AID TO OVERSEAS COUNTRIES (Hansard, 1 March 1966)

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK)
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise that our balance-of-payments situation, while greatly improved over the past year, is for the present a restraining factor on the overseas aid programme. The total of £225 million for 1966–67 was arrived at after full consideration of this factor, and represents the amount necessary, in the Government's view, to fulfil our commitments and the policies described in the White Paper which was presented to Parliament last autumn. Only a proportion of the programme is a charge on the balance of payments

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Would he not agree that it is crazy economics to increase this free aid to insolvent countries, while at the same time the Government are cutting down on profitable investments to solvent countries by the penalisation of British companies operating overseas? It really seems quite incredible, because we rely on these companies to sustain our balance of payments. Does the noble Lord realise that we are (as I understand it) the only 581 country which, during the last two or three years, has increased aid? Countries far richer than us, such as America, have—

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)
My Lords, may I, with great respect, suggest to the noble Viscount that he puts his question, or puts another question if he wishes to, but does not continue his speech?

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, lastly, whether he has read The National Plan?

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, the answer to the last part of the question is, Yes. As to the rest of the question, I remember the "great" Government of 1931 and the way in which they tackled their financial problems, when they seemed to work on the principle that the poorest should be hit first and hit most. That is a policy which the present Government do not intend to pursue.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, does not the Government White Paper on Expenditure point out in paragraph 26 that expenditure on overseas aid is determined in advance by decisions taken two years previously? And is not this large figure based on decisions made two years ago when the rate of economic growth was a good deal higher than it is now?

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, I quite agree with part of the noble Earl's observation. It is a fact that the amounts we shall disburse in 1966–67 were committed in some cases two or three years ago.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? He told me that he had read The National Plan. Apparently, he must have fallen asleep before he reached page 9—

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD
My Lords, I really must suggest to the noble Viscount that that cannot be described as any sort of a question.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has read page 9?—because page 9 says that the Govern- 582 ment intend to slow down for the time being the rate at which our aid to poorer countries has been increasing. The Government do not appear to have done that in this new allocation.

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD
That is comment.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, as I have already indicated the amounts which we are disbursing during the forthcoming year are for the most part to fulfil commitments which were undertaken some two or three years ago. As to the future, the amounts we shall decide for future years will be amounts which will take into account the balance-of-payments situation in accordance with the proposals in The National Plan.

§ LORD CAMPBELL OF ESKAN
My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government agree that the social and economic plight of the poorer countries is a threat to the peace and prosperity of the whole world? Do they also agree that it is our duty to do all we can to increase aid, and to ensure that our aid is effective and well managed?

§ Lotto BESWICK
My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think the short answer to him, and an additional answer to the noble Viscount, is that what we are doing is both morally right and in our own long-term interest.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that we owe a great deal of money to the International Monetary Fund and other bodies, and that if we go on like this we shall be bankrupt?

§ LORD BLYTON
My Lords, ought we to accept the philosophy of the other side, because they are prepared to reject what we called the Empire, now the Commonwealth, for the Common Market?

§ LORD COLERAINE
My Lords, is it not desirable that we should be more selective in our aid? And, while it may be true that we do great good by helping the poorer countries, is it not the case that in Ghana, for instance, our aid did nothing but buttress a dictatorship that has been proved to be intolerable?

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, if what is true is accepted, I see no reason why 583 we should cut off our influence from a country of that kind. The kind of influence which is entailed in this aid programme can be most useful in helping both the political and the economic development of a country.

§ LORD ST. HELENS
My Lords, while I accept what the Minister has said, would he not agree that a suitable epitaph for this Government would be the last will and testament of Rabelais I have nothing, I owe much; the rest I leave to the poor".

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the debt which was left us by the last Government, I would accept that.