§ Ms. ArmstrongTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which country in membership of the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has decreased its net official development assistance (disbursements) to sub-Saharan Africa in 1986 prices and exchange rates between 1980 and 1987 by the highest percentage; and by what percentage.
§ Mr. Chris PattenNew Zealand, by 73 per cent.
§ Ms. ArmstrongWill the Minister comment on the British contribution? Will he confirm that because our contribution has gone down in percentage terms, sub-Saharan Africa lost about £600 million in that period? Will he assure the House that there is a commitment to enable sub-Saharan Africa to get out of its continuing problems? It now has a debt repayment problem and a loss of income, which means that it is getting into further problems. This country, with its economic growth that the Minister keeps telling us about, is in an ideal position to help sub-Saharan Africa.
§ Mr. PattenI have the passing impression that I did not give the hon. Lady the answer that she was expecting. In our bilateral and multilateral programmes, we contributed £530 million to sub-Saharan Africa in 1987. We have taken the lead in trying to cope with the African debt problem. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have been delighted also by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's 643 announcement last week that we will be prepared to contribute up to $100 million to Nigeria to help the programme that it is agreeing with the IMF, provided other donors also give support.
§ Mr. Jacques ArnoldHas my hon. Friend noted the comments of the development assistance committee in praising the British programme for its concentration on the poorest countries, not least in sub-Saharan Africa?
§ Mr. PattenYes, we concentrate more aid on poor countries than do many other donors. The average for OECD donor countries as a whole is about 60 per cent. to poor countries whereas our figure is about 80 per cent. That is wholly right. It is also why we attempt to convince our colleagues in the European Community to adopt poverty criteria rather than political criteria for allocations under the Asia-Latin America programme.
§ Miss LestorAs I have written to the Minister, he is no doubt aware that in its report, which he must have seen, the development assistance committee has expressed its concern at the decline in our aid
in real terms during much of the 1980s and that as a proportion of GNP it was now considerably below DAC average.The OECD also states:that the time has come to reverse the downward trend in the United Kingdom's ODA/GNP ratio, also as a contribution to improved aid burden-sharing among DAC members, and to make sustained progress towardsthe United Nations target. Does the Minister agree with those views? Can he give an assurance that this year the trend will be reversed?
§ Mr. PattenI agree with what the development assistance committee of the OECD said in its statement about the effectiveness of our aid programme, about the extent to which it takes account of environmental factors and about the extent to which it is directed towards the alleviation of poverty. I also welcome what the development assistance committee said about our aid programme now growing in real terms—a reflection of the growing strength of our economy, to which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mrs. Armstrong) paid such glittering and fulsome tribute earlier. I am delighted that our aid programme will be growing by 18 per cent. in cash terms over the next three years or 5 per cent. in real terms.
§ Mr. PattenI said 5 per cent. in real terms. Perhaps the hon. Lady could take a course in basic economics. I am delighted that we should be able to add to that with the new money that would go to Nigeria, provided that the other conditions which I mentioned earlier are met.