| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Overseas Aid
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.15 pm
Miss Joan Lestor (Eccles): I beg to move,
- That this House fully recognises and accepts the United Kingdom's share of global responsibility towards the elimination of poverty and calls on the Government to make steady and measurable progress towards honouring its pledge of the United Nations overseas aid target of 0.7 per cent. GNP; deplores the Government's failure to play a more central role in the delivery of multilateral aid, both within the EU and other multilateral organisations, and the damaging effects of its policy on the bilateral programme at a time when global poverty is increasing; and calls on the Government to establish an aid programme which is better equipped to meet the needs of the world's poor.
Some people may wonder why we have chosen overseas development as the subject for debate this evening. There has been no obvious recent Government announcement or policy change on which to peg this debate. No major international conference is being held this week that is directly relevant to the United Kingdom's aid budget. It is increasingly clear, however, to those of us who care about the UK's role in global development that the Tory Government are selling the British people and the world's poor short.
In a nutshell, the Government are prepared to trade short-term electoral bribes in the form of tax cuts at home against the development of an effective and sustainable aid programme throughout the world. That strategy, fed into the Chancellor's autumn statement last year, permeated two Government documents--the ODA's fundamental expenditure review and its senior management review, which I hope to address later.
I do not doubt for a moment that the Minister will mount a robust defence of the Government's track record. He will, no doubt, talk about quality as opposed to quantity; about supporting programmes that are recognisably British, as opposed to multilateral, in origin; and about the high regard afforded to British aid throughout the world. You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker,I have been reading the Minister's ODA press releases.
For all his claims, however, the Minister cannot disguise the fact that the Tory Government have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate by their actions, that their overseas aid policy is morally, politically and intellectually bankrupt: morally, because by cutting aid--and the Government are cutting aid, make no mistake--they are demonstrating that they attach a low priority to the alleviation of poverty in developing countries; and, politically, because the cuts announced in the Budget were a crass response by erstwhile Tory liberals to the demands of the right. I am sure that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury found the world's poor to be a soft target.
Such actions grossly misjudge the mood of the British people, who have an admirable record of enthusiastically supporting appeals for help to the developing world.A Harris poll conducted last autumn revealed that79 per cent. of those interviewed wanted the aid budget to stay the same or to be increased.
Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington):
From what the hon. Lady is saying and from the Opposition
Miss Lestor:
I accept that there are private flows and they are very welcome, but I am talking about the Government's record, not other people's record. It cannot be right to say, as I presume the hon. Gentleman meant, that although the Government are failing in their responsibilities, other people are making up the deficiency. That is not the subject of the debate.
The Government's intellectual bankruptcy is striking. Their figures, in response to my recent parliamentary question, show that a mere 10.5 per cent. of British bilateral aid in 1994-95 was spent on basic needs. That is well short of the commitment to 20:20, to which the British Government signed at the social summit in Copenhagen in 1995. So much for focus on poverty.
I have no doubt that the Minister will claim that the Government's overseas development programme aims to reduce poverty, but such a claim simply does not tally with their economic and social agenda at home. In short, a poverty focused programme of investment and assistance abroad would be a very uncomfortable mismatch with the Government's approach to the alleviation of poverty in the United Kingdom.
The Opposition believe that the values of social justice and human solidarity are as relevant abroad as they are at home and that Britain has a clear moral obligation to help to combat poverty and alleviate suffering, wherever they occur. Unlike the Government, the Labour party has a vision of development that is coherent with its domestic policy, and which is rooted in traditional Labour ideals about fairness, rights and participation in society. We believe in the rights of people everywhere to a decent livelihood and the ideal of an international society in which we all benefit culturally and economically from development.
Nor is that a narrow vision of self-interest. Development can be about improving the global environment, reducing enforced economic migration, creating new export opportunities and reducing the threat of war. Those aims are to be welcomed, but the vision must be wider. It must be a vision of global inclusion, not exclusion, and of interdependence, partnership and mutual learning.
Visions need a practical anchor. What does our vision mean for the hard choices that face British development policy and especially British aid? How do we ensure that the ODA's claimed poverty focus is paramount? What does the ODA mean by poverty? Which forms of aid--project aid, programme aid, and aid delivered with the assistance of NGOs--are best suited to achieving significant and lasting reductions in global poverty? What are the implications of increased aid contributions to eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Mediterranean for aid programmes in Africa and the Indian sub-continent? Have the Government decided that there should be a sharp geographical focus to the delivery of aid?
What should be Britain's role, as an active participant in the European Union and the United Nations, in the development of aid policy and aid delivery? Those are the
questions that people are asking and they demand thoughtful answers. If we do not receive such answers tonight, it will show that the Government have chosen to pursue a policy of cuts--to the bilateral programme and to the multilateral programme--as a result of which Britain's standing and influence in the world and its role as a leading provider of aid will take a hammering.
The Opposition are not prepared to stand by without comment to watch British Ministers abdicate their responsibility to the world's poor and cause lasting damage to them and to Britain's reputation. May we have an agreement that aid resources must be focused on the poorest people and the poorest countries? There must be no more Pergaus, for example. Will the Minister assure us that the channels for delivery of aid will be chosen specifically for their real impact on poverty? What evidence does the Minister have that different channels do better or worse at poverty reduction?
In recent years, we have seen a dramatic shift in the proportion of aid allocated away from project aid and towards emergency programmes. What efforts are being made to ensure that emergency aid is linked to and consistent with longer-term development objectives?
The main report on the fundamental expenditure review, which was published in December 1995, raises profound issues about the future role and work of the ODA. I was pleased to hear that the Minister proposes to make a statement to Parliament in the near future. I do not intend to discuss the report at great length today, but there should be no misunderstanding about the process. It is not, as the remit of the FER suggested, merely a search to improve the effectiveness of the ODA: the report is fundamentally about reducing what the ODA does. It is about cutting the aid budget still further, cutting aid projects and programmes and cutting British contributions to various UN agencies.
We support some proposals in the report, but they cannot be allowed to conceal the true nature of the exercise. It has been accurately described by leading NGOs as a "rationalisation of decline", and was described today by Christian Aid as
One of the issues raised in the FER report is the future of multilateral aid. Britain is, of course, a partner in several multilateral programmes. The search is in the EU for a new vision after Lome. Following the Government's deplorable 23 per cent. cut to the European development fund in 1995, how does the Minister propose that Britain will be able to play a constructive role in the future of EU development programmes?
The Opposition want real improvements to EU aid and development programmes, especially in relation to poverty focus, participation and accountability. We endorse the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the role for the British Government is
How can a Cabinet that contains the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), and the Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for St. Albans(Mr. Lilley), possibly play the constructive role in European development policy that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee suggests?
Is the Minister seriously suggesting cuts to the United Nations Children's Fund and to the United Nations development programme? As the Minister will know, both programmes have recently undertaken reform and are among the most efficient in the UN system. I recently met the new executive director of UNICEF, Carol Bellamy. She is clearly someone of drive and enthusiasm who will continue to build on UNICEF's outstanding work on behalf of children worldwide. I know, too, thatMs Bellamy met the Prime Minister, who I understand was also impressed.
I fail to understand how Ministers can endorse the work of UN agencies, such as UNICEF, and at the same time undermine them by proposing to reduce their funding. That is the height of hypocrisy and the world's children will suffer as a result.
I understand that in my absence yesterday--I was speaking at a conference in Dunblane organised by the excellent Scottish Education and Action for Development organisation--the Minister made some interesting claims during parliamentary questions, which were so ably handled by my hon. Friend the Member forCarrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Well, do not praise him too much. The Minister's claims bear revisiting tonight because I have no doubt that they will form the nub of his response.
The Minister stated:
That may be true in money terms, but not as a percentage of gross national product. The Minister further admitted that the Government have an on-going commitment
The obvious implication is that he anticipates a slide down the league table. Given current expenditure plans, perhaps he is only being realistic.
In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley rightly pointed out that Britain is in
We share that position with Italy. That GNP figure is based on the latest available figure--1993--supplied by the British aid statistics annual report.
"a mean policy to take us into the 21st century".
"to engage with fellow member states and the Commission in seeking to develop a realistic framework for delivery of EU aid".
"Britain's aid programme is the fifth largest in the world."
"to maintaining a large and effective aid programme".
"13th place in the real terms of gross national product."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |