There are sound reasons for agreeing with Timothy Garton Ash's assessment of this week's G8 meeting in Deauville (If Obama really wants to lead us to a free world, he should abolish the G8, 26 May). We already know, for instance, that the G8's analysis of their own development spending conflicts with that of the OECD, and conveniently presents figures which have not been adjusted to account for inflation. Also, the agenda apparently does not identify any time for a discussion about where they are on meeting the 2005 Gleneagles pledges. Several G8 members are seriously off track and many donors, including the UK, are increasingly focusing resources on migration, security and commercial interests. If the G8 members had all kept their promises, every child would now be going to school. Instead, for Africa, only $11bn of the $25bn promised has arrived. It is right that there are discussions planned with the prime ministers of Egypt and Tunisia – who will make their case for substantial aid and other support. However, if the G8 continue to let down the world's poorest and most needy people, we can only hope that the G20 will do better.
Glenys Kinnock
Opposition spokesperson on international development in the House of Lords
• The G20 does indeed represent a wider group of economic powers than the outdated G8. But the real challenge is that neither effectively represents the priorities of the poorest countries. Neither, it seems, does the WTO, given the US's failure to comply with its ruling that their cotton subsidies skew the market and make it impossible for millions of farmers across Africa to make a decent living.
Paul Spray
Director of policy, Traidcraft