Pergau Dam (Hansard, 5 December 1994)

§ 37. Sir David Steel
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the replenishment of Overseas Development Administration funds following the court case on the Pergau dam.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry)
The Government have yet to receive and study the written judgment. Until we do so and have decided for or against an appeal, we cannot decide on the implications for the aid programme. No decision has been taken on those points. The House will be informed when the Government have decided whether to appeal against the judgment.

§ Sir David Steel
I well understand that the question of whether there is to be an appeal has still to be decided. However, that should not prevent the Government from making it clear to the House, and giving an undertaking, that if they do not appeal, or in the event of an appeal going against them, the ODA budget will be reinstated in full. Is the Minister aware that the courts decided that the World Development Movement could go back to the courts if the £230 million was not reinstated? Surely the Minister should give the House that long-overdue assurance now.

§ Mr. Baldry
As I have said, we have yet to receive the court's written judgment. Until we have studied that judgment and decided for or against an appeal, we cannot decide on the implications for the aid programme of the money already spent or the funds likely to be required in future. However, the right hon. Gentleman and the House can be assured that, as soon as we have decided whether to appeal, the House will be informed.

§ Sir John Stanley
Does my hon. Friend agree that, should the present legal position be sustained, and the Government be found to have used aid money for non-aid purposes, there would in those circumstances be the clearest possible moral obligation on the Government to make good the appropriate sum to the aid programme and, at the very least, to make an appropriate public expenditure survey transfer from the Department of Trade and Industry to the ODA?

§ Mr. Baldry
That is all hypothetical. As my right hon. Friend is aware, having been a Minister, no responsible Minister would answer a hypothetical question like that.

§ Miss Lestor
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people, including myself, believe that this talk about studying the written judgment is really a means of avoiding the question because we all know what the judgment was? Will he make it clear that his Department is not working on a scheme designed to subvert the court's judgment? Is he also aware that the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office are in danger of appearing very churlish in looking for loopholes in that judgment? Why will the Minister not refund the money, as that is what many hon. Members feel should be done, and direct it to 17 the poorest countries, particularly where the freeze in the aid budget means a cut of 17 per cent. in aid to the African continent?

§ Mr. Baldry
I think that I have already answered the hon. Lady's first point very fully. This is a matter in respect of which the court has made a ruling and it must be right for the Government to consider whether to appeal. Until we have decided whether to appeal, what might happen to the aid budget is hypothetical.
As for the hon. Lady's other point, she is severely mistaken. Let me help her: if she considers the figures shown on this board, which were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, she will see that he has increased the aid programme. It is a plus programme—[Interruption.] Let me help Opposition Members as they are having some problems. The figures for the coming year are up nearly £50 million.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Points of order are taken after Question Time.

§ Mr. Baldry
For the following year, they are nearly £100 million more than now, and, for the next following year, they are nearly £150 million more. Those are plus, plus, plus figures. For each of the three coming years, including this year, more money will be spent than in the previous year. We are the sixth-largest aid donor world wide, and our aid budget is £2.2 billion. Indeed, last year, the United Kingdom was one of only seven countries to increase its aid in real terms. The hon. Lady's suggestion about cuts in aid is total bunkum. They are plus figures throughout.