HL Deb 15 December 1981 vol 426 cc82-4

2.42 p.m.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the ministerial committee which is considering cuts in public expenditure has reached a decision regarding further cuts in overseas aid.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the gross aid programme for 1982–83 will continue to be over one billion pounds, and the net programme will be £950 million. This is a reduction of just under £20 million below the previously planned figure, plus a further reduction of £6 million to compensate for an overspend of the same amount in 1980–81. In addition, the Commonwealth Development Corporation may borrow abroad up to £15 million in each of the next three years.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, while I congratulate the Foreign Office on resisting the demands for further cuts by the Treasury, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is not a cause for shame that our aid should be inadequate in view of the fact that the World Bank has recently stated that 26 African countries are on the verge of famine? Can he confirm that, since this Government came to office, aid has been cut four times more heavily than other public expenditure? Is this not ruining our reputation, which for generations before was a high one for assistance in world aid?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, no, he could not confirm anything of the sort. The planned expenditure, as in Supply Estimates for 1979–80, was £844 million; for 1980–81, it was £882 million; for 1981–82, it was £972 million and, for 1982–83, it will be £950 million. I said in my original Answer that the Commonwealth Development Corporation may borrow up to £15 million in each of the next three years. In the noble Lord's Question we are dealing only with one year, but even with my shaky mathematics £950 million and £15 million make £975 million, which is an increase in the 1981 expenditure figure of £3 million.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, will the noble Lord assure the House that the Government contemplate no further cuts in their aid for population activities?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot promise any particular breakdown of the total aid figure. It will depend on circumstances at the time, not only within the overall aid budget but within our own economic climate.

Lord Oram

My Lords, were not the cuts last year, in fact, disproportionately large compared with cuts in other areas of public expenditure? Does not the statement that we have heard today indicate that nothing is being done to restore the position as it was prior to the cuts of last year? Moreover, were not these decisions taken during the very weeks when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were attending a series of aid conferences in Ottawa, in Paris, in Melbourne and then in Cancun, and putting their signatures to declarations about the need for much more generous aid to developing countries? Is it not shameful that these fine words have, in fact, been followed by mean actions?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, we have always said that aid depends on our economic performance in other fields. The Government's first priority must remain to put our own economy to rights. That entails controlling public expenditure, of which the aid programme is a part. But this relatively small reduction and the additional allocation to the Commonwealth Development Corporation reflect the Government's commitment to maintaining a substantial programme of assistance to developing countries. So I do not believe that what I have said now is in any way inconsistent with what my right honourable and honourable friends have been saying around the world.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm the excellence of the work done by the United Nations Voluntary Fund, to which, I think I am right in saying, this country is the second largest contributor?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am afraid that I have been caught on the hop by that question: I shall have to write to my noble friend.

Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

My Lords, in spite of the noble Lord's reference to his own shaky arithmetic, is he not aware that, as The Times newspaper pointed out this morning, these figures in fact represent an 11 per cent. cut in real terms in the aid programme?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, it depends on what you mean by "cut". I prefer to look at it as a reduction in the Budget estimate, which is no cut in my book.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, I wish to be constructive. Is the Minister aware that many of us appreciate that much of the aid is misused, going to urban populations and often subject to corruption? Would the Government consider that aid should be given, not Government to Government, but by a development agency which could contribute directly to rural construction, as is now the case in Mali?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, yes, this has been under consideration for some time, but I am afraid that I am not able to give the noble Lord any concrete facts at the moment.