EAC Report: Development Aid

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate this evening. I thank the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, for introducing it.

I am wondering whether we are not really part of a changing mood: the weakening of links. Within the UK itself, we have the threat of weakening links with Scotland, Wales and so on. I am thinking, “Gosh, what is happening here?”. People are disenchanted with the present set-up where they are related in some way or another to each other. We see it in Europe, where there seems to be a clamour for a vote on whether we stay in Europe or loosen our links with it.

Are we not somehow part of that mood to weaken the links we have with our past and our record on helping the poorest countries? When you think of the poorest countries, I am told that the average income in the UK is about $34,000; in Africa, some are on $600 a year. We have an obligation. We are, after all, our brothers’ and our sisters’ keepers.

There is some sort of “little England” mentality. I would hate to be described as a “little Englander”; this little Welshman is apart from being a little Englander. However, is there not some sort of isolationist, separatist spirit that says, “Ah, we have to perhaps look again at our relationships”?

When we talk of the 0.7%, people say, “That was 1970; it is yesterday’s commitment”. However, the Liberal Democrat promise in the last manifesto was,

“to reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNI by 2013 and enshrine that target in law”.

The Conservative manifesto said:

“A new Conservative government will be fully committed to achieving, by 2013, the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income as aid”.

The Labour manifesto said:

“We remain committed to spending 0.7 per cent of national income on aid from 2013, and we will enshrine this commitment in law”.

Therefore, we say that this 0.7% is something that we can dispense with, but to do so would be a betrayal of all the commitments we have made, not only at the last election but for many years before then. The coalition agreement, of only 30 months ago—it did not go back to 1970—was to achieve this 0.7% by 2013. We have two months to go; I do not know how we will manage it. However, the commitment certainly must be there, and must be adhered to.

Of course, in time, within that 0.7% we will have to reassess and redistribute. That is the natural thing, because there are strengths, weaknesses, demands, and hopeful areas. However, we must stick to that target, because without it we would be in betrayal not only of our manifesto commitments but of everything that we hope for the poorest countries in the world. Imagine: if the United Kingdom scrapped its pledge, others would surely follow. We would have started the unravelling of this 0.7%.

What will be the impact of any reduction or uncertainty upon the great national aid charities? What would we say to Oxfam, CAFOD, UNICEF, Christian Aid, or Save the Children, and many more? Are we not working with them? If we back out of this commitment we will make it so much more difficult to restore that trust and to achieve the aims that we want. We must say and show: “We’re with you. We are co-operating entirely with you, and we are maintaining our 100% support”.

I will not take very much time this evening, as it is late. Of course, we have our own economic problems at home. The director of policy at Oxfam, Max Lawson, said:

“Aid is such a tiny part of budgets that cutting it has no discernible impact on deficits—it is like cutting your hair to lose weight”.

If we are really committed then we can do nothing—and we should not. The demand—and the tremendous need—are there. The fact that so many parts of the world depend upon our giving was mentioned tonight. If we said that we were to scrap our target, they would be very suspicious. We have to say, “Look, our hands are stretched to meet your hands, and to grasp you and lift you up, as far as we possibly can”.