Earth Summit: UK Contribution (Hansard, 23 June 1992)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, the Government have made clear that we are ready to help the developing countries implement the Earth Summit conclusions.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for asking two Questions on the same day. I hope that she appreciates that the second one was fixed too late to alter the first.
Will the Minister clarify one issue about which there seems to be some confusion? As I understand it, the British Government objected to the target of 0.7 per cent. agreed at Strasbourg last month. However, is not the 0.7 per cent. pledge included in Agenda 21? Therefore, can the Minister say whether or not the Government are pledged in their undertakings at Rio to attain that target in payment to third world countries for their carrying out the obligations into which they entered at the Rio conference?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, as many noble Lords are aware, the target of 0.7 per cent. has long been a target accepted by this Government and by previous governments. However, we have not agreed a timetable for its achievement. It is true that some members of the European Parliament and others have pressed for the 0.7 per cent. target to be achieved by the year 2000. But only one EC country will achieve it by that time, if not before. It is doing so as part of its overall programme currently involving its help to the dominions and other overseas territories.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, is it not true that most members of the Community would, both now and in the past, have been prepared to set a target date for achieving 0.7 per cent., but that Her Majesty's Government were reluctant to do so? Will the noble Baroness accept that the Question asked by my noble friend is an important one and that the Answer she gave, while generous in its spirit, was non-specific with regard to helping the developing countries to fulfil their responsibilities entered into at the Rio Conference?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I can assure the House that the United Kingdom is not alone in not accepting a timetable for reaching the 0.7 374 per cent. target. We were not alone at Rio; we have not been alone in discussions on this matter before. The level of our programme will continue to be reviewed annually as part of our public expenditure planning. I know that the noble Lord will not expect me to anticipate decisions yet to be taken for the future.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that, if we do not make certain that rapid assistance is given by the rich countries to the poor countries, neither side will gain anything?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, it is not simply a question of money. As I have said many times in this House, it is a question of targeting the applicability of the aid given and the ability of the country receiving the aid to use it. Our aid is now the fifth largest in volume. Because that is so and because it has grown, and grown sensibly, it is receiving praise throughout the world for its application.

§ Lord Judd
My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that in a significant speech at Rio our Prime Minister himself called for additional resources to implement the convention on biodiversity, the convention on climate warming and the forest principles? He also called for additional resources for energy efficiency, population planning and sustainable agriculture. The 0.7 per cent. target is the means of reaching the required resources. How can we pay for what we are advocating if we do not accept the target?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, as I have already said, we accept the target but do not accept the timetable for reaching it. On 15th June in another place my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that we have made sure in recent years that the aid programme has increased 8 per cent. in real terms since 1987–88. Indeed, we know that those matters outlined by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister need to be tackled. But to insist on doing it regardless of the capacity of the country, let alone its willingness to pay for it, would indeed he a foolhardy promise.

§ Lord Rea
My Lords, will the noble Baroness consider setting up within her department, if she has not already done so, a special section to deal with the transfer of clean technology to developing countries? I am thinking particularly of power generation—small hydro-electric schemes, solar generation of power and so forth. Does the Minister agree that, if that is left entirely to market forces, it is likely that the cheaper and dirtier forms of technology will be adopted?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, my engineering advisers in the Overseas Development Administration have recourse to experts in universities and other places to give us that information on technology transfer which we need. We are seeking to ensure that that kind of technology in power generation maximises the efficiency of existing plant without going to the enormous expense of building huge new power stations. We are mindful in all we do of the environmental aspects of that investment.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is not so much a question of how much money we are giving but whether it goes to the right people? Does she further agree that this House is very much concerned that whatever money is given—I understand that this country's record is as good as any —we want to make sure that the right people get it instead of it being absorbed in the corruption and filth which is taking place?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that one of the matters on which my department has a good record is seeking not only to plan ahead in such a way as to ensure that the money goes to the right end, but also monitoring its expenditure. After the building of a power station, or whatever infrastructure it may be, my department evaluates it. Of course, mistakes have been made in the past, but we learn from them. We now have in operation systems to prevent mistakes.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that when she speaks about increasing our overseas aid programme she is arbitrarily starting from a point which is much lower than when the present Government first took office. Is she aware that since 1979 the percentage of our GNP allocated to overseas aid is about one half of what it was in 1979? Perhaps I may draw the noble Baroness's attention to my original Question? To what extent is the 0.7 per cent. tied up in the treaties that we signed at the Rio Conference?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I can be specific with the noble Lord now. I shall answer at greater length later when we debate his Unstarred Question. The language which has been adopted is to reach the target of 0.7 per cent. as soon as possible. That was the language also used by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his speech at Rio. We have to make sure that we have the resources to do that. I remind the noble Lord that in 1979 we were in hock to the IMF and we had huge debts. The majority of those debts have now been repaid; this country can hold its head high once again.