Overseas Aid Programme (Hansard, 17 February 1994)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, in this financial year £110 million—some 6 per cent. of the gross aid programme—is allocated to the aid and trade provision. On present estimates we expect to spend about £90 million on the ATP. The difference will be used elsewhere in the aid programme.

§ Lord Judd
My Lords, does the Minister stand by the criteria of degree of poverty, sound development, good government and human rights as the basis of all the aid programme? How then have Indonesia, Malaysia and China been leading beneficiaries of ATP? How can that be reconciled with one-third of the population of East Timor having been massacred? What specific action is the Minister taking to ensure that in future all assistance under the ATP as originally envisaged has to be justifiable in sound developmental terms?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, indeed the elements and objectives of the aid programme, as I set them out again last October in a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs, stand. We have revised the ATP programme and the level above which ATP will not apply is the 700 dollar GNP per capita threshold. We intend to keep to that threshold. That revision was arrived at over the past few years. We are quite certain that it is the right way to help British industry. I believe that the noble Lord was a Foreign Office Minister when his government introduced the ATP scheme in 1977. I wonder whether he means that in the unlikely event of his party forming the next Administration, that aid instrument, which has created thousands of jobs throughout the land, will be wound up. If so, he is letting down British industry and British jobs.

§ Lord Redesdale
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the question now being asked is whether perhaps the ATP should be administered by the DTI?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am convinced that the ATP programme has a real part to play in answering developmental needs. That is why the threshold for ATP is down to 700 dollars GNP per head.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, in view of the very high regard in which the Minister is held in this House, is it not sad that she should have to justify the deal with 284 Malaysia which, as documents have shown, quite clearly linked an aid programme and a series of arms deals? Was not the arrangement reached behind her back and presumably without consultation with her? Could she say by what criteria Malaysia is now entitled to receive aid from our very small programme which, as she has often said, puts emphasis on the poorest countries?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord would know that on the criteria of the 700 dollar threshold, which I mentioned a few moments ago, Malaysia is no longer eligible for ATP for new projects. When a decision is made by a government, we all stand by the decision of that government.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, would the noble Baroness be so good as to answer the question put to her by my noble friend Lord Redesdale?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I had. sought to answer the noble Lord's question.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many in this House who have admired her efforts in this field, and who have stood solidly behind her in regard to the integrity with which the programme has hitherto been carried out, are very disappointed that it should now have become quite clearly contaminated by considerations that are completely aside from the purposes for which the whole scheme was originally devised?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is jumping to conclusions. The ATP has been a successful scheme since it was introduced in 1977. I wonder whether your Lordships realise that it has won for this country some £3.9 billion of British exports at a cost of £1.4 billion. That represents business won since 1978, covering more than 270 projects and over 140 lead contractors, not including any of their sub-contractors, in 50 countries worldwide. The Opposition sometimes want to have it both ways.

§ Lord Judd
My Lords, certainly there is a place for a responsible ATP in aid policy, but not an ATP which is undermining development. Whatever the shenanigans in Downing Street and Whitehall on Pergau and the rest, can the Minister now give an assurance that in future every single penny of the aid programme will be devoted to the fight against poverty, the cause of human rights and improving the lot of people living in the third world? Will she further assure the House that she will never again allow herself to be trampled on and pushed to one side by people whose objectives have nothing whatsoever to do with the aid programme?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, out of the total aid budget more than 80 per cent. is spent on poverty alleviation. It was decided by a Labour Government in 1977 that there was room for an aid and trade provision so that British firms could compete on equal terms with their major competitors to whom those contracts would go, instead of to British workers, if Britain did not have something similar. In 1977 we did 285 not dissent. I have already made it quite clear that in the ATP review we set a threshold of 700 dollars. That threshold now means that some countries which previously could get ATP will no longer be able to do so. I am absolutely adamant that the objectives that we have set for the aid programme will be held to and that countries will only benefit from ATP if there is a full developmental need in the programme that is under consideration.

§ Baroness Elles
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Members on this side of your Lordships' House, if not on the other side, could never believe that anybody could trample on my noble friend in any way whatsoever?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, my noble friend is right. Some may try but none will win.