13 November 2008
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown winds up the debate for the Opposition highlighting the need to ensure that our international aid is properly scrutinised and audited.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): I am delighted to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a debate that takes place in a climate of world economic turmoil and that is therefore even more important. My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) was exactly right and said probably the most true thing in the entire debate: our constituents, faced with difficult economic circumstances, will be looking at how our Government spend our money including our international development budget, and saying “Yes, but we want to make sure the Government spend it properly.”
That is why I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), whom I have known for a long time. He makes a valuable contribution to this House on international development matters and has done so for a long time and from a genuine perspective. However, I have to say to him that he was joining the Secretary of State in a little bit of political banter in trying to cast doubt on our very strong commitment—repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on many occasions—to the international target of 0.7 per cent. of GNI by 2013. I want to make that absolutely clear.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I tried to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman earlier but he quite reasonably said that he was reaching his peroration. Perhaps he will answer the following point when I give way to him in a moment. I was interested in his motive for promoting his Bill. What did he think DFID was not doing that it should do? Was it just merely presentation or were there things in the Department that he thought it could do better?
Mr. Clarke: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, as I wanted to do, for not giving way. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made the point that a lot of people were making speeches and others wanted to get into the debate, and it was for that reason alone that I did not give way.
I find it very flattering that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) puts that question to me. When a Back Bencher is given the opportunity to introduce a Bill, he does so hoping that he will get the support of this House and the other place. So the hon. Gentleman’s question is really to Parliament: why did it feel the need, as it did unanimously and rightly, to pass that Act? I hope that the legislation is helping us to make the progress that Members on both sides of the House have identified is needed.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reasonable explanation, as always, and for his apology.
There was a certain amount of scoffing during the debate that the Opposition international development team were not robust or inquiring. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) cited a blog that said that the policies of Her Majesty’s Opposition were merely a “derivative” of the Government’s policies, but she failed to read out the entire quotation. During the course of the debate, our excellent research team have been able to find the full quote, which goes on to state that the Opposition’s policies contain
and that there are
If we are to get the quotes right in this debate, we must cite them in their entirety and not just partially.
The international transparency commitment largely stemmed from what happened in Accra, as the Secretary of State made clear. We wholly concur with the view that there should be better aid co-ordination, publication and effectiveness, and he cited the example of Mozambique in support of that. It must be right that both donors and recipients have their performances well and truly scrutinised, but I make no apology for any criticism that I make in summing up in this debate, because any Department can always do a little better.
A number of good speeches have been made this afternoon, but the one by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was important in one respect: he has had a long-standing commitment to ensuring that our aid is properly scrutinised and audited, and that there should be a proper, independent audit watchdog. That is paramount to Conservative party policy.
A number of things have been said about how and where our aid is spent, and which countries receive it. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned Russia and the fact that it has built up a sovereign wealth fund of $500 billion. I think that the British Government have now stopped all aid to Russia, but I ask the Minister to confirm that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome it, if it is true. Of course, the Conservatives also wish to curtail UK aid to China. In no way do we wish to resile from our 0.7 per cent. target, but we simply feel that a country such as China, which has a GNI that works out at more than $2,500 a head, should be coping with its own problems from its own huge surplus. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire that the UK should continue to give aid to India, because it has the greatest concentration of poor people on earth; it will shortly have more poor people than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa put together. It must be right that we continue to give aid to that country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield also mentioned the responsibility to protect. In the short time available to me, I wish to raise a few issues with the Minister. If we cannot encourage the international community to come up with a solution to dreadful problems such as the vast suffering in the Congo, in Darfur, which was mentioned by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), in Zimbabwe, which has been mentioned by other speakers, and in Burma, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, by intervening at an earlier stage on the basis of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, which was introduced by the United Nations in 2005, that doctrine will shortly mean very little. All in the civilised world need to pay close attention to that.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, was right to mention President-elect Obama. We were delighted by that outcome and, like the Secretary of State and the Government, we look forward to a positive agenda and relationship with the incoming Administration. In that connection, two important multilateral discussions are going on. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one—the trade round in Doha. The third world—the poorest people on earth—has more to gain from a successful Doha round than do richer nations. Therefore, it is important that we breathe new life into those negotiations. To all those countries and areas—India, the US, the EU and Argentina, for example—that have, at some point in the negotiations, put up blocks that have meant that the negotiations have not so far succeeded, we say that they need to be prepared to compromise so that we can have a successful round.
The Government could give those talks much more impetus. The international trade round is so important because it means, among other things, that a small country can take one of the largest countries on earth to the world trade court and, through a relatively informal process, obtain a judgment against it.
The second round of multilateral talks is on climate change, with the summit in Potsdam next month, culminating in the summit in Copenhagen neat year. It is important to try to reach agreement on those, because if we do not manage to agree on carbon emissions—and limit the increase in external world temperature to just 2 per cent. in the next 50 years—world temperatures may spiral much higher. To put that threat in context, I would point out that the last ice age was only 5° below the present temperature. Again, it will be some of the poorest countries on earth that will suffer, and we have begun to see that in famine, flood, tsunamis and other events attached to climate change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) raised the problem of DFID not being prepared to meet his delegation from the CPA. The Opposition’s policies would prevent that situation from happening, because officials in DFID would have to be fully immersed in the communities to which aid was being given, instead of sitting in the capitals.
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made several important points. I cannot go over them all, but one of his themes, which has been echoed throughout the debate, was about direct budgetary support. As the Secretary of State said, aid funding is up to 75 per cent. of the national budget in some countries. Indeed, in Rwanda, which several of us visited in the summer, total development aid is about 50 per cent. That is undesirable. We should give these countries a hand-up so that they can start to wean themselves off international help.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Afghanistan, a country that needs more of a hand-up than most. This morning, he and I attended a round-table conference at the Foreign Office on Afghanistan, and one theme that emerged was that the international effort there is not being disseminated to the public very well. If our constituents only see the worst coming out of Afghanistan, they will be very sceptical about our efforts. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that what the public do see is very Helmand-centric. However, there are many things happening, not least of which is the number of girls going back to school, which is wholly to be welcomed. Other positives include the number of roads and hospitals being built, which are very welcome indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire made some important points, not least about the world economic situation. At a time when we are all running into deeper and deeper economic problems, even recession, it is regrettable that several countries are thinking about reducing their international aid efforts. The Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned the possibility that Italy will do so. That is highly regrettable. If we are to make proper progress with some of the world’s worst problems, we have to bear that in mind. We all want to meet the millennium development goals that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, but we are a long way off meeting some of them—most notably the goals on universal education and climate change. That is highly regrettable. We should breathe more life into that.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, if the doctrine of responsibility to protect is to be worth anything, we have to find solutions to the dreadful problems in such places as the DRC, Zimbabwe and Darfur. It should not be beyond the wit of the civilised western world in the 21st century to find solutions to those problems and to intervene at an earlier stage, so that hundreds of thousands of people are not displaced from their homes and killed needlessly. There is a lot to be done, and I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say about what he is doing.
| Hansard
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): I am delighted to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a debate that takes place in a climate of world economic turmoil and that is therefore even more important. My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) was exactly right and said probably the most true thing in the entire debate: our constituents, faced with difficult economic circumstances, will be looking at how our Government spend our money including our international development budget, and saying “Yes, but we want to make sure the Government spend it properly.”
That is why I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), whom I have known for a long time. He makes a valuable contribution to this House on international development matters and has done so for a long time and from a genuine perspective. However, I have to say to him that he was joining the Secretary of State in a little bit of political banter in trying to cast doubt on our very strong commitment—repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on many occasions—to the international target of 0.7 per cent. of GNI by 2013. I want to make that absolutely clear.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I tried to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman earlier but he quite reasonably said that he was reaching his peroration. Perhaps he will answer the following point when I give way to him in a moment. I was interested in his motive for promoting his Bill. What did he think DFID was not doing that it should do? Was it just merely presentation or were there things in the Department that he thought it could do better?
Mr. Clarke: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, as I wanted to do, for not giving way. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made the point that a lot of people were making speeches and others wanted to get into the debate, and it was for that reason alone that I did not give way.
I find it very flattering that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) puts that question to me. When a Back Bencher is given the opportunity to introduce a Bill, he does so hoping that he will get the support of this House and the other place. So the hon. Gentleman’s question is really to Parliament: why did it feel the need, as it did unanimously and rightly, to pass that Act? I hope that the legislation is helping us to make the progress that Members on both sides of the House have identified is needed.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reasonable explanation, as always, and for his apology.
There was a certain amount of scoffing during the debate that the Opposition international development team were not robust or inquiring. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) cited a blog that said that the policies of Her Majesty’s Opposition were merely a “derivative” of the Government’s policies, but she failed to read out the entire quotation. During the course of the debate, our excellent research team have been able to find the full quote, which goes on to state that the Opposition’s policies contain
“a number of sensible proposals”
and that there are
“plenty of good things to be said about them”.
If we are to get the quotes right in this debate, we must cite them in their entirety and not just partially.
The international transparency commitment largely stemmed from what happened in Accra, as the Secretary of State made clear. We wholly concur with the view that there should be better aid co-ordination, publication and effectiveness, and he cited the example of Mozambique in support of that. It must be right that both donors and recipients have their performances well and truly scrutinised, but I make no apology for any criticism that I make in summing up in this debate, because any Department can always do a little better.
A number of good speeches have been made this afternoon, but the one by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was important in one respect: he has had a long-standing commitment to ensuring that our aid is properly scrutinised and audited, and that there should be a proper, independent audit watchdog. That is paramount to Conservative party policy.
A number of things have been said about how and where our aid is spent, and which countries receive it. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned Russia and the fact that it has built up a sovereign wealth fund of $500 billion. I think that the British Government have now stopped all aid to Russia, but I ask the Minister to confirm that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome it, if it is true. Of course, the Conservatives also wish to curtail UK aid to China. In no way do we wish to resile from our 0.7 per cent. target, but we simply feel that a country such as China, which has a GNI that works out at more than $2,500 a head, should be coping with its own problems from its own huge surplus. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire that the UK should continue to give aid to India, because it has the greatest concentration of poor people on earth; it will shortly have more poor people than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa put together. It must be right that we continue to give aid to that country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield also mentioned the responsibility to protect. In the short time available to me, I wish to raise a few issues with the Minister. If we cannot encourage the international community to come up with a solution to dreadful problems such as the vast suffering in the Congo, in Darfur, which was mentioned by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), in Zimbabwe, which has been mentioned by other speakers, and in Burma, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, by intervening at an earlier stage on the basis of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, which was introduced by the United Nations in 2005, that doctrine will shortly mean very little. All in the civilised world need to pay close attention to that.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, was right to mention President-elect Obama. We were delighted by that outcome and, like the Secretary of State and the Government, we look forward to a positive agenda and relationship with the incoming Administration. In that connection, two important multilateral discussions are going on. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one—the trade round in Doha. The third world—the poorest people on earth—has more to gain from a successful Doha round than do richer nations. Therefore, it is important that we breathe new life into those negotiations. To all those countries and areas—India, the US, the EU and Argentina, for example—that have, at some point in the negotiations, put up blocks that have meant that the negotiations have not so far succeeded, we say that they need to be prepared to compromise so that we can have a successful round.
The Government could give those talks much more impetus. The international trade round is so important because it means, among other things, that a small country can take one of the largest countries on earth to the world trade court and, through a relatively informal process, obtain a judgment against it.
The second round of multilateral talks is on climate change, with the summit in Potsdam next month, culminating in the summit in Copenhagen neat year. It is important to try to reach agreement on those, because if we do not manage to agree on carbon emissions—and limit the increase in external world temperature to just 2 per cent. in the next 50 years—world temperatures may spiral much higher. To put that threat in context, I would point out that the last ice age was only 5° below the present temperature. Again, it will be some of the poorest countries on earth that will suffer, and we have begun to see that in famine, flood, tsunamis and other events attached to climate change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) raised the problem of DFID not being prepared to meet his delegation from the CPA. The Opposition’s policies would prevent that situation from happening, because officials in DFID would have to be fully immersed in the communities to which aid was being given, instead of sitting in the capitals.
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made several important points. I cannot go over them all, but one of his themes, which has been echoed throughout the debate, was about direct budgetary support. As the Secretary of State said, aid funding is up to 75 per cent. of the national budget in some countries. Indeed, in Rwanda, which several of us visited in the summer, total development aid is about 50 per cent. That is undesirable. We should give these countries a hand-up so that they can start to wean themselves off international help.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Afghanistan, a country that needs more of a hand-up than most. This morning, he and I attended a round-table conference at the Foreign Office on Afghanistan, and one theme that emerged was that the international effort there is not being disseminated to the public very well. If our constituents only see the worst coming out of Afghanistan, they will be very sceptical about our efforts. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that what the public do see is very Helmand-centric. However, there are many things happening, not least of which is the number of girls going back to school, which is wholly to be welcomed. Other positives include the number of roads and hospitals being built, which are very welcome indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire made some important points, not least about the world economic situation. At a time when we are all running into deeper and deeper economic problems, even recession, it is regrettable that several countries are thinking about reducing their international aid efforts. The Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned the possibility that Italy will do so. That is highly regrettable. If we are to make proper progress with some of the world’s worst problems, we have to bear that in mind. We all want to meet the millennium development goals that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, but we are a long way off meeting some of them—most notably the goals on universal education and climate change. That is highly regrettable. We should breathe more life into that.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, if the doctrine of responsibility to protect is to be worth anything, we have to find solutions to the dreadful problems in such places as the DRC, Zimbabwe and Darfur. It should not be beyond the wit of the civilised western world in the 21st century to find solutions to those problems and to intervene at an earlier stage, so that hundreds of thousands of people are not displaced from their homes and killed needlessly. There is a lot to be done, and I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say about what he is doing.
| Hansard
