§ 29. Mr. Mike O'BrienTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the Government's policy in respect of meeting the United Nations 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product target in relation to aid. [20709]
§ Mr. HanleyWe have agreed to try to reach the UN target as soon as possible, but like many other donors we have not set a timetable for doing so. Progress towards the target will depend on our economic circumstances and on other priorities for public expenditure.
§ Mr. O'BrienIf it is still a Government target, why does the Government's policy seem to be going in the opposite direction? They inherited from the Labour Administration a contribution of 0.5 per cent., which has 704 decreased to 0.3 per cent. The ODA's recently published fundamental expenditure review discloses that the contribution is falling to 0.26 per cent. Why is Government policy moving in the opposite direction from that which it should be following? Do the Government lack a sense of direction or do they lack a sense of candour?
§ Mr. HanleyNo. The target still remains. Our ability to move towards it depends on the United Kingdom's future economic performance and on many public expenditure priorities. It is impossible to forecast how the economy will fare or what conflicting priorities may arise in the future. That statement might just as well be made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), because the Opposition have stated that they have the same target of 0.7 per cent. Yet they have refused to make a commitment or to set a time scale.
We believe that it is right to concentrate on ensuring that our substantial aid is effective. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley tell the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) exactly what the Labour party's time scale would be for achieving 0.7 per cent. if Labour were ever to be in Government.
§ Mr. FormanWithin what is still the fifth largest official aid programme in the world, will my right hon. Friend give due weight to the cost-effectiveness and importance of the pound-for-pound scheme, which was designed to contribute £1 of British taxpayers' money for every £1 that is raised and used extremely effectively by non-governmental organisations in the developing world, such as Oxfam and Christian Aid?
§ Mr. HanleyMy hon. Friend does the House a service in reminding it that we have the fifth largest aid programme in the world. That is entirely sensible, because we have the fifth largest economy. Our budget—it is well over £2.2 billion—is impressive. I know that the Opposition do not like me repeating these facts. This year Italy's aid expenditure fell by 36 per cent. Canada has reduced its aid budget by 20.5 per cent. The United States provides only 0.15 per cent. of its gross national product as development assistance, and it is reducing its programme still further. In other words, our contribution is extremely impressive—and we intend to ensure that it remains so.