---

Latin America

rose to call attention to recent developments in Latin America; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we now move from domestic pensions to Latin America, which is quite a different subject. My thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, for allowing me a part of the Cross-Bench day for this debate. I made my maiden speech in 1976 and a valedictory tour in 1999 on the same subject, just prior to being reformed from this place. In a way, today’s debate follows up the debate initiated this time last year by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. I pay tribute to her for pursuing the Latin American cause with great vigour over many years. I am therefore glad to be recycled here and to be in a position to support her on these issues. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, I have the honorary position of being a vice-president of Canning House—as indeed, is the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who I hope will be here to speak later. By sheer coincidence, a debate on the same subject was initiated in the other place two days ago by Bob Blizzard, the Member for Waveney, who is among other things chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary British-Latin American Group. The issue is thus very current, so I offer a brief reminder of what comprises Latin America. Latin America is a sort of shorthand for a number of countries. Among its 19 republics, Brazil speaks Portuguese, while from Mexico to Chile all the others speak Spanish. They all derive their culture from the European tradition, blended with that of indigenous peoples plus a mixture of African peoples in greater or lesser degree. The continent spans from the borders of the US to the fringes of Antarctica. The countries are all established democracies with regular presidential and parliamentary elections. The possible exception is Cuba, which is extremely stable, but has a president for life—like some of the people in this Chamber. However, they all operate very much in unison as a regional bloc in international fora, such as the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. This great continent of more than 500 million people includes two countries, Mexico in the north and Brazil in the south, that feature in the major economic league and are outreach members of the G8—an important area. Much has happened and continues to happen, with 12 republics holding elections between the middle of last year—when the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, took place—and the end of 2006. These have so far produced a swing to the left of centre and this trend would appear to be continuing. To my mind, what this really represents is a different approach to social and economic development and improved income distribution in a very dynamic continent where 40 per cent of the population live in poverty. However, development does not only depend on whatever notion a newly elected president may conceive as the way forward, or on the volume of megaphone rhetoric from some presidents, which the international media love. There is also good historical evidence showing that the nationalisation of assets seldom brings economic benefits to the country, and certainly frightens off direct foreign investment—a vital ingredient for developing countries. In my experience, multinationals provide a great deal of employment and are very conscious of their environmental and social obligations in all the countries in which they operate. What is really needed for development are the right structures. That means a good balance between the executive and the legislature, a properly paid and stable civil service, plus a completely independent and well established judiciary. In other words, what is essential are effective and wholly honest structures which can ensure distribution of the national wealth and avoid it being diverted by corruption. Unfortunately, that sort of structure has parts missing in some countries in Latin America where they are much needed. However, I am glad to say that Chile is a notable exception, where wealth has been created and distribution is taking place. Historically, the USA has considered Latin America to be in its backyard but, since President Kennedy, it has really done little about it, despite the fact that only Mexico has more Spanish-speaking people than the US. Relations at present are at a particularly low watermark. I have a feeling that Latin Americans are not impressed by Britain’s following the US into foreign conflicts in an attempt to impose democracy on countries that have never experienced it in their long histories and for which it is counter-cultural. It would be better to concentrate our efforts in more fertile areas such as Latin America, where we have been involved in a most constructive way since independence 200 years ago. Let us consider what we are doing in this great region. Very little, I am sorry to say. Despite the recent successful visit of President Lula from Brazil, it hardly rates a passing mention in the recent government White Paper on foreign policy priorities. Last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, described our position as benign neglect, with which the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, understandably disagreed, but I fear that nothing much has changed. Four embassies have been closed and posts have been cut in size and status, which does not give much cause for enthusiasm. It is very depressing and not very good for morale. The Treasury under Gordon Brown appears to have removed the funds, and No. 10 appears to have removed the authority. What can be done to reverse this trend? A great deal, in my view. The Foreign Office was always the smallest and most efficient department in Whitehall. It has been much reduced, if not emasculated. If Britain is to be an effective force in the world, the Foreign Office needs to be reinforced and re-empowered to its former glory. I would therefore like to make a few radical suggestions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, will accept that these are based on over 50 years’ experience of promoting Britain in Latin America and Latin America in Britain in a spirit of good will, a great deal of passion and much enthusiasm. My first suggestion relates to trade promotion. This is currently a mix between UKTI and the Foreign Office. This area of activity should be wholly centred in the Foreign Office where it once was—trade promotion should be moved from the DTI to the FCO. Overseas posts are where the knowledge of the market is located and where businessmen refer to when travelling, so they should be strengthened so that they can deliver and report back the opportunities to the home base. My second suggestion concerns overseas aid. DfID is a huge department with a budget three times that of the Foreign Office. This should also be transferred to Foreign Office control, for precisely the same reasons as I gave for trade promotion. However, as Latin America receives little aid, this comment is really about Africa, where the direct funds often disappear or are frequently recycled elsewhere. In Latin America, the limited funds are mainly dispensed through international organisations and NGOs, with the result that a great deal is dissipated in administration and the UK gets little or no credit. In addition, the criteria for crisis support are very inflexible. I will give an example: the disasters in El Salvador and Guatemala caused by recent hurricanes and volcanic eruptions destroyed much of the agricultural production on which those countries’ export trades depend. These are currently classified as middle-income countries, which allows for only limited support. But a disaster can instantly reduce a middle-income country to poverty level, which would not be reflected in international statistics for several years, by which time the country concerned might have recovered by its own initiative—they are a very hard-working lot. Thirdly, at the risk of embarrassing the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, I ask myself why he is only a Parliamentary Under-Secretary. His travels and actions since his appointment indicate a serious interest, and this has been much appreciated in the region and by the Latin American diplomatic community in London. Historically, Latin America deserved a Minister of State and usually had one, but somehow that deteriorated after the retirement of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who is a shining example of when that model worked well and why it is so important to have the Minister of State for Latin America in this House. Another example was the late Lady Young, who, in her day, was also spectacular in that capacity. We had two very good examples of Ministers of State for the Foreign Office in this House working extremely well. These three suggestions would put Latin America back in its rightful place as a continent with which we have so much in common; we are currently neglecting it in a most short-sighted way. There are a great number of very distinguished speakers in this debate, which is a very good thing. I am sure that they will cover all sorts of different aspects and I very much look forward to their contributions. I appreciate that the Minister may not agree with what I have suggested and that he is unlikely to be able to give any specific conclusions to my proposals. However, I hope that I have provided some food for thought and look forward to his comments. I beg to move for Papers.