§ 41. Mr. Arnoldasked the Minister of State for Overseas Development whether she is satisfied with the proportion of total aid which may be devoted to local costs.
§ The Minister of State for Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart)Not entirely, Sir. The proportion of our bilateral aid which may be made available for local costs varies from country to country, and in some cases may even be 100 per cent. But in other cases the need to protect British exports and jobs, which of course we must recognise, may conflict with the objectives of our rural development policies.
§ Mr. ArnoldNotwithstanding that reply, does the right hon. Lady agree with the comment in the recently published Jolly Report that we have underemphasised the importance of small-scale rural development and have in consequence allocated insufficient foreign exchange to meet local cost constraints?
§ Mrs. HartThat can be so in certain countries. The proportion permitted for local costs varies very much. There are certain countries in which there is no problem because we can cover 100 per cent. of local costs, but there are countries where there can be some conflict. We are working further on this, and I hope that we shall be able to find a solution by which in countries that particularly need the small rural development type of project we shall be able to find more local costs.
§ Mr. Christopher PriceDoes not my right hon. Friend think that she could lay down some clear criteria on the balance of aid? Although British industry should get some benefit from our aid programmes, it does the reputation of aid programmes in some Third world countries no good if most of the money seems to be going outside the country concerned.
§ Mrs. HartThat is so only in one or two countries where the proportion of local costs that we may at present allocate is small. For the most part, there is no problem. It can be a problem in, for example, India, where, in particular, I hope we shall be able to make further progress.