§ 39. Mr. Jon Owen JonesTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of the overseas aid programme for the next two years.
§ Mr. HurdAs announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement, the aid programme for developing countries is planned to rise in 1993–94 to £1,900 million, compared with £1,835 million this year, and then to be maintained at that level in 1994–95.
§ Mr. JonesIs the Foreign Secretary aware that today more than 3,000 Somalis are stranded, starving, in a ship in the Red sea? That is a matter of deep personal concern to my constituents in Cardiff who have relatives in Somalia. Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed that, on this day, we have frozen our overseas aid for the next two years, effectively saving £75 million next year and £150 million the year after, and cutting our aid budget by 12 per cent. over those two years?
§ Mr. HurdI am told that the refugees to whom the hon. Gentleman refers have now reached Yemen. Our aid to Somalia this year has been substantial—£27 million sterling. As for the total figures, I have received, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman received, many letters protesting against the Government's intention to cut aid by 15 per cent. I do not know where that story came from. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does. However, it has been completely falsified by events. They show a rise, in cash terms, in aid to developing countries this year; a steady figure, in cash terms, in the remaining two years; and, as regards our total external assistance, including eastern Europe, a rise in cash and in real terms, throughout the three years. In the circumstances, that is a very satisfactory outcome.
§ Mr. WellsIs it not true that the increase in the aid budget, which I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing, clearly helps the poorest countries, and the 18 poorest people in those countries? However, because it is tied to the acquisition of British goods and services and to the employment of British people, does it not help this country out of recession, as well?
§ Mr. HurdYes, it does have that effect. Although much of our aid is untied, British industry benefits greatly as a result. It is widely felt in the House, even on partisan occasions, that the quality of British aid is high and that it is well targeted. I am delighted that the total agreed in the autumn statement is, in the circumstances, a good one.
§ Mr. MeacherContrary to what the Foreign Secretary said, does he not acknowledge that to freeze the aid budget for two years after 1993 will cut £75 million off aid programmes that had been planned in the first year, and £150 million in the second year, and that that represents altogether about 12 per cent. of the whole aid budget for this year—£225 million? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the two-year freeze, plus the 15 per cent. devaluation after black Wednesday, will cut the value of British aid abroad over the next three years by no less than a quarter? Is he also aware that the latest cuts represent yet another prime ministerial U-turn and broken promise? At Rio, the Prime Minister promised that he would increase British aid, but it is being frozen and reduced. If he is still Prime Minister at the end of this week, should he not be hanging his head in shame when the European Community Development Council meets?
§ Mr. HurdThe hon. Gentleman has juggled rather desperately with figures which even he must admit are a good deal better than he probably expected. As regards his one substantial point, the effect on the exchange rate, he will know that a very large proportion of our aid is calculated and paid for in sterling.