§ 40. Mr. Simon HughesTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he will take following the world summit for social development in Copenhagen. [13018]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry)We are considering the summit's conclusions. 16 We shall study them carefully. We shall continue to have a large aid programme, the object of which is poverty reduction through sustainable development.
§ Mr. HughesDoes the Minister accept that one of the recommendations of the summit was to encourage Governments to accept the 20:20 principle? Do he and the Government accept that principle, whereby 20 per cent. of the aid should be spent on social programmes specifically targeted to help, not only the poorest countries, but the poorest people? Does he also accept that there should be a reduction in the percentage of our bilateral aid that is tied from more than two thirds of our aid programme to about a third, which is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average, and which will also help to target aid towards alleviation of poverty?
§ Mr. BaldryOur aid programme is poverty-focused. Nine of the 10 largest recipients of our bilateral aid are low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.
However, those so-called definitions—20:20 definitions or other definitions of what contributes to poverty reduction—are meaningless unless one understands what is behind them. If there were parts of the hon. Gentleman's constituency that were regularly without electricity or did not have any electricity supply, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would feel that that was a matter of considerable deprivation, but in overseas development terms, projects to enable areas to have secure supplies of power are not within the 20:20 definition. Therefore, unless those definitions are clear, they are meaningless.
The important thing is that we have an aid programme that is essentially focused on relieving poverty and ensuring sustainable development.
§ Mr. HendryDoes my hon. Friend share my worry about whether the multi-million pound jamboree in Copenhagen should have taken place? Does he agree that the money would have been better spent on tackling poverty rather than talking about it?
§ Mr. BaldryThe facts are that, prior to the Copenhagen summit, Britain had the sixth largest aid budget in the world; after the Copenhagen summit, Britain continues to have the sixth largest aid budget in the world; year on year, an aid budget that is due to grow at a time when many countries, including the United States, Canada and Sweden, are reducing their aid budgets.
One is compelled to ask what has been added to the sum of human knowledge by that summit, which cost $30 million—$30 million that, one suspects, the United Nations could have spent better elsewhere directly on aid.
§ Miss LestorFirst, before we call what took place in Copenhagen a jamboree, may I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that one of the problems that confronted us in Copenhagen was that we did not send our Prime Minister there, as more than 100 other countries did? In the eyes of many people representing the developing world and other parts of the world, that was regarded as us trying to downgrade the whole position—especially as we sent as our representative the Minister responsible for overseas aid which, however competent that person may be, gave the impression that poverty and social exclusion were nothing whatever to do with this country.
17 Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in dismissing the invitation to hold a full-scale debate on the summit, we have opted out of the global perspectives of the summit; we have opted out of trying to consider those matters from a worldwide point of view, not only from a very narrow perspective
§ Mr. BaldryOf all the 118 representatives at the summit, only my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey had the perspicacity to make it clear that free trade is the key to global prosperity, that the full implementation of a general agreement on tariffs and trade is likely to generate more jobs worldwide than any other single international development and that prosperity created by free trade is the key that opens the door to higher social standards. That is why open access to markets is important for all products. My right hon. and noble Friend made it clear that the overriding goal of our aid programme is poverty reduction through sustainable development. I have no doubt that my right hon. and noble Friend's words made a telling contribution towards ensuring that the summit maintained a degree of perspective on what is in the interests of developing countries.