i)
ii)
transfer the 1994/95 superannuation savings to the Aid Budget, those in 1995/96 to the Global Environment sub- programme, and those in 1996/97 would be retained in the Overseas Superannuation baseline;
earmark the 1996/97 superannuation saving for the Hong Kong HMOCS package and thereby show clearly that this would not be met from the Aid Vote (as recognised in 1988 by John Major as Chief Secretary);
iii) provide for the replenishment of the GEF in 1995/96 and
1996/97 by transferring sums from the Aid Budget.
The latter point will cause us some presentational difficulty. We are likely to be asked, either when the ODA sub-programmes are made public after the Budget speech or when the GEF replenishment negotiations are completed in December, whether the UK contribution represents "new and additional" money as promised. Our best defence will be that it does given that the Aid Budget baselines for 1995/96 and 1996/97 are higher than those at the time of the Prime Minister's announcement at UNCED. If the international and domestic reaction is highly unfavourable, then we may have to reconsider our line on this during next year's PES when I will anyway wish to return to the charge on the decline in our bilateral aid (a point you recognised in your letter of 8 November).
least
in
Finally, I should say that I plan for now to keep the Global Environment Assistance sub-programme separate from the Aid Budget.
There are presentational advantages to this, not underpinning our objective in international discussions to limit the size of the GEF by maintaining its distinctive characteristics so that it only funds those activities which cannot be funded from traditional aid programmes.
I am copying this letter to the Prime Minister (because of the GEF point), to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the
Board of Trade.
SC654/hw
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.