HL Deb 25 January 1983 vol 438 cc126-8

2.48 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what contributions they have made to the International Development Association in each of the past three years.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord means the deposit of promissory notes, rather than their encashment over some years as needed to meet our share of actual expenditure by the association. But I shall give the figures for both. In 1979 notes for £158,257,192 were deposited. In 1980 none were deposited because of the delay in starting up the sixth replenishment. In 1981 we put in notes for £184,991,600, actual drawings on these and earlier notes by the association were £41.58 million in 1979, £51.44 million in 1980, and £100.95 million in 1981.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. May I first ask one technical point? Are those gross figures or net figures taking inflation into account? Does the noble Lord recall that in the debate on the gracious Speech I asked the same question and his answer then was that Britain had fully met its obligations under the IDA? That can mean many things. At the same time, is the noble Lord aware that at that time the then President of the World Bank, Mr. Clausen, referring to a cut of 35 per cent. in the budget of the IDA, said: This is not a trimming programme; this is an amputating programme"? What I am concerned about is this. We know that the United States has cut its contributions to the IDA. Has Britain followed suit or not?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I am almost certain that the figures which I gave are gross figures. If by any chance I am misleading the noble Lord I will write immediately to put that right. But I am pretty sure that they are gross figures.

So far as the second question which the noble Lord asked me is concerned, yes, it is the fact, as the noble Lord says, that the United States has reduced its contributions to IDA 6. But Her Majesty's Government have taken the lead among non-United States donors in agreeing to waive the pro-rata arrangements in respect of the second and third instalments of their contributions to IDA 6, thereby giving the IDA additional commitment authority to help tide it over the funding shortfall resulting from the United States action. In my view, this not only fulfils our responsibilities in this country to the IDA in full, but it is an action of which we can be proud.

Lord Oram

My Lords, is it not the case that over the years IDA funds have resulted in contracts to the United Kingdom worth more than the actual financial contributions to those funds? Therefore, is it not in this country's interest, and particularly in our trading interest, that all contributions to IDA should be paid promptly and in full? Although we welcome the ultimate decision of the Government last year, was it not the case that they delayed payment of part of the contribution because of the failure of the United States to meet its obligations? Will the Minister assure the House that in future the Government will continue what he calls "taking the lead"; that is, following the Scandinavian countries —who did pay promptly last year whereas we did not?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the difficulty of course about the second and the third years of IDA 6 is that the pro-rata arrangements between the non-United States donors to the IDA and the United States broke down because the United States donations did not allow for those pro-rata arrangements to work. I assure the noble Lord and the House that Her Majesty's Government were among those who took the lead in agreeing to waive the pro-rata arrangement. I believe we have fufilled our contributions in full.

As regards the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, certainly our procurement benefits are substantial for United Kingdom goods and services as a result of the operations of the IDA, but I am not advised that we actually get more than we give.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord again for what is a considerably reassuring answer and I hope that he will use all his influence to continue that lead. I should like to add one small caveat. My noble friend Lord Oram mentioned the return that we get from our contributions to the IDA. Is the noble Lord aware that in the other place very recently it was stated that for every £11 that we contribute to the IDA, Britain receives back in contracts and agreements £14? Therefore, it is good business and I hope that the Government will recognise the part that it could play in the recovery of the British economy.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I must make it clear that I am advised that the figures which the Government have do not equate with the figures which the noble Lord has put to me. Nonetheless, I should like to say two things. First, I agree that it is good business for the Government. Secondly, we certainly support the concept and the workings of the IDA.