Aid Budget (Hansard, 29 January 1996)

§ 26. Mr. Nigel Evans
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the size of the overseas aid budget in 1996–97. [10007]

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley)
We always receive a large number of representations from hon. Members and the general public, and this year is no exception.

§ Mr. Evans
I have received many letters from my constituents in Ribble Valley about the overseas aid budget, which I have passed on to my right hon. Friend. Does he believe that the interest shown by my constituents and those of other hon. Members reflects the interest that the British people wish to see the Government demonstrating in maintaining a high level of spending within the overseas aid programme while ensuring that every pound of that money is spent effectively so that we can be proud of our overseas aid programme?

§ Mr. Hanley
My hon. Friend is right. Britain's aid programme is the fifth largest in the world. It is one of the most effective of all the official programmes. The Government are committed to maintaining a large and effective aid programme with the aim of reducing poverty and creating a more prosperous and stable world. I believe that the United Kingdom people join us in that.

§ Mr. Foulkes
The fundamental expenditure review does not square with the Minister's description. "Narrow focus" is a smokescreen for cuts. It is no good repeating parrot fashion that we are fifth in the list of donors when we have fallen to 13th place in the real terms of gross national product.
638 What response does the Minister expect from countries in central and southern America, in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, and especially Commonwealth countries, which will receive no aid from Britain under the fundamental expenditure review? The review is a betrayal of those countries. The Prime Minister said that we would maintain an aid programme of which we could be proud. We must be ashamed of the present policy.

§ Mr. Hanley
As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The fundamental expenditure review contained the recommendation of concentration of effort in priority countries, continuing a process of focus already under way. There will be no radical change and we shall not neglect traditional partners. In 1994–95, 70 per cent. of our bilateral programme concentrated on the 20 largest recipients. We currently give aid to 160 countries.
There is no doubt that the bilateral programme will face reductions during the survey period—we have admitted that—as we switch to multilateral aid. The FER is not in the slightest the slashing of budgets that the hon. Gentleman says that it is. If he wants to know about the slashing of budgets, let me tell him that Italy's expenditure on aid fell by 36 per cent. last year, Canada reduced its aid by 20.5 per cent., and the United States provides only 0.15 per cent. of its gross national product as aid. Perhaps those are the sort of programmes that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We are proud of our aid. We are, and will remain, the fifth biggest donor.

§ Mr. Key
I warmly welcome the fundamental expenditure review, as we shall have to make difficult choices in the coming years. I am in no doubt that the quality of our aid programme is the finest in the world, but will my right hon. Friend explain how we shall fit into a new relationship with the European Union's aid programme, which is of inferior quality and dilutes our traditional aid effort into parts of the world with which we have precious little in common?

§ Mr. Hanley
I understand what my hon. Friend says. The FER's conclusions are only recommendations, and we are considering how policies should be changed to respond to them. The FER has confirmed the basic rationale and thrust of the aid programme, the continuing need for concessional aid, and the desirability of the Overseas Development Administration to continue to have responsibility for all aid in the ODA. I am very proud indeed that more of our officials from the ODA are helping out in the European Commission to ensure that the multilateral aid that is given by Europe is given effectively and efficiently, as our bilateral programme is.