HL Deb 21 February 1985 vol 460 cc670-1

3.4 p.m.

Lord Constantine of Stanmore

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of overseas aid programmes to developing and third world countries are on a bilateral basis, to ensure support for United Kingdom exporters of products and services, as opposed to a unilateral basis which gives no guarantee of return to United Kingdom exporters.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)

My Lords, in 1983, 59 per cent. of the total aid programme was provided on a bilateral basis.

Lord Constantine of Stanmore

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am sure that she would agree that America, Germany, France and Japan all have very much larger aid programmes than Britain and that they devote a great deal—more, I think, than our percentage—to bilateral deals. Is it not therefore desirable that, with £1.6 billion of British allocation for aid, we should do everything possible to increase our bilateral deals with the rest of the world to the benefit of our exporters?

Baroness Young

My Lords, bilateral aid is normally tied to the purchase of United Kingdom goods and services. In poorer countries we finance some project costs incurred in local currencies. But in 1983 about 75 per cent. of the bilateral programme was tied.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, am I right in believing that the noble Baroness is answering this Question as though the word "unilateral" meant "multilateral"? If so, is it not the case that firms in this country get a great many orders from multilateral as well as bilateral aid? For example, do we not receive back in orders almost as much from UNICEF as we contribute to it?

Baroness Young

My Lords, in 1983 our bilateral aid programme financed the purchase of about £453 million worth of goods and services from British industry; but it is also true that British firms benefited from our multilateral aid. In 1983 British firms secured business worth some £446 million through multilateral agencies. I cannot give the noble Lord the precise figures for UNICEF.

Lord Oram

My Lords, in addition to the example that my noble friend Lord Hatch gave, is there not another most important example of multilateral aid leading to benefit for British exporters; namely, the International Development Association? Do we not get more than a pound for pound advantage from our contributions to that fund? On the other hand, is not the tying of aid sometimes prejudicial to the achievement of desirable results? For example, is it not desirable to untie the £15 million which the noble Baroness told me the other day is being allocated to support the special Africa fund? Can the Minister say whether any decision has yet been made to untie that element of aid?

Baroness Young

My Lords, on the last point of the noble Lord's supplementary question, the matter of whether the special facility aid money will be tied or untied is still to be determined. On the first part of his question, I would accept that the fundamental purpose of our aid programme is to promote the long-term growth of developing countries, but the Government believe in supporting British firms where we can.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the money given by this country to the Voluntary Fund for Women, set up by the Decade for Women, has been given without strings, and really is of great benefit to the people receiving it and gives benefit to those in this country in that we are helping the poorest to help themselves?

Baroness Young

My Lords, it is always difficult to comment without notice on a specific case, but I would agree generally with what my noble friend has just said.