| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
PRIVATE BUSINESS
City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 9 February.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The Secretary of State was asked--
Tobacco Control
1. Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion): What resources will be made available by her Department for organising negotiations to establish an international framework convention on tobacco control. [67502]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We are concerned at the ways in which tobacco products are being promoted in developing countries and have offered our support to the World Health Organisation in its work on an international framework which includes a global ban on tobacco advertising. We particularly welcome the strong lead the new director general, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, has taken on this issue. I can also confirm that our Department does not fund any activities that support the tobacco industry, but we do help farmers currently dependent on tobacco crops to diversify.
Mr. Dafis: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not his Department provide funds for the malaria project--the other priority, along with tobacco, identified by Dr. Brundtland? Is not it absolutely vital that the Department provides resources to enable her campaign against tobacco in the third world to take effect? Does not the Minister agree that it is deplorable that United Kingdom companies, especially British American Tobacco, should target the most vulnerable groups in third-world countries, trading in death and suffering and undermining development at the same time? Is not it important that the Government distance themselves from such organisations and put money into Dr. Brundtland's campaign?
Mr. Foulkes: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is too early to know exactly what funding is needed for the campaign, but we stand ready to contribute to it. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that developing countries are being targeted by tobacco companies. That is especially unfortunate, as those countries have limited regulations to deal with tobacco and, because they lack the necessary health structures, are ill-equipped to handle the consequences. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing what we can to discourage the targeting of developing countries.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): Is it not the case that the European Union subsidises tobacco growers to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds per annum? I know that it is not my hon. Friend's responsibility, but should not the Government strive to reduce that obscene subsidy to the fat tobacco growers in the southern countries of the European Union?
Mr. Foulkes: I think that my hon. Friend will have seen the Government's White Paper entitled "Smoking Kills", in which he will have read our comments about
the European Union subsidy for tobacco. The Government do not support it and we have made representations about it. However, although this Department does not have special responsibility for the matter, I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the Minister who has, and I know that they will be taken seriously into account.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): Will the Minister look seriously at the conventions in this country governing what the tobacco companies do voluntarily? During the round-the-world Whitbread yacht race, the boat called Silk Cut, which carried no reference to tobacco on its structure, covered up its name in United Kingdom waters. A simple ban on advertising would not have prevented the company from showing that brand name or the names of other tobacco products. Therefore, before rushing ahead to ban advertising, will he consider carefully whether such a ban would be more effective than the conventions prevailing at present with the tobacco firms?
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman's specific question relates to the United Kingdom, and could be better dealt with by one of my ministerial colleagues. However, the framework will be an international legal instrument circumscribing the global spread of tobacco products. It will include advertising, and it will take account of issues of the type raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is due to come into effect in 2003, but if we and other countries put a little more political will behind it, that could happen a lot earlier, as I would certainly wish.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley): Is there not a worry that if we stop the subsidy and prevent farmers from growing tobacco, they may move into other, more dangerous crops such as heroin and cannabis?
Mr. Foulkes: That is certainly not the kind of diversification that I would suggest. I can reassure my hon. Friend that a World bank study has shown that the social and health costs of tobacco are far greater than the economic benefits. When it comes to substitutes, consumers are most likely to divert expenditure to other products, and that creates jobs. Those products are not the kind rightly identified by my hon. Friend as equally as dangerous--if not more so--as tobacco.
Aid (EU)
2. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): How much of the United Kingdom's international aid is disbursed on its behalf by the EU. [67503]
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We inherited from the previous Administration a commitment that 30 per cent. of my budget should be channelled through the European Commission and a situation in which EC aid spending is both skewed against the poorest countries and often of poor quality. In December, we published our strategy to improve that performance, and I shall happily send copies to the hon. Gentleman. We are actively seeking support for our strategy in the Commission and the European Parliament and among member states. I welcome the report of the Select Committee on International Development supporting the Government's strategy.
Mr. Swayne: What progress has the right hon. Lady made in addressing the concerns of charities that feel that
the budget is skewed towards middle-income countries, leaving a relatively niggardly budget available for the poorest countries? What advantage is to be had from allowing our national priorities to be diluted by expenditure through the European Union?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman may wish to be aware that up until 1992, about 9 per cent. of my Department's budget went to the European Commission. The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), then negotiated a big increase to 30 per cent. I inherited that position, and there is no use bewailing it. What I must do is try to make aid more effective and ensure that it is targeted much more on poor countries. We are working hard to draw the scandal of the current distribution to the attention of non-governmental organisations, the European Parliament, the different parts of the Commission and parliamentarians throughout Europe. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for our attempts to put right a matter on which the previous Administration should have made greater efforts.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): To what extent do our European counterparts share my right hon. Friend's view of the need to eliminate debt while also reducing poverty? How highly do they rank those priorities in comparison with her ranking of them?
Clare Short: The European Commission contributed to the World bank's heavily indebted poor countries debt fund, but it is not a big player in that it has no export credit debt to deal with. On the elimination of poverty, it was agreed during our presidency of the European Union that the international poverty eradication target should become the centrepiece of development efforts. That commitment has also been incorporated in the Lome mandate for renegotiation. There is room for a lot of improvement. We have a commitment in principle, but there is a long way to go to implementation.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Have not the strictures of the European Court of Auditors been particularly severe over the misapplication of the European Union aid budget? Would we not do a much better job by the British taxpayer if we had a purely national programme of aid that could be disbursed towards the hungry and the lean rather than the fat and fraudulent?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right that the ECA reports have been highly shocking, but the real problems are inefficiency and inability to disburse rather than simply fraud. There are 42 different financial systems at work in the area. That is a disgrace, but it was the previous Administration who made a binding commitment to have a high proportion of our budget spent in that way. I inherited that commitment from the Administration supported by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Wilkinson indicated dissent.
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman says that he did not support that commitment. That is interesting.
Finally, bilateral programmes are not always best. Countries cannot work in every needy country. We need our bilateral programmes in countries with which we have
close historical associations and we need efficient multilateral programmes. I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in the efficiency of the EC system.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Is it a condition of such aid that discrimination against Christian communities should be ended, particularly, for example, in the Indian sub-continent? That matter is causing a great deal of concern and I hope that representation is being made to the authorities concerned.
Clare Short:
Absolutely; we all share my hon. Friend's concern about that. We all seek to promote proper respect for human rights in all the countries in which we work. We must be careful about any further step. It is not right to punish the poor of a country for misbehaviour by certain authorities. We cannot just say that we will withdraw aid from a country in which someone is abusing human rights. We must use our influence to have human rights respected. As I said, we share my hon. Friend's concern about attacks on Christians in India.
Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon):
I congratulate the Secretary of State on what she is saying about the EU aid budget, but more interesting is what she is doing about it. Why did she not do more when she had the chair of the relevant Council during our EU presidency? Does she now regret that her close colleagues in the socialist group in the European Parliament voted against an opportunity to hold the responsible Commissioners to account? Were those not two golden opportunities to sort the matter out, and has she not missed both of them?
Clare Short:
I am constantly astonished at the hon. Gentleman's complete ignorance after all this time and at his inability to look at the record of his Administration and the record of our presidency, and to read published documents and the Select Committee's report. The hon. Gentleman needs to do more work and to be more serious about his responsibility; then, between us, both sides of the House can do a better job.
Mr. Streeter:
I am delighted that the right hon. Lady has met her vitriol quota for the week. The whole point of the EU is that it does not stand still. She has the opportunity in government to renegotiate the terms on which we contribute to the EU budget. Now that the financial settlement for the next seven years is up for renegotiation, is this not a golden opportunity for her to say that the United Kingdom will withdraw a sum equivalent to our contribution to the EU aid budget until the EU has shown itself capable of running the EU aid programme? Is it not time for the Secretary of State to be decisive? Is she not long on rhetoric and short on action?
Clare Short:
I shall speak slowly and then the hon. Gentleman might learn something. The document I am holding sets out the British Government's policy. It spells out everything that is wrong and how it might be put right. The Select Committee on International Development, chaired in a distinguished way by a Conservative Member, has also just looked in great detail into the matter and made a series of recommendations. Those of us who are serious about this are working with other member states and all parts of the Commission and of the
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford):
I thank the Secretary of State for the reception that she has given the International Development Committee's report on the future of the EC development budget. What are the chances of having a single EU Commissioner in charge of overseas development, and of making the aid more efficient and delivering it to where it should go--the poorest of the poor in the third world?
Clare Short:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he takes these matters seriously, we are at a time of great opportunity because we have to agree new funding proposals and the allocation between different countries. No one country can determine the outcome. We must engage intelligently with these questions and then build alliances between countries, parliamentarians, and so on. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am working at that determinedly. I know that the Select Committee is, too, and that it is keen to work with development committees in other Parliaments. We also need to involve the NGO community. There is a real possibility of improvements; if we all work together, the chances of securing them--including, I hope, the appointment of a single Commissioner--are good.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |