objectives of the Community's development policy as it has been arrived at over the years. Those objectives include the promotion of sustainable development, poverty alleviation, especially for the poorest countries, the underlying principles of democracy--
Column 1092
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : May I finish? I shall give way in a minute. As I was saying, those objectives include the underlying principles of democracy, human rights and good government in development co-operation.
Before I give way to my hon. Friend, I want to emphasise the fact that will strike any observer of British development policy as I read that list out. The list is remarkable in that most of the objectives have been part of British development policy over the years ; they reflect our British development policies, and as such they demonstrate part of the British achievement in the EC in influencing policy in the direction in which Britain wishes it to move.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will my hon. Friend accept, from someone who served on the development committee of the European Parliament and was present at Lome I, that these are the sort of things that we want to have codified? It is much better for it to be properly set out rather than haphazard, as it has too often been.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with her.
Mr. Spearing : The hon. Gentleman referred to what I think he called an ominous nod. May I take him up on that? As a former member of the Select Committee on Overseas Development, when it existed, and the Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs, I would concur with what he said about the description of the British aid policy in what he termed the objectives in this treaty. But does he not recall my exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall)? Alas, these are not objectives ; they are matters which are to be "taken into account." Although I agree with him that they may have been done in co-operation at European Community level until now, putting them into the terms of the treaty means that there are some obligations rather than free co-operation, as has been the practice up to now.
9.15 pm
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I will say something more about co-operation in due course, but what the hon. Member must recall is that the actions of the Community heretofore in development policy have been based on article 235 of the treaty of Rome, the catch-all article which I am sure he has criticised on many occasions because it catches all : if there is no power to do what one wants, one uses article 235 to do it. This is a specific set of requirements and objectives.
Mr. Spearing : They are not objectives.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : Whatever word the hon. Member likes to use, they set certain guidelines, and it is not a catch-all power.
Mr. Randall : Has the Minister noted, in article 130w, the words "shall adopt the measures necessary to further the objectives referred to in Article 130u"?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : Yes, that is absolutely right, and the word "objectives" is therefore appropriate. I am grateful to the hon. Member.
Column 1093
Community policy is complementary to that of member states. That comes in the first sentence of the first article that we are discussing. Hon. Members who were present in the Standing Committee on European Legislation, where we debated these matters in December, will recall that we had a rather extensive debate. Member states retain their right to determine their own development policies in conjunction with the provisions on complementarity.Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie) : It is a question of words and what they mean. On the one hand, the Minister is talking about the policies of the European Community being complementary to the policies of member states, yet there it is in the treaty in article 130x :
"The Community and the Member States shall co-ordinate their policies on development co-operation".
How is it possible to do the two things?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : The hon. Member made that point in Committee. I was amazed that he made it then. I find nothing difficult in it and it does not seem confusing to my mind. It seems logical that, if the United Kingdom has policies and the Community has policies, there should be consultation, mutual discussion and co-ordination to ensure that there is no wasted or duplicated effort. That seems to me an intelligent basis for going about this matter. I do not understand the hon. Member's doubt. It confused me in December, and it confuses me now.
There are two themes of co-ordination and consultation between the Community and member states which are vital if we are to gain the maximum benefit from national and Community development activities. At the same time, the treaty makes it clear that member states have the freedom to act internationally in any way they want ; their freedom to act internationally is unaffected by these articles. Article 130y states explicitly that the Community and member states should co-operate with third countries and international organisations, without prejudice to member states' competence to negotiate in international bodies and conclude international agreements. Where it is in the United Kingdom's best interests, we will work with our partners to take action together in order to strengthen our influence internationally.
In the Foreign Office, I see this constantly as a matter of joint European Community demarche and joint agreement. That means that, where we consider it necessary to take action in support of good government--an area with which I and other Ministers in the Foreign Office have been involved--we do so in a manner which maximises pressure, for example, on the protection of human rights or investment in sustainable development policy. But if it is not in the United Kingdom's best interests to do so, we will not take joint action.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton : My hon. Friend is making a constructive speech and is seeking to deal with the questions. In making the Government's contribution to this important debate, will he say whether, in order to achieve what he is setting out to do, he will be willing to accept Opposition new clause 60 or new clause 66, which would ensure that the Foreign Office and the Government report back to the House on precisely what is being done within Europe in the area we are debating?
Column 1094
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : My hon. Friend is anticipating a later passage in my speech. I shall refer to that, but I should like to make progress on another matter first.
Article 130v is most important and is relevant to some of the contributions which have been made. Under that article, the Community can take account of development policy objectives when it establishes policies in other areas which are likely to affect developing countries. Obviously, there would be little point in agreeing the objectives underlying the Community's development policy if at the same time those principles were ignored when determining action in other areas which would affect the very country that we are seeking to help. To take a recent and important example, about which I shall say more later, it would be ridiculous to seek to harmonise internal Community arrangements on bananas without considering the impact on third world exporters.
From the beginning, the Community has maintained wide-ranging and comprehensive development activities. It is only now that those activities are being placed upon a specific basis, establishing the objectives which should guide policy. Past and present Governments have worked hard to ensure that those objectives fully reflect our development co-operation priorities.
I shall turn to some of the specific points which have been made.
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : My hon. Friend will not be able to reply to a question which I have not been able to put to him because I have not been called in the debate. Does he recognise that the protocols in the treaty on France and Portugal show that those two countries are insisting on monetary and financial arrangements which will tie the overseas territories and ex-colonies more tightly to the metropole?
Do the Government know that, for example, Madeira has a rapidly growing offshore banking business which is subsidised by both Lisbon and Brussels? Do they know how the CFA zone works to ensure that French industry has a steady supply of cheap raw materials, notably from west Africa--uranium, iron ore, bauxite, phosphates and so on? Can he tell us his understanding of what it means?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I am afraid that I cannot go into all that this evening because it is not relevant to the five articles. The areas in which the territoire outre-mer of France and other overseas territories gained development aid are areas
Mr. Meacher : The pronunciation was middle English.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : It most certainly was not, but I assumed that the hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke fluent French. I took it for granted that he would not come to the subject if he did not speak fluent French after an expensive, middle-class, public school education. Let us come back to the debate.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. During my brief career in Parliament I have been called to order twice : once for speaking in Welsh, and once for speaking in middle English. I was reminded that the only language allowed in the Chamber, quite wrongly, is English ; but that is the rule under which we operate.
Column 1095
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. There are occasions when Norman French is entirely appropriate. I imagine that that is what the Minister was quoting.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I should have said "territories outer mer" or something like that. That would have been better.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West was kind enough to concede that the United Kingdom aid programme had a high reputation--I heartily agree with that--in terms of substance, if not in terms of volume. The OECD drew attention to that. The hon. Gentleman should give credit because the OECD gave EC aid a good report. The hon. Gentleman should listen to this, because he criticised strongly the European Community's aid programme. The OECD development committee gave EC aid a good report and accepted that it was focused on the poorest countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.
It is true that the OECD made some criticisms. We keep a close watch because the European Community is spending our money. European Community spending has improved recently and the Development Council keeps a close watch.
The matter of trade is an area on which Conservative Members would give a most hearty endorsement of the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. It may surprise Conservative Members that they would be in the position to do that. We accept entirely the enormous importance of trade. A new GATT deal will be worth about US$90 billion per year to the developing countries. That estimate has been made by, I think, the OECD or perhaps by those responsible for GATT negotiations, but a large figure has certainly been given to me. The Lome convention is not simply an aid convention. It is important to remember that it is also a trade convention. It provides for considerable access to European Community markets for goods from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, especially agricultural exports. As I said earlier, the banana protocol has shown its worth for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in negotiations on the single market for bananas.
Mr. Meacher : Opposition Members certainly accept that, overall, GATT is to the advantage of developing countries, although its effect is patchy. Does the Minister accept that, if GATT were implemented, the lowering of tariffs under the current Uruguay round would reduce the relative value of the concessions under the Lome convention? Will he give the House a commitment that he will argue for a restoration of the relative advantage of lower tariffs under the Lome convention?
9.30 pm
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I should like to think about that point, so I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. I shall not try to answer it on the hoof this evening. It does not have much to do with the five articles, in any case.
The allegation has been made that food aid is used to shift CAP mountains. That is a serious allegation. Britain has paid close attention to European Community food aid. The food aid regulation under the 1986 United Kingdom presidency changed the aid from supply-led food aid--in other words, based on shifting food mountains--to demand-led food aid--in other words, related to the needs of recipient countries. EC food aid is definitely not dictated by the CAP now.
Column 1096
We are working hard to ensure that food aid is increasingly directed at emergencies and less at the long term. That is right, because, if one is not careful, one causes harm to local economies. However, an important point to bear in mind about EC food mountains is that the products are rarely appropriate types of food. For example, milk products are not suited to local diets. We must take great care not to undermine local production.Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will my hon. Friend give way on the point about milk?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Not only is milk not suitable for the local diet, but it can be absolutely dangerous. Mothers, thinking that they are doing their children a favour, often make up the milk--if they can get hold of it--twice as strong as it should be, and use unboiled water.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd : My hon. Friend is right. It is often incorrectly used by mothers who do not know how to take advantage of it. Evaluation of EC aid is important, especially in the context of the outrageous attack on the EC aid programme made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I agree about the importance of evaluation. There are regular meetings between the Commission and evaluation experts from the member states. The Lome convention and the Asia/Latin American regulation provide for evaluation and environmental impact assessments.
I shall make one more remark about the five articles and then refer to the volumes of aid. The importance of linking EC aid policy with other policies is enshrined in the articles. It is enormously important. I agree with the points that have been raised. Article 130v provides precisely for such a link. It says that the Community shall take account of development policy objectives
"in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries."
The conclusions on development policy which were agreed under the 1986 United Kingdom presidency provide for the Commission to report to member states this year on what it is doing about development policy in considering its policies on trade and agriculture. The hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned the enormous importance of trade. I have mentioned the enormous importance of trade in Lome as well as aid. Article 130v will enable those two matters to be closely tied together.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West made some rough and totally unwarranted allegations at the start of his speech. It is important for the Committee to realise that his party's policy to increase British aid to 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product within five years would result in a further £2.4 billion of public expenditure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises the implications of subscribing to such a policy, the great difficulties that would arise if we were to increase aid to such a significant level during the next five years, and the enormous burden it would place on the economy. The hon. Member for Oldham, West asked me to say what areas of British domestic policy we would seek to cut to meet the increased aid that we should be paying to the European Community. First, we do not know what our aid levels will be after the current expenditure triennium, so we cannot possibly answer that question. We do not have a crystal ball. We know what the increase for the
Column 1097
European Community's external budget will be, but it remains to be seen what the United Kindom programme total will be.If the hon. Member for Oldham, West is going to question me, I must retort with similar questions : what areas of public expenditure would he cut to implement his policy, or would he add that expenditure to the public sector borrowing requirement or taxation? We have agreed to meet that objective when we can and have substantially increased our aid programme. In 1991-92, it was 3 per cent. more in real terms than a year earlier. Britain's external assistance programme, covering aid to developing countries, assistance to the countries of eastern Europe and former Soviet Union and global environmental assistance, will rise by 10 per cent. in cash terms during the survey period, 1993-94 to 1995-96, and 1 per cent. in real terms. We are facing a period of great national difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman must concede, with the current levels of public borrowing. The aid budget emerged remarkably well from the last public expenditure negotiations.
The high quality of our aid must also be considered. In 1991, we had the sixth largest aid programme. Britain leads the way in debt relief, with the institution of the Trinidad terms, and earlier the Toronto terms. We launched the Trinidad terms in 1990, and 14 countries--11 in Africa--have benefited so far. We have relieved developing countries of more than £1 million of aid debt burden and recently announced our agreement to write off £56 million of Zambia's aid debt, provided that its reform programme stays on track. In addition, the United Kingdom has one of the largest direct private investment standards in developing countries. It is consistently about half the European Community's total. According to our estimate for 1991, there was direct private investment of £3,000 million.
This debate is not about aid, but it has been coloured by aid considerations, and the United Kingdom and the Government have an enormously creditable record. I hope that the five articles will be incorporated into the legislation. I am glad that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has said that he will withdraw his amendment, because it would be totally inappropriate to force it to a Division.
Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) : The need for co-ordination in the EC's development policy is an inescapable consequence of the single European market. Now that we have that market, there is no practical purpose in trying to maintain the basis of European co-operation at a bilateral and unco-ordinated level.
I should like to consider article 130v, because the critical test of the treaty, in practice, is the extent to which the development and aid policies, and their objectives, are reflected in the other policies pursued by the EC. In truth, little can be achieved ultimately by the best possible aid policy if other policies pursued by the EC, as an economic unit, do not reflect the imperative needs of the developing world. That issue raises the biggest question about our policies.
A number of hon. Members have already referred to the impact of the EC on the third world. It is an enormous trading block within the world economy and an enormous economic unit, and those are its most important features
| Next Section
| Home Page |