| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Latin America
27. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the performance of ODA projects in Latin America.[15546]
Dr. Liam Fox: ODA projects in Latin America are monitored and reviewed regularly. Our view, which is shared by Latin American Governments, is that they are generally very effective in achieving their objectives.
Mr. Arnold:
Bearing in mind that the trade winds that so affect our climate and rainfall originate in the Amazon basin, is not it extremely important that the great expertise that we have in this country--at Kew gardens, for example--is put at the disposal of the Brazilian Government and their many institutions to ensure sustainable use of the tropical rain forest that does not destroy it?
Dr. Fox:
We are supporting substantial environmental programmes in the region, including forestry programmes in Brazil and Mexico and a sustainable rural development programme in Bolivia. The programmes are well regarded. A specific example to which I draw my hon. Friend's attention is Lake Mamiraua in Brazil, whose approach to forestry conservation is likely to form the basis of--in the inimitable language of the ODA--
Mr. Corbyn:
While the Minister is on the subject of the rain forest in Brazil, will he say what pressures he has been able to put on the Brazilian Government to protect the land rights of native peoples living in the Amazon rain forest; against water pollution from illegal mining; against driving people from their land to promote plantation, agriculture or other forms of farming; or, indeed, against the army killing people who stand up for the rights of indigenous peoples within the rain forest area? How is the large amount of European, World bank and ODA money for those projects monitored?
Dr. Fox:
I shall start with the last point first. We monitor all our projects at least twice a year. In addition, each project is reviewed midway and on completion. Our aid programme to Brazil is large; it is our largest in the region. We have a very large forestry programme, and we make representations because one of the conditions of our supplying aid is sustainability and environmental considerations. We make those points regularly.
28. Mr. John Marshall:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the work of the know-how fund in central Europe.[15547]
Dr. Liam Fox:
The know-how fund contributes to economic and political reform in central Europe. Its work is described in the annual report for the financial year 1995-96, which was published on 15 July 1996. A copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Mr. Marshall:
My right hon. Friend will accept that the know-how fund has been a great success, but does he
Dr. Fox:
The aim of the know-how fund is to support transition to a pluralist democracy and a market economy. It is of great practical assistance in giving countries the necessary expertise to move to a market system, but having encouraged them to move away from communism and promised them a place in the western family of nations, we have a moral duty to ensure that those reforms are implemented in the best possible way. The know-how fund has been spectacularly successful in doing that.
Mr. Pike:
What discussion have the Government had with the new Government in Romania to discuss what additional help can be given from the know-how fund and in other ways to help that country's transition to a new economy and to democracy?
Dr. Fox:
I cannot give details of any discussions between ourselves and the Government of Romania, but we look at all the countries in the former eastern Europe to see what structural help we can offer with, for example, improvements to the stock market, the functioning of the banks and so on. Each country is looked at individually to see what market reforms most suit it, and there is a different model for each country because all countries have different needs and have experienced differing degrees of repression from the former Soviet Union.
Mr. Rathbone:
Will my right hon. Friend give special attention to the application of additional know-how energy and funding to Bulgaria, where the liberalisation of the Government has been turned backwards? The clock has been turned back and the communists have taken over. It is only now beginning again the struggle to establish democratic practice properly.
Dr. Fox:
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about assistance to Bulgaria. We are worried about potential economic collapse in Bulgaria and have contributed to the relief effort. With the European Commission, our bilateral donations for food, clothing and soup kitchens have given 20 mecu for income support. It is a very worrying situation, which the Government are monitoring closely.
30. Mr. William O'Brien:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of Her Majesty's Government towards achieving the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product to development assistance.[15549]
Dr. Liam Fox:
We have agreed to move towards this target but not to a timetable for doing so. Levels of development assistance will continue to depend on our economic circumstances and other demands on public expenditure.
Mr. O'Brien:
Is it not extremely disappointing that over the past 17 years overseas aid as a proportion of
Dr. Fox:
There were three points in the hon. Gentleman's question. First, in our next term we shall continue our policy of providing a reasonable proportion of GNP. Of course, the difference is that under a Conservative Government the GNP is worth a great deal more than it ever was under a Labour Government. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman betrays what Labour always betrays by such questions, which is that it looks only at state money and does not regard private flows as important. We exceed the UN target for private and public flows. When developing countries need money they do not care whether it comes from Governments, the private sector, the Commonwealth Development Corporation or anywhere else. Labour never seems to be able to accept that. What amazes me about the hon. Gentleman's question is that Labour has the gall to raise this matter once again in relation to the Government's spending plans, when the shadow Chancellor has told us that all our spending is exactly correct and that, should we suffer the dreadful misfortune of a Labour Government, they would do exactly the same. Either what the hon. Gentleman says is true, which is that Labour would raise the money and the shadow Chancellor's comments are completely laughable; or, the shadow Chancellor is correct and we have made the correct economic decisions for the past 17 years, increasing our GNP and therefore the money that we can give in aid.
Mr. Jessel:
Can my hon. Friend confirm that a great deal of our development aid has been highly successful--for example, in India, where the economy is now growing well and the standards of living are improving every year? Can he also confirm that our development aid amounts to more than £2 billion a year, which works out at well over £100 per United Kingdom household; and that we would be able to contribute much more if we did not have to contribute through the Common Market as well?
Dr. Fox:
Our aid is made through bilateral and multilateral programmes, and this year the Government have decided to protect our bilateral programme for the very reason that my hon. Friend gives, which is that we think that our bilateral programme is the best in the world. It gives value for money, it is not overly administered, as are many of the other multilateral programmes, and it gives a level of expertise that is simply unrivalled anywhere else. We have moved away from the bricks and mortar type of aid programme, which is still evident in many other countries, towards an expertise-based programme that provides long-term sustainability. We have much to be proud of.
Miss Emma Nicholson:
Is the Minister aware that his original answer was almost word for word drawn from the 1974 Conservative party manifesto for the second election? While it is comforting to hear that today the Treasury Bench supports a former Prime Minister whereas only yesterday it was being extremely rude about him, does the Minister recognise that the percentage of aid is now 0.29 per cent.
Dr. Fox:
The hon. Lady knows more than I do about what prospectuses were like in 1974 as she was still supporting the Conservative manifesto at that time and I was 13 years old. We certainly believe that our aid is unsurpassed. It is not simply a question of what we give directly through state aid, but what is given by the private sector. Our private funds are flowing into developing countries and are making a real difference. There are two UN targets: not only for the proportion of GNP but for the combined flows. Only the United Kingdom and the Netherlands exceed that. Even the Liberal Democrats should recognise that.
Mr. Cunliffe:
Does the Minister feel a sense of shame about the fact that in the Budget the Government cut 26p off a bottle of gin, and followed that with a £170 million reduction in overseas aid? That is a callous act, given the hundreds of thousands of starving families in Africa and Asia. Those people have to survive on a starvation diet and need vital aid. In those circumstances, to knock 26p off a bottle of spirits was a disgrace.
Dr. Fox:
That would be true were it not for two things. First, we protected our bilateral programme in the Budget. We also said that should the multilateral aspect increase, it would be funded directly by the Treasury. Secondly, it is extraordinary to hear such remarks from a Labour Member, as the shadow Chancellor has already given his full backing to our Budget proposals.
"a large Brazilian multi-donor biodiversity corridors programme."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |