Overseas Aid Cuts (Hansard, 10 July 1981)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, reductions in public expenditure are an essential component of the Government's counter-inflationary policy. As some programmes are being maintained or increased, others have had to be cut by more than the average reduction. But the planned reductions in several domestic programmes are more severe than that for overseas aid, the level of which remains substantial—£1,037 million gross in the current financial year.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that on 7th April this year, in cols. 433 to 436, I asked a similar Question of his noble friend Lord Trefgarne, and did not get an answer to the Question that stands on the Order Paper? Is he further aware that the average cut in Government departmental expenditure is 1.7 per cent, whereas the cut in overseas development is 15.3 per cent of GNP over two years? Nine times as high as the average! What I am asking the Minister to explain is why overseas development has been singled out in this way for such a large reduction in expenditure in comparison with the average cuts which the Government have been making, particularly when other countries in Europe are increasing their overseas aid. Countries like Sweden, 929 Holland, Denmark, Norway and West Germany are all increasing their overseas aid, whereas apparently this Government are singling out overseas development for a particularly savage cut.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, yes, I do recall the previous exchanges with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on this subject. But, as the 1981 Public Expenditure Paper, Cmnd. 1875, made quite clear, total Government expenditure is planned to decline by just over 4 per cent. between 1980–81 and 1983–84, while overseas aid is to fall by 15 per cent. in that period. Agriculture, housing, industry, trade, energy, and employment are all due to fall by more than that amount. In other words, you can do anything with figures if you try.

§ Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe
My Lords, you can do anything with figures if you try, except feed poor people in the poorest countries.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that a great many economists take the view that much development aid has been misspent, and that there is a quite different case for helping the poor of the poorest countries and putting the money into the hands of Governments who use it on projects to improve their own standing, or on rash experiments such as the so-called African socialism which has made these countries poorer than they were before?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I would agree that aid is better directed to specific projects. As to the amount of aid, of course this must be to a certain extent a guess because of the uncertainties in predicting both aid expenditure itself and the gross national product of this country, which our aid would depend on.

Lord Oram
My Lords, is it not the case that aid provided by the Ministry of Overseas Development under successive Governments has been well monitored, has provided for sound projects and has not been abused in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggests?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, before we even consider granting aid in a particular case, of course many factors are taken into account, and I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, on his point.

§ Lord Hale
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who have been associated with this plan since its inception have met a constant series of organised frustrations which nearly broke the Labour Party itself within a very short time because of the wholly shocking inadequacies of the preliminary allocation? Is he aware that we have been assured time after time that the only reason the money is not going is because they cannot spend it and that these schemes require detailed organisation, and so on? We have seen examples of wonderful work in the face of national emergencies and national disasters. I myself saw the all-too-soon destined to die British manager who had taken over the fund, and he assured me that there was virtually no limit to what could be spent on 930 work for the children. He took me out to lunch and gave me pretty full details of the sort of thing that was happening, and the sort of thing he was hoping to start.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, many factors, as I have already said, make up for the amount of aid which is available, but there is also another problem on whether this aid figure is in fact taken up. For example, in 1980 no promissory note was deposited in respect of the sixth replenishment of the International Development Association because the then United States Congress had not ratified the agreement. Furthermore, sluggish drawings bilaterally by some recipients in relation to the resources available are another important factor.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, has the Minister noted the statement in the Brandt Report that a mere fraction of 1 per cent. of military expenditure could end poverty in the world within a decade? Will the Government, both nationally and internationally, seek to bring about that result?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, yes, I have noted this section of the Brandt Report, and I think that without doubt there is something in it. This is one of the many things which are currently being discussed and considered in the various aid ministries all over the world.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, I hope that the generalisations in the Brandt Report will not replace the hard and sensible thinking that is given to all of those matters. It is too full of clichés without the backing of research—

Several noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
—for me to accept it as the Bible, as so many people seem to be doing.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, but I did say "considered" and I did not go further than that.

§ Lord Soames
My Lords, I think there has been a long run of supplementaries on this Question. Important as it is, I suggest that we move on to the next business.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is it not customary for the originator of a Question to have a second supplementary? This is the second time that I have been denied a second supplementary on this Question.

§ Lord Soames
My Lords, I am most indebted to the noble Lord for raising this matter because I think that this is a misunderstanding. I do not think that it is. In fact, once there was a specific Question put to me on this very subject. The noble Lord was not actually in the Chamber, I remember, when it was asked.
I think it is the feeling of the House that it is not, as it were, a rule, albeit even an unwritten rule, of the House, that the asker of a Question who has then had a supplementary should have the right for a wind-up supplementary at the end. That is not to 931 say it does not sometimes happen, and I said when I answered the Question relevant to this point that sometimes it would happen and sometimes it would not. I am only the humble servant of your Lordships' House and I intervene at Question Time only when I think the House has had enough supplementaries, which in some instances may be but a handful and in others quite a lot. I think that on this Question today we have had a long string of supplementaries—rightly so, because it is a matter of grave importance on which your Lordships feel deeply—and while I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter, I do not think it is the wish of the House that there should automatically be for the asker of a Question the right to ask yet a second supplementary.

Several noble Lords
Hear, hear!

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I accept fully the explanation of the Leader of the House. However, does he realise that it leaves some of us in a difficult position? We deliberately do not rise while noble Lords in all parts of the House are asking supplementary questions because we assume that the convention will be followed that a final supplementary will be allowed to the initiator of the Question.

Several noble Lords
Rubbish!

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
Further, my Lords, I would remind the Leader of the House—and this will be borne out by his colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—that on this very subject, this is the second time I have been prevented from following up the Minister's first Answer to my Question with a further supplementary. That has happened on this very issue. In other words, this is the second time I have been prevented from putting such a supplementary.

§ Lord Soames
My Lords, if it is only the second time that the noble Lord has been inhibited from asking a second supplementary, then I am afraid that redounds to my discredit, because it must show that I have not intervened often enough before.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
Just the second time on this issue, my Lords, but many other times on other issues.