§ 1. Sir F. Bennettasked the Minister of Overseas Development what have been the proportions of tied and untied official aid expended since November, 1967.
§ The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart)In 1968 about 58 per cent. of the bilateral financial aid spent on goods and services was tied. This represented about 39 per cent. of the total official aid disbursed.
§ Sir F. BennettIrrespective of any general results of devaluation on the effectiveness of British aid, is it true that devaluation has resulted in a net reduction of 15 per cent. in the available purchasing power of recipient countries of British non-tied aid spent elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, and how is this effect recorded in the official figures?
§ Mrs. HartIt is not specifically recorded. Indeed, it is not a fact. Devaluation did not reduce the amount which could be bought here with our tied aid.
§ Sir F. BennettNon-tied aid.
§ Mrs. HartNor did it reduce the value of our budgetary aid and local cost aid in those countries which devalued at the same time as did. Our multilateral aid, defined in dollar terms and untied, clearly did not diminish in value. There was some diminution in untied aid. I can write to the hon. Gentleman if he cares, but the figures are rather more complex than can be dealt with in a single Answer.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopDoes my right hon. Friend agree, nevertheless, that tied aid adds a considerable cost to recipient countries?
§ Mrs. HartYes, Sir. My hon. Friend will be aware that the whole question of tying or untying aid is one of the points on which there will clearly be many international discussions in the context of the specific Pearson recommendation on the subject.