The British Volunteer Programme

HL Deb 19 January 1983 vol 437 cc1490-520

8.15 p.m.

Lord Oram rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now recognise, by an increased financial allocation, the value of the work done by the British Volunteer Programme and the voluntary agencies engaged in educating the British public concerning the problems of developing countries.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question concerning overseas volunteers and development education which is on the Order Paper in my name. We look forward to hearing from the Minister, who I think is himself a former volunteer, the Government's intentions in these matters. I understand—I hope that I am right—that he will be able to announce some increase in support for the organisation. Voluntary Service Overseas, which is the largest of the organisations in the British Volunteer Programme; and if I am right in that expectation, it is, of course, something that we shall all welcome. But I hope that the Minister will not think that that is the end of the matter or that he is giving us by any means full satisfaction in his approach to this subject.

There are, of course, other organisations in the British Volunteer Programme—the IVS, UNA and the CIIR, together with VSO. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure your Lordships that Government support for all the organisations will enable all of them to meet the increasing demand that there is for the skills and the enthusiasm which volunteers take with them when they go to serve in developing countries.

I also hope that the Minister will recognise the very close link that there is between the work of the young people who go overseas as volunteers and the need here at home, in Britain, to create the right climate of public opinion about the desperate needs of the developing countries. That indeed is the reason why, in framing my Question, I linked the need for the support of the volunteer organisations with the need for the support of those many other organisations which are engaged in development of education.

Referring first to the volunteer movement, not only is the demand for volunteers expanding, but there is another change. The level of qualifications, of expertise, that the developing countries want from the volunteers is also rising, and I think it is commendable that over the years the volunteer organisations have a proud record of meeting the changing needs and circumstances in the developing world.

Moreover, I think that all who know their work will recognise that volunteers are highly cost effective by comparison with other forms of technical assistance. I have seen one estimate that a year's service by a volunteer costs something like £4,000, whereas one year's service by a career expert can cost up to £30,000. So the volunteers are very good value for money, not only from the point of view of this country, but even more so from the point of view of the developing country because they, of course, provide a good deal of the support for the people who go as volunteers.

The volunteers provide a very wide range of expertise; the kind of jobs which they do are very varied. Geographically, they are working in a wide range of developing countries, particularly in the poorest countries. Moreover, the young people—I say "young people" because most of them are young people, but we know that the age range can extend quite widely—or whatever age they are, tend to live in the villages with the ordinary people. They are therefore ambassadors in both senses: ambassadors from this country to the developing country and the other way round, for when they return they can help their neighbours and friends to understand the problems of the third world.

I therefore hope that the Government fully recognise these virtues of the volunteer programmes, and that in addition the Government will recognise two necessities, to which I should like to point, if the excellent work of the volunteer organisation is to be expanded, as I believe it ought to be. First, there is the need for the volunteer organisations to be able to plan ahead much more certainly than they can at the moment. At the moment they live in a state of uncertainty from year to year, wondering just what it will be that the Government will decide to provide for them. That is an unsatisfactory situation. They should be able to look ahead with an expanding plan for, say, a three-year period, or perhaps, better, a five-year period. I hope that the Minister will turn his and his colleagues' attention to that possibility.

Secondly, I would say that the organisations of which I am speaking need to be relieved from financial anxiety so that they do not have to put so much effort and time into fund-raising. They of course provide voluntarily a proportion of the funds, and if they were released from the obligation to do so much fund-raising they could turn the energies and time of their staff to the other difficult and exacting sides of their work. They need to identify the projects overseas. They need to be propagandist, if that is an appropriate word, to motivate potential volunteers to volunteer.

They need to do much skilful work in matching the skills of the volunteers with the needs of the particular posts which they are intending to fill.

Of course, there is a great deal of administrative work in arranging the journeys, the accommodation overseas and the welfare of the volunteers when they are there. It is a complex life that the volunteer organisations lead. It is for this reason that I believe the Government ought to give them all possible support. The work of these organisations, both in respect of recruiting the volunteers and in fund-raising, and in the other matters to which I have referred, would be greatly eased if there were in this country a much fuller understanding of the problems of the third world.

For that reason I would now wish to turn from the volunteer movement to the need for Government support of development education in this country. When I speak of the need for a higher level of understanding I mean a long-term understanding of the problems of the third world, not a spasmodic generosity. That is the problem that faces all of us who are concerned with this kind of work. If there is a disaster anywhere in the world, and particularly if it is depicted on our TV screens, the British people are, as we well know, very ready to respond with instant generosity. But if they are asked to consider the merits of long-term support of aid programmes directed towards relieving the persistent poverty which is the sad lot of two-thirds of the world's population, if they are asked what is their view about the priority that should be given to that kind of Government expenditure, then it is sad to say, but true to say, that all too many of them are inclined to reply, "Well, we have our own problems here at home, and we must deal with them first".

The Government, far from seeking to overcome the problem of that kind of public attitude, have in recent years moved in exactly the opposite direction. I should like to illustrate this from the history of the Centre for World Development Education. In 1979 Government support for development education was £560,000. There were plans then for a national programme expanding over the next four years. In October 1980 the Minister announced that that would be phased out and that the education fund would have to come to an end, with the result that, this year, the centre is receiving, not the half a million pounds but only £150,000. Next year it will get only £100,000. After that, we are told, Government funding will end.

Faced with what I would call that wrecking action by the Government it is commendable that brave efforts are being made by a group of dedicated people to save what can be saved from the wreckage. One example is the determination to continue, so far as is possible, the work of the former Advisory Committee on Development Education. Another example was seen only last night on Channel 4, when there was the first of a series of television programmes of a serious kind about the problems of the third world. Those are developments of which I am sure we all approve, and they are good. But however good those activities are, they cannot possibly be a substitute for the work that was originally planned for the Centre for World Development Education.

If one thinks of the whole range of valuable activities of that centre—its publications, its courses for teachers, its seminars for journalists and businessmen, and its education work in schools, colleges and universities—we can but contemplate with dismay the gap that will be left if, through a lack of public financial support, that work has to come to an end.

We must also remember that what is involved is not just the work of one or two central organisations at the national level. I am conscious from my own experience—and I am sure it is an experience shared by many in your Lordships' House—of the many groups up and down the country, groups of dedicated people in ail walks of life, of all political persuasions or religious beliefs, who are constantly, evening after evening, trying to bring to the notice of the broader British public the dangers—and I stress the word "dangers"—to us all inherent in the present world situation.

Those educational and social organisations would not wish to be entirely supported by the state. They would not wish to escape the need to raise their own funds by voluntary subscriptions from their members, as they do now. But what was so valuable in the past, when there was an adequate grant, was that the public funds acted as a pump priming mechanism which enabled the voluntary efforts to be much greater than they otherwise would have been. It is that element which, sadly, is, or is due to be, missing before long.

There have been some interesting international comparisons on this question of development education. There is evidence to show that in those developed countries where public expenditure on development education is high, the level and effectiveness of the work done by them in developing countries is correspondingly high. For that reason it is a sad reflection that the United Kingdom is lowest in the league table of public expenditure for development education. That must have a detrimental effect on the work that is done overseas, and I believe we should be failing in our duty as a nation if we allowed that situation to continue without protest. We must see the matters to which I have referred against that sombre backcloth, which we often hear described in terms of two-thirds of the people of the world living in dire poverty.

When we think of the work I have been describing—of the volunteer organisations and educational bodies—maybe we are talking about individual efforts (perhaps of the VSO nurse volunteer going abroad to some distant land to serve in a hospital); or when we think of development education here, we are perhaps thinking about a particular lecture to a small group of people in a women's institute or at an adult education seminar. They are detailed examples, and while they are mere drops in the ocean when we think of the vast problem of world poverty, unless those individual efforts—those small group activities—are allowed, and are helped, to continue and multiply by the Government's decisions, we are all in danger, in my view, of being overwhelmed by the global problems to which world destitution will inevitably lead.

We must tackle the problem of world poverty, and the responsibility for tackling it rests with us all—individuals and political parties—and, in passing, I must say that it is noteworthy that, as with all aid debates we have in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, sits lonely on the Government Front Bench with no one behind him; not just this evening but on other occasions that has happened. I say therefore that there is responsibility on all political parties, as well as on all Churches and social organisations of all kinds, to tackle these problems resolutely; but above all it rests with Government, and that is my main point tonight. It is to put a challenge to the Government to change their attitude on this matter of world development education, because if the level of understanding among the British public about third world problems is too low—and I believe it to be abysmally low—then it is the Government's responsibility to help increase that understanding. They have a duty to do that, and they can fulfil that duty only, or best, by increasing rather than diminishing the support they give to the many organisations to which my Question refers. Time and again—and I have heard it from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—the Government claim that they would like to do more by way of aid to the third world. I suggest that if that is their wish, they would be helped in that objective if it were supported and prompted by a public opinion vividly conscious of the true situation in third world countries. Ministers should not rest content with what I believe to be their very inadequate policies in these matters, simply because they are not yet being sufficiently badgered to do more. They should want to be badgered; they should want a public opinion which is conscious of these vast problems and wants something done about them. The creation of an enlightened public in such matters is, in my view, one of the major duties of the Government, but, sad to say, this particular Government are failing in that duty.

8.36 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, we must express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for asking this Question tonight. I am very grateful indeed. To start with, he has restored my belief in the Labour Party's loyalty to the developing world, which was sadly shattered last night by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in the debate on the Plant Varieties Bill, which led me to believe that the Labour Party history of the last 40 years had been in vain.

Tonight we have had an important and helpful opening to the debate. It is a wide-ranging subject and the noble Lord has made it wide-ranging. We have, as a result—and as a result of the genuine feeling that many of us have—a large number of speakers for an Unstarred Question so late at night. Because of that, I shall not attempt to cover the whole ground covered in the Question, but will merely talk about the education side, and in doing so keep my contribution brief, which comment will, I am sure, draw "Hear, hear" from noble Lords opposite.

Several noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

Thank you; and from noble Lords on this side, too.

If we talk about the educational side of the matter, that is not to ignore the volunteers themselves. One of the most important effects of having volunteers is their influence, first on the country they go to—not just for what they manage to do, but their influence on spreading the idea of caring and the idea of one world—and, secondly, their influence when they come back to their own country. They are usually in many ways fairly outstanding people, people whom we would call information forwarders, and they usually manage to spread their influence, opinions and knowledge of the part of the world of which they have experience in wider circles than is true of the ordinary run of the average citizen. Indeed, the Minister may be taken as a good example of what I am saying. This interchange of people is tremendously important, as important as the actual help which is given.

Likewise, reference was made in the last debate to the training and education of overseas students. It is very important that we should have this interchange, particularly in higher education, and that we should have people who come to know our way of life and that we should learn about theirs. And we learn as much about theirs, I think, by the students we entertain and train in this country as we do from our returning volunteers; because it is education which is at the heart of the question and at the heart of the problem.

We are a laggard country in this matter; laggard in our aid, where we are now fairly low down the list of western countries giving aid, and considerably laggard in our desire to give it, as a recent opinion poll unfortunately has shown. I do not believe that this is because we are basically an ungenerous country. I think that over a long period of time we have shown the opposite. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that it is because to a large degree we are ignorant; and one of the reasons why we are ignorant is that we do not spend money on education in this matter—and the little that we are spending we appear to be going to stop. It was good to hear Mr. Pym say recently that the Government would welcome debate on this matter. Let us hope that not only will they welcome debate but that they will listen to the debate, and that when they have listened they will act. Let us hope that tonight may be the beginning of that.

The noble Lord, Lord Oram, has already mentioned the Centre for World Development Education and the fact that, in the little work that it has been able to do, it is threatened with a total turn-off of funds. This is coming down from a measly half-million. They regard it (and many of us regard it) as a high spot to have got to £500,000 as aid, but it is of course an absolutely measly amount compared with what is needed and with what we should be giving.

The centre is in danger, and so are many of the locally-based development education centres, many of which have had to be closed already. They are tremendously cost-effective as well, because so often they are run by one or two professionals who manage to collect around them a very large group of volunteers who will do part-time work and undertake part-time education in this field. That spreads and helps to build up the knowledge of the work that all of us so want to see. But it cannot go on, and it does not go on, to nearly the same extent unless you have one or two professionals there in the centre. It takes professionals to look after volunteers and to make certain they have the continuity that they need.

Education, I think, will have two results in this field. It will make people more aware of the moral imperative and of the practical advantages of aid, for there are both and neither of them should we dismiss. Moral imperative is, I am sure, extremely important. I believe that it is felt to be important by a large number of people in this country. Hence the large numbers of people you get for meetings on this subject, really extremely surprisingly large, from time to time, and hence the big lobby that we had of Parliament last year (or the year before, or whenever it was) which was heartening indeed. People do care.

But there is also a practical advantage in aid. We are now one world, and unless we realise we are one world and we help the developing countries we will not ourselves prosper. And not only will we not ourselves prosper, but I fear that in the time to come and in the centuries to come—because I think there are going to be centuries to come for this world; I am not a doom-monger—we may find ourselves rather further down the ladder than we have found ourselves over the last 500 or 600 years; I think that it is very much to our advantage that we try to establish a method of world order, world care and world training which is fair to everyone; because we in this country have not all that many great resources ourselves. We are heavily over-populated; we are in need of the interaction of the world, whether it is in trade or aid; and we will do well to set a good example ourselves.

I think the second form of education which is needed is that we all of us need to be educated as to what kind of aid is required to be given. We all know that many people say that aid is wasted, that a lot of it is frittered away, that it goes to help the rich-living élites in the developing countries. When they say that they increase the pressure on governments not to give aid, and, particularly, I am afraid, on a Conservative Government. This is a vicious circle, and it is all the more vicious a circle because there is a sense in which they are right. There is a sense in which we give far too much of our aid in the wrong kind of way, and far too much of our aid is wasted.

We need to break this circle, and I think we can break it by education. We need to know where to concentrate aid, and what kind of aid to give. It is only then, I suspect, that we shall really need to give more. I know we give little enough as it is, but so much of it goes on useless things. The more we concentrate on tying our aid to specific bits of trade, the more we risk devaluing the whole concept of aid. But if we have a public opinion in this country which gets to learn some of the questions at issue and which begins to concentrate on thinking how we may most help the poorest people or help the countries which are truly democratic, or provide help which is not wasted or just goes into the pockets of the rich élites living in the cities, then we will put a powerhouse behind our efforts for aid which will grow and which will reverse the circle, so that we are then educating ourselves to give more and more aid for more and more worthwhile ends.

My Lords, I should like to have spoken rather more tonight on the whole problem of the kinds of aid that we should be giving, but that is not the particular subject of the Unstarred Question tonight. Also, as I have said, we have a number of speakers, some of whom have great expertise to offer; so I will conclude by quoting President Nyerere of Tanzania who, when asked what the people of Britain could usefully do to help the poor of his country, said: Change public opinion in your own country; for the rich countries use democracy against equity". He went on: In Scandinavia and the Netherlands they take a lot of trouble to develop public opinion, and as a result their governments have much bolder policies towards the third world". I am sure that all of us in this Chamber tonight wish to increase our help towards the third world. It seems to me that there is one absolutely key way to do it, and that is to pump what will be, by any standards, a very small amount of money indeed into the educational work which is already being undertaken in this country. I hope that the Government, both tonight and in the near future, will be able to say that that is what they are going to do.

8.50 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Derby

My Lords, I am grateful—as I know are many members of the Christian Churches—to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for raising this Question. I rise to lend my support to what he has said. He has mentioned the two approaches to practical action which harness both Government and voluntary initiatives: the expanded support that is necessary for the British Volunteer Programme; and expanded support for development education. The two go closely together. From the point of view of the volunteers themselves, participation in development programmes overseas itself contributes the very best form of development education. VSO has stated that, along with all the diversity of experience gained, returning volunteers all agree on one thing: you will learn far more than you are able to pass on.

The Government's record on the volunteer programme is good, with the financial allocation increasing. Their record on financing development education in this country, however, I can only regard as deplorable with the phasing out of the entire Development Education Fund. On the volunteer programme, the Foreign Secretary had some encouraging things to say in his speech to the Royal Commonwealth Society on 7th December last year: We have also increased our financial support for the British Volunteer Programme from £2.2 million in 1979 to £4.1 million this year. Our goal is to encourage a further growth in numbers of volunteers which I am delighted to say, after several years of decline, have now started increasing again". This year, for the third year running, VSO will increase the size of its programme. In 1980–81, 380 new VSO volunteers were sent abroad. In 1981–82, the number was 435. The target in 1982–83 is 500. With adequate support, it is hoped to send at least 560 in 1983–84. At current prices, this year the Overseas Development Administration grant to VSO is £3.4 million. For 1983–84 VSO seeks £378 million. Successive Governments have provided financial support to VSO through grants from ODA on a year-to-year basis. But as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has already pointed out, such short-term undertakings of Government support hinder forward planning and the continuing of commitments. VSO seeks some scheme for earlier and longer-term initiatives of Government support.

Only a small contribution, as has been indicated already, can have results out of all proportion to its size. For example, a midwife working in Nicaragua through CIRR: her first cycle of training courses extended to 25 midwives, 40 health workers and 12 nursing auxiliaries. So much can spread out from the training of such numbers. Two workers engaged in a project in Zimbabwe are a physiotherapist and an occupational therapist whose task is the treatment and rehabilitation of many thousands of local people maimed and disabled by the war there. The Mugabe Government's determination to provide education for all children, announced in 1981, has brought a doubling of the primary school attendance since that year. CIRR have sent out four teachers to help in this work; and so the achievements increase.

But to enable them to increase further, both VSO and CIRR look for increasing financial support from Her Majesty's Government. This is necessary partly because many volunteers now need to be more highly skilled if they are to meet the needs of the local communities. They are often older people, in the 30 to 50 age range, and many of them have families here at home. Finance is needed to help support the families of these volunteers. If the Government and voluntary agencies are to continue to work closely together in this programme, there needs to be a greater trust in the partnership. It is sad to record that although the Catholic Institute made requests of this nature known to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons in May last year, no action has yet been taken by Her Majesty's Government to attempt to meet their requests or support the volunteers' families. There is need for greatly increased aid in this particular area of work.

To turn to voluntary agencies and development education, as we have heard and know only too well, Government policy has been to close down the Development Education Fund of the Overseas Development Administration which, between 1977 and 1979, committed a total of £1.7 million on 382 grants to 240 projects involving 174 recipients. Government funding of development education was planned to cease by April 1982, but agreement has secured continued funding until 1984, on heavily reduced terms, for the Centre for World Development Education in London, and Scottish Education and Action for Development in Edinburgh.

It was because of the awareness of the dangers of this reduction in the Government's contributions that in June 1979 the House of Bishops of the Church of England, along with the Welsh and Scottish Bishops, expressed their alarm at the direction of this policy and its consequences. More recently, on 23rd November last year, in his speech on the third world at a Roman Catholic seminar at Archbishop's House, Westminster, attended by some senior politicians and bankers, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury spelt out the sad consequences of this policy for the Centre for World Development Education. He said: If a Government make these kind of cuts it takes more than rhetoric to restore lost time, lost programmes, lost effort and lost confidence". The noble Lord, Lord Oram, has given the details of the way in which the contributions have been reduced.

It is vital that this programme of attrition should be arrested. People will not give, nor will they support enlightened political action, unless they know the facts. Not surprisingly, the Churches, in conjunction with the Continuing Committee on Development Education, are wishing to draw the recommendations that aid should be increased for development education to the attention of the British electorate in the next election. Action has already been taken to give the necessary information. In addition to this, the Churches Committee of the World Development Movement decided in 1982 to continue with its "One World Week" development education programme for a further five years, and funds will be allocated by all the major Churches to offset the total withdrawal of Government money from this programme. These are contributions from the Churches and not simply voluntary contributions. The Churches and the other voluntary agencies, as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, mentioned, are sharing in this series of programmes on TV Channel Four—programmes backed up with study material for use in groups. Many Churches will be building Lent study groups around them. Interest and concern in the Churches is growing—witness the support given to the lobbying of Parliament over the Brandt Report, when representativers of scores of church congregations were present.

People's consciences are gravely disturbed at the paltry contribution we make and at the way in which it falls short compared with other countries which, like us, are facing the current recession. A few figures help to bring out the facts of the situation. Sweden, on the last figures given, contributed 23.6 pence per head; West Germany 1.7 pence; Belgium 0.7 pence; the United States of America 0.5 pence and the United Kingdom 0.3 pence. There is surely need for a great increase there. It is an abrogation of a Government's duty when they place on voluntary agencies the whole task of education in world development: so much of what might be given in aid has to be diverted to education in the need for it. Voluntary organisations for aid cannot produce in people generally the awareness of how seriously world poverty poses a threat to world peace. Need goes on increasing while our official funding decreases. There are things at home which can wait when the need in other parts of the world is infinitely greater.

It is not too late for Her Majesty's Government to have a change of heart which will enable governmental and voluntary agencies to make progress together in the field of aid and in education about it. I lend my strong support to the raising of this Question by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and I hope there will be a clear and strong response from Her Majesty's Government.

9.3 p.m.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, I have to begin with a provisional apology to those few Members of your Lordships' House who are present this evening. I had not anticipated the very late hour at which this Unstarred Question would begin. I have not brought my sleeping bag, let alone a tent, and I do not fancy the prospect of sleeping rough on the Embankment. Therefore, I may have to leave to catch the latest train home.

I should also, of course, like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for putting down this Question and for persuading me to take a small part in the debate on it. I was a member of the original Council for Volunteers Overseas from its inception in 1964 until 1974. I was its president for the last six years of that period and I had a hand in drafting the constitution which changed the CVO to the British Volunteer Programme before handing over to the noble Lord, Lord Oram; so I felt I could not do less than respond to his invitation. I have not kept in close touch with the progress of events since then. I have been concerned by what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and other speakers have said; and I have listened with great care.

Because I was in at the beginning I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I provide the briefest historical background. The Council for Volunteers Overseas was established under the presidency of Prince Philip in 1964. It was a reflection of the spirit of those times. The Governments in the 1960s had the vision to give strong and practical support to the prevailing attitudes of a great many adventurous and public-spirited young people through the agencies of VSO, UNA, IVS and CIIR. I think your Lordships know what those abbreviations mean. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby laid great stress, and rightly so, on the work of the VSO. It is no reflection on that work if I suggest that its larger-scale and very powerful backers have tended to draw attention away from the no less excellent work, in quality, of the smaller agencies that I have mentioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Oram, in introducing his Question, suggested that the volunteers sent out by those sending agencies, as they are called, are good value for money. One thing which certainly struck me in those days, eight years ago and more, was the element of what I call "self-interest" in respect of individual volunteers for both their future employers and for the country at large, which accrued from experience, quite apart from the contribution they made in the countries to which they were accredited.

This I regard as one form of development education, of meeting and working with people in other countries, of experiencing their cultures, their customs and getting to understand their political systems and being made aware, as was so movingly put by the right reverent Prelate, of their needs, which are far greater than those of most people in the Western countries. This may be the good fortune of only a small minority of overseas volunteers, most of them young, but the importance of that minority cannot be gainsaid. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to them as "outstanding people", and they are outstanding not because they are other than perfectly ordinary young people but because they have had this quite exceptional experience. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, referred to the volunteers as "ambassadors" and, if I understood him rightly, he spoke in respect of the information and enthusiasm they brought back about the developing countries when they return to this country.

The other thing that struck me was the very considerable value—it is not one of those things one can quantify—of those volunteers as our unofficial ambassadors abroad, our ambassadors at large. I should like to quote from a letter I have just received from a young man recently returned from a teaching job in Zimbabwe. He writes as follows: I was one of the few Europeans who ventured into the townships where I was greeted by everyone, shown around and made to feel thoroughly at home. At work the boys were very friendly and I stayed with one of them in his house during part of one of the holidays. That was the most memorable part of the whole year. It is only since coming back and reading letters from my friend that I realise how radical I was in staying there. He wrote"— and this is the friend writing— 'This is the first time anything like it has happened in Seke. People here no longer think of white men as gods and you do not think of us as barbarians'. He finished by saying this: Although my experience has been very limited, I am convinced that the most effective aid, or, more importantly, understanding, can only be achieved through personal involvement. It was fantastic! I am very grateful to all those people". The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said words to the effect that a good deal of aid goes in the wrong direction. Whatever the doubts, as he has, which are entertained—and probably rightly—about overseas aid going into the wrong hands to bolster powerful private interests or to prop up inequitable power structures, I suggest that no one would doubt that this young man, whose letter I have read, and many others like him, are in the right place, bringing valuable help where the need is greatest, not least because of this intimate face-to-face kind of relationship.

Before I sit down, I should like to turn to one other aspect of this matter of Government support in the form of overseas aid. During my time on the council, returning volunteers formed an association which they called VOSA, Volunteers Overseas Services Association, which was later, more appropriately, changed to RVA, Returned Volunteer Action. It was, and always has been, an enterprise run entirely by returned volunteers themselves and it has been staffed all along by a minute staff of three people. Its purpose is to maintain the contacts which were established during their overseas service, to act as a kind of clearing house for doing some kind of volunteer service here at home and, not least important, to provide a forum for constructive criticism on a comprehensive basis for each of the sending agencies—as Lawrence Taylor called it in his book, a kind of "loyal opposition".

In 1974 the Council for Volunteers Overseas acknowledged its value by including RVA in the constitution of the new body, the British Volunteer Programme. I have here a copy of the RVA's magazine, Come Back. I wish that your Lordships could glance through it. It is a most informative, stimulating and thought-provoking journal. It is evident that returned volunteers form a nucleus of citizens in this country, who have been made deeply conscious of the third world and who have acquired a global perspective. This may seem tiresome to those who are concerned with the United Kingdom's national politics and the narrow interests of particular political parties. Statesmanship requires that we take note of the experience and opinions of these volunteers. As the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has said, for the most part they are young people and their concern is rightly not with the next election, nor even with the next decade. They are looking to the future.

I understand that the Government decided in 1981 to terminate their grant to RVA on financial grounds. The sum involved was a mere £8,500. The Minister, Mr. Neil Marten, told the BVP delegation—and I have nothing personally in criticism of the Minister, because he is a very close personal friend and he was conforming with policy—that RVA should be funded by the sending agencies. Such meanness by Government towards the spirit of overseas service is really astonishing. What is more, the essential character and value of the Returned Volunteer Action movement lies in its independent stance, in its ability to ensure that the sending agencies do not suffer from complacency or from illusions. At the risk of being perceived as parti pris, because I was the first president of the RVA, I must ask the Minister whether the Government will reconsider that cheeseparing decision to the tune of £8,500 a year and ensure that RVA, which as I said, was described in Lawrence Taylor's book as the "loyal opposition", can continue to serve the cause of overseas aid in that unique way.

9.13 p.m.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Oram for introducing this Unstarred Question. At the moment the world is divided between rich and poor, and also between black and white, and the two are intertwined. How to bridge the gap between rich and poor is one of the biggest problems confronting the world today. The solution of this problem is one of the ways in which the world can be brought out of the present dark tunnel, in which we are travelling, to the rich, sunlit uplands of which we all dream.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I want to quote President Nyerere, but in a different context. President Nyerere once said that if countries were like companies, a number of the poor, and even the ambitious but not so poor, would by now be declared bankrupt. That is of course a fact. Within the poor states, millions of people face the risk of starvation, and some do starve. Even where health and education services exist for the masses there is often a shortage of drugs and books. Their transport and distributive systems are at the moment in danger of grinding to a halt. In the developed world, on the other hand, there is mass unemployment. Public services are being cut and reinvestment has been drastically reduced.

All nations are experiencing severe economic problems, but that does not excuse the fact that at the moment the gap between the rich and the poor is wider than ever before. The challenge to the world is how to harness the surplus capacity of the developed industrial world to help to provide the goods and services which the people of the poor, underdeveloped countries so badly need. The balance exists. There is surplus capacity on the one hand and need on the other.

This country is in a very good position to play a major role in helping to bring about the desired result. The reason why that is so is because many of the poorer countries are former British colonies and are therefore in the Commonwealth. Moreover, Great Britain is an important member of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the European Economic Community and the United Nations. What is even more important is that we are a major trading nation and rely on these underdeveloped countries for many essential commodities, for which developed country sources offer no substitute. For all these reasons it is necessary for us to see that we play a major role in bridging the gap about which I have been speaking.

What are the developing countries asking for? They are not asking for very much. The developing countries seek enlarged capacity to produce. They seek the opportunity to sell the goods which they produce. They seek justice in international exchange. That is all they are asking for. There is little which can be objectionable in these goals, yet we all know that the world has made very little progress towards their realisation. Some of my friends would say that the world has made no progress towards that realisation, but I would not say that no progress has been made. Some progress has been made, but very little.

We accept that the economic contribution which Britain can make is limited, but this country can be moved by moral causes. That is a very important fact. Mention has already been made of the mass lobby of Parliament over the Brandt Report. I still cannot get over the thrill I felt when I saw a large number of people who were prepared to stand in the rain—it was raining heavily that day—to take their turn to come to the meeting in Westminster Hall. It showed that there is a large reservoir of goodwill. What is required is the mobilisation of that spirit of being my brother's keeper, which I felt was being demonstrated that day in such a remarkable way. It is the mobilisation of that spirit which must be our objective. It is that which the voluntary organisations engaged in educating the British public about the problems of developing countries are doing; and it is that which my noble friend is asking the Government to support, with more liberal financial provisions than they are doing at present.

The British Government have always supported some measure of education, but it was not until 1977 that a real effort and contribution started to be made. As the right reverend Prelate has already said, between 1977 and 1979 good work was started and done. But then the present Government came to office and decided that they should stop funding these organisations. I well remember the number of times that my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby raised in this House the question of the Government's failure to continue funding the development of education, and the number of times on which Ministers attempted to fob him off with one excuse or another. But my noble friend is never fobbed off and has continued to plug away at this question. The Government have since changed their mind to some extent and have conditionally agreed to continue funding two central organisations, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out. But that is obviously not enough. What is required is an extension, and not a reduction, of the present financial provisions.

The results of a survey published in 1978 made important and interesting reading. It showed that more than four-fifths of the public supported the idea of richer countries helping poorer countries. However, less than half were in favour of British aid, even though four-fifths of those people wanted richer countries to help the poorer ones. What is even more interesting from the point of view of this debate is that the less educated were generally less favourable in their attitude toward British aid. An even more interesting aspect of that survey was that at the beginning of the interview, only 10 per cent. of the interviewees thought that the Government should be spending more on aid—but by the end of the interview, that 10 per cent. had risen to 33 per cent. What that survey showed was that there are real benefits in providing information on which people can make their judgments.

At the moment, there are organisations and agencies who are willing and anxious to help disseminate appropriate information. What they need is more Government financial assistance. I sincerely hope that when the noble Lord the Minister comes to reply, he will be in a position to assure us that such assistance will be forthcoming.

9.25 p.m.

Lord Garner

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the initiative taken by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, this evening, and I am very happy to give his thesis my general support. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hamspstead, said so eloquently at the beginning of his remarks, the gap between rich and poor is ever-widening and means that the world is heading for a very dangerous future. The facts are not in despute. Every study, Brandt included, demonstrates this. The question is what we can do, and there are, no doubt, a number of things we could and should do.

One thing that strikes me is that one of the essentials at the basis of all this is to deal with the population explosion, a matter which has not so far been mentioned this evening, because unless we can cope with that, it seems to me that the wellbeing of millions in the world is going to be seriously affected. But, of course, tonight we are concentrating on development in a rather narrower sense and the debate has fastened on the need for support for progress of the voluntary services and development education.

The noble Lord, Lord Oram, spoke about a change in climate of opinion, and to be realistic I think we must recognise that there are many difficulties to be solved in the present situation before we can hope that there will be active public support for the sort of things that we are asking for this evening. In the first place, for reasons already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, the whole basis of voluntary services has changed since those early days. Originally it was a dramatic and exciting scheme for young people, mainly school-leavers, to go out in a spirit of high adventure and enterprise, and this caught the public imagination. Now the operation is something far more sophisticated, more serious, to meet the real needs of the developing countries, but it is something that obviously has lost the glamour in the public mind. Again, the needs are as great as ever, but the theme has been presented for decades and perhaps inevitably loses some of its freshness.

Further, in the heady post-war years perhaps there was some euphoria about the new world order that was likely to arise and the prospects for many of the newly developing countries were exaggerated. For example, one cannot deny that some of the newer countries have not readily found a political life of stability and maturity. Many things have happened which have shocked opinion in the Western countries, and as already mentioned, of course, considerable doubts are felt as to whether aid has always been wisely spent. So all of these factors have militated against a readiness in the public mind to accept sacrifices on behalf of others. Finally, of course, there have been our own domestic difficulties, which we share in common with all the other industrial countries, and which have given us obsessions about our own position and have made us both less able, and certainly less willing, to make sacrifices for others.

I mention all these points not in any sense as excuses for inaction, but merely because I think we should realistically recognise what some of the difficulties are that have to be overcome if we are going to seek that full measure of public support we are looking for. I want to be fair to the Government and recognise that there are these difficulties, because in a moment or two I shall have something to say, perhaps, on the other side. We all know that one of the most difficult things to achieve is a change in public opinion. For my part, I am slightly doubtful as to how much can be achieved by a programme of education alone. I believe that the single most effective influence on public opinion is evidence that the Government themselves are giving convincing proof by their actions, not by words alone, that they take the problem seriously and are giving it a high priority.

We all recognise the Government's difficulties and I am grateful for many of the actions taken recently by the Government. I particularly welcome the support that they continue to give to two organisations with which at one time I was closely concerned; namely, VSO and the wholly admirable Commonwealth scholarship scheme which continues and does valuable work. Nevertheless, I confess that the message that reaches me as to the Government's attitude is a faint and somewhat muted one. I shall mention some of the signs that worry me. In the first place—and I think this has already been mentioned—having regard to our history and experience our record in aid is not outstanding and certainly does not compare favourably with that of Scandinavia or Holland.

When economies are imposed they often seem disproportionately to affect the third world. For example, cuts are made in the Overseas Service of the British Council or the BBC which are sometimes only rescued after a vehement protest in your Lordships' House. A particularly mean example of economy was the charging of students' fees at cost price for overseas students coming to universities and other places of learning. I was happy to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in the earlier debate this evening that there is hope—he did not put it higher than that—that, as a result of the Government's study of that admirable paper by the Overseas Trust, some progress may be made in that direction.

Again it seems to me that there have been too many examples recently of a lack of sensitivity towards the susceptibilities of developing countries. I do not wish to go into details on all this because it opens up a wider sphere, but I mention as an example the different treatment accorded at the highest level to the repre- sentative of the PLO and to Ian Smith on proposed visits to London. I do not suggest for one moment that the two examples are on all fours but that brings out a striking contrast in attitudes.

My final point on these straws in the wind is that, while I think that the ODA generally has an excellent record in understanding the needs of developing countries and in making practical contributions towards dealing with the matters in hand, I should frankly like to see, particularly at the top level in Government, more understanding of the complexities and subtleties in relations with our Commonwealth friends and a more wholehearted determination to make the most of the Commonwealth relationship.

All these are, admittedly, only straws in the wind against what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Oram, described as the sombre background to the world situation. Indeed, the task is immense and it will take years to complete, requiring action at both national and international level. Public opinion needs a strong lead from the Government. I hope that tonight's debate will encourage the Government to increase their efforts and step up their contribution to the eminently practical schemes which have already proved their value.

9.35 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I hope that the two noble Lords on the other side of the House who have faithfully stayed with us will report to their superiors the lack of support which they are receiving from their Back-Benches. Theirs is supposed to be the caring party, and it really gives little lead to the rest of the country to see that not a single Back-Bench Conservative Member has seen fit to stay for this debate.

Like other noble Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for putting down this Unstarred Question. If he will forgive me, I feel that I should ignore one half of it—that connected with the VSO. That is not because I have the slightest criticism of the VSO. Indeed, I have every admiration for it. I would not go so far as a previous speaker in referring to the good it does to the volunteers themselves, at least politically, as we have one example here tonight who seems to have taken the wrong turn. Nevertheless, the reason for my ignoring the VSO in this debate is because I was a member of the Advisory Committee on Development Education, which has been referred to by many speakers, and I think it is only right that I should concentrate upon the work that we did.

There is one further reason for concentrating on this. Although I think I am right in saying that all parties in this House would support the principle of the VSO, it is not the case that all parties in this House necessarily support the principle of Government aid to development education. I think it is very important tonight that we have a clear statement of principle. It is because those of us who were members of that committee believe in that principle that we have continued to meet and will continue to meet in the hope that eventually there will be a Government which take the same attitude as that taken between 1977 and 1979 on the responsibility of the Government to assist in a programme of development education in the country.

I think it would help the House if I were to outline very briefly the work that our committee did. The first important issue is to define what is development education, because there is a great deal of confusion about that in this House and elsewhere. Indeed, there is a great deal of confusion in the Government, as has been shown by the absence of answers to Questions that I have put down, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead.

We tried to define what is development education, and this was the definition we came up with. First of all we presented the case for a substantial, increasing and permanent Government involvement in financing development education in the United Kingdom. We then went on to say that by development education we mean those processes of thought and action which increase understanding of worldwide social, economic and political conditions, and, particularly, those related to or responsible for under-development. It was our task to supervise the use of Government money in promoting that form of education in this country, through the agencies of the various voluntary organisations, plus activities in both the formal and informal sections of education in this country, plus also assisting with the media exposure to the question of development, resulting in a clear and practical demonstration that the Government supported not just the principle but also the practice of educating the British public in both the need for development and the problems of development.

When the committee was first set up in 1977 the first thing we did was to commission the report to which my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead has referred. My noble friend gave some outline of the findings of that report—the Schlackman Report. It is now well over three years since I asked the Government Minister whether he had read the Schlackman Report and I am still waiting for his answer. The important point about the Schlackman Report was brought out by my noble friend Lord Pitt, but let me re-emphasise the report's findings. The report shows that 64 per cent. of our people believe that this country is too poor to help overseas countries. That was the situation when the report began. But when these people are told the amount of aid, their opinion changes. There is a great belief in this country that we just pour out aid willy-nilly, but when the facts are given to the people their opinion changes. We based our work upon the proof of the effects of development education when it is put into practice.

Secondly, the right reverend Prelate has saved me the time needed to go through the number of projects which we decided to finance, but I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that those projects came under a whole host of different categories: some of them were helping week-long "One world" ventures; some were helping churches; some were helping schools and some were helping teacher-training college projects, one of the best ones being in Jordanhill. Moreover, some were helping extra-mural departments; some were helping various voluntary organisations, and others were actually commissioning members of the media. It was a consistent and determined attempt by the Government to put their whole weight behind the concept that the Government themselves have a responsibility to educate the people of this country in the facts of development.

The committee published its report in July 1978. That report was based upon costing and budgeting, which was going to rise step by step to no more than £2.7 million in the current financial year. That report was discussed by our committee, not just with the Ministry of Overseas Development, which had set up the committee, but with the Treasury, the Foreign Office, the Department of Education and Science, the Northern Ireland Office, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office. Unanimously—and note that this includes the Treasury—they accepted that report. Then came the election.

I saw the Minister of State who was in charge of overseas development very soon after the election. He asked to see me and he asked for some outline of what we had been doing and how I thought things should progress. Obviously, I had no impact at all on him. But let me point out that the election was held in May 1979, that in September 1979—or was it August?—the Commonwealth Conference was held in Lusaka, and that the Prime Minister put her name to the communiqué emanating from that conference.

I want to quote just one part of a sentence from that communiqué which is relevant to this debate. The Prime Minister signed this pledge: to improving the public understanding of the need for change in the countries participating in the interdependent international system", which is another way of defining development education. I would go one stage further. The Minister himself, Mr. Marten, can be quoted as having stated in the other place, according to column 1181 of the Official Report of 30th October 1979: It is important that people in Britain should understand the problems of development and the extent of our interdependence with the third world". How will they do that unless the Government take some responsibility for ensuring that they know the facts?

Unfortunately, the same lady who signed that declaration in Lusaka is the lady who, on television just three days ago, was apparently delighted to give her fullest support to the concept of Victorian values, which she seized upon very avidly from the questioner. Is her concept of the Victorian values the one that she described in the word "handout" when she was referring to overseas aid? If it is, then when she signed that document she did not know what she was signing. She was thinking in the language of the 19th century, of the little black Sambos and the 10 little niggers, and of handouts.

As your Lordships know, it has always been my case in this House that overseas aid is not a handout; overseas aid is seed corn, it is investment. This is the attitude towards overseas aid which we, in the advisory committee, were trying to encourage the various voluntary organisations which we assisted to put over to the British public. When that committee was wound up, or when the Government tried unsuccessfully to wind it up, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, there was protest from all the major Churches in this country and all the voluntary organisations which the Conservative Party had, in its manifesto, stated that it was supporting. But that protest got nowhere.

Again, the right reverend Prelate has saved me the necessity of going into the figures, but perhaps I may re-emphasise what he said about those figures, about the comparison between the expenditure on development education in this country and that in parallel countries also suffering from the world recession. He mentioned Sweden as giving 23.6 per cent., and the Netherlands over 20 per cent. Our contribution, 0.3 per cent. Why, my Lords? The only answer that I have ever received from that Front Bench when I have been asking this question over the last 3½ years is that this Government have decided to transfer the whole £2.7 million from expenditure on development education in this country to the developing countries themselves.

The developing countries would much prefer—and many of them have said that they would much prefer, and have said it at Commonwealth conferences—that it was spent on the education of the people of this country. I hope that the Minister will not trot out again that canard that the only reason for depriving the organisations of development education of that money is to give it directly to the developing countries. Indeed, this is really the depths of hypocrisy, because is it not a fact that in Government expenditure cuts, with the exception of housing, the largest percentage cut has been in overseas aid? Again, time after time I have asked the Front Bench opposite this question, and every time they have tried to fudge the answer.

After the speeches that have been made tonight I do not need to emphasise the moral aspects of the this issue. I do not believe that the British people have lost their moral sense to the extent that, if they were to be told that every minute that this debate has been taking place 25 children under the age of five have died somewhere in the world, they would not feel a moral guilt, and indeed a moral challenge. Nor do I believe that if parents are told that the kind of world in which their children will live will depend upon the kind of relationship that is built up between the people of this country and those of the developing countries, they would shy away from that obvious conclusion.

I should like to end by using the language which I believe Members on the other side understand better; that is the language of commerce. Is it not a fact that as a result of that aid we receive back in contracts and commercial deals more than we contribute to overseas aid? Is it not a fact that the overseas aid budget of the last Government—nobody will tell me what the figures are for the present Government—created 40,000 jobs in this country? Is it not a fact that our contribution to the International Development Association runs out in this way: for every £11 that we contribute to the IDA we receive £14 back in contracts and commercial deals?

What I want the Minister to tell us tonight is whether it is the Government's policy to support publicly and practically in the form of money the efforts of those of us who are dedicated—including all the voluntan,' organisations, the Churches, and the educational associations—to the work of development education in this country. If not, why not? Do not every Government use a publicity department and education to put forward their policies to the people of the country? They certainly do in defence, as I know clearly from some of the leaflets that have been shown to me and have been sent to schools by the Ministry of Defence. They certainly do in foreign policy, for I have seen the same sort of material in schools, sent, unsolicited, by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Why not the Overseas Development Department? Why make that the exception? If the Government believe in overseas aid and in the Overseas Development Department, does not that department need to tell the people the facts? Does it not need an arm, like any other department of Government, to give an educational lead to the people affected by its policy? I am glad to say that the Labour Party is firmly pledged to restore Government support for development education. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to tell us that the present Government have had a change of heart.

9.57 p.m.

Lord Walston

My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for allowing this debate to take place. It has undoubtedly been useful and, in most cases, constructive. I shall resist the temptation to go into the wider question of aid, much as I should like to do so. and, in contradistinction to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, I shall confine myself solely to VSO. I do so for three reasons. The first is that, since its inception, I have followed its activities with enormous interest and the greatest admiration. The second is that, with my noble friend Lord Caradon, I share the honour of being one of its two vice-presidents. The third and most important reason is the actual volunteers themselves and the work they have been and are doing, work that I have seen in a wide range of countries throughout the world. Whether it be in the Eastern Caribbean, in Tanzania or in the Solomon Islands, one comes across these magnificent people—mostly, but not all, young people—doing a first-class job and having a real impact on the areas in which they live.

Of course, the primary object of VSO always has been to spread some of the knowledge which we in this country have among people in the third world so as to teach them to be teachers, health workers, artisans, mechanics, plumbers and better farmers and foresters. That is the primary objective, one which is carried out to the highest degree. But, as has been suggested by other speakers, there are other benefits, benefits not to the recipient countries but to ourselves.

The first of these is that these people—and this has been said already and I make no apology for repeating it—are ambassadors for this country and a very different type of ambassador from the persons whom we usually associate with that name. I have nothing against their excellencies; some of my best friends are ambassadors, but we need something more than them, and in the volunteers we have it. After all, it is only a very limited number of people who can rub shoulders with diplomats; it is only a relatively limited number of people who can rub shoulders with visiting businessmen looking for contracts, trying to do a deal, or with the tourists who drive through the country on their way from one luxury hotel to another. Not many people meet them and not always do they give the best impression when they are met.

But volunteers actually live among the people in areas which have no conception whatever of what an Englishman or Englishwoman is. I have seen them in the highlands of Papua New Guinea living with the people there, being part of the community, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said in reading out that very moving letter from a young man. The impact they have is in making people realise that in England, in the United Kingdom, there are people just as they are, living with them, enjoying the same things, having the same desires and willing and anxious to share with them such skills as they may have and to share their lives and their pleasures with them. That is one of the great advantages, one of the great benefits, that we in this country get from the volunteers.

The second is that, when they return to this country, they have improved their own knowledge and their own abilities in their own particular spheres of expertise in a far greater way than they could possibly have done had they stayed at home teaching or nursing in a hospital, doing whatever their jobs might be. They have broadened their experience; they are actually more valuable in their own work.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, they have gained an inestimable asset in understanding how other people in other parts of the world live and in being able to spread that knowledge among their own circle, usually a fairly wide circle, of people who are interested but who are ignorant, and who, without the contacts with the returned volunteers, would have no opportunity of gaining that knowledge. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and others have spoken of the need of getting across to the people of this country what are the needs of the third world. One of the best ways in which this can be done is by having an ever-increasing number of returned volunteers scattered throughout the whole of the country and imparting their knowledge and the experience that they have gained to those with whom they come in contact.

Those are the main advantages that we gain from the volunteers, from the whole system of VSO. But we must not forget that it is not only the volunteers themselves. Although they are the main part of this operation, they are by no means the only part of it. The staff in London, the staff throughout the third world where we have such people, play their part; and I should like to pay tribute to all of them because without them the success of the organisation would never have reached the heights that it has. The selection of the volunteers, too, is enormously important. A large number of people come forward—not enough; but a large number do so. They cannot all go; they do not all have the qualities necessary to enable them to be good volunteers. One of the reasons for the success of the scheme is in the method of selection; so that to all intents and purposes, and with very few exceptions, only those who really make the grade are selected and sent out.

We have heard quite a lot about the lack of funds and the "skinflintedness" of the Government in matters of aid. It is good to be able to say that at least so far as VSO is concerned that is not the case. Of course, VSO could do with more money. I hope that it will get more money as time goes on. Given the present economic climate, and the attitude of the Government towards aid in general, there is little cause for complaint at this stage. The relationship between those concerned with VSO in London and with the officials in ODA is something which makes one very happy indeed. So there are some things in regard to which, rightly, we can congratulate the Government and thank them for all that they have done.

I should not like to give the wrong impression on this matter. I have gratitude and it is only right to express it; but I certainly go along with what the noble Lords. Lord Hatch, Lord Garner and others have said in this respect. The record of the Government in aid as a whole is a lamentable one; a record of which all of us as citizens of this country must be ashamed, and of which I only wish the Government themselves were ashamed. Of course we are poor by our own standards. I shall not go into the reasons why; that is another matter. But when we have to find £500 million for the Falkland Islands, when we are committing ourselves to expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the 1,800 people living in the Falkland Islands—and I am not saying that it is wrong that we should do so—we cannot plead that we are so poor that we cannot afford a few million pounds here and there for overseas students, for more education or in the much wider aspects of economic aid itself. It is hypocrisy for us to use poverty as an excuse when we can find money for those things which we really want. We must face the fact that it is because the present Government do not really want to make this money available for aid that we are now being subjected to the starving of aid that has been spoken about so eloquently by those who have already contributed to the debate.

10.8 p.m.

Lord Caradon

My Lords, I think that we all wish to express to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, our gratitude for initiating this discussion, which has been of very great value and will have a considerable and wide effect. The hour is late, and we do not want to go over ground which has already been covered. But outstanding in my mind is that everyone who has spoken has referred to the shameful failures of the Government in dealing with questions of overseas development.

I have worked for a number of years for the United Nations development programme. One of the first acts of the present Government was to cut it down severely. We have heard before this evening about the effect on overseas students and of such drastic action doing very great harm throughout the Commonwealth, particularly in the case of the island of Cyprus, where such fierce complaint is made on this subject. Yes, the general record of being determined to cut down anything which is connected with development, and particularly by way of the reduction or the ending, if they could, of the Development Education Fund—pul them all together and it is a record which is, as I say, shameful.

But when something happens which is on the other side it is well to recognise it; and we can express gratitude and indeed rejoicing that in regard to the volunteers overseas the Government have not only maintained but I gather may be prepared to increase the allocation to Voluntary Service Overseas and to the other organisations. I am glad that the right reverend Prelate referred to the work of the Catholic organisation, the CIIR, which does such excellent work on a smaller scale.

As to the work of the VSO, in its 25 years 20,000 volunteers have gone overseas to some 35 countries in different parts of the world, and, now. hundreds go year by year. The flow goes on, and I pay a very special tribute (and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to it because he knows more about this than I do) to the part which has been played by those who have organised the recruitment and the posting of the volunteers for VSO. A very special quality is needed. First of all, there must be a very wide knowledge of the need, even down to the details of the posts and the tasks; and there must be an equally good understanding of the candidates, their qualifications and the posts in which they can be most effective.

It needs a very skilful and devoted staff to run the organisation, which, as I say, has already been responsible for 20,000 volunteers going from this country throughout the world. I pay tribute to those who have conducted this remarkable and wonderful operation, and I pay tribute also to the present director, who has not been content for a moment to slacken the elfort. It is one of the most remarkable things that the effort is year by year going forward and is impeded now only by insufficient money.

I might mention in passing that last week I had the opportunity to attend a meeting at which the leaders of Voluntary Service Overseas welcomed and established a liaison with those who run the operations of UNV, the United Nations Volunteers. It has been running for only 10 years, but it has 1,000 volunteers in the field. It is good to know that the international organisation and our own voluntary organisation should be working so closely together. It shows inspired cooperation. We can feel that there is in this sphere an understanding between ourselves and the Government that this great enterprise should be allowed to go forward.

What a wonderful thing it would be if it were possible to find a means of providing funds over a period of five years, as has been suggested. What a difference it would make in an organisation where, preferably, every volunteer serves for two years at least. How difficult it is to plan ahead if you only know what you are going to get for the subsequent year. What a big improvement it would make, and what great strides forward could be taken, if an undertaking could be given over a period of, say, five years. And if, within that period, there was a change of Government I think we on this side of the House could give an assurance that the new Government would gladly continue, extend and expand the five-year grant. There is an opportunity for us to agree and to look for a method of making the volunteer system more effective in future, and I hope that that may be done.

It is worth saying that it is a triumph of co-operation, and not only between the volunteers and the receiving Governments. Incidentally, of course, the receiving Governments pay pretty well half the total cost of each volunteer, in the form of their accommodation and local pay. Therefore, it is a matter of full, open and close co-operation between this country and 30 or 40 countries elsewhere.

We think tonight of the volunteers themselves, to whom we also pay our tribute. They give two years of their lives to this project. But when I say that, I know that they certainly do not do it in any spirit of compromise or of sacrifice. They go for the adventure of understanding and personal co-operation with the peoples of other countries, in a way which is inspiring to us all. When they come back, hundreds of them, they have a contribution to make in this country, too. They have a contribution to make in this sphere of development education. I hope that, in future, they may even be able to influence the Government to play an honourable part in the great enterprise of development in the third world—something in which they are the pioneers.

10.17 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, it is a real pleasure for me to have been asked to reply to this Unstarred Question from the noble Lord, Lord Oram, on behalf of the Government, not only because I enjoy listening to, and sometimes profiting from, his wide experience of overseas aid matters, but also because, for once in my political life, I am able to address the House upon a subject about which I know a little from first-hand experience. So that, speaking for the Government, I welcome this opportunity to make absolutely clear that the Government appreciate as much as I do personally the contribution that the societies which are members of the British Volunteer Aid Programme have made.

This programme is a partnership between the societies themselves and the Government of over 20 years' standing, of which we are justly proud. It is also an example of what I believe to be one of the major roles of Government—that of pump-priming—which has been followed consistently by Governments for two decades. Unfortunately, it cannot be claimed that this was originally a Government initiative. They came in with financial help only about 18 months after the first volunteers were sent by Voluntary Service Overseas to Sarawak some 24 years ago. VSO, of which I was once a proud member, did this very thing.

In those days, the call was mainly for school-leavers with the adaptability of youth, available to slot into whatever position the host country required. Many of them went as teachers in schools, others into agriculture, a few into industry and one or two into the Wildlife Service. I particularly like the story of the VSO who spent 15 months on a project in Zambia—my own stamping ground—to discover what elephants ate. This meant spending part of his time following them on foot—an interesting, if somewhat unnerving, job at times. However, as developing countries became more able to provide what were basically untrained personnel, the call, as has been mentioned this evening, came for graduates with all sorts of skills. So the school-leaver element—the so-called cadet force—became gradually phased out over the 1970s. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and other noble Lords who have spoken on their assessment of the value of volunteers.

Much as I should like to add to this short summary of volunteer projects and work, as has been pointed out, the night is hardly young and the debate is principally about ODA involvement in all this. I have already mentioned pump priming as the method of Government finance for the voluntary organisations, of which there are four, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Oram. VSO is the biggest and the best well known, but magnificent overseas development work is done by the Catholic Institute for International Relations, the United Nations Association International Service and the International Voluntary Service.

All of these organisations receive 90 per cent. of their agreed budget costs in the form of an annual grant. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that it should be 100 per cent., because I believe that this would of itself be self-defeating. Only by raising a proportion of their own funds are the organisations able to keep their fingers on the pulse of prospective volunteer recruitment and the attitude of people towards the work that they are so usefully doing. The grant includes the cost of recruiting, briefing and posting new volunteers, as well as the United Kingdom and overseas costs of administration. The salary which the volunteer receives is a matter for the host country, by agreement with the sending organisation concerned.

In the current financial year, £4.131 million is expected to be allocated to the British Volunteer Programme societies, representing an increase of 28 per cent. on the actual expenditure for the previous year. This is no mean figure. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, would, I hope, include that particular figure in his congratulations. Subject to parliamentary approval, support in 1983–84 will total £4.864 million, an increase of 18 per cent. Again I hope the noble Lord, Lord Garner, will appreciate this particular straw in the wind. This again represents a significant increase in real terms at a time of financial restraint and is a clear demonstration of our continuing commitment to the activities of all the voluntary services, not just VSO, as asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Oram.

Many noble Lords have spoken of public opinion. I am sure the House knows that no official Government survey has been undertaken since the one carried out by the last Government. That survey was published in 1978 and was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and others. The attitude towards aid and development issues is that this subject should be monitored at distant intervals as part of the general household survey. While I have no official facts. I would suggest that public attitudes on giving money to the developing world are directly related to the perception of one's own wellbeing. Since we have been going through a severe economic passage, attitudes towards aid will almost certainly have hardened, just as they will become more generous as we emerge from the recession. This is a point to which I shall return.

The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asked me if I had read the report, and said that he had been waiting for an answer for 3½ years. Since I have not being doing this job for 3½ years, he was not, I think, asking the question of me. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, and others talked about the long-term financial commitment, which I agree is an important subject. I recognise, naturally, the planning problems caused to the societies by the current system of annual commitments. The Government have to retain flexibility in the rearrangement of the total resources available for aid expenditure, and we cannot commit ourselves to supporting long-term expenditure plans. However, ODA has proposed a limited form of medium-term commitment to the societies. I hope that this will allow them to plan their programmes with more confidence.

A point which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was that there should be a greater willingness on the part of employers to release volunteers for overseas assignments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I believe that this benefits the volunteers, the host country and, perhaps most important, the long-term future of the firms themselves. It is a wonderful situation (and, I believe, rare in the world) where everyone in this particular case is the winner.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that he had to leave early, he asked me in particular about the returned volunteer action. The decision was taken in 1982 to discontinue this grant, but it was taken after the most careful consideration. The Government welcome the continued involvement of the RVA in the British Volunteer Programme council and committee. The Government do not think that to pursue their role of loyal opposition requires finance from an independent source. The RVA now receives support from all volunteer sending societies rather than from Government; a clear indication of the value seen in its work and the maturity of the volunteer sending societies themselves.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, the noble Lord, Lord Garner, and other noble Lords mentioned the level of spending by other donor countries. I have to agree that other donor countries spend considerable sums of money, and that their Governments can raise the level of aid programmes accordingly; but currently we do not have the money to raise our aid programme faster than already announced. Also, we would not consider it to be ethical use of public money to finance our own pressure groups.

The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, devoted part of his speech to the gap between the rich and the poor countries, which has been getting wider in recent years, as mentioned in the report of the Commissioner for Aid for the EEC, Mr. Pisani. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, gave the impression, to me anyway, that this has something to do with cuts in aid in the developing countries. I do not believe it is that at all. My own feeling is that the sums which have been spent over the past 20 years have not always been used to the best effect. This is something that my right honourable friend Mr. Raison will wish to reflect upon in the very near future, as he will on the other causes which undoubtedly exist—such as the population overseas and its health.

The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, spoke about the United Nations volunteers. I am aware of the work of the noble Lord in creating a greater understanding of the United Nations volunteers among the volunteer sending societies of Europe and America as well as in our own country. I was glad to hear about the new phase of co-operation between the VSO and the United Nations volunteers which he helped to launch last week. The noble Lord made another point to which I will come later.

Turning to the second part of the Question—that of development education—the Government accept the need for greater public awareness of the issues of world development and interdependence. While demands on the aid programme as a whole continue to far outrun the finance available, I am sure noble Lords will agree that development education for people at home cannot claim priority over direct aid for the people of the third world countries. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, whom I see grinning to himself, may regard this as a well-tried canard but, whether it is or not, we believe it to be a fact. This is the overriding reason why this Government feel unable to continue official funding.

The phasing out of official support, however, does not seem to have been damaging to the cause of development education in this country in the way that had been foretold, and suggested in certain parts of the House this evening. Certain projects supported under the Development Education Fund have been brought to a tidy conclusion; the three-year Northamptonshire teachers in-service project in Sierra Leone, for example. Other projects once supported under the fund have survived, although perhaps in a modified form. Some have gone from strength to strength on alternative funding. For example, there is OXFAM's Birmingham development education centre. New groups and organisations which have never had ODA funds are taking an increasing interest in world development and are diverting existing resources and efforts into this important activity. Pump priming is not necessarily financial.

When the Government announced their decision in October 1979 they expressed the hope that there would be sufficient voluntary and professional interest to keep things going. Some three years later development education seems as active as before. The media are more conscious of development issues: this week saw the first in a series of television programmes by the International Broadcasting Trust, an example of voluntary agencies pooling their interest and resources in independent initiative. The Churches have come together in joint sponsorship at One World Week, a fine example of voluntary effort at the local community level. There is growing evidence that schools and other educational institutions are taking up such themes for study. Parliament, too, has been caught up in these currents. One has only to recall the lobby of Parliament about the Brandt Report, organised by the World Development Movement and other voluntary organisations, to realise that the development lobby in this country is healthier than it has ever been.

It is certainly not true that people are prepared to be concerned about the world only if they receive a Government grant—something which comes to me, in flavour, at any rate, from the Benches opposite daily. Should noble Lords take issue with me on this, I would respond forcefully that they are belittling the very valuable efforts of bodies such as OXFAM, Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and others; of the numerous church-based groups who over many years have sought to alert the British public to the plight of people in the third world; and of those educationists and journalists who have done so much to bring these important matters to the attention of the public.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene. Nobody has suggested that the future of development education depends upon Government finance, or, as the noble Lord's Leader would say, Government handouts. What the previous Government tried to do were two things: first, to assist the voluntary organisations the noble Lord has listed, and secondly, to take an initiative themselves. Can the noble Lord prove that development education is better than ever, as he suggested, and would he not relate that to what he said earlier, when he suggested that people would feel better towards overseas aid when they were better themselves? Will he not see that development education on behalf of his Government's programme of overseas aid is necessary in order to show people that one way out of their present economic plight is to help the half of the world that is unable to buy our products at the present time?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the noble Lord should contain his soul in patience just a little longer. He made the point very concisely—not quite as concisely as now—in his original speech and there really was not any need for him to repeat it.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

Answer it.

Lord Skelmersdale

When the time comes I will answer it.

I was speaking of the other organisations which are without Government funding, specialising very effectively in the subject of development education. In this respect the recent initiative of VSO to help British schools link up with schools in third world countries is an interesting development, since volunteers overseas are well placed to make contacts at a local level. Of course, much depends on those who help form public opinion—in Parliament, in the pulpits and in the press. I hope, too, that British business and industry, dependent as it is upon what happens in the world economy at large, will become even more active and involved.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, claimed that many development education centres have had to close as a result of the withdrawal of Her Majesty's Government's funding. None of the centres previously supported have closed, and some have increased their activities with alternative funding. For example, the Welsh Centre for International Affairs at Cardiff, which I accept was only a minor recipient of about £3.000 a year, had a one-year extension after the 1979 announcement, during which time it raised a stupendous £60,000. It is active and has financial reserves.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, my point is that many local centres have had to give up having paid workers, and this has inevitably cut their effectiveness. Southampton and Oxford are examples.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, the point that I have been trying to make is that no project has come to an end through these cuts. The fact that they are operated differently and that some have gone up and some down is, I contend, very much a matter for the organisations themselves.

As regards the Centre for World Development Education, I think noble Lords are a little confused over our treatment of this organisation. The grant was previously £150,000 a year, and not £500,000, as I believe was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Oram. I can tell the House that this (misrepresentation is too strong a word) disagreement is quite wrong, and that our treatment of them has been generous. This grant has been extended on two separate occasions to enable them to secure their future and become independent of Government funding by April 1984. It remains our intention to terminate financial support at the end of 1983–84 for development education.

The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, spoke of the duty of the Government on development education. I should say that the primary duty of a Government is to its people as a whole. This Government believe that while accepting the need for development education it should not be something upon which we spend money. There are many more important things in the aid budget, and with a limited amount of money choices have to be made. As I said, to my knowledge no project has ceased through the withdrawal of Government funding.

I am of course aware of the resolution on development education passed by the Assembly of the British Council of Churches, and of the views recently expressed by the most reverend Primate and those expressed tonight, of course, by the right reverend Prelate. I very much respect the strength of feeling on this issue, and I can assure noble Lords that the Government did not reach their conclusions lightly in respect of development education.

Nobody in my position could be proud of overseas aid figures, but unlike other noble Lords who have spoken tonight I recognise that, in order to win the ultimate prize, every spending department has had to come under financial scrutiny. Cuts have been made, and there is no denying it; but under the recent Minister of State at the ODA they were kept to the absolute minimum. Now, once again, the figures of total aid spending are on the increase. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced an increase from £950 million in 1982–83 to £1,025 million in 1983–84.

This is a small but welcome increase and bears out the statement I made—I should think some time last year or possibly the year before—which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, referred to in speaking to his Question: that when the economy improved we would see an increase in the overseas aid figures. I believe that this is starting. I believe that the economy will continue to improve, and I believe that aid will no longer suffer.

House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eleven o'clock.