| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1107
10.15 pmMr. Watson : I am gratified by that vote of confidence, even though it has come from rather strange quarters. I will resume my comments in respect of the EC aid budget, which, as a result of the proposals at the Edinburgh summit, is scheduled to increase by some some 60 per cent. between now and 1999.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West was quite correct in pointing out--he was not trying to score cheap points, because he was talking accurately--that the United Kingdom Government are not prepared to fund their part of that increase other than within their existing aid budget. That means a substantial drop in aid, particularly in 1994 and 1995. It underscores to some extent the commitment-- [Interruption.]
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. I ask hon. Members to be a little quieter so that we can hear the hon. Member make his important speech.
Mr. Watson : Thank you, Mr. Morris. I was saying that to offset the United Kingdom's contribution to the EC aid budget there will be cuts in other areas. That was certainly not intended at the Edinburgh summit by the other EC member countries. It is selling short the many recipients of United Kingdom aid and also the agencies that are vital components in ensuring that that aid is delivered through the various programmes in underdeveloped countries.
In an earlier part of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said that, should the treaty be ratified, this could be the end of the United Kingdom aid policy and the start of an overall EC aid policy. I do not necessarily agree with that. I do not think that an EC aid policy is anything but a good thing, or that this is necessarily the end of a United Kingdom aid policy. Certainly, those of us who will continue to contribute to debates in the House on this very important matter will do our best to see that it is not.
It is only the United Kingdom, as I said, that is cutting its aid contribution ; the other EC countries are not and there is no call to do so. It is likely that the Government bowed to pressure from their own party, particularly from hon. Gentlemen present today, to minimise any increase in payments to the EC. We know, of course, that the Government are in some difficulty in carrying all their Members with them on this important matter. As a result, those countries which are dependent on United Kingdom aid are likely to lose out, particularly in 1994 and 1995.
We must also stress that following the opening up of eastern and central Europe 42 per cent. of United Kingdom aid is going to those areas, while aid for developing countries has been frozen. Those two events must be considered in similar terms, because they affect the way in which overall United Kingdom aid is disbursed and allocated. We must ask what message is sent to the poorest nations of the world when their aid from the United Kingdom is to be frozen for two years and then cut.
On the previous set of amendments we discussed, among other things, the cohesion fund and attempts by EC Member countries to help their own poorer members and redistribute some of the wealth within the EC so as to ensure that the richer nations to some extent came to the assistance of the poorer nations. That is an aim to which even our Government, however reluctantly, have subscribed. They may argue--indeed they have argued
Column 1108
--about the extent to which the Delors 2 package should be implemented and how much they should contribute to it, but it is fair to say that they accept the need for a cohesion fund and some redistribution of wealth.Why should the Government then be prepared to reduce, with the minimum fuss and publicity, the aid that we make available to the poorest countries in the underdeveloped world? Those countries are often struggling desperately to feed their people. I stress the word "poverty"--a word that emerges all too rarely in our aid debates. I should like the Government aid programme to be evaluated to show how much poverty had been alleviated as a result of the many millions of pounds spent. With the current methods of reporting on the Overseas Development Administration's programmes and policies it is not possible to establish definitively what effect aid has had on poverty. It is time that that was clearly spelt out. The ability to address the increasing problems of poverty must underscore all aid programmes.
I welcome article 130u of the treaty, which says that
"the sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries, and more particularly the most disadvantaged among them" shall be among the aims of the development co-operation under title XVII.
The means by which the EC gives aid specifically to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, which are excluded from the aid figures that I mentioned earlier, are assisted by the Lome convention agreements. Lome IV came into being in September 1991 and will last until 2000. That is the first of the 10-year Lome programmes ; the previous three lasted for only five years each. However, it is fortunate that there will be a mid-term review of Lo me IV, in view of ever-changing world events, especially in eastern and central Europe and in other parts of the world. It is important that there be a review to take account of changing priorities, not the least of which, as I said earlier, is the vast amount of money being sucked into eastern and central Europe. I welcome the fact that the 1983 figure for EC aid to eastern and central Europe has been frozen at 38 per cent. of total aid--the same as the 1992 figure. I do not minimise the problems that those nations face, but it is equally wrong to suggest that simply because those problems have emerged over the past three or four years we should give lower priority or less attention to the developing countries.
At the first meeting of the African, Caribbean and
Pacific--ACP--countries following the agreement on Lo me IV, several problem areas were identified. The ACP countries are worried by the way in which EC aid is likely to develop and how that will affect them.
I am aware of article 130w, paragraph 3, which says that nothing within the treaty or in the terms of that article will affect aid to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. But that has not allayed those countries' fears and they remain dubious. They clearly stated at meetings between the ACP countries and the EC Council of Ministers, especially in August 1992, that they were in a state of "suspended animation", as they tried to work out where they fell in the new scheme of things.
The drought and famine which threaten human tragedy on a scale never before seen on the African continent made the feeling of despair even more apparent in the tone of many of the African, Caribbean and Pacific contributions at that meeting. Other events also affect their judgments in
Column 1109
those matters, not least the protracted GATT negotiations. The ACP states believe that the current multilateral negotiations on GATT will, as they see it, erode their preferences in the Community market and the outcome of the Uruguay round will be unbalanced and to their disadvantage, particularly in agricultural and tropical products. Several hon. Members, in what has been a good debate and one in which there has been a large measure of agreement, have mentioned the negotiations in respect of bananas. At the meeting to which I referred there was a real fear that the Caribbean countries would lose out on that, but since then there has been an agreement which seems to offer them the protection that they sought, and it is to be welcomed. However, the ACP countries are now, despite Lo me, and as a result of the Maastricht treaty recommendations in respect of article 130, asking where they stand and what will be the next threat to the aid that they desperately need and have come to depend on over the years.So we must give some consideration to the Lome convention and its effect on those countries. As far as possible, I want a contribution from this country which will ensure sustainable development. Not nearly enough attention has been given to the need to develop sustainable trade patterns, allowing countries to attain a level of economic independence and to reduce what is in many cases a crippling debt burden which makes them net contributors to the financing countries and organisations such as the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. It is a problem that must be faced and overcome if there is to be meaningful development.
Another aspect is that when developing countries seek to export manufactured goods, rather than just raw commodities, they become subject to tariff and trade barriers, often within the European Community, which prevent them from gaining access to European markets. While the raw goods are welcomed, whether it be bananas, sugar, cocoa or whatever, manufactured goods or goods made from these raw commodities are not acceptable and are not given that sort of access. Again this seems to be at odds with what the treaty says. Article 130u talks of fostering
"the smooth and gradual integration of the developing countries into the world economy".
How can that happen when there are restrictions on finding markets for manufactured goods in Europe? It will take a sea change of opinion, not just in the European Community but in the IMF and the World bank as well, to bring about that sort of progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) outlined the problems in the World bank at present and the effect that its structural adjustment programmes have on the economies of developing countries, often forcing them to concentrate on one specific commodity. When the world price for the commodity slumps, the economy of the country is hit disastrously, and it often appears that the World bank has no back-up plan to assist a country in such a situation.
I do not want to add anything to what the hon. Member for Croydon, South said on population other than to say that, like him, I am a member of the all-party group on population and development and I know that there are crucial issues to be examined. Like others, I am sensitive to
Column 1110
aspects, particularly in relation to the Roman Catholic church, of the population programmes throughout the world, but they are problems that will not go away and they are integral to any meaningful way of dealing with countries which are saddled with debt and poverty and whose populations are increasing out of all control. A country cannot begin to build any kind of sustainable economy when it cannot even feed its people.There are fine words and good intentions in articles 130u to 130x and I would like to think that they will be carried forward effectively. The Government have not given the best indication that that is likely to be the case by refusing to commit their aid levels to increase at an equal pace with European Community aid levels in general, projected to 1999. I do not know whether the Minister intends to speak again in the debate, but if he gets the opportunity to intervene, I invite him to comment specifically on why our aid levels will be allowed to fall behind EC levels. That can only mean that the money will be coming from other sources. That does a disservice to the countries which we have an obligation to assist and which we have assisted for many years. It seriously underscores the good intentions of this part of the treaty.
10.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton : We have had a wide-ranging debate. I congratulate you, Mr. Morris, on allowing such a broad debate on these amendments, under title XVII, which relate to development co-operation and not specifically to overseas aid. I wish to make a brief contribution because I am interested in the subject which has a major impact not only upon this country in respect of some of our industries but upon many countries overseas with which we wish to trade, and with which historically we have had good and close co-operation and relationships.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made a well-informed speech. However, he appeared to believe that in future development co- operation and overseas aid in particular would be almost entirely a responsibility of the European Community. He is misguided in that. In direct remarks to the Minister he referred to article 130v which says :
"The Community shall take account of the objectives referred to in Article 130u".
The hon. Gentleman said that Europe had objectives. If we refer back to the previous article, we find, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his informed speech, that the Community "shall foster" a number of objectives. Having objectives and fostering objectives are two totally different things. It is important to highlight that point at this stage.
The information that the hon. Member for Itchen gave to the Committee was helpful. He showed an informed and almost objective outlook which was valuable, although I disagree with his ultimate conclusion, as no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister would accept. Earlier in the debate we had interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Official Ulster Unionist party, who pointed out that there was conflict between overseas co-operation, development co-operation and the tradition of the European Community. Although I am a believer in the single market, I do not wish to go down the
Column 1111
path to further integration which under Maastricht, currency convergence and a single currency would lead inevitably to a federal structure of one form or another.The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley rightly pointed out that historically the European Community looks inward, not outward. How will that bring down the tariff barrier which so many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have outlined as one of the problems that face the developing world in dealing with the Community? Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South has just left his place, but he and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley put their finger on the issue which should be at the heart of our debate on this group of amendments on development co-operation. I shall remind the Committee that all of us--or the overwhelming majority--want to see a satisfactory outcome to the GATT talks, the negotiation of the Uruguay round and the agreement of a new GATT treaty as soon as possible. That is important to all those countries--some of them have been specifically mentioned in the debate--which will be affected by this title and development co-operation within the European Community.
The country which practically put a kybosh on the possibility of a GATT treaty and agreement with the United States was one of the founding members of the Community. Of course, I refer to France. When it comes down to national interest, the country which stands out for its interests most vociferously, strongly and forcibly is France. I must pose this question, although it is not entirely relevant to the amendments which are being debated : why are the ailing and aging President of France, Mr. Mitterrand, and the French Government, who do not have much longer to go, taking such a strong line on this matter? They do so because they have a lot of farmers. In the coming election, farmers will play an important part in who is elected to govern France.
Mr. Cash : Does my hon. Friend know that the protocol on France relating to development co-operation is an interesting document? I think that the Minister nods because he knows what I am about to say. The protocol contains some extremely generous provisions which benefit France and are, by implication, at our expense. The CFA zone ensures that French industry has a steady supply of cheap raw materials, notably from west Africa, including uranium, iron ore, bauxite, phosphates and so on. In other words, we are taken for a massive ride as usual under the treaty.
Mr. Winterton : I can only say, Dame Janet, that my hon. Friend will undoubtedly seek to catch your eye to speak in the debate. I can add little to what he said except to say--as so many hon. Members do when there has been a relevant, important and helpful
intervention--that I entirely endorse what he said.
France is at the heart of the European movement and has combined its brigade with Germany to form a defence unit within the European Community. In a fundamental part of what we are debating tonight, we have a country which seeks merely to stand up for its interests and not honour the treaty and the spirit behind it.
I hope that there is an early settlement of the GATT round and that the GATT treaty can be negotiated. I only hope that France, which superficially professes to be so
Column 1112
European, will see the sense of agreeing to a treaty which brings benefit far beyond the European Community and which is of great importance to the developing countries of the world.I move on to another matter which formed the major part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). During an intervention in his speech, I said that I was aware that he had made a major contribution to the matter of the world's population and population control and that it was one of his major interests in the House. I am not sure what relevance his speech had, although it must have been relevant because the Chairman did not rule it out of order. It certainly related to overseas aid but I am not sure what it had to do with development co- operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South referred to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. I intervened to say that, while indeed we wanted to help the third world in many ways, my hon. Friend had not shown any understanding of the differing cultures and traditions of the countries on which he wished to place what I would understand to be a western form of population control. I hope that he appreciates that in many of the countries traditions and religious and cultural beliefs make some of what he said unacceptable. He qualified his remarks by saying that he would not seek to impose such systems on the countries. It is important that we should not upset or destroy the balance of traditions in such countries because, by doing so, we would make no positive contribution to peaceful progress and development in those countries.
Sir Russell Johnston : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winterton : I am tempted not to give way but I have great regard for the hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Democrat Bench. He and I have many common interests and I am happy to give way on a matter about which I know that he agrees more with my hon. Friend the Minister than with me.
Sir Russell Johnston : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and the graceful way in which he did so. Would he exclude persuasion in respect of the matter on which we disagree?
Mr. Winterton : The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go into a definition of the word "persuasion". Various regimes which have operated in the world have used the word "persuasion". That persuasion became rather evil, wicked and totalitarian. Perhaps he might say that the word that I would choose to use in its place--"education"--could also be so defined. But I should prefer to say that by example and education we could seek to lead countries which have population problems--which, sadly, lead to starvation and all the poverty that goes with it--to accept some of the customs and traditions to which we have grown accustomed in the western world.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : I understand the point that has been made. The hon. Gentleman referred to starvation. Is not the other side of the equation the concept of continued exploitation? When one links it with his comments about GATT, I am mindful of a person from one of those countries who told me, "We have no pension
Column 1113
scheme. Our children are our pension rights." Should not that aspect have a bearing on the role which the countries of the developed world should play?Mr. Winterton : I am tempted to--in fact, I can--call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend. We have known each other for many years and have a great many common interests. My hon. Friend raises important issues on which I find myself in agreement. We seek to raise the living standards of countries. We do not seek to change their customs and traditions.
The last point that I want to make in this brief speech is about agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) is often known as "Mr. Bananas" because of his interest in the West Indies and the islands which are the major suppliers of bananas to Europe and the United Kingdom. Other hon. Members have spoken about other aspects of agriculture. [Interruption.] Is my hon. Friend the Minister seeking to intervene?
10.45 pm
Mr. Winterton : I thought that I had the Minister's interest, and if I had provoked him to intervene I would have been delighted to give way.
Agriculture has featured markedly and forcibly in the debate, but no contributor has mentioned the fact that so often when western countries-- sadly, including the United Kingdom--have given aid, they have sought to move people from the countryside into towns or cities. In so doing, they create more problems than those which the aid, infrastructure and education sought to solve.
Through aid we should help countries to help themselves. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in his fairly positive response to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who moved the amendment, the United Kingdom has a pretty good record on overseas aid, although we have not reached the United Nations' target figure. In other ways, particularly through private investment, this country has set a very good example.
Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : The European Community, in its reform of the common agricultural policy, has adopted a policy that will lead people away from the land in European countries. If the EC thinks that that is the right treatment for its own people, does the hon. Gentleman not think that it will try to force that policy on those countries over which it wants to exercise influence?
Mr. Winterton : The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Perhaps that is the very argument that I am seeking to build into my case. I believe that it is wrong that overseas aid and development co-operation should seek in any way to disturb the natural situation in many countries because in doing so it creates more problems than it solves. It is wrong to move people from the countryside where there is stability and work, although, sadly, that is not true in countries such as Somalia, where there is civil war and poverty and everything else that goes with it, and
Column 1114
starvation resulting from drought. We all know of the great problems that have beset the Horn of Africa in recent years. United Kingdom aid has in the main been excellent. I am worried that by adding an additional competence to the European Community and writing it into the treaty--which is an extension of the treaty of Rome and the Single Act--so that overseas development co-operation and aid become a genuine part of the Community's competence we may well reduce our ability to do what we believe to be right and what in the main has been right.Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I sense that my hon. Friend is about to conclude his remarks. He expressed an interest in new clauses 60 and 66 and I would like him to give them further consideration. He drew attention to them with approval, but said that it is not desirable to incorporate new aid matters into the treaty. I suggest to him that it is not desirable to incorporate into the procedures of this House, by legislation, a procedure that is normally determined by the House. That is what new clause 60 would do. It would determine a procedure of the House by legislation, which is a strange thing to do, as I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree, not least because it would give the House of Lords an opportunity to determine our procedure by its scrutiny of the legislation that we send there.
Does he not agree that the amendment is unnecessary because we have terrific opportunities to review Government aid policy? We have monthly statements of Community business, the Scrutiny Committees, regular debates on development activities and reports to the House of the six-monthly Community Development Ministers meetings. Would he like to comment on all of those?
Mr. Winterton : I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend because he has anticipated my final point. In an intervention in an earlier speech, I expressed the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister would refer to new clauses 60 and 66, with which I expressed some sympathy. I must tell my hon. Friend that I did so purely on the basis that I believe that the Government will seek to force the treaty through the House and that it will be ratified. I was hoping to build into the Bill a safeguard whereby the House, which is being deprived of many of its rights, functions and authorities, would still have something to do, because new clause 60 states :
"Her Majesty's Government shall report to the House of Commons annually on the implementation of the objectives of article 130u". At least that would give the House an opportunity to debate that report.
If the Bill does not become an Act and we do not ratify, I shall not in any way be interested in new clauses 60 and 66. It was interesting to note that, when my hon. Friend the Minister responded to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, he said that he assumed that this was a probing amendment. I understood from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he intended to urge his hon. Friends and those Conservative Members who might sympathise with him to vote for at least one of the amendments in the group and, I presume, given that he made specific reference to it, new clause 60. No doubt the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, will make the Opposition's position clear before the end of the debate.
Column 1115
I believe that the amendments are more important than the attendance in the Committee might suggest. We have heard a number of well-informed and constructive contributions to the debate. I hope that the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister about continuing to have and to follow our own overseas aid programme represents Government policy. I accept that should we act in co-operation with other European countries, the effect of overseas aid can no doubt be more constructive and positive.Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has made his known speech opposing federalism in Europe, and, considering the lateness of the hour, I shall spare the Committee my known speech stating the opposite view. The hon. Gentleman referred to the supposed Europeanism of the French. I do not think that that was terribly helpful. I shall also refrain from commenting on that.
I do not claim the knowledge of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), whose connection with development co-operation is long established, or of others who have spoken. I shall be brief. We should remember that, after all, we are talking about a probing amendment--with all respect to the hon. Member for Macclesfield. Perhaps the Opposition will place some emphasis on new clause 60, but it is not all that exciting. It states that the 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." I do not regard that proposal as very exciting. In fact, it seems perfectly reasonable that the House should have an opportunity to examine such matters from time to time. I do not know why anyone should get particularly excited about it.
Sir Teddy Taylor : Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful for the Committee to have the discipline once a year of examining the EC's action in respect of co-operation and aid? As the hon. Gentleman knows, a horrible amount of money--more than £1,000 million this year--is spent on dumping high-tar tobacco in the third world, and a vast sum on dumping a large amount of food on the world market at a very low price, thereby impoverishing third world countries. Would it not be useful to examine all the consequences of such policies annually?
Sir Russell Johnston : I suggest to the hon. Gentleman--with whom I have crossed swords so often--that the likelihood of the House of Commons not dealing with Community issues more than once a year is not all that credible. It deals with the EC almost weekly, and will continue to do so. If the hon. Gentleman is pressing for annual debates about particular issues, I would certainly not be opposed to that.
This is essentially an aspirational and declaratory section of the treaty. It is not about policy but about four basic provisions. The first is that the Council, acting in accordance with article 189c, will devise development and aid measures.
The second is that development co-operation objectives should be reached in the light of other Community
Column 1116
measures--which touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Although I have often defended the CAP's genesis, I would not contradict the hon. Gentleman and others when they argue that it ultimately had non-beneficial consequences for Britain and developing countries. Nevertheless, the second principle acknowledges that account must be taken of that aspect, and is embodied in the approach to decisions.The third provision is the co-ordination of policy between the Community and member states, including international organisations, and the fourth is co-operation, within their respective spheres of competence, between the Community and member states on the one hand and other countries and relevant international organisations on the other.
I do not entirely agree with the Minister's assertion that those objectives reflect British influence. They may do in part, but, with respect, I grow terribly weary of successive Ministers--not only the Under-Secretary of State--saying that everything good that ever happens is due to the influence of Her Majesty's Government. Our record of development co- operation is not all that hot, and we cannot claim that principles enunciated in the treaty are due to our record, influence or pressure. Let us face it : the criticism of European Community policy in this area--such as exists--is not so very different from criticism of the Government's policy. As has already been observed, we have not only failed to achieve the United Nations target but appear to have failed even to try to achieve it. I know that there are good arguments for saying that the quality of our aid is good, and that our organisation is good--in some cases, better than that of others. I do not dispute that. I think that, not only directly through the Overseas Development Adminstration but through the non- governmental organisations, we do a lot of good work. Quantitively, however, we do not do as well as other countries which, in theory, have less capacity to perform. I think we should be a bit more humble, and not constantly say how wonderful we are.
11 pm
A positive aspect of the treaty is its reaffirmation that the Community, as an institution, has an interest in playing--and a desire to play--a major role in development co-operation throughout the developing world. I think that, in fairness, the Community has played its part in that over the past 30 years. Improvements have been made in, for instance, life expectancy, the rate of infant mortality, literacy and access to drinking water : all those simple, basic things have improved to some extent, and I think that the Community can claim some credit for that. The most notable feature is the Lome agreement, to which the Community, acting collectively, made an important contribution.
Progress is not as good as I would like ; it is not as good as many other hon. Members would like. It has, however, been positive, and, although it is often criticised, I think that the Community's partnership with the developing world has played, and is still playing, an important part. That is not confined to the African, Caribbean and Pacific states ; it extends to ACP Latin American and Asia. Let us look at the statistics. EC aid to ACP states between 1990 and 1995 represents 11 billion ecus ; EC aid to eastern Europe since 1990 represents 450 million ecus ; EC aid to Latin America and Asia in 1991 amounted to 1.9 billion
Column 1117
ecus. It should be recognised that the Community is making an effective and constructive contribution to a very difficult area of need.I agree very much with the hon. Members who have said that access to the industrialised countries' markets is an essential prerequisite for the development of the underdeveloped countries. That is fundamental, and it is particularly true within the narrower confine of Europe, given the position of the newly democratised countries. It is all very well to be nice to the Visigrad countries, for example, but unless they are allowed to sell what they produce, all this is nothing but words--and not very effective words.
I also think that the Community needs to ensure more coherence between its approach to development and its approach to other Community policies, such as the CAP--as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Southend, East. I do not dispute that ; it is a serious problem. The Community's development policy is, ultimately, a fundamentally co-operative venture, in which the Community's role must be to help the people of the developing countries to find and develop their own aspirations. In that, considerable effort is being made and considerable expertise is being shown. I hope that this country will continue to play a constructive role in a very difficult endeavour, but that is something that the European Community must continue to contribute to.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to. Question That the amendment be made, put accordingly and negatived.
Mr. Spearing : On a point of order, Dame Janet. We may be moving towards reporting progress. If that is moved, can you confirm that it is a debatable motion? Secondly, you will have observed that there are two new clauses on the amendment paper selected by the Chair. They are new clause 60, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred, and new clause 66, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and some of his hon. Friends. I think that sufficient indication has been given that if I were able to catch your eye, I would wish to speak to that. Reference to that new clause has been made, principally, by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and by the Under-Secretary of State.
I have not been afforded the opportunity to speak to that new clause, for it may, of course, if the case is good enough, be put to the vote later in the debate. But you, Dame Janet, have accepted the closure motion and that has meant that it has not been possible to speak.
I seek your advice as to the extent to which this matter can be addressed when and if progress is reported.
The Second Deputy Chairman : I can confirm that the motion about reporting progress is debatable.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.-- [Mr. Lightbown.]
Mr. Spearing : The behaviour of the Government on this parliamentary matter is despicable and undemocratic.
We have had a number of controversies about closures. I do not question your judgment, Dame Janet, but I
Column 1118
question the good faith of the Under- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He knows full well that the debate that we have just partly concluded is not about overseas aid. Many hon. Members believe that we have been talking about overseas aid : we have not. That is not included in the treaty or any of the amendments.The Minister knows that there is a united proposal for a single foreign policy, of which overseas development and aid is a part. I want to ask the Minister-- [Interruption.]
The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. There is too much noise ; the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his say.
Mr. Spearing : I am grateful, Dame Janet.
The Government have misled the Committee, or, putting it more charitably, have suppressed information that they know the Committee should have received.
I have a 64-page document from the Community,No. 6718/92, which was published in September 1992 entitled-- [Interruption] This is going on the record, so hon. Members may talk if they like.
The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I remind the Committee again that we should have a reasonable amount of silence.
Mr. Spearing : I am grateful, Dame Janet.
Document No. 6718/92 is a communication from the Commission to the Council and Parliament on the subject of
"Development Co-operation Policy in the Run-up to 2000 ... The consequences of the Maastricht Treaty."
It is a public document and it was published by the Commission in September 1992. It has been deposited in the Vote Office. It was the subject of a memorandum from Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, which she deposited in September 1992. The document makes it amply clear that a working party is discussing proposals to implement the treaty. It was meeting on 18 November last year with a view to forming a resolution. I put it to the Committee, particularly the Foreign Office Minister who spoke on overseas development today--
| Next Section
| Home Page |