Departmental Costs (Hansard, 14 November 1984)

§ 9. Mr. Thurnham
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he is taking to control the total running costs of his Department.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) said on 27 June, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is continuously seeking to reduce costs. The process is continuing despite the increasing demands on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which were recognised by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its report on the FCO and ODA Supply Estimates. Measures which are being taken or planned to control running costs include, for example, travel and freight arrangements, office cleaning and secretarial services and computerisation of certain accounting processes in the ODA.

§ Mr. Thurnham
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government's swift and humane action in Ethiopia will be unaffected by any expenditure review currently in process?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I give my hon. Friend the immediate assurance that in the course of the review of my programmes there will be no reduction whatever in the allocations made for humanitarian aid to poorer countries, including disaster or famine relief of the sort now being given to Ethiopia and elsewhere, and that any effect on the overall aid programme will be modest, and certainly not on the scale suggested in some newspapers. I am taking a very careful look at all the overseas activities apart from aid for which I am responsible, including the British Council, the external services of the BBC, military training and assistance, and diplomatic representation, and I will decide where adjustments can best be made al the national interest.

§ Dr. Owen
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that many of us believe that there is no case for any cut—even a modest one — in the aid budget? Given the problems of the Diplomatic Service with the movement of currencies, is it not reasonable that that should be met out of the Contingency Reserve? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that if he makes savings he will cut back on some of the larger missions and not reduce the number of missions? It is a sign of success that over the past 20 years the Foreign Office has expanded the number of missions by 19 per cent. while having a 20 per cent. cut in the Diplomatic Service. Even single diplomat missions are better than withdrawing from any country.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The right hon. Gentleman understands from his own experience that the programmes of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have to be managed within the framework of the Government's economic policy as a whole. He is right to draw attention to the scope for savings in the area that he has identified, but the fact that there has been a cut means that the scope for further progress in that direction may be limited. However, I assure him that no possible option will be excluded from my consideration.

§ Mr. Rippon
Is it not the height of folly that we spend billions of pounds on defence and yet appear to grudge every penny spent on foreign policy? In view of the 675 importance of the issues involved, will my right hon. and learned Friend produce a White Paper setting out the precise nature and purpose of any cuts that he has in mind?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My right hon. and learned Friend must understand that the balancing of all policies—whether on defence, Foreign and Commonwealth representation or on the substantial domestic programmes which are themselves having to face reductions—must be undertaken by arriving at the best balance of judgment. The House will be kept informed of my conclusions in the usual way.

§ Mr. Healey
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm the estimate of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), that the figures announced on Monday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer imply a cut in real terms of between £30 million and £100 million in the expenditure for which the Foreign Secretary is responsible? How can he possibly justify any cut in the aid programme when recent events have proved that it is now desperately urgent to increase it by at least 50 per cent. so that it represents the same proportion of national wealth as under the previous Labour Government?
How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman justify any cut in other instruments of British foreign policy, already cut well beyond the bone in some cases, when the Government are increasing their expenditure on the European Community by £200 million more than planned earlier this year? Does he think that these priorities reflect a rational view of Britain's interests?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The reductions achieved in Britain's contributions as a result of the Fontainebleau negotiations are substantial and amount to about £2½ billion. The Labour Government's arrangements achieved not one penny saving. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that all Governments have to arrive at a set of decisions which fit alongside each other in the allocation of their programmes. He must remember that when he performed the Chancellor's duties he announced reductions in the aid programme of £50 million in three successive years. That was a reduction on a much more substantial scale and it did not exclude an impact on the poorest people.