Overseas Aid

HC Deb 24 March 1981 vol 1 cc819-58

Mr. Speaker

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

4.16 pm

Mr. Guy Barnett (Greenwich)

I beg to move. That this House deplores the damaging cuts in the United Kingdom's official aid programme which contributed to the fall in 1980 in official development assistance as a percentage of gross national product to about half the United Nations target figure; deplores the hostility to official overseas aid which some Government statements have revealed, including the Prime Minister's description of overseas aid as a 'hand out'; and calls on the Government to reverse its policy of cutting aid, and especially to restore the disproportionate cuts in official aid to the poorest countries, recognising, as does the Brandt Commission Report, the critical needs of these countries. The House has given a great deal of attention to overseas development during the past year, and there can be no doubt of the importance of the subject in the eyes of many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. The publication of the Brandt report has been partly responsible for that. The challenge that the report presents was recognised by most hon. Members who spoke in the three debates we have had on the report over the past year.

That attention in the House has been a reflection of the widespread interest and pressure which will is evident in most constituencies. I am certain that it will also be reflected in the size and the sense of seriousness which characterise the lobby on aid that will take place on 5 May.

Another reason why a growing number of people recognise the seriousness of the subject is that they have understood that we are no longer talking about charity to unfortunate people living far away. It is no longer relevant, if it ever was, to the massive problems the world is facing to talk about "handouts", as the Prime Minister did. The experience of the 1970s as it affected this country under Conservative and Labour Governments is that we can no longer hope to prosper in isolation from mankind as a whole.

World population is growing at an alarming rate; there is a crisis in energy, in food and in raw materials. At the same time there is much under-used productive capacity in the world. Some of it exists in the poorest countries of all and will not be developed without assistance from the rich.

In this short debate, I shall not attempt to rehearse at length the frightening facts which affect huge regions of the world. Much of that information is set out in the report, and I will quote three points from it. First, 800 million people live in conditions of poverty described by the president of the World Bank as below any rational definition of human decency. Secondly, between 20 million and 25 million children below the age of 5 die every year in developing countries, and one-third of those deaths are from diarrhoea caused by polluted water. Thirdly, while the world's military spending is approaching $450 billion a year, annual spending on official development aid is only $20 billion.

Merely to recite those facts is to state an obscenity. It is a moral outrage, which borders on political and economic lunacy. At crowded meetings that I have addressed throughout the country, people have asked "What can we do?" I reply "Put pressure on the Government and on Parliament; put pressure on the Government to increase their aid and development programme". One reason why I say that is that I believe that anything we say in the EEC, in the Commonwealth, at the United Nations or at the Mexico summit will lack authority and credibility unless our contribution to overseas development is something of which we can be proud. That is one reason why we have called for this debate today.

I want to analyse the Government's record to date, but, before I do so, I place on record my admiration for the quality of British aid and pay a tribute to the dedication and effectiveness of the many hundreds of people from this country who work in technical assistance in the developing world and to recognise the care with which projects are evaluated and also the high quality of the contribution by our universities and other educational institutions.

However, one aspect of the quality of our aid gives grounds for concern. Since the Minister for Overseas Development made his statement on the review of overseas development policy in February 1980, there has been a significant shift of emphasis away from more help for the poorest—the title of the 1975 White Paper. I know that the hon. Gentleman protests that he still observes developmental criteria and the Government amendment refers again to this, but there is not more money but less, so increasing emphasis on commercial, industrial or strategic factors is bound to mean that projects are chosen because they fit those criteria rather than the developmental criteria. The figure of £15 million for Turkey, for instance, must mean less for countries which are poorer than Turkey, as I shall try to show later.

I said that there was less money and there is a sorry tale to tell of the quantity of British aid. What look like leaks suggest that the Government are deeply embarrassed, and so they should be. The global figures—published by ODA on 5 March—show a cut of 18 per cent. in 1980 compared with 1979. The figure for 1979 was £787 million—a figure which I think the hon. Gentleman has taken pride in from time to time-while that for 1980 was £643 million, and those are both figures at 1979 prices.

The public expenditure White Paper has more bad news. The percentage change between 1980–81 and 1982–83 is, according to my calculations, minus 15.3 per cent. I notice that in the Government's amendment reference is made to £1,000 million as the aid figure for 1981–82 and I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if I am correct in believing that that figure is in fact the gross figure for aid—that is, before account is taken of repayments on loans. If I am correct, the net figure for aid in 1981–82 is £972 million. That surely is the realistic figure; it is the figure which this House is asked to vote on and to approve as the total of overseas aid for development.

The Government are apt to plead whenever these criticisms are made that all programmes must take their share of the cuts, but two things, in my view, deserve comment.

The first is that the cut in total Government expenditure works out at 1.7 per cent., whereas, as I have said, the overseas development figure is 15.3 per cent.—that is, nine times as much. The only other public expenditure programme that has come off worse, according to my calculations, than the overseas development programme is that on housing, about which the Opposition have already made the strongest protests.

The motion is also and especially concerned with the level of aid to what the Overseas Development Administration itself calls the poorest countries. Whereas the drop in aid from 1979 to 1980 was 18 per cent. for the programme as a whole, for the poorest countries it was 26 per cent.

The House, I think, will expect a full statement from the Minister about what precisely has happened to the bilateral aid programme to India, which fell between 1979 and 1980 by a massive 57 per cent. Quarterly figures for India show that during the last three quarters of 1980 the net figures are, respectively, £1 million for the second quarter, £8 million for the third quarter and nothing at all for the fourth quarter. The reason for the final figure being nothing is that gross expenditure was £9.6 million, while repayments made by India on loans amounted to £9.9 million.

The Prime Minister is going to India in May and will clearly have some explaining to do to Mrs Gandhi. Indeed, the Minister has some explaining to do to the House this afternoon. This will be a matter of deep concern to many hon. Members and we shall expect a full statement as to what has gone wrong and why it has gone wrong.

Lastly, on the general picture, will the Minister confirm, as his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office was not prepared to do on 4 March, that aid as a percentage of the gross national product for 1980 has fallen from 0.51 to 0.34?

The Minister protests from time to time that the Government's objective is to achieve the 0.7 per cent. United Nations target figure, but the Government's policies move in precisely the opposite direction. An objective assessment of that is given in a press release, dated 5 February, from the OECD development assistance committee on its examination and review of the British aid programme: … the Committee expressed serious concern about the considerable cuts in ODA volume in future years. The Government had announced in 1980 that budgetary allocations for aid were to be cut by some 16 per cent. in real terms between 1979/80 and 1983/84 as part of a general retrenchment of public expenditure. While appreciating the economic difficulties faced by the United Kingdom, the Committee regretted that aid had been reduced and that, by comparison with other public expenditure categories, it had borne a disproportionately large part of the overall cuts. In view of the urgent needs of the developing countries which are receiving British aid, it urged the United Kingdom Government at least to keep the volume of its ODA stable in real terms and to resume progress as soon as possible. The Committee expressed concern that cuts in the aid programme of this proportion would have wider implications for the North-South dialogue. Speeches and statements by Government spokesmen often reveal a disturbing lack of concern about the deterioration in our aid programme. I except the Minister from that. He has a long-term commitment to the Commonwealth and a knowledge of development problems. But, alas, what he has to spend comes from on high and, although he understands, it is clear from the Prime Minister's Freudian slip about handouts that she does not. Over 150 hon. Members have signed the early-day motion protesting at her use of that insulting term.

Indeed, the dominance of the right hon. Lady over the policies of this Government has resulted in an aid policy characterised by ignorance, meanness and selfishness. There have been too many tales of visits to No. 10 Downing Street and elsewhere at which the response to statesmen and high commissioners from the developing world has been, "You have your problems and we have ours."

An article in The Guardian on 21 January illustrated poignantly the sheer ignorance of anyone who could respond like that. Mr. Andrew Porter, a consultant paediatrician, said: When I know that perinatal mortality in rural India approaches 200 per thousand live births, can I feel deeply about whether that in my district is 12 or 15? One illustration of meanness is the recent decision by the Department of Health and Social Security to make overseas students pay for medical treatment in this country. The United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs described that cut as petty and vindictive. I hope that considerable exceptions will be made for students studying in this country, because I cannot overstate the damage that this will do, for so small a saving, to our reputation overseas.

I have mentioned downright selfishness. The trouble with selfishness is that it is the Scrooge who often suffers most in the end. John Madeley, who writes regularly on aid, has estimated that the cut of £100 million in our aid programme will cost the country 15,000 jobs. I do not know whether his calculations are right. I am not qualified to judge. The irony is that despite the Government's desire to use aid in support of Britain's commercial interests, it is bilateral aid that is being cut, and bilateral aid is tied to products produced by British firms and made by British workers. Small firms in Britain often do particularly well out of British bilateral aid.

To quote an example, two researchers, May and Dobson, state that a London firm told them that if there had been no aid orders employment would have declined from 120 to 70. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to help small firms, he should remember that.

A fundamental change in our aid programme is urgently needed. Without it, the Prime Minister's presence in Mexico in October will not carry much conviction. The postponement of the summit meeting gives us six months for the preparations which I know are taking place at official level in the Department.

It also gives the Government three political opportunities to make a vital contribution to the success of the conference. First, there will be a chance to bring pressure to bear on other EEC members, beginning perhaps at the Development Council next month. Secondly, there is the Ottawa conference in July, where the heads of the rich nations will meet. Their contribution at Mexico will be vital. Thirdly, the Commonwealth Heads of Government are meeting in Melbourne at the end of September. From that meeting the Heads of Governments of Nigeria, Britain, India, Canada and Tanzania will go to the Mexico summit. If they go united, they could prove a powerful force.

Those opportunities will be lost or will be worth little if the Government persist in cutting aid and demonstrate by their public stance and statements that their aid policies do not measure up to the grave situation facing the world.

4.32 pm

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten)

I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: 'this House notes that the aid programme for 1981–82 will be in excess of £1,000 million and welcomes the Government's intention to continue to give priority to the poorest countries in allocating bilateral aid'. The timing of the debate is most appropriate, following as it does the Government's Budget proposals and the publication of the 1981 public expenditure White Paper. It enables me first to underline the importance for this country of doing all that we can to bring inflation under control. A reduction in public spending to the level that the country can afford is the most effective contribution that the Government can make.

At the expense of boring the House, let me state that since I was made Minister in May 1979 I have visited Barbados, St. Vincent, the Virgin Islands, Dominica, Antigua, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Ghana, Zambia, Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Fiji and the Solomon Islands. I talked to the Governments of each country and explained why we are in some cases cutting our aid programme, although not by very much—we have to bring down the rate of inflation. Each country accepts that that is a thoroughly good aim. They do not want us to export inflation to them. They understand the problem when it is explained to them properly. I hope that when Opposition Members go abroad, even if they do not agree with the proposition and say so, they will at least explain why there have been cuts in the aid programme.

I need hardly say that, especially in these circum-stances, the determination of priorities in public spending is no easy job and that no single public expenditure programme can be looked at in isolation. However, contrary to what a number of observers have assumed, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) included, aid was not the hardest hit among public expenditure programmes. Other programmes—agriculture, energy, industry and housing, for example—have suffered more.

Let us not forget that, when faced with economic difficulties, the Labour Government did not hesitate to cut overseas aid. In December 1976, reductions of £50 million in each of the years 1977 and 1978 were announced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. These cuts, I may add, were greater proportionately than those that we have made this year and last year. That is a fact that the Opposition should remember when putting down such motions.

The second reason why I welcome the debate is that it gives me the opportunity of demonstrating the importance that we continue to attach to the aid programme. As hon. Members will have seen from the recently published White Paper, the gross programme in cash terms—that is, the amount available for spending in the 1981–82 financal year—will be £1,037 million, compared with about £960 million in the financial year that is just ending. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the net figure is £972 million.

Over £1 billion spending money—almost $2.4 billion-is hardly an unsympathetic response to the problems of the Third world. It is a highly creditable performance and one of which we as a nation should be proud. As the hon. Gentleman said, the quality of our aid is very good, a fact that is recognised everywhere one goes. If I may say so without causing offence, it is much better than some aid from other countries.

We are thus maintaining a substantial aid programme, and this will be of great benefit to the developing countries. We hope that by helping the development process and ultimately improving living standards in the countries which we aid, stability and progress will be promoted—political objectives that everyone will acknowledge as sound.

The aid programme will also bring orders to British industry and thus help to sustain employment in a number of key sectors of our economy. Commercial and employment advantages arise in particular from the operation of the aid and trade provision, which, by combining aid with commercial credit, brings benefits several times greater than those deriving from the aid element alone.

On the geographical distribution of the bilateral aid programme, we have consistently acknowledged that the greatest need is in the poorest countries, and, therefore, we aim to concentrate a substantial proportion of our aid on them. They are the countries which find it most difficult to generate an adequate volume of domestic savings for investment or to attract private finance and investment from overseas, and, of course, were severely afflicted by the rise in oil prices.

We have stated on many occasions that the poorest countries will remain major beneficiaries of our aid.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler

If that is so, why is the cut in aid to the poorest countries so much larger in percentage terms than the overall cut in aid?

Mr. Marten

I do not believe that that is true. If it is, the explanation is that our commitments to the multilateral organisations are such that we cannot reduce them, so a large proportion of cuts must fall on bilateral aid. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong.

The poorest countries received some 62 per cent. of our bilateral aid in 1980. Our record in this respect is well above the average for OECD countries as a whole.

I should like to emphasise, since the charge has been specifically levelled in today's motion, that there has been no policy decision to cut aid to the poorest countries disproportionately. Opposition Members should not draw erroneous conclusions on the basis of a limited series of statistics, great though the temptation is. As I told the House on 16 March, the United Kingdom plans its aid programme on a financial year basis. Drawings by some of our major recipients, notably India, were lower than anticipated in the first three-quarters of the present financial year in relation to the resources available. As our aid is planned on a financial year basis, the pattern of drawings can fluctuate sharply between quarters, and we are working to ensure that the resources available in the financial year as a whole are fully drawn down.

Factors such as the slow drawings naturally have an impact on our aid performance in a particular time period measured, in accordance with international convention, as a proportion of GNP. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), explained to the House on 4 March—I regret that I was in the Solomon Islands at the time and could not do it myself—a more significant factor affecting our aid performance in 1980, namely, the fact that no promissory note in respect of IDA V1 was made before the end of the calendar year.

The poorest countries are, of course, major beneficiaries of the substantial funds that we provide to the multilateral agencies, in particular the International Development Association. Of course, the Commonwealth and our remaining dependencies have a high priority in the allocation of our funds—and almost three-quarters of our expenditure goes there—and this is consistent with our emphasis on the poorest, for there are many of the latter within the Commonwealth.

Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell and Wishaw)

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the cuts made by the Labour Government in 1975–76 were larger than those proposed by this Government. In fact, the actual cut was 3.8 per cent. between 1975 and 1976; they recovered in the following year above the 1975 level. So that is a 3.8 per cent. cut in one year which was more than made good the following year, compared with the proposed cuts of 7.7 per cent. this year and 8.2 per cent. next year. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his figures?

Mr. Marten

I shall not withdraw the statement. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will recognise that I said "proportionately". Also, I said that the cuts were proposed in the Budget, but I did not say that the cuts in the second year amounted to that.

Dr. Bray

rose——

Mr. Marten

I must get on. Perhaps the hon. Member will make his own speech on this point. This is a very short debate and many hon. Members want to speak.

I was about to refer to Zimbabwe, which is referred to frequently in this House at Question Time. I should like to take this opportunity to deal with two specific aspects of our bilateral programme that are of current interest. The Zimbabwe conference is now in progress. We wish it every success in attracting the greatest possible international support, and we have been active in lobbying all friendly Governments and international organisations to this end. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council is leading the British delegation.

The British aid programme to Zimbabwe is generous in spite of what some critics may write. At the time of independence in 1980 we pledged £75 million of new aid to be committed over three years. In addition, we are spending £14 million on training awards approved before independence and £7 million on railway electrification under the aid-trade provision. So our total aid is already £96 million. In addition, we have written off £22 million of debt and rescheduled £33 million more on favourable terms.

Outside the aid programme we are providing assistance for the amalgamation of military forces in Zimbabwe. This vital assistance is costing us £6 million over this financial year and next. But, of course, this is not coming out of the ODA budget. Our aid is concentrated on the areas of greatest priority to the Zimbabwe Government, particularly reconstruction and resettlement. The biggest single allocation is £20 million for resettlement. We recognise the great need for land resettlement but, as my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made absolutely clear at Lancaster House, the overall needs are beyond the capacity of Britain alone or any other single donor. That is something which we must remember when we are looking at the Zimbabwe question. We hope that other donors will join in this essential programme. I understand that America has made a very generous offer.

Nevertheless, in recognition of the special needs which have been put before the donors' conference, we have decided that some further assistance is justified. I am happy to say that, as my right hon. and noble Friend is telling the conference today, if he has not already done so, we have been able to ollocate a further £10 million for resettlement and a further £5 million for higher-level awards for the training of Zimbabwean students who will be finishing this summer intermediate level courses supported under our pre-independence training programme. That is something which the Zimbabwe Government needed very much.

With these additions, our basic aid pledge to Zimbabwe will be £111 million. In addition, we shall be providing £10 million for regional transportation projects in Southern Africa which, even if not actually in Zimbabwe, will be of direct benefit to Zimbabwe.

Finally, I have just heard that the European Community has committed some £54 million of which the United Kingdom's share will be about £10 million. On the whole, that is not a bad effort for Zimbabwe.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

The whole House will be pleased to learn of the new aid which the Lord President of the Council is announcing in Salisbury today. Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of would-be students in further education in Zimbabwe who want to come to Britain to pursue their education are having to go to study behind the Iron Curtain because financial facilities are not available in this country? Is not that something which we as a Government should do our utmost to prevent?

Mr. Marten

That may be so. All over the world that argument is put and it may be perfectly true. Those students have the option of going there or of coming here if they are within the education programme. I take the point. It is something which naturally I do not like particularly, but we cannot educate everybody in this country.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

In relation to the £10 million for resettlement that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, can he tell the House whether it is all going for land purchase? Is it half and half, and are the Zimbabwe Government still expected to double that amount from their own resources? As he will know and, I think, acknowledge, aid for the purchase of land is likely to come only from the United Kingdom and not from elsewhere.

Mr. Marten

The use of the £10 million will be one of the subjects that the Lord President of the Council will be discussing. I must leave it to him to come back with the answer to that question.

The second topic concerns overseas students. The overall policy concerning the withdrawal of the indiscriminate subsidy on overseas students' fees is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and the Government are monitoring the effect of the withdrawal of that subsidy. But, as for the aid programme, we recently announced our intention to restore the number of new awards in 1981–82 under our Government-to-Government programme to approximately the levels of 1978 and 1979. We have taken a similar step in respect of the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan, bearing in mind the strong support for the scheme at the Commonwealth Education Ministers' conference in Colombo.

Finally, we have extended for 1981–82 our fee support scheme for selected private postgraduate students from developing countries who have had difficulty in meeting the cost of fees. All these schemes are based on a careful selection of award holders for the study of subjects of direct relevance to their countries' development.

During the debate on Belize last week the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked about National Health Service charges for overseas students. We intend to meet the cost of health treatment for those students and trainees brought to Britain under our Government-to-Government programmes and the Commonwealth scholarships and fellowships plan.

Viscount Cranborne (Dorset, South)

rose——

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston-upon-Hull, Central)

The hon. Gentleman has only just entered the Chamber.

Mr. Marten

I am trying to finish my speech to allow as many other speeches to be made as possible in this short debate.

In these debates we tend to concentrate on the bilateral aid programme. That is understandable, for it is the part of the programme over which we have the greatest control. It remains our aim to shift the balance from multilateral aid towards the bilateral programme in the long term. However, it is worth recording again the degree of our present support for the activities of the major multilateral institutions.

We have confirmed our support in principle for the $40 billion general capital increase of the World Bank and for the sixth replenishment of the International Development Association. Our share of the IDA VI total of $12 billion will be £555 million, which is 10.1 per cent. of the total. Subject to the United States Administration obtaining the endorsements and appropriations from Congress necessary to trigger off IDA V1, our promissory notes will be deposited over three years.

As the House already knows from the debate on 4 March, we have obtained parliamentary approval to participate in the IDA VI bridging arrangement. This will enable us to provide up to £184 million as part of the bridging operation—that is, one-third of the total—to help fill the gap until replenishment can become fully effective through appropriate action by other participating Governments.

Under the second Lomé convention, which came into force on 1 January 1981, we shall make a contribution of about £460 million to the European development fund, which is 18 per cent. of the total contribution.

There is a danger in concentrating too heavily on what donor Governments can do through the provision of official assistance. Official assistance is important, as the Government recognise, and especially for the poorest of countries. However, we should remember that responsibility for their development rests on the developing countries themselves and on the use that they make of their own resources,

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden)

rose——

Mr. Marten

Moreover, trade access is of critical importance. Britain will continue to work for an open trade system. Our record in this respect is a good one.

Mr. Douglas-Mann

rose——

Mr. Marten

I want to get on.

We take a greater share of manufactured imports from the developing countries than does any other European country. There have recently been some important improvements in the second Lomé convention and the new generalised scheme of preferences. Incidentally, some hon. Members who call vociferously for more aid are precisely those who are simultaneously pressing for tighter import controls. This would severely hit developing countries that are trying to build up their own industries.

Mr. McNamara

rose——

Mr Douglas-Mann

rose——

Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Order. The Minister is not giving way. I remind the House that 12 right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Interruptions will only reduce the time that is available for them.

Miss Betty Boothroyd (West Bromwich, West)

What about hon. Ladies?

Mr. Marten

Touché.

I emphasise that private direct investment, bank lending and export credits are of much greater importance in total for the developing world and especially for the middle and upper income countries.

One of the unsung statistics that should have more publicity is that in 1979—the last year for which we have firm figures—we were second only to the United States of America in terms both of the volume of private flows at market terms to developing countries and of total resource flows to developing countries. In that year net private flows in sterling from the United Kingdom amounted to £1.3 billion and there was a further £3 billion in foreign currency that was recycled through financial institutions here which carry the risk, a total of £4.3 billion or 2.37 per cent. of gross national product.

The Government's decision to remove exchange controls shortly after coming into office helped significantly to facilitate the flows of private finance to the developing world.

I hope that what I have said will reassure hon. Members that our aid programme is directed at the right target area, that it is substantial and that it will have the support of this House in the Division Lobbies tonight.

4.57 pm

Mr. David Ennals (Norwich, North)

I am certain that both sides of the House will welcome the Minister's statement on Zimbabwe. We shall want to examine it carefully. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the intervention of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on the position of students. I have received similar representations in my constituency.

We problably all sympathise with the Minister, because he has had the unenviable task of visiting so many countries to break the bad news to them. I do not accept that they all readily accepted his explanation. As he knows, I followed him to one or two countries, and I can assure him that they did not accept his explanation.

The fact of the reduction in British aid is not in dispute. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) referred to a cut of 15.3 per cent. As he said, that cut is disproportionate to other public expenditure cuts and disproportionate to the aid effort of other countries. The World Bank has a 0.7 per cent. of gross national product target scale for aid. It may be that the Prime Minister's attacks on the International Monetary Fund now extend to the World Bank, but I hope that that is not so. Against its target scale, a dozen countries are moving upwards. These are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Holland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, West Germany and the United States, although threats from Washington suggest that the rise of the United States on the target scale may not continue.

Unfortunately, Britain is slipping down the scale after several years of rising on it. For that reason Britain has come in for sharp criticism from the World Bank, from the Finance Ministers of the Commonwealth and from voluntary aid organisations in Britain, such as Oxfam, Christian Aid, Catholic Aid and Overseas Development. The amount by which we are cutting aid next year is seven times the total amount that can be expected to be raised by all the voluntary aid programmes put together in Britain. The voluntary sector cannot possibly fill the gap that will be left by the reduction in Government aid.

Criticism is not limited to an alliance of what I suppose the Prime Minister would consider to be the aid wets. It comes from sources such as the British Atlantic Committee's defence and overseas policy working party, which is chaired by Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Neil Cameron, who called on the Government for a more constructive aid programme to stem Soviet advances in the Third world. It is not only a wet approach that is being made to the Government.

There is sadness in and condemnation by countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malawi and Kenya. Those are countries that I have visited in the past few months. In other Third world countries, such as India, the feeling is extremely strong. These countries link the cuts and the effect that they will have upon their economies—

Mr. John Townend (Bridlington)

If the right hon. Gentleman is so critical, will he compare our present aid programme after the Government's cuts with that of the Japanese, Japan being a much wealthier country?

Mr. Ennis

The hon. Gentleman should put his question to the Minister so that he can make his own comparison with Japan. I shall not be drawn into that argument. I am concerned with our performance. I said that Japan was proportionately increasing its performance and that Britain was proportionately worsening its performance.

People in developing countries that have suffered from the Government's action link the cuts in what the Prime Minister calls a handout and what we call development aid with other Government actions. For example, I believe that the cuts in the overseas student intake as a result of the massive increase in fees will be very serious indeed. There is a reduction already, and it looks as though by next year it will be between 40 and 50 per cent. Cuts have been made in the work of the British Council and in the overseas service of the BBC. There is the question of National Health Service costs for overseas students. I was concerned that when the Minister thought that he was giving an assurance about this he was referring to only a very limited number of students who will not now he expected to pay National Health Service costs while they are here.

The Government's policies show no sense of the moral obligation of the more developed world to help the less developed world, which was so strongly and rightly emphasised in the Brandt report and on which the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has virtually stomped the country arguing a case that the Government have denied. The Government's attitude reflects the Prime Minister's cynical disinterest—one can only call it that—in the Third world. It shows a lack of concern for the special needs of very poor countries that are deeply affected by the rising prices of oil and the capital goods that they need to import.

Those countries have few resources of their own. They cannot raise money through the international banking system or attract inward investment. The Prime Minister's crisp comment that we have our problems and they have theirs sums up her approach to these matters.

My main contention is that the Government's overseas aid policy is doing great damage to Britain's long-term and short-term interests. Most of the cut of about £125 million will be borne by Britain's bilateral aid programme. As the Minister knows, about three-quarters of that programme is tied to the purchase of British goods and services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich pointed out, it has recently been reliably estimated that a cut of £125 million is likely to lead to a loss of exports of about £100 million and a loss of about 15,000 jobs in Britain. If the Minister thinks that that estimate is incorrect, I hope that he will tell us so. It would have been useful had he told us the effect on the British economy of the cuts that he has had to justify in this Parliament and overseas. According to the survey, half of the British companies winning orders as a result of the British aid programme employ fewer than 200 workers. They are small firms, about which the Government profess to be deeply concerned.

The whole package of Tory policies on aid, overseas students, National Health Service costs, the BBC overseas service, and so on, will serve to break invaluable links of history, language and technology which have made a small country—and Britain is, after all, a small country—into a great country. With this Government, Great Britain will be great no more. "Stop the world, we want to get off' seems to be the Government's attitude to the rest of the world, an attitude which denies the whole concept and principle of the interdependence of nations. Moreover, those who in the past took pride in Britain's overseas achievements—and the Minister rightly paid tribute to those involved in our aid programme and in giving technical advice to other countries—now find it deeply humiliating to recognise the position that the Government are taking.

5.5 pm

Mr. John Townend (Bridlington)

I support the Government's rather small reductions in overseas aid. I see no need for Ministers to be embarrassed about them, as they have the overwhelming support of the people of this country. Labour Members seem to be out of touch with the grass roots. I certainly find that the average working class Labour voter wishes that the Government would reduce overseas aid more rather than less. The Government's policy is naturally opposed by the intellectual do-gooders of the soft centre, but they are very much the minority.

I turn for a moment to the philosophy behind overseas aid. The arguments advanced are often misconceived and muddled. I often hear it said that as an ex-colonial Power we have a responsibility for starvation and poverty in our ex-colonies. In my view, that is nonsense. Many of the people in those ex-colonies were better fed and more prosperous and had sounder economies when they were colonies.

I cite a few examples. Ghana had a large balance of foreign currency when it became independent. Within five years, President Nkrumah had squandered it. As a colony, Uganda never suffered the starvation, terror or other problems that it faced under General Amin. Even now that he has been replaced, the Ugandans are far worse off than they were under colonial rule. Burma was a large exporter of rice under British rule, but that ceased within a few years of independence.

The same is now happening in Zimbabwe. I do not oppose the Government giving aid to that country, but as Southern Rhodesia it never needed international aid. Now, progressively, it is holding out the begging bowl. Indeed, the Head of State is asking for no less than £800 million.

The second problem facing the Third world is the lack of private investment. Again this is often the result of actions by the Third world itself. In too many instances, Western investors have seen, at worst, their investments expropriated or nationalised, or at best, restrictions placed upon the remission of dividends and profits by Left-wing governments.

There is a lack of management skills. But how often have the newly-independent countries driven out white ex-patriates? Much of the lack of management skill in East Africa is due to the racialist way in which the East African Asians were persecuted and then excluded.

Mr. Douglas-Mann

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's racialist speech. Does he not recall that in 1945 it was necessary for Europe to hand round a begging bowl in the United States to rehabilitate the damage caused by our own internecine war? The example of Zimbabwe is as irrelevant to the situation in the developing world as would be the suggestion that Europe is incapable of managing its own affairs.

Mr. Townend

That is not a fair comparison at all. There are plenty of examples of countries in Africa where there was no war of independence but which through their own actions have reduced their economies to ruin. Many of them seem to lack the ability to grow sufficient food for their own population. There are instances in which this is due to the political stance of the Government of. the country. Collectivisation in Tanzania severely reduced food production. In other areas, food production is affected by religious beliefs. In India, millions of cattle have to be fed but cannot be slaughtered for meat due to religious principles. Overpopulation is a problem. Again, it is not only a question of education. In many cases, it arises because of traditions and religion. None of those problems will be solved by overseas aid.

The second argument used by Labour Members is a moral argument, which is valid. It is said that the rich have a duty to help the poor. I believe that among civilised people charity has a role to play, especially to help the world's poor following natural disasters and famines. The Victorians gave us a good example. They argued that much of this help should derive from the work of private charities and religious bodies.

However, even in extreme places such as Cambodia, where the problem was self-inflicted by political disputes, we are now receiving reports that the size of the problem was exaggerated and that the massive volume of Western aid was in the first instance used to shore up the Vietnamese-backed Communist Government by providing for their functionaries and supporters before the population at large.

However, the moral argument can also be questioned. Western aid is paid for by Western taxpayers, both rich and poor. Such aid is not given to the poor of the Third World. In most instances, it is given to Third World Governments who are often partly responsible for the poverty of their subjects.

In some cases they use this money for prestige projects such as building capital cities, running airlines—which they should not in any case—building universities and even buying arms, which many Labour Members oppose. In other cases, although the aid is spent on worthwhile projects, it releases other finance for the prestige projects that I have mentioned.

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) referred to India. I could not understand him. According to the Supply Estimates for 1981–82, our aid to India still amounts to £80 million, even though there has been a small reduction. I am appalled that British taxpayers are providing £80 million worth of aid to India when that country is spending millions of pounds on nuclear development which could well give it the capability of producing atomic weapons.

The third argument in support of overseas aid is that it creates jobs and helps exports. That applies only to bilateral aid. I am delighted to know that the Government will move progressively from multilateral aid to bilateral aid.

Mr. Ennals

That is what they are cutting.

Mr. Townend

With respect, the Minister said that in the long term the Government aim to move from multilateral aid to bilateral aid.

Professor Bauer dealt with that point extremely well when he compared it with the shopkeeper who had been burgled and, who might justly think himself none the worse off if the burgler spent some of his swag in his shop. If we are worried about jobs, I am sure that our economy would benefit far more by spending £200 million on railway electrification or help to the textile industry, where literally thousands of jobs have been shed, than by spending it on overseas aid.

I support the Government's policy progressively to reduce the PSBR. I look forward to the time when we eventually produce a balanced budget. In a year when the PSBR will be more than £10½ billion, I do not see how we can justify spending £1 billion on overseas aid. In simple man's language, we are borrowing money to give away. That does not make sound common sense.

I come from a rural constituency. My constituents, like many others, are suffering from the 20p increase in petrol tax. I voted for that because I support the Government's financial strategy. If we spend money, we should be prepared to raise it in taxation. However, the Government would have been much more popular and better understood had they reduced overseas aid by £250 million this year and increased the petrol tax by 15p rather than 20p.

I accept that there is a case for overseas aid. A total of £700 million could be well spent. I support the helping of overseas students, but that should be done through the overseas aid budget and not through the education budget. I agree with the use of overseas aid if it is to the financial and political benefit of this country. Britain has used aid in this manner for several hundred years. However, in recent years we have not received an adequate return on our investment.

An example is India, our largest recipient. It is clear from India's voting record in the United Nations that it is far from one of our best allies.

The poverty of the Third world will not be changed by aid. If the massive movement of resources recommended by the Brandt report were put into operation, it would mean transferring resources from the relatively efficient and skilled to the relatively inefficient and unskilled; from the honest to the corrupt; from the experienced to the inexperienced; and from the productive sector of the Western economies to the parasitic public sectors of many Third world economies.

One has only to look at those Third world countries which have succeeded—South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore—to see the importance of the free market economy. One must be honest and say that racial and religious differences must play a part, because the peoples that I have just mentioned are mainly of Chinese origin, compared with the Africans, whose success rate has been far worse.

Aid will not stop the slide in Africa which has progressively accelerated since the end of Western colonisation. Under such circumstances, perhaps the only answer to the terrible things that we have seen on that continent—black inhumanity to black, the exploitation of the population by black power elites, corruption, maladministration and civil war—is some form of recolonisation in the long term.

I accept that that is completely impractical, and I do not put it forward as a valid argument. However, as I believe that such problems will not be solved by overseas aid, I strongly urge the Government to re-examine their overseas aid policy.

The Government have been singularly unsuccessful in reducing public spending. In a few months, they will be examining public expenditure plans for the coming year. I strongly urge them to wield the axe and cut £200 million or £250 million from the overseas aid budget. In our present economic difficulties, with unemployment at more than 2 million, that money could be used for productive investment to create more jobs.

The Opposition criticise the Government for the cuts that have been made, but they have not come clean and said exactly by how much they would like to see the overseas aid budget increased. Nor have they said where the money would come from. Would they cut other programmes such as the youth employment programmes; would they increase taxation; or would they borrow? If they wish to increase spending on overseas aid, which is not popular with the ordinary man in the street, they have a duty to tell the House where the money will come from.

5.18 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

As I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), I thought of his predecessor, now Lord Holderness, and of his distinguished record under Mr. Macmillan's Administration when he became Secretary for Technical Co-operation.

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, Lord Holderness understood the importance of aid to man's dignity and the need for common decency. More importantly, he realised that aid and development were vital for at least one basic human reason—that, if people's bellies are full and if they feel that there is hope and security for them and for their children, there is less chance of war. If there is less chance of war, there is far less chance of this country being dragged into a world conflict. God knows we hope and pray that there will not be another war.

A future world war will not be the result of an eyeball to eyeball confrontation between the Prime Minister and Mr. Brezhnev. In one way or another we shall be dragged into a war by the surrogate Powers of America and Russia's colonies or neo-colonies. One of those countries may drag its patron into a conflict. We can avoid that situation by giving security and stability to the developing world. We can afford to give more in terms of aid and development. The hon. Member for Bridlington seemed to believe that aid was unpopular with the ordinary working man. He should consider the great response of the British people to tragedies such as those in Cambodia and Somalia. He should bear in mind what a "Blue Peter" appeal can do.

As legislators, our task is to gear that voluntary, spontaneous and generous spirit of the British people into a continuous programme, so that we become alarmed not only when we see people starving as a result of a natural famine but also when we see people starving and debilitated as a result of polluted water and malnutrition. I am not speaking so much about disasters such as the Sahel drought—which has caused the deaths of many people—as about the ever-present problems. People should realise that many of these disasters are not sent by God or created by nature. They can be overcome by human ingenuity and effort. If we are prepared to spend more money and to pay more attention to this subject the problems can be solved.

It may be asked where the money will come from. It must come from our pockets and from the money that is to be spent on tanks and Trident. The sending of tractors and simple agricultural instruments will be of far greater help in the maintenance of Western security, and will provide a more lasting investment in peace, than the provision of tanks, Armalite rifles and other weapons of destruction. We should say that defence of the West and of its institutions is based on world stability and security. Such stability comes when individuals throughout the world feel that they have a place under the sun that is not exposed to its intolerable heat. That involves human decency and understanding. We are talking about giving the children of the hon. Member for Bridlington and my children an opportunity to live in peace. Indeed. I hope that our grandchildren will also have that opportunity. I am not talking about the type of attitude that the hon. Gentleman adopted.

I regret that as time is short I shall not expand my argument. However, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about Zimbabwe. Is the money additional money within the aid programme, or will it come from other parts of the programme? Where will the money come from, and who will get it? Zimbabwean students have been allocated £5 million. I think that all my hon. Friends who sat on the Sub-Committee on Zimbabwe appreciate the stand that the Government are taking. We look forward to knowing the details. We had hoped for more, but at least the Government have come some way towards meeting the situation. Will that education be in the United Kingdom or Zimbabwe? No mention has been made about the nonsense over the rates due for Rhodesia House, which is now Zimbabwe House. The time has come for that debt to be written of. It is nonsense, and it should not cause us problems. The country has changed.

I understand the Government's attitude to aid. They say that they are being treated unfairly and that they are spending money. They say that no one understands what they are trying to do. However, since the Conservative party came to office there has been a catalogue of events. For example, development education was the victim of the Government's first cut. That was a mean cut. Then came the cut in official aid. Measures to deal with overseas students were then introduced. Many students were dealt with in a nasty way. Indeed, the problems of many private students have not yet been dealt with.

I welcome the Minister's remarks about improving the conditions and increasing the numbers of overseas students. That takes us back to the previous position. Many private students who have been sponsored by a Village fund, a charity or an international agency will not be helped. It was the grudging reaction to the Brandt report that filled rooms throughout the kingdom. People from all walks of life attended meetings. They came to listen to speeches about the Brandt report and about what it means for world peace. The Brandt report caught people's imaginations in a way that is hard to describe. Hon. Members from all parties spoke about Brandt. They received far greater audiences than many of them had known previously in their political careers. People attended meetings in remote villages. Village halls were crowded. In the bigger cities hundreds of people crowded in to buildings to discuss the Brandt programme and the way in which it should be implemented.

The Minister should tell the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that, as they have belatedly accepted the idea of a Brandt summit and of going to Mexico, they must gear their ideas towards something positive and imaginative. Our attitude to overseas development has cost us our prestige, and our loss is almost immeasurable in terms of money and status. It is impossible to calculate what we have lost. Our actions have affected the attitudes of all countries, whether in the Commonwealth or in the United Nations.

When for the first time, the nations of almost the whole world—and particularly the developing countries—are united with the West in condemnation of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, because they realise that it represents a threat to them, we must not squander that advantage. The good will that exists will be dissipated unless the Prime Minister and President Reagan—I welcome the fact that he is going to Mexico—and the other leaders of the West can say to the developing world "Look, our way of life is better. We are concerned not only with human rights and the old liberal values but with the basic human rights of food, warmth and a roof over one's head."

If we can translate our belief in that to positive programmes and actions, those two leaders and the Western World will have done an enormous service to the cause of democracy and liberty in which we all believe. None of those virtues can flourish unless a man feels that he is free to make real decisions. To do that he must have a full belly.

5.31 pm

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stevenage)

I am disappointed at the terms in which the debate has been conducted. It is possibly the tradition of the House that we exaggerate in order to make our points, but some hon. Members have contributed to the debate in a way that is counter-productive to the imaginative feeling and concerned approach that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) exhibited. It is the imagination that we have to spark world-wide and in this country. Indeed, to my hon. Friends who disagree with that approach I say that unless we seek for the sky to aid the poor and to develop where underdevelopment has caused misery, poverty and death, we as a nation do not and should not aspire to world leadership, let alone influence in the world.

I deprecate some of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), because he said that the Government's development programme was characterised by ignorance, meanness and downright selfishness. I know that he is a compassionate man, but such language, when one is considering an aid programme of £1 billion and the tremendous efforts to which he paid tribute—I believe that he exempted my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), the Minister for Overseas Development, from those strictures—is a strong indictment and cannot possibly be sustained.

To be even-handed, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) that to talk about transferring resources from the honest to the corrupt is an exaggeration that will not stand up to examination. Indeed, it is a slur not only on those whom one accuses of corruption but on the honest who give to the corrupt. That kind of exaggeration reveals the extent of the task to which we all have to bend our minds and hearts—that of educating everyone to the problems that face the world.

Basically, there are three mistakes in the Opposition's approach. After the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich, I can add a fourth mistake. The first is that it is assumed that Government aid produces development. That is not necessarily true. Just under 50 per cent. of the aid programme goes into what is characterised as project aid. The House should remember that project aid is funnelled through the Government machine. It is Government-to-Government aid. If an overseas Government wish to build a canning factory, the British Government may agree to contribute and pay for the purchase and building. That may create development, and it may enable horticultural development to take place and over-production to be preserved, but if the horticultural processes and the harvesting of the goods to be canned are not properly carried out, financed and controlled, the canning factory will be a white elephant and the money will be wasted.

That is a serious problem for all engaged in the development process. The same thing occurs in this country. One can invest and not do one's sums properly. Consequently, the investment becomes a white elephant. Thus, the assumption that by increasing the amount of aid poured in will necessarily produce development is erroneous. That is the second mistake that underlies the Opposition's motion—that more money equals more development. It does not necessarily do so. In fact, it can be counter-productive, because the countries concerned cannot absorb it.

That leads me to the third mistake—that the poorest countries can use more money. Our aid programme has failed to be drawn down by the poorest countries, which is the basis of the accusation that the Government have not aided the poorest countries. That is again an error. It is not that we have not committed the funds to the poorest countries but that the countries have not been able to draw the money down because they do not have the know-how. Some of them have had it, but have not retained it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington made a good point. Unfortunately, he said that it was only the white managerial classes that had deserted the ex-colonial countries. One of the major problems that one finds when development is not taking place as the result of the actions of underdeveloped countries is that the middle classes, the managerial staff—often highly trained in this country—are leaving the country. The examples are Jamaica, Guyana and Tanzania.

Mr. John Townend

My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I did not make the point about only white managerial staff. I particularly mentioned Asians in East Africa who had a fundamental effect on the economies of the East African countries when they were expelled.

Mr. Wells

I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to that. I wanted to try to modify what I did not think was the remark that you intended, because that sparked off an accusation against your admirable speech, that you were talking in racial terms.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should not bring me into the controversy.

Mr. Wells

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion carried me away.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, but I have been here long enough to hear the tenor of his speech. I am told that the economies of countries in Africa and elsewhere cannot absorb more than a certain level of investment. Does he accept that they could absorb more social services and education where teachers are needed so badly? Our language needs to be pushed as hard as the French are pushing theirs.

Mr. Wells

I do not have the time to make the point that the poorer countries cannot absorb a given amount of assistance or resources. It is much more difficult for them to use large quantities of money effectively in the development process. The fact that one can spend more money on factors such as education is undoubted, but one must ensure that the teachers will be properly used in the teaching process and will not sit in Government offices as advisers. We must think further than just chucking money at problems. We must put some managerial know-how, administration and imagination into what we are doing, in order to ensure development.

The hon. Member for Greenwich said that the development purposes are not served by pursuing commercial criteria, as opposed to, I assume, social criteria, for aid and development. The criteria are not alternatives. The development of industry and commerce, which provides profits, jobs, taxes and therefore social services, is the nub of the development process. They are not alternatives. They must be brought together.

Mr. Guy Barnett

I did not say that they were alternatives. I said that they were not the same—which is quite different.

Mr. Wells

I know that, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to mean that in some way the quality of the aid programme and the pursuit of commercial profit were inferior to the type of programme that would have been pursued if the Opposition had been in office or that they did pursue during their period in office. The aid budget has been cut by 15 per cent. However, it was increasing by unprecedentedly high amounts when this Government came to office. We should regard the 15 per cent. cut in that light.

The main burden of my speech is that there is no conflict between aid and trade, and that there is no conflict between the pursuit of commercial objectives and public assistance in the underdeveloped countries. We need a combination of public assistance through the aid programme and the private flow.

One of the major acts by the Government in relation to overseas aid was the abolition of exchange controls, which has led to major investments by Britain overseas. That in turn has created jobs and profits in the recipient countries and has helped Britain, through interdependence with our trading partners, in terms of interest earned, dividends paid and capital repaid.

To all those who believe that capital outflows from this country damage Britain's investment I quote an American article: In conclusion, the report states: 'Again the job-export theory is shown to have no basis in fact; the U.S. job performance of the group investing more heavily abroad is better than that of the group placing less capital overseas. If there were any truth to the job-export theory, the more intensive foreign-Investing companies would have a much worse job performance in the U.S. than the companies investing less abroad. Since this correlation of better job performance in the U.S. with the more foreign-investment-intensive companies has been consistent throughout all the BI studies so far, it would indicate that the reverse of the job-export theory has more evidence behind it than does the job-export theory. In other words, foreign investment by U.S. companies, at least in relatively large amounts. imports jobs into the U.S. "' That illustrates the interdependence of the trading nations and of the rich and the poor. The poor can become richer if we encourage trade. Private outflows are four times the outflows of official public aid.

The Overseas Development Administration has a fine record. It is unrivalled in the Commonwealth Development Corporation by any other organisation or aid programme in the world. We have made vast strides in the quality of our aid. I want that to go further. I want the public aid programme, allied with private investment programmes overseas, to provide in the underdeveloped countries the infrastructure that cannot be achieved by private investment alone. That will bring a real focus to the work that can be done by the private and public sectors.

We have spoken about Zimbabwe. Millions of pounds have been spent on purchasing farms. That money will fail Zimbabwe and poison the country unless it is utilised by the white and black farmers to form nucleus estates and to teach people how to farm in the most economical way. Many techniques are not yet understood by the people who have been toting arms in the last six years. We must ensure that the money is used properly, in combination with private resources and technology, so that farmers are established on land that they can use properly for the benefit of Zimbabwe. That is what I mean by development. That is what I believe that the Government are pursuing, and that is what I commend to the House.

5.45 pm

Miss Betty Boothroyd (West Bromwich, West)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) will forgive me if I do not take up his argument. First, I wish to make one narrow but important point. Recently I returned from a parliamentary visit to Nepal, where the Gurkha connection with the United Kingdom plays an important part in the economy, largely as a result of the remittances, the Gurkha pensions, and so on, which are financed by the bilateral aid programme.

The remittances are restricted. During many years of high inflation they have not been increased, because of an agreement that the United Kingdom Government reached with the Indian Government at the time of India's independence. Therefore, the people involved are adversely affected. More importantly, the remittances from Britain and the support facilities, after earnings from tourism, are Nepal's most valuable source of foreign exchange. Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world and its people have certainly earned the remittances.

I am remiss in not giving the Minister warning of the subject that I wish to raise. It would be helpful if he could reply. If he cannot reply today, I am sure that he will find some parliamentary occasion in order to spell out the assistance that we might give to one of the poorest countries in the world.

I shall cut many of my comments short in order to give colleagues an opportunity to speak, and devote my remarks to the element in the budget involving population activities. I shall do that because of the continuing high rate of population growth, which has an adverse effect and influence on all that we are trying to do and on what recipient countries are trying to achieve.

We would be foolish if we were too encouraged by the signs that fertility is beginning to decline in some countries. Minute graphs show such a trend in some areas, but there are no grounds for complacency. On the contrary, the fragile gains that have been achieved will be swept away if our efforts are not sustained and increased.

Aid planners cannot ignore the population factor. Our efforts will be seriously weakened if we allow the recessional period—which might continue for 15 or 20 years, in varying degrees—to deflect us from the long-term objectives of overall development with which population policies are so inextricably bound up.

The Minister knows my views. No technical aid programme can be considered in isolation from plans to improve the social fabric of a recipient country, in terms of its health and better housing. I think, too, of the emancipation of women and their right of access to clean water, their right to family planning, and their right to welfare programmes of all types.

I hope that the Minister will have something to say about the priority that he gives, in the development programmes, to improving the status and education of women. Women tend to be a forgotten factor. We women are often a forgotten factor, although not an invisible element, in the House. Often, women are an invisible element in development programmes. The failure to consider women in projects and the failure to consider their role in population programmes can lead to the failure of the projects themselves.

The Minister has to some extent recognised the great need for population programmes and their importance. Although some hon. Members on the Conservative Benches do not feel that the Minister is doing sufficient in this respect, it is only right that I should pay tribute to him. In his booklet "Report of Population Activities", issued by his Department only in the summer of last year, over his signature, the Minister says: I have instructed that a population component should wherever possible be incorporated in new development projects financed by ODA. I say on behalf of the parliamentary group for population and development that we are grateful to the Minister for going so far. The hon. Gentleman leaves us in no doubt about his commitment and understanding on the matter, but the Government collectively do not seem to echo his initiative. After the Government had been in office for some months I asked how much of the Labour Government's planned spending on population programmes had been cancelled as a result of cuts in development expenditure. A Foreign Office Minister replied to the questions that I put late in 1979. He said that projects in six countries had been abandoned. I happen to believe that there are more, but I do not challenge the reply at this juncture. He said that there were six countries in which population projects had been abandoned. These were areas of the world where population increase cannot be ignored. I hope that the House will bear with me if I mention them.

Ghana currently has a population of about 12 million. At the present rate of growth, by the turn of the century—it is only 20 years away—that population will have nearly doubled. In the Caribbean—another area mentioned by the Minister in reply to my question—the population is at present about 30 million. In 20 years' time it will have increased by 13 million. Bangladesh now has a population of 85 million. At the present rate of growth, its population will have nearly doubled, to 154 million, in the same period. Turkey, not one of the poorest countries of the world, with a population of 45 million at present, will be moving towards 70 million by the turn of the century. Nepal, with a population of about 14½ million at present, will then have a population of about 23 million at the present rate of growth. Life expectancy in that country, which is now only 45 years, will have moved only to 50 years in another 20 years' time.

I must enter a caveat about Nepal. On an up-country visit about two weeks ago I talked to a young nurse who was responsible for the health of 300,000 people. It was a most daunting conversation.

To revert to the Minister's reply, the Philippines are the last of the six countries where population projects have been abandoned. At present, the Philippines have a population of 51 million. In another 20 years' time, the population will have increased by 33 million to 84 million. This situation is in complete contrast to the Cabinet paper published in 1976 from which I would like to quote. Under the heading "Conclusions and implications for the United Kingdom", the document said that the most urgent and important problem is limitation of population growth. The document added that delays in achieving stabilisation and a delay of one generation could increase the world's population by 70 per cent. A large reduction in growth rate must be achieved in developing countries. The document went on to say that fertility regulation programmes become effective only when the expectation of life has risen significantly and living standards have started to rise. Thus, aid is needed first to relieve poverty and raise living standards and to help create a social framework that is conducive to the practice of fertility regulation. I do not believe that the Government are fully orchestrated in their commitment to welfare and population programmes when they have only an element of 1 per cent. in that budget.

I turn to requests for bilateral aid funds made since the Government took office. I understand that no new research projects have been undertaken, although seven requests for funds have been received by the Department. I wonder whether the Minister will say why the majority of these requests have been turned down. To which areas of the world did the projects relate? What was the level of assistance required in each case? Most important, what criteria are used in examining such requests? I have put numerous questions on this matter, but I have never really received a satisfactory reply. The House would like an answer. Do the Government accept the conclusions of that Cabinet paper, that population is the most important problem that will be faced over the next 20 years?

I wish to turn to the Population Bureau itself—that specialist advisory body within the ODA—first established by a Labour Government in 1968. It was established to increase Britain's capacity to provide aid in terms of population. in 1974, which, as the House will recall, was World Population Year, the specialist staff was increased. it was further increased in 1977. Although only a small body, it contained a great deal of expertise. Since the present Government came to office the expert staff has been reduced and posts abolished.

I must voice my concern about the current situation that exists in the bureau. I understand that the post of director has been vacant for nearly seven months. I am unhappy about the long delay in filling what is an important post. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will move more speedily to see that such important posts are filled.

I understand that the professional staff in the bureau is half the capacity it was when the Labour Government left office. This cannot be right, in view of the growing and demanding needs related to the Third world, and the population programme and its associated activities. I recognise that the Minister is sincere and understands the problem but I do not believe that the Government share that commitment in their approach to population matters and in relation to aid and development matters in general.

They give the impression of sounding brass, as we say in the North, but when one examines their activities one finds that they amount to little more than a tinkling cymbal.

In a world that has been shrunk by the development of the jet engine, we cannot go on ignoring the needs of others who are so traumatically disadvantaged. I ask for a further move of resources into multilateral and bilateral population programmes. We ask for a larger percentage of the aid programme to be used in creating the social framework that is conducive to the practice of fertility regulation. More resources used in family planning, welfare activities and all the matters that I have mentioned would go some way to meet what is a very explosive situation.

5.58 pm

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I support what my hon. Friend said in presenting this programme of overseas aid. I disagree personally with what has been stated, particularly from the Opposition Benches, in criticism of the programme. I feel that £1,000 million or £972 million in a year—whatever the figure is—is not a matter to be ashamed of. When that is coupled with increased private transactions and funds, it becomes the vast figure of £5.3 billion in a year. That is equivalent to about 2.8 per cent. of gross national product—second only to the United States. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Mawhinney) said, one of the advantages of the Government's freeing capital and fund transactions to and from Britain has been that private industry and capital has been able to leave London in larger quantities and at a greater pace to boost the official Government money. There is nothing to be ashamed of in 2.8 per cent. of GDP.

I want to refer briefly to Zimbabwe. I have an interest to declare, in that I still have a farm there. It has been abandoned by the guerrillas as unsuitable, and I hope shortly to resume a more personal relationship with it.

It was brought home to me by a number of Members of Parliament and the Speaker of Zimbabwe, when they were over here, that while the money that our Government are spending there is much needed, there is much concern about the temptation that students from Zimbabwe who want to travel overseas feel from countries behind the Iron Curtain.

I welcome what was said earlier about the conference that has begun in Salisbury to raise £800 million. I assure my hon.. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr.Townend) that Zimbabwe is launching an international campaign and is not seeking to get more than 10 per cent. from Britain. Surely, no hon. Member would criticise an attempt by Zimbabwe to get £800 million of international aid to help developments there, including teaching the new African farmers who need instruction, helping to make land available, providing darns and irrigation, and making it possible for former guerillas to settle down as peaceful farmers.

We are presented with a wonderful opportunity, and it is a wonderful programme for any Government to be associated with. I am sure that most hon. Members are proud that the British Government are playing a leading role and are channelling into Zimbabwe a sum in the region of another £100 million towards the £800 that is needed. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington who criticised the provision of that aid, visited Zimbabwe recently, but it should be pointed out that on the fate of Zimbabwe rests more than the fate of one small African nation. On the fate of Zimbabwe and Mr. Mugabe's democratically elected Government rests the whole of Southern Africa and civilisation there. No one in the House can do other than wish Mr. Mugabe well, and help him to the limit of our ability.

Mr. John Townend

My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I thought that I had made it clear that I was not criticising aid to Zimbabwe. I merely used it as one of a number of examples of countries that had sound economies under colonial rule and that did not need international aid—I cited Ghana, Burma and Uganda—but required it after the end of colonial rule. I was not opposed to aid to Zimbabwe.

Mr. Farr

I thank my hon. Friend for that explanation. However, time is short, so I shall not dwell on the matter, except to say that much of the money provided by Her Majesty's Government is for the resettlement of guerrillas and of the two armies, and, as I said, to provide irrigation, roads and a communications network to enable former soldiers to sette down in a peaceful agricultural life. That is money well spent.

In mentioning Zimbabwe I shall refer to the role of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. My hon. Friend did not mention its role in Zimbabwe. Before UDI, the CDC was involved in building houses, housing estates, agriculture and land development in that country. I hope that in his winding-up speech my hon. Friend will say a word on the subject.

I want to mention one further matter, which may tend to refute what was said by the Opposition Front Bench about India and how unpopular we were there. One or two Opposition Members, and I together with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), were in India and met many of its leaders. In India there is nothing but gratitude for what Her Majesty's Government are doing to help solve the massive problems that exist in that country.

I entirely support what was said by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd). The leaders in India and Bangladesh recognise that family planning and population control are absolutely essential if the country is to be helped in any way. I endorse all that the hon. Lady said.

I also wish to thank my hon. Friend for having seen us after we returned from our visit to India and Bangladesh, and for the assurance that he gave on that occasion that he recognised that proper spending on development aid, particularly in India and Bangladesh, must be tied to the effective and efficient family planning associations that exist, particularly in India, which have been established there since as long ago as 1937.

I am sure that no one in the House begrudges spending all that we possibly can on overseas aid. However difficult it may be to explain it to our constituents, I, for one, am always prepared to have a try, because a civilised country such as ours, with a fairly high standard of living, has a duty to spare what we can for those who are less fortunate in the world. I fully endorse the programme that has been presented by my hon. Friend this evening.

6.9 pm

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

I welcome the closing words of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan), though I do not agree that the Government can be exonerated from the criticisms that have been advanced from the Opposition Benches.

In the memo to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which various overseas agencies, including Oxfam, Christian Aid and the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, presented on 14 November, they quoted Rosemary Righter writing in The Sunday Times on 7 September about the United Nations' special session. I am sure that the Minister will remember this. She said: With the exception of Britain's Development Minister, Neil Marten, whose speech has been greeted by friend and foe with bewildered scorn, everybody talks about the urgency of tackling a package to avert crisis and they cite the Brandt report warning that the world's economy is breaking down … Britain is widely identified 'as the top villain—it is the only major industrialised country actually cutting aid'. I am not happy about that. I know that the Minister is a good man. I know also that he probably wants to do much more than he is able to do. But I am afraid that the Government are doing much less well than they should. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) made a compassionate and understanding speech, but he did not persuade me that we should exonerate the Government. It is true that more aid does not necessarily produce more development, but it is equally true that less aid certainly produces less development. There is no way around that.

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, quoted certain figures. I wish to remind the House of the current position. In 1978–79 we gave £805 million, this year we have given £741 million, and it will be £680 million hereafter. By 1982–83 our aid will be only three-quarters of what was originally planned. It will represent only 0.3 per cent. of gross national product. The United Nations' target is 0.7 per cent. Britain is now at half the 1960 level of aid—when we were only half as well off as we are now. That is profoundly unsatisfactory.

It is not a simple matter of issuing clarion calls for more aid and more trade. It is the quality of aid that counts. Increases in trade must be concentrated on Third world processed manufactured goods, and there must be a stable and guaranteed price for its raw commodities. What progress has there been on the 1976 UNCTAD decision to set up a common fund to provide finance for commodity agreements? We have been talking, talking and talking about that, but nothing has happened.

Population control was rightly stressed by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd). I agree that Britain should not be cutting its contribution in that area. Aid and trade are important, but a further major contribution could be made by Britain and its partners if they cut their consumption of certain materials, notably oil. The West's demand for oil has catastrophic consequences for poor countries. It forces up the world price and makes it harder for non-oil developing countries to buy the oil that they require. That affects their food production.

Brandt pointed to the unquestionable need to consider more radical changes in the pattern of the international order if we are to cope with the food and material shortages predicted for the 1990s and if we are to deal with the 30 poorest nations such as Togo and Mali, which are collapsing. When the Prime Minister goes to Mexico, I hope that she will direct her attention to those matters.

For me the fundamental justification for action is a moral one. I find it unacceptable that a Minister of my country, which is one of the 12 richest countries in the world, should not only defend a 0.3 per cent. expenditure but should assert that we should be proud of it. I am not proud of it—I am ashamed of it. The Good Samaritan did not say "You've got your troubles and I've got mine". Nor did he say, as the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said in his astonishing speech, that charity has a place among civilised people. That deserves to be the quote of the week.

There is another aspect of aid to which I wish to make a brief reference. I am aware that a number of hon. Members are anxious to speak. If the descriptions of the horrors of poverty in the poorer countries do not have an effect on the Government in the way that they should, perhaps it will have some impact if we contemplate the damage to Britain that our niggardly behaviour is causing. The Minister referred to overseas students. My right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said in his speech to the annual congress of the Free Church Federal Council on 19 March: The State visit of Nigerian President Shagari served to remind me of how much damage the Government's policy on overseas student fees is doing. I was told how nearly all of the visiting Nigerian party had been educated in Britain, but how in future none would probably be in that position. In other words we are, in keeping out overseas students, apart from the very rich, steadily undermining our future friendship and relations with the leaders of the developing world. We are turning our backs on the means of promoting future economic links with those countries. Upon those links our future trade depends. Overseas students, apart from what they add to the quality of those educational institutions they attend, are a major part of our contribution to aid for world development. A cheseparing approach, with such comparatively small savings will have far-reaching effects. That is a practical argument. It is not the sort of argument that was described in a disparaging fashion by the hon. Member for Bridlington as the wet centre of politics. It is a hard, practical matter. I make no apology for believing that morality is important. If that is called the wet centre, I am part of it. Perhaps we should have a wider, wetter centre.

As a member of the Commonwealth and the EEC, acting through Lomé—I hope that the Minister will take an opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the EEC in this area—Britain has an exceptional responsibility and an exceptional opportunity. The Government are failing to face either.

6.17 pm

Mr. Stephen Dorrell (Loughborough)

The problem with much of the Opposition case is that it is based on a largely false premise—that aid is the most important aspect of our economic relations with the developing world. I do not believe that that is so, either in terms of what should happen or in purely factual terms of what has happened.

The last years for which figures are available show that flows from Britain were £4 billion for the private sector against less than £1 billion for official aid. Factually, the more important element was private investment rather than official aid. The Opposition case, based on the Brandt report, is that we should he increasing our overseas aid programme. The Brandt report has been cited almost as though it supported the case of the aid lobby. Of course it does, but aid is only one short chapter in a long report. If we quote Brandt in support of the foreign aid case we must also quote him in support of the case for private investment and for freeing the trading relationships between Britain and the remainder of the world.

When the Opposition advance a case based purely on the aid programme they are ignoring at least three-quarters of the issue. Let us consider private investment. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) and from the Minister that Britain, in recent years, has undertaken a substantial programme of direct investment in the developing world. That has been substantially improved by the Government's right and courageous decision to lift exchange controls. Brandt supported and reinforced that. If Opposition Members want to use the Brandt report in support of their argument, they must be prepared to recognise the force of the argument for lifting exchange controls and encouraging British companies to play a major part in the development process.

One point in the Brandt report was the need for a new code of practice on the operation of private sector companies in the developing world.

I shall take up the call made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) for a positive and imaginative initiative to be launched by the Government of Mexico. They might take up that part of the Brandt report and undertake to obtain agreement among the countries of the developed and developing world on a code of practice under which multinational companies can operate in the developing world to the advantage of the developing and developed countries of the West. Private companies, operating in proper circumstances, have a major role to play, such as in transferring production technology to the developing world—that example is often cited. More important, they play a major role in getting access to the rich countries' markets for the products which are made in the developing world. Many developing countries can make the products, but more often they are short of the marketing expertise to design and sell those products in the developed countries of the West.

If we are considering the position of the rich countries vis-a-vis the developing countries, I hope that we can take a more positive look at the achievements of the Government in launching a major British initiative to encourage foreign investment in the developing world.

The second aspect of our relations with that part of the world, about which the Government have nothing to apologise but where the Labour Party has a record which is much less defensible, is in the business of import controls on products from the developing world. I do not see how one can claim to argue the case for the developing world if one prevents our companies from investing in those countries, and prevents our consumers from buying the products which those countries can make. The trading argument is the other side of the investment coin. There can be no better illustration of the case for mutuality of interest made by Brandt than the issue of international trade.

There is a clear example of that in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and I have had altercations on that subject in the past.

Mr. Farr

Friendly altercations.

Mr. Dorrell

As my hon. Friend rightly says, they were friendly altercations.

There is a substantial textile industry in my constituency and a company which makes railway engines, which recently has won a £25 million order to export railway engines to Sri Lanka. I do not see how we can expect that trade to continue and grow—as I sincerely hope it does—if we do not accept that we must also buy the products which countries such as Sri Lanka, India and others in the Far East can make. Textiles are a major element of their trade.

If we are considering the Government's record for the developing world, we are entitled to point to our record on private investment and trading policy. I am proud of that record. It contrasts favourably with the policies advocated by the Labour Party. However, that does not mean that I think that aid is unimportant. If there is a danger of the Labour Party underestimating the importance of the private sector in promoting the development process, there is sometimes a danger of some of my hon. Friends underestimating the role of official aid in the development process.

Just as there is a case for our promoting investment in the productive sectors of the economy in the developing world, there is an important case for promoting the building of the infrastructure in those countries, to make possible the sort of commercial investment which I have mentioned. That is the argument for concentrating aid in the poorest countries. We should seek to concentrate our aid budget in the least developed countries, to build their infrastructure, which makes it possible for our private sector companies to invest and extend the development process.

It does not make sense to tell a British company that the burden of development rests on it and that it should invest in the developing world, if we do not provide for it the infrastructure to make investment possible. One cannot invest in an economy if the people one is seeking to employ do not have the education to understand the instructions that they are given, if the communications do not exist to export their products from the country where the companies operate, and if most of them are in a survival, rural economy without the housing and infrastructure of the urban State.

Therefore, private investment by private companies has an important part to play. Official aid has an equally important part to play in creating the infrastructure which makes that possible. I suggest to the Minister that we should concentrate our aid on health and communication infrastructural projects and on the sort of population projects mentioned by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd). I share with her the honour of being joint secretary of the population group of the British Parliament. There is no better example of the way in which official aid can be used effectively to promote the development process than in the population area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) illustrated that example with uncanny perception by his figures. Among the many problems in the developing world to which he believed that aid would not help provide a solution, he listed population. He said that our total aid to India was £80 million last year. By a lucky coincidence, £80 million is the total cost of the Indian population control programme. Although our assistance to India was not directed to that programme, it paid for the entire Indian population control programme. There could not be a better illustration both of the cheapness of population policy as an element in the development process and of its importance to this country.

Why should we be interested in what happens in the developing world? There have been several arguments about that question. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington said that there was a place for charity. I do not see the primary argument for overseas aid and investment—certainly not for investment—in terms of charity. The much more important argument is not the charity argument but the self-interest argument. There is much latent demand in the developing world. The people there do not have the capacity to buy the goods, although they need them. In the developed countries of the West, there is much idle capacity for producing the goods that the developing countries want. It should be our policy to seek to release that demand to make the wheels of Western industry turn again. The precedent of the Marshall aid programme is much overworked, but it is none the worse for that. Europe pulled the United States into super-growth after the war. There is no reason why the less developed countries should not play a part in the achievement of the same end for our country now.

6.28 pm

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler (Norfolk, North-West)

If I had any residual doubts about having crossed the Floor a week ago tonight, they were entirely erased by the speech of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), which showed such ignorance and such a lack of compassion that it was clear that he did not begin to understand the problems facing developing countries. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) reminded us of what the debate is all about. Although I have much sympathy with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), and with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells), who talked about the interaction of aid and trade and the importance of both to the prosperity of our economy and that of the developing world, the debate is not about that but about the Government's record in giving aid. Aid to what purpose?

The hon. Member for Greenwich reminded us at the outset of the debate that in 1981 there live in the world 800 million people whose standard of living is below the poverty line and between 20 million and 25 million children are dying each year from disease which can be overcome by modern medical and health practices. He reminded us that the world spends on the manufacture of weapons and armaments designed to destroy people 20 times the amount it spends on aid.

I regret that the Government have embarked on a course of increased defence spending and decreased expenditure on overseas aid. It has been argued that in some countries a good aid programme can be a much more effective counter to communism than having an extra half dozen tanks.

Mr. Alan Clark (Plymouth, Sutton)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is customary not to intervene in maiden speeches. May I have your ruling on whether the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) is making a maiden speech?

Mr. Speaker

That is clever, but it is not the best that the hon. Gentleman has done.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler

I am concerned that defence expenditure is going up and aid expenditure is going down. It is clear that aid, as part of a relation between this country and a developing country, can be a much more cost-effective and useful way of maintaining our friends in the developing world.

In my speech last week I made clear that I thought that the reason why Britain should play a leading part in the world's aid programme to developing countries, quite apart from our moral responsibility, was that we benefit more than anyone else from our trade with the developing world. I can think of no other country which enjoys such a balance of payments surplus with developing countries. The surplus of £2.1 billion last year is almost the total balance of payments surplus that this country earns. It is right for the country that is head of the Commonwealth and benefits massively from trade with developing countries to play a leading part in the aid programme.

I regret to say that there are grounds for disappointment in the aid figures. Our country is pledged, with others, to reach a target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP in aid. The Government have achieved 0.51 per cent. and this year 0.34 per cent. Although there may be arithmetical arguments about net and gross sums, as a proportion of GNP the amount Britain spends on the aid programme is falling.

In my first speech from this position in the House and with the time constraint, I would hate to allow the occasion to pass without paying a small tribute to the Minister.

Mr. Alan Clark

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler

I will not; I do not have the time.

I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in thanking the Minister for the part he played in bringing about the Government's agreement to increase Britain's aid to Zimbabwe. He announced in the House this afternoon an additional £10 million aid over one year for settlement purposes, £5 million for education and £10 million through the EDF for the SADC programme in Southern Africa. May I ask him whether that £10 million for settlement will be devoted to the purchase of land? There is no doubt—I think the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will agree—that unless the land settlement issue in Zambabwe is settled, the possibility of peace and stability in that country will be adversely affected. It is the central issue.

Although I do not press the Government tonight to tell us precisely how that £10 million is to be spent, I hope the Minister will reassure us that the £20 million devoted to land purchase so far and the £10 million which he announced today will not be a once-for-all payment but that, as and when these initial schemes are carried through and people are settled on the land, the Government will be open to further requests from the Government of Zimbabwe to consider further support for this crucial purpose.

I welcome the £5 million for education and hope that the Minister will find time to tell us that it is intended to assist the 800 Zimbabwean children who are coming up to university qualifying examinations this year. Will he make clear on what that is to be spent?

Finally, I refer more in sorrow than in anger to the rates on Rhodesia House. It is ridiculous after all this time that the small amount of £300,000 should cause us so much political difficulty in Zimbabwe. I hope that the Minister will undertake to discuss with the Treasury means of writing off this debt which was not incurred by the current Government but should be charged against the old Government of Southern Rhodesia.

6.37 pm

Mr. Guy Barnett

With the permission of the House I should like to make a brief intervention, largely to enable the Minister to reply to the many matters that have been raised during the debate.

I thank the Minister for his announcement about Zimbabwe and what his noble Friend will say at the Zimcord conference today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said, we shall want to judge the Minister's statement, not least in the light of the way in which the Zimcord conference goes and whether the money that comes from other donor countries is likely to meet the immediate and pressing needs of Mr. Mugabe and his Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central also asked whether this was new money. We should like an answer to that question. I hope that it is new money. If it is not, presumably there could be cuts in other programmes.

I want to raise an issue that has not so far been raised, namely, the serious problem of the developing food shortage in East Africa. No doubt the Minister will have seen the article in The Times today referring to the proposal put forward by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth that one possible solution to the problem of famine developing in other parts of East Africa, principally around the area of Muanza, might be to take advantage of a good harvest in Zimbabwe, using funds from donor countries to enable that food to be transferred to areas where famine is likely to develop.

I note that the President of Tanzania is now saying that, because of the economic situation in Tanzania, caused by the rise in energy costs and the military costs in connection with Uganda, he is hardly able to purchase food from abroad.

The hon. Members for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) and for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) may have misunderstood me. At no stage have I or any other Opposition Member criticised the use and importance of private capital in developing countries, but we must make it absolutely clear that it is not a form of aid. If it were a form of aid we should have to say, presumably, that Japanese companies investing in Britain were aiding Britain, or that German companies investing in Britain were doing so. The thing is patent nonsense. Obviously, the transfer of private capital to the developing countries is more often than not extremely useful to the development of those countries—not necessarily or always so, but very often.

The hon. Member for Loughborough suggested, too, because the debate this evening is limited to the subject of the British aid programme, that the opposition had forgotten that there are large and important elements other than aid that can assist in the development of the Third world. Of course we would not make that mistake, but this is a debate about aid, and one of the points that I want to underline again is that our credibility in terms of the Mexico summit is dependent not least upon our record as a country that is giving aid. I take all the points that have been made about trade. I do not have time, obviously, to answer them at the moment.

There is one other question that I want to put to the Minister. We are now reaching the end of the financial year, and I ask him to say quite clearly whether the aid budget for the current financial year has been fully spent or is is underspent. He should be in a position to tell the House that this evening, and I very much hope that he will do so.

6.42 pm

Mr. Marten

I should like to answer what I can of the various points raised in this debate. I am afraid that I cannot give the answer to the point about underspending until the end of the financial year. Then, of course, once the bills have come in—and it takes some time to collect them all—we shall be able to give the answer.

I am very conscious of the question of food surpluses in Zimbabwe, and the Minister of Agriculture of Zimbabwe came to see me the other day and we discussed their use and sale in Africa. We also discussed the question of the storage of these surpluses until they were needed.

Many points have been raised in the debate, and, if I cannot reply to all of them because of lack of time, I shall do so by letter.

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) raised the question of India. The fall in aid to the poorest countries is closely linked to the question of aid to India. The hon. Gentleman asked for a detailed explanation of the figures. Drawings in respect of the Indian programme have been lower than expected in the first three-quarters of the present financial year, and we are working with the Indian authorities to try to ensure that the resources available for the year as a whole will be fully and effectively used. The financial year is a relevant period for the Indians and for ourselves and we hope to provide roughly the same amount in 1980–81 as we did in 1979–80—that is, about £123 million gross.

We give more aid to India than any other bilateral donor. According to World Bank figures, British aid amounted to 34 per cent. of net bilateral aid by members of the Aid India Consortium in 1979–80. That is a very substantial percentage. Several other OECD, OPEC and Communist bloc countries were net negative donors after Indian payment of loan amortisation was taken into account. India also benefits from the multilateral flows, to which Britain contributes heavily—for example, expenditure by the International Development Association.

The hon. Member for Greenwich also asked about development projects. It is not the case that projects being financed under aid programmes do not continue to be approved on the basis of development criteria. This remains of basic importance for the regular programme and for projects being financed under the aid and trade provision, all of which come to me, and I have to be satisfied that there is a developmental aspect.

The hon. Member also asked whether I would confirm that the 1980 ODA-GNP ratio would be 0.34 per cent. I am afraid that a firm figure is not yet available. Both components—official development assistance and the GNP estimates—are subject to revision. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to give a provisional estimate at this stage, but, as I have made clear today, slow bilateral spending and the fact that we did not deposit a promissory note with IDA before the end of 1980 because of the American Congress hiccup will mean that the 1980 ODA-GNP figure will be below the level recorded in 1979.

When speeches such as that of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) are made about the reduction in aid in 1980, any reasonable person must bear in mind those two factors of the under-drawing by the recipient countries and the IDA replenishment being virtually blocked because Congress failed to play its part during the American elections.

The hon. Member for Greenwich—I am devoting a lot of time to answering his questions—criticised the Government for assisting Turkey, a crucial member of NATO, to overcome its serious balance of payments difficulties. This, frankly, is slightly surprising considering that the Labour Government found it right to give emergency assistance of this kind to countries facing such difficulties. Any allocation of aid is arguably at the expense of some other recipient. We attempt to keep a reasonable balance at all times between the competing claims on the resources available.

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), in his intervention, raised a question—which was followed up by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler)—about Zimbabwe and the £10 million for land resettlement. I am afraid that details of its use are still to be discussed with the Zimbabwe Government. The first £20 million was for both purchase and subsequent development of land and we would expect the use of the next £10 million to follow a similar pattern, but this is for discussion. I make one point, however, on what I felt lay behind the remark of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West. The question of future aid on land resettlement is at any time open for discussion. What we cannot give as a Government—and I am sure that this is a responsible attitude—is an open-ended commitment to it, which I believe some people would like us to do.

The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) found a different story told to him when he followed me round some of the places I visited. That, of course, may be so; it depends upon who one speaks to. I speak to my opposite numbers. As a visiting Minister, I speak to the Prime Minister, the President, or whoever it might be, about aid, and they do not say that to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan) told us what he found when he went to India, and that rather bears out what is told to me when I travel round. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not. I can understand why, of course: he cannot explain the matter in the terms in which the Government see it. Perhaps we can have a lesson about that so that the next time he goes there he gets the same reaction as I do.

The right hon. Gentleman then referred to a "stop the world, we want to get off" attitude. It is not that at all, although it was quite a nice way of expressing what I think was in his mind. After all, although I hate rubbing this in, we inherited considerable economic problems which we are now trying to overcome.

I turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). I think it is true to say that a number of people in this House and outside it do not agree with his views, but what he has said reflects a part of public opinion, and therefore he is right to say it. That is what Parliament is all about—putting the different views. So to that extent I thank him for what he said, but I should like to pick up briefly one or two points about aid to Zimbabwe. It did not have aid before, but it has been through a tragic period of war and the aid is all about reconstruction after the war.

My hon. Friend said that some say that aid is given not to poor people but to Governments. That is a Professor Bauerism. A lot of our aid, being infrastructure, is given to Governments. For example, in Sri Lanka we are giving £100 million to build the Victoria dam. That is Government aid, but the dam will enable 20,000 farming families to be resettled on their land to produce food for themselves and their country for export. The dam will also provide electricity for industry. That is an example of how aid given to Governments flows to the people.

My hon. Friend also told us that it is said that our enonomy would benefit if aid money was spent here. I take the point. I left out of my geographical tour my visit to Egypt. I went there a few weeks ago, and announced £50 million aid to improve Egyptian sewers. The sewers in Cairo were bad enough during the war, but the population has risen from 1 million to 9 million. I stood deep in sewage in the Cairo streets, yet I have letters asking what we are doing giving £50 million to Egypt when the sewers in Little or Big Sodbury need attention. Nothing will change people's views.

My hon. Friend's final point was that the Opposition should say where the money for increased expenditure should come from. One hon. Gentleman tried to respond but the answer should come from a Front Bench spokesman who may have future responsibility. I do not ask for the suggestion now. Perhaps the hon. Member for Greenwich could write to me.

I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) that aid is about living in peace. That is why in my original remarks I said that aid helped to achieve stability in the developing world. The hon. Gentleman said that we had belatedly accepted the Mexico summit invitation. We accepted it when we received it. A lot of people thought that we were ducking it, but the invitation perhaps came later than the hon. Gentleman expected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) said that we must bend our minds and hearts to aid. I agree, provided that we also keep a level head. He made an excellent speech, and brought the debate down to earth in a constructive and helpful way. He normally speaks about the Commonwealth Development Corporation. When I was in the Solomon Islands three weeks ago, I visited the CDC palm oil plantation, and was impressed with the style of its work—its employment of labour and its ability to create overseas earnings for the country involved.

Mr. Peter Hordern (Horsham and Crawley)

Is there a prospect that the activities of the CDC will no longer be counted under the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Marten

I gave way to my hon. Friend because I wanted a sip of water. That is a hint that I do not wish to give way again. We are discussing the matter. My hon. Friend knows that the Treasury is not easy to persuade on such matters.

I have taken note of the point about Nepal made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd). I shall write to her. If she then wishes to put down a question to get the answer officially open, I shall provide her with a written answer. I am grateful to her for her kind remarks on population control. The pressure on me by the parliamentary group, of which the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) are such outstanding members, has been great. It has educated me, and I have taken an interest in it. Someone was talking behind me, and I did not quite catch what she said about women. I thought that she said that women are invisible. That is not the case so far as I am concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough mentioned the alternative for students of going behind the Iron Curtain for education. As I said earlier, I recognise that fact, and we give it constant attention, but we cannot expect to educate everyone who wants to come here.

The hon. Member for Inverness quoted the Oxfam paper which was produced before the organisation met the Foreign Secretary and myself. It was riddled with mistakes, which was surprising. After Oxfam had seen us and had corrected the paper, it reissued a better and more accurate version. The incident illustrates how wrong well-meaning people can be if they do not get the statistics absolutely right. Such a huge area of percentages is not easy to deal with. My Department's information service is available to anyone who wants to write a thesis on our aid programme in percentages or in real terms.

The hon. Gentleman questioned the famous quotation about myself at the United Nations. Miss Rosemary Righter reported on the supposed United Nations' reaction in the auditorium to my speech. As I have said before., she was not in the auditorium, she was not in New York—indeed, she was not even in America at the time. How could she, therefore, judge the reaction? Oxfam picked up the remark in a rather cheap way, without investigation. My speeches are usually pretty bad, but, as I walked from the rostrum to my seat, I was shaken by the hand by three different African delegations. Miss Righter should report what she knows directly.

The agenda of the Mexico summit has not yet been agreed. Several hon. Members have suggested points for discussion, which will be fed into our national machine and into the preparatory committee that will draw up an agenda. I am grateful to hon. Members for the suggestions.

We shall take up the points suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough for the Mexico summit. I agree with what he says about trade and the difficulties of hon. Members who have factories in their constituencies affected by imports but who also want a generous approach to aid. It is not consistent to argue for both.

The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West regrets increased spending on arms. He is aware that I do not agree with him. Defence is the first priority for any Government.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, which we will take seriously. I shall answer in writing those that I have not dealt with. A debate like this stimulates the subject of aid and gives it an airing.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 245,Noes 302.

Division No. 121]	[7.00 pm
AYES
Abse, Leo	Allaun, Frank
Adams, Allen	Anderson, Donald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Ginsburg, David
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Golding, John
Ashton, Joe	Gourlay, Harry
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)	Graham, Ted
Bagier, Gordon A, T.	Grant, George(Morpeth)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Grant, John (Islington C)
Beith, A, J.	Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)	Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Bottomley, Rt Hon A(M'b'ro)	Haynes, Frank
Bradley, Tom	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Home Robertson, John
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)	Homewood, William
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Hooley, Frank
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&P)	Horam, John
Campbell, Ian	Howell, Rt Hon D.
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Howells, Geraint
Canavan, Dennis	Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Cant, R. B.	Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Carmichael, Neil	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Janner, Hon Greville
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Cohen, Stanley	John, Brynmor
Coleman, Donald	Johnson, James (Hull West)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Cook, Robin F.	Johnston, Russell(Inverness,)
Cowans, Harry	Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Craigen, J. M.	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Crawshaw, Richard	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Crowther, J, S.	Kerr, Russell
Cryer, Bob	Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Lambie, David
Cunningham, G.(Islington S)	Lamond, James
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)	Leadbitter, Ted
Dalyell, Tam	Leighton, Ronald
Davidson, Arthur	Lestor, Miss Joan
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)	Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Litherland, Robert
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)	Lyon, Alexander(York)
Deakins, Eric	Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Dempsey, James	Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Dewar, Donald	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Dixon, Donald	McGuire, Michael(Ince)
Dobson, Frank	McKay, Allen(Penistone)
Dormand, Jack	McKelvey, William
Douglas, Dick	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Maclennan, Robert
Dubs, Alfred	McMahon, Andrew
Duffy, A. E. P.	McNamara, Kevin
Dunn, James A.	McTaggart, Robert
Dunnett, Jack	McWilliam, John
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Magee, Bryan
Eadie, Alex	Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
Eastham, Ken	Marshall, DrEdmund(Goole)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)	Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)	Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
English, Michael	Maxton, John
Ennals, Rt Hon David	Maynard, Miss Joan
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Meacher, Michael
Evans, John (Newton)	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Field, Frank	Mikardo, Ian
Fitch, Alan	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Flannery, Martin	Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Ford, Ben	Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Forrester, John	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Foster, Derek	Morton, George
Foulkes, George	Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)	Newens, Stanley
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Freud, Clement	O'Halloran, Michael
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	O'Neill, Martin
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David	Stott, Roger
Palmer, Arthur	Strang, Gavin
Parker, John	Straw, Jack
Pavitt, Laurie	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Pendry, Tom	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Prescott, John	Thomas, Mike(Newcastle E)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)
Race, Reg	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Radice, Giles	Tilley, John
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)	Tinn, James
Richardson, Jo	Torney, Tom
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)	Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)	Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)
Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)	Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Robertson, George	Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)	Watkins, David
Rodgers, Rt Hon William	Weetch, Ken
Rooker, J. W.	Wellbeloved, James
Roper, John	Welsh, Michael
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)	White, Frank R.
Rowlands, Ted	White, J.(G'gow pollock)
Ryman, John	Whitehead, Phillip
Sandelson, Neville	Whitlock, William
Sever, John	Wigley, Dafydd
Sheerman, Barry	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Williams, SirT.(W'ton)
Short, Mrs Renée	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)
Silverman, Julius	Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Skinner, Dennis	Winnick, David
Smith, Cyril(Rouchdale)	Woodall, Alec
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)	Woolmer, Kenneth
Snape, Peter	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Soley, Clive	Wright, Sheila
Spearing, Nigel	Young, David (Bolton E)
Spriggs, Leslie
Stallard, A. W.	Tellers for the Ayes:
Steel, Rt Hon David	Mr. Hugh McCartney and Mr. Joseph Dean
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Stoddart, David

NOES
Adley, Robert	Brotherton, Michael
Aitken, Jonathan	Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)
Alexander, Richard	Browne, John(Winchester)
Alison, Michael	Bruce-Gardyne, John
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Ancram, Michael	Buck, Antony
Arnold, Tom	Budgen, Nick
Aspinwall, Jack	Bulmer, Esmond
Atkins, RtHonH.(S'thorne)	Burden, SirFrederick
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)	Butcher, John
Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)	Cadbury, Jocelyn
Baker, Kenneth(St, M'bone)	Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Banks, Robert	Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Chapman, Sydney
Bell, Sir Ronald	Churchill, W, S.
Bendall, Vivian	Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Benyon, Thomas(A'don)	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Best, Keith	Clegg, SirWalter
Bevan, David Gilroy	Cockeram, Eric
Biggs-Davison, John	Colvin, Michael
Blackburn, John	Cope, John
Blaker, Peter	Cormack, Patrick
Body, Richard	Corrie, John
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Costain, Sir Albert
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Cranborne, Viscount
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Critchley, Julian
Bowden, Andrew	Crouch, David
Boyson,Dr Rhodes	Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Dickens, Geoffrey
Bright, Graham	Dorrell, Stephen
Brinton, Tim	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Brittan, Leon	Dover, Denshore
Brooke, Hon Peter	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Durant,Tony	Hurd,HonDouglas
Dykes, Hugh	Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Jenkin,Rt Hon Patrick
Eggar,Tim	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Elliott,Sir William	Jopling,Rt Hon Michael
Emery, Peter	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Eyre, Reginald	Kaberry,Sir Donald
Fairbairn,Nicholas	Kershaw,Anthony
Fairgrieve,Russell	Kimball,Marcus
Farr,John	King, Rt Hon Tom
Fell,Anthony	Knight, Mrs Jill
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Knox, David
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Lamont,Norman
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Lang, Ian
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)	Latham,Michael
Fletcher-Cooke,Sir Charles	Lawrence, Ivan
Fookes, Miss Janet	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Forman,Nigel	Lee, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Fox, Marcus	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh	Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Fry, Peter	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.	Loveridge,John
Gardiner,George(Reigate)	Luce,Richard
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Lyell,Nicholas
Garel-Jones,Tristan	McCrindle,Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Macfarlane,Neil
Glyn, Dr Alan	MacKay, John (Argyll)
Goodhart,Philip	Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Goodlad.Alastair	McNair-Wilson.M. (N'bury)
Gorst,John	McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Gow, Ian	McQuarrie,Albert
Gower,Sir Raymond	Madel, David
Gray, Hamish	Major,John
Greenway, Harry	Marland,Paul
Grieve, Percy	Marlow,Tony
Griffiths, Peter Portsm 'th N)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Grist, Ian	Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Grylls, Michael	Mather,Carol
Gummer,John Selwyn	Mawby, Ray
Hamilton, Hon A.	Mawhinney,Dr Brian
Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)	Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
Hampson,Dr Keith	Mayhew, Patrick
Hannam,John	Miller,Hal(B'grove)
Haselhurst,Alan	Mills,Iain(Meriden)
Hastings,Stephen	Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Miscampbell,Norman
Hawkins,Paul	Moate, Roger
Hawksley,Warren	Monro,Hector
Hayhoe, Barney	Montgomery, Fergus
Heddle,John	Moore,John
Henderson, Barry	Morgan,Geraint
Heseltine,Rt Hon Michael	Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Hicks, Robert	Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Hill,James	Mudd, David
Hogg,Hon Douglas(Gr'th''m)	Murphy,Christopher
Holland,Philip(Carlton)	Myles, David
Hooson,Tom	Neale,Gerrard
Hordern, Peter	Needham,Richard
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Nelson,Anthony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)	Neubert, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)	Newton,Tony
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Normanton,Tom

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.	Squire,Robin
Page, John (Harrow, West)	Stainton,Keith
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)	Stanbrook,Ivor
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Stanley,John
Parkinson,Cecil	Steen,Anthony
Parris, Matthew	Stevens,Martin
Patten,Christopher(Bath)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Pattie,Geoffrey	Stewart,A.(E Renfrewshire)
Pavitt, Laurie	Stokes,John
Pawsey, James	Stradling Thomas,J.
Percival,Sir Ian	Tapsell, Peter
Peyton, Rt Hon John	Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Pink, R.Bonner	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Pollock,Alexander	Tebbit,Norman
Porter, Barry	Temple-Morris,Peter
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)	Thompson,Donald
Prior, Rt Hon James	Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)
Proctor, K. Harvey	Thornton,Malcolm
Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Raison,Timothy	Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)
Rathbone,Tim	Trippier,David
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)	Trotter,Neville
Rees-Davies, W. R.	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Renton,Tim	Vaughan,Dr Gerard
Rhodes James, Robert	Viggers, Peter
Rhys Williams,Sir Brandon	Waddington,David
Ridley,Hon Nicholas	Wakeham,John
Ridsdale,Sir Julian	Waldegrave,Hon William
Rifkind,Malcolm	Walker, B. (Perth)
Rippon,Rt Hon Geoffrey	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D
Roberts, M. (Cardiff N W)	Waller, Gary
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Walters,Dennis
Rossi, Hugh	Ward,John
Rost, Peter	Warren,Kenneth
Royle,Sir Anthony	Watson,John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Wells,John(Maidstone)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.	Wells,Bowen
Scott,Nicholas	Wheeler,John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Whitelaw,Rt Hon William
Shelton,William(Streatham)	Whitney,Raymond
Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)	Wickenden,Keith
Shepherd,Richard	Wiggin,Jerry
Silvester, Fred	Williams, D. (Montgomery)
Sims, Roger	Winterton,Nicholas
Skeet, T. H. H.	Wolfson,Mark
Smith,Dudley	Young, SirGeorge(Acton)
Speller,Tony	Younger, Rt Hon George
Spence,John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)	Tellers for the Noes:
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.
Sproat,Iain

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved, That this House notes that the aid programme for 1981–82 will be in excess of £1,000 million and welcomes the Government's intention to continue to give priority to the poorest countries in allocating bilateral aid.