RESTRICTED
RECORD OF MEETINGS OF SENIOR ODM MANAGEMENT HELD ON 1 AND 4 APRIL 1977
TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT 1977-78 TO 1980-81 AID FRAMEWORK
Present:
Mr Fogarty (Chairman)
Mr Kirkness
Mr Stanley (1 April only) Mr Browning (1 April only)
Mr LCJ Martin
Mr Rae
Mr Lynch
Mr Buist
Mr Burr (4 April only) Mr J K Wright
Mr Bridger
Mr Fry
Mr Bawden
Mr Thorpe Ms Ware
The purpose of these meetings was to review the proposals made by departments for the 1977-78 to 1980-81 aid framework following preliminary consideration of them by Finance Department and the Geographical Division of EPS. This preliminary consider-
ation had shown that departments' proposals exceeded the amount available for allocation in 1977-78. As a result of Mr Fry's minute of 14 March departments had offered reductions totalling £31.2m. Those reductions, together with proposed changes in later years for some countries, were incorporated in the detailed draft proposals before the meetings. Mr Fry's supplementary notes of 30 March and 1 April suggested possible further reductions totalling £19m in 1977-78.
2.
At the request of the Chairman, discussion first centred on the constraints which would affect the totals available for allocation and the contingencies' margin in the aid framework period, with particular reference to 1977-78. The main points to arise from this discussion are summarised below.
Contingency and Unallocated Margin
3. Finance Department had proposed a contingency margin for 1977-78 of some £50m, of which £25m would be reserved for allocation against aid-worthy projects put forward by the DOT or DOI. This contingency provision was thought to be too high, particularly because it seemed improbable that as much as £25m would be disbursed on aid/trade projects in 1977-78. However, it was recognised that, under the terms of the Aid and Trade Working Party Report, we were obliged to reserve £25m for disburse- ment in 1977-78 if suitable projects of a trade-worthy nature could be identified, and that we would therefore need to demonstrate that the framework had an adequate contingency margin for normal aid purposes plus £25m (we would expect, during the first half of the financial year, to review the probability of disbursing £25m and, if necessary, to re-allocate part of this sum to other sectors of the aid programme). New demands on the aid programme could arise from the North-South Dialogue and the Common Fund, a Rhodesian settlement, special action under ID and Stabex. However, none of these was likely to require significant sums in 1977-78. It was agreed that any funds required for these items should be provided from contingencies, but that the contingency margin need not be higher than normal to allow for them.
4.
The meeting agreed that it would be appropriate to allow for a contingency margin in 1977-78 of about £35m and to represent this as £10m "normal" contingency plus £25m for aid/trade. If other Whitehall departments were to argue that the "normal" contingency was too low, the total figure could be represented as £15m plus £20m on the grounds that it was highly unlikely that £25m could actually be disbursed on aid/trade projects in 1977-78.
5. The Aid and Trade Working Party had recommended that 5% of the aid programme should be allocated for aid/trade projects. This could amount to some £38m by 1980-81. The meeting recognised that the level of contingencies for later years
/resulting
RESTRICTED