ODA: Fundamental Expenditure Review (Hansard, 20 March 1997)

§ Lord Judd
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken following the fundamental expenditure review of the Overseas Development Administration.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, most of the recommendations in the fundamental expenditure review were accepted and have now been implemented.

§ Lord Judd
My Lords, will the Minister accept—and this is the last opportunity to say so—how much, in view of her own personal commitment, we have all felt for her in the steadily declining priority given by the Government as whole to overseas aid programmes, let alone the sad diversion of resources from poverty and development priorities, as evidenced in episodes like the Pergau Dam? Is it not unfortunate that when months ago the far-reaching fundamental expenditure review stated explicitly that the resources available to ODA were not adequate to cover its commitments and that prioritisation was essential, no considered strategic response by the Government was put before this House? Where do the Government stand on the recommendations for prioritising the 20 poorest countries, reducing commitments in regions like the Caribbean and cutting specific multilateral programmes? What consultations have there been with those adversely affected?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
Oh, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, really does not know what is going on! He will have to do a lot better than that because he has not bothered to find out. I have good news for him because today the report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the ODA, which extends to 160 pages, has been published. He will find in the blue section a great deal of information which will help him. I am sure that he will benefit from reading it. Further to that, perhaps I may tell him that we have been concentrating on the poorest countries and that is exactly what the outcome of the FER was. Assistance to the value of £175 million has gone to the 10 poorest countries. Eighty per cent. of Britain's bilateral aid goes to sub-Saharan Africa and to South Asia. We have been concentrating on pumping in that development assistance from which countries can benefit, and will benefit by their own efforts as well as ours, as fast as we possibly can. In addition, we have the second highest combined private and official flows going into the developing world. It is 1.38 per cent. compared with the UN target of one per cent. of GNP. My officers in Scotland, London and across the world have done a fine job. It is beneath the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to criticise them. They have delivered better value for money than ever before. They are targeting it and have the common 1049 sense to make sure that the money is applied where it can do most good in the poorest countries with the poorest populations.

§ Lord Judd
My Lords, I certainly do not take second place to anybody in my appreciation of what the dedicated staff of the ODA do with their meagre resources. But the Minister cannot have it both ways. If she accepts all the recommendations of the fundamental expenditure review, she accepts that the resources are not adequate for the programme; that prioritisation is essential; and that the 20 poorest countries must be targeted in a way that they were not before. Does the Minister agree that it is no good reading off a lot of ad hoc statistics if she accepts, as she said she does, the recommendations of the fundamental expenditure review?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I was tempted not to respond, but maybe I should. Since the honourable Member in another place, Mr Gordon Brown, said that he would keep to this Government's expenditure programme, and since we are credited by OECD and all the other international organisations with having the best targeted and the best-delivered development programme in the world, I have no reason to apologise for what we have been doing with the resources which have been made available. Of course, we all wish to do more in many different areas of life, but we also know that, unless Britain continues to have a sound economy, as it will have under the next Conservative Government, we will not be able to do as much.

§ Lord Redesdale
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not having read the 165-page review published this morning. It is obviously a failing that we have on these Benches. Does the Minister foresee that the bilateral budget will be sufficient this year or, because of commitments to the European budget, will there have to be some topping up of the bilateral budget?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, as I believe the noble Lord knows, there is an undertaking by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that should the non-discretionary spending exceed the revised forecast, the Exchequer will meet the bill. That is a guarantee that we have never had before and it shows the importance that we attach to development. Any reductions in the baseline were fully attributed to the lower forecast of the UK's commitments to multilateral organisations, largely the European Union. So if the demands of the European Union or of other international bodies increase, the Treasury will have to go to the reserves. We will deliver no less than what we have planned. We have planned with great care and with the full co-operation of the governments we seek to help. I believe that is a good record and my staff can be proud of it.

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, bearing in mind that over the period of this Conservative Government, in world terms, the standard of living of this country has dropped from 13th to 18th in the table, and bearing in mind that the per capita income in the Republic of Ireland is now greater than that for the United Kingdom, how many more years of Conservative Government must we have before this country qualifies for ODA assistance under the criterion of giving money to the poorest nations of the world?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
Well, my Lords, we are sinking to a depth which I did not expect to see in your Lordships' House, whatever might happen in other places. I can only say to the noble Lord that I do not believe he has looked at the figures. According to the figures, the average household is a good deal better off in real terms than any of those with whom I deal on a day-to-day basis. I am talking about countries which have fewer than 700 dollars per head per annum. That is a very tiny sum when compared with the average income in this country. Anyone who knows anything about figures will not deny that some people will be poorer than others. The overall movement in this country of income after tax has been up and up, and under a Conservative Government it will continue to be so.

§ Lord Judd
My Lords, will the Minister accept that it is a final indictment of the Government's approach to overseas development that, at the eleventh hour plus, they produce 160 pages in response to an Opposition Question when in 18 years of government they have never produced a single White Paper on the overseas aid and development programme?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, believes that this document was produced since he put down his Question, he is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land. This annual report was published last year and the year before. It is a regular document which, if he had read it in previous years, he might have learnt something about it. All I can say is that I am very grateful to the people who really know what is going on, and they are the staff of the ODA.