§ 3.7 p.m.
§ Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ What were the percentages of GNP allocated to overseas aid in 1979 and 1990.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, official development assistance as a percentage of GNP was 0.51 per cent. in 1979 and 0.31 per cent. in 1989. The figure for 1990 is not yet available.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, does the noble Earl agree that those figures represent a substantial reduction in the overseas aid contributed by this Government at a time when it may never have been more necessary?
Is he aware that the following countries provide a greater proportion of their GNP in overseas aid than the United Kingdom? I refer to Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Finland, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Germany, Australia and Japan. If they can attain a higher percentage of GNP why cannot we?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, as the noble Lord well knows, the Government accept the target in principle but, in common with previous administrations and many other major donors, they are not able to set a date for achieving it.
§ Lord Taylor of GryfeMy Lords, is the Minister aware that our aid budget has important implications for our export trade? Because of the limited amount of aid, our aid-trade provisions were exhausted in April and there is no more money for export subvention until next April. Does that not have serious consequences for the manufacturing industry?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord asks an important question which I believe is slightly more specific and therefore wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
§ Baroness Gardner of ParkesMy Lords, will the Minister inform us whether the assistance given by the ODA through voluntary agencies such as Plan International—of which I am the UK chairman: it is a child sponsorship body—is in addition to the amount that he quoted or is part of it? Will he also inform the House about the difficulties of helping countries such as the Sudan where that Government are unwilling to co-operate in receiving help?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's question is, yes, it is 1001 included in the figures that I mentioned. What is not included is the type of aid to which I referred in the debate held in the name of my noble friend Lord Aiding ton; namely, economic assistance to Eastern Europe and the USSR. That is a separate item.
My noble friend also touches on an important point. Though we might be willing to give aid to certain countries, the conditions in those countries are such that it is impossible for us to give that aid.
Bareness Ewart-BiggsMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the aid budget, which is now stagnant, has fallen by 12 per cent. in real terms since 1979? Is he also aware that people will be disappointed that he did not take the opportunity today to announce a rise in the aid percentage of GNP? Is he further aware that Britain is one of only three countries in the OECD which has not yet set a timetable for reaching the UN official target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP? When will the Government set a timetable to increase our aid towards reaching that target?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Baroness is incorrect in saying that our aid provision has been static. It has increased in real terms during the past, few years and the projected planning totals show a further increase. I am sure that the House will welcome the initiative taken by my right honourable friend when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer which became known as the Trinidad Terms. The initiative was designed to relieve the debt of third world and developing countries—the most important issue that they face—by approximately 18 billion dollars. The UK share will be 900 million dollars. We hope that the terms will soon be agreed because this country will be proud to have been involved.
§ Baroness Ewart-BiggsMy Lords, does the Minister agree that in real terms aid has decreased by 12 per cent. since 1979?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, yes, it has decreased in real terms by 12 per cent. since 1979. However, it had decreased by more than that in previous years.
§ Baroness Robson of KiddingtonMy Lords, is the Minister aware of the reply to a Written Question on 15th May by the Minister for Overseas Development in another place? The reply stated:
In 1990 ODA spent over £21 million on activities directly related to population concerns".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/91; col. 192.]Does the Minister agree that aid in that form is the best way to help the under-developed world? What percentage is that £21 million of the 0.31 per cent. of GNP that we presently spend on overseas aid?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I am unable to give the noble Baroness the percentage of GNP. As regards her first question, I said in a recent debate in this House that the aid that we give towards population and family planning is important and for that reason it is an increasing percentage of the ODA budget.
Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, would care to confirm that the Labour Party intends 1002 to increase the share of government expenditure on ODA to 0.7 per cent. What will the terms be and what will that mean in increased taxation?
§ Lord AnnanMy Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the reasons why we lag behind other countries in this respect is the inordinate demands made daily, even in this House, for an increase in public expenditure? Is it a fact that we cannot do that until our economy improves and inflation falls?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord makes salient points. I am sure that when dividing on a matter concerning public expenditure your Lordships will take careful note.
§ Lord PestonMy Lords, is the Minister saying that this paltry sum is the most that we can afford because of the economic difficulties that the country is now facing? That is what he appears to be saying by agreeing with the noble Lord's question.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, it is of serious concern to this country if the noble Lord believes that our annual aid programme of more than £1 billion is a paltry sum.
§ Lord PestonMy Lords, the key point to bear in mind is that 0.31 per cent. is three-tenths of one penny in every pound of our earnings. We are led to believe that ours is one of the more affluent countries of the world. Does not the Minister agree that that is not a large sum of money compared with that given by other countries?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I do not agree. It is a large sum of money but the question is not only that of money. If I were to go to King Charles's Street, obtain from the Treasury an increase to 0.7 per cent. and burn that sum of money in King Charles's Street on my way back to the Foreign Office, I am sure that the noble Lord would be thrilled because we had obtained the right percentage. The important point is the way in which one utilises the aid. The House will be well aware that in a recent report the United Kingdom was commended for the way in which it provides its aid.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, is the Minister aware that some noble Lords are puzzled by the answers that he has given? He says that the Government accept the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP and therefore one would believe that we should be aiming towards that. However, we appear to be aiming away from it because the percentage of GNP has reduced since 1979. Does that not show absolute complacency towards the problem?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is, no, because the amount is increasing in real terms.
§ Lord Hailsham of Saint MaryleboneMy Lords, are not the Opposition muddling themselves by the false statistical use of the word "percentage" instead of concentrating on real figures?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend that the Opposition appear to be totally confused.
§ Lord Harris of GreenwichMy Lords, which recent report congratulated the Government on their record?
§ The Earl of OnslowMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that a large amount of foreign aid is totally wasted? Is he further aware that we give £85 million per year to India, which manages to run an army four times the size of our army in India in 1936, and which also has an ocean-going navy and a nuclear defence weapon? I see no reason why the English taxpayer should subsidise that form of expenditure. India can well afford its own development aid and there is no need for this country to waste taxpayers' money in that fashion.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I have carefully noted my noble friend's comments and I shall pass them on to my right honourable friend.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, perhaps the noble Earl would like an answer to his question. Is he aware that the Labour Party is committed to attaining the target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP within the lifetime of a parliament? It is publicly committed to that figure. The Minister talked about moving towards that target, but surely we are moving away from it. Is it not the case that during the first part of the 1980s overseas aid was drastically cut and we were told that it would be restored when the economy recovered? We have been told about an economic miracle so where is the increase in overseas aid? Will the Minister now answer my question: how is it that the countries on the list that I gave to him are able to provide a higher percentage of GNP? Why can we not attain the same level'?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, it is our aim to reach the target of 0.7 per cent. It is also important that we utilise the aid in the best way; and that is why the OECD has recommended that other countries should follow our lead.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, will the Minister answer my question? Why is it that those countries can attain a higher percentage of GNP than we can?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, if the noble Lord is talking about the expenditure of other countries he is well advised to address his remarks to the countries concerned.