Points of Order
Wednesday 16th November 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On two occasions during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister suggested that the Scottish National party campaigned during the independence referendum to leave the European Union single market. That is untrue. We campaigned to remain in the EU, including the single market. That is not a matter of speculation or debate; it is a matter of fact. What powers do you have, Mr Speaker, to ensure that no one in this House, including the Prime Minister, can mislead the House, however inadvertently, when the facts are clear?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. I have heard what he has said and my response is as follows: it is the responsibility of each and every Member of the House faithfully to communicate what he or she regards as facts and to take responsibility for their own statements. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not think that it is right for me to be drawn into the matter any further. I understand entirely what he has said. I think that I also understand the Prime Minister’s position in relation to Scotland’s status within the United Kingdom and what the alternative to that status might entail. Therefore, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s insistence that the matter is a straightforward one of facts, as with many things the situation lends itself to a number of different interpretations. If any Minister, including the Prime Minister, thinks that she has erred and needs to correct the record, it is incumbent on the Member to do so. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman can go about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step, in the safe knowledge that he has articulated his concerns and that they are on the record, both for the people of Scotland and for the world to see.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today’s calendar of business shows no Government business for Monday 21 November. Rumour has it that it will be the Higher Education and Research Bill and the Clerks have been told that the amendment deadline is tonight. Members are gifted, but they are not psychic. Can you do anything, Mr Speaker, to clarify what is clearly an unsatisfactory situation?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Members are gifted, but, as he rightly observes, they are not psychic. However, I hope that he will not take great umbrage if I remind the House and communicate to the world the fact that he does at least have the advantage of being a noted philosopher. That may aid him in seeking to decipher matters, or it may not avail him. We shall see.
I had not heard bruited what apparently has winged its way to the hon. Gentleman about the likely business for next Monday. Admittedly, I had not inquired about that business. It may be so. In general terms, it is clearly desirable for the House to have the maximum possible notice of upcoming business. It is, in all likelihood, going to fall to the Leader of the House at business questions on Thursday to specify Monday’s business.
What I will say to the hon. Gentleman in respect of the point about the deadline for amendments is this: I, from the Chair, always seek, within such powers as I have, to facilitate the House. If the House ends up being disadvantaged by lack of notice, it is open to the Chair to consider, exceptionally, manuscript amendments. I make the point and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a sagacious and perceptive fellow, will have got it.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you advise me on how it would be in order to put on the record the widespread anger felt in Torbay at the theft over the weekend of poppy boxes belonging to the Torquay branch of the Royal British Legion? While thousands attended remembrance services, some light-fingered thieves stole boxes that had been positioned in a number of shops in the centre of Torquay. It is the actions of the thousands of people who supported the appeal, the hundreds of people who helped to with the collection and the people who diligently run the Torbay poppy appeal that should be remembered, not the actions of a handful of thieves.
Mr Speaker
That is not a point of order, as the barely concealed grin of the hon. Gentleman in raising the matter eloquently testifies. Nevertheless, what I will say to the hon. Gentleman, who is certainly a quick learner in the House, because he entered only last year, is that, as he knows, he has now found his own salvation. I have a feeling that his clarification in the Chamber may well communicate itself, or be communicated, to media outlets across Torbay and possible elsewhere.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister alluded to a written ministerial statement to be published later today on the fate of hundreds of UK citizens—in other words, on whether or not the Chagos islanders will finally be granted their right to return. That written statement has yet to make an appearance, but the Government’s decision has been reported all over the morning papers, and apparently that decision is to maintain the 40-year injustice. Is it in order for us to read about Government policy in the papers before it has been reported to this House? What opportunities are available to us to question Ministers on such disappointing decisions?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that it is up to the Government to decide whether the matter warrants an oral statement or a written statement, and that is not for the Chair to judge. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman, however, is that it is highly undesirable for there to be a significant time lag between public disclosure and parliamentary opportunity. He will know that other business has so far occupied us today. But that is true of today. The written statement that he legitimately anticipates has not yet been made. Doubtless it will be, and that may well lead Members to want to raise the matter in coming days, particularly if there has been no substantial parliamentary discussion of it beyond the brief exchange at Prime Minister’s questions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be ready to explore what utensils are available to him.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you able to give me any advice regarding incidents in my constituency? I have been contacted by a number of my constituents regarding letters that they have received from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) about the Boundary Commission’s proposals. Some of my constituents have been left confused, given the subject matter, believing that their MP has already changed under boundary changes. Given that the hon. Gentleman gave me no notice of his activities in my constituency, may I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for notifying me in advance of her intention to raise it. Moreover, I gather that she did notify the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who is in his place. He can hear what I have to say, and we can judge whether it requires any further comment today.
What I will say to the hon. Lady is that this is not a point of order relating to conduct in the Chamber. That said, as Members who have been here for a long time know, the Speaker will always encourage Members to observe the usual courtesies in informing others if they intend to visit, for political purposes, other colleagues’ constituencies, and they should do so in a timely way. I think the point about visiting is also applicable to communication with another Member’s constituents. The truth of the matter is that, especially in the run-up to potential boundary changes, there have often been, if I may put it this way—I do not mean this disobligingly—spats of this kind. It is much better if such spats are avoided, and the whole House and all its Members benefit if these courtesies are observed.
If the hon. Gentleman particularly wants to say anything—I am not sure that the nation needs to hear it—as I have heard from the hon. Lady, I am happy briefly to hear him as well.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The nation may not want to hear this, but my constituents will do. I have not written to the hon. Lady’s constituents by name or used parliamentary paper, resources or a portcullis emblem. I also did not deliver any of the letters personally, as I was away on parliamentary business out of the country at the time. I have therefore not breached any protocol. As far as the views that have been expressed are concerned, they are the views of my constituents and I am representing them as their Member of Parliament. Their responses to the letter concur with the opinion of both sides, which is that we should keep Morecambe and Lancaster separate.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. I note what he says about not using parliamentary notepaper and so on. We are certainly most grateful for that, because that would have been very wrong. I thank him for being characteristically up-front.
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, for the benefit of all Members, is that we have to take responsibility for conduct in our name by our staff or volunteers who are, or might reasonably be thought to be, acting on our behalf. Beyond that, I have no wish to intrude into this matter, and I hope that people of good will who represent neighbouring constituencies and who are doing their honest best can try to observe these courtesies. I have a sense that that is what the public would expect of us, or—let me put it this way—that that is what the public would like to be able to expect of us.
Mr Speaker
Mr Turner, your chuntering from a sedentary position, “Say sorry!” does at least represent a welcome change from your usual sedentary utterance, which several times a week, as you know, tends to be: “Shocking! It is a disgrace.” That does not render it any more orderly, however. We will leave the matter there for now, and I thank colleagues for what they have said.
Bills Presented
Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 50)
Secretary Priti Patel, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr David Gauke, Rory Stewart and James Wharton, presented a Bill to amend the amount of the limit in section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 on the Government’s financial assistance.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 93) with explanatory notes (Bill 93-EN).
Clean Air Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Geraint Davies presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to set, measure, enforce and report on air quality targets; to require that vehicle emissions targets and testing reflect on-road driving conditions; to make it an offence to remove permanently devices that reduce vehicle emissions; to provide powers for local authorities to establish low diesel emissions zones and pedestrian-only areas; to restrict the use of diesel vehicles in urban areas; to make provision about the promotion of electric and hydrogen powered vehicles and for the development of sustainable public, private and commercial transport by road, rail, air and sea; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 December, and to be printed (Bill 94).
Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
Tuesday 29th November 2016
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill will raise the limit on the total cumulative level of financial support that can be provided to the CDC, the UK’s development finance institution. The CDC was founded by Clement Attlee’s Labour Government in 1948 and is the world’s oldest development finance institution. It is wholly owned by the UK Government and does not have private shareholders. Its mission is to tackle poverty by creating jobs and driving inclusive economic development for people in the poorest countries in Africa and South Asia.
The CDC exists to help to address what economists call a “market failure”: the desperate shortage of investment in the world’s poorest countries because, in part, of a misperception of the risks of doing business there. It addresses that market failure by providing investment capital to support the building of businesses throughout Africa and South Asia. Its explicit mandate is to drive labour-intensive growth by creating jobs and opportunities for working people. Since its creation, the CDC has been supported by all successive Governments—Labour, coalition and Conservative—because of its core purpose of tackling poverty through sustainable economic growth. I present the Bill in the hope that that spirit of cross-party support will continue. I look forward to colleagues across the House offering the fullest possible scrutiny, and I welcome the opportunity to constructively address any points that Members raise.
In recent years the UK has led the world in efforts to eliminate extreme poverty. The previous Labour Government made an important contribution, for example, in relieving the unpayable debts of the world’s poorest countries. Under David Cameron’s leadership, the UK become the first G7 country to meet its promise to spend 0.7% of our gross national income on international development. The current Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government will honour that commitment and intensify our leadership on key global issues such as tackling modern slavery.
The Government have also rightly made clear and bold manifesto commitments to tackle poverty directly.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment to the Cabinet in this very important job—I know that she has been doing it for a while, but this is my first opportunity to do so. Later, she will meet the officers of the all-party group on Yemen. Will she confirm that the refocusing of funds in support of the CDC will not affect the Government’s commitment to the provision of emergency and humanitarian aid that she and her Minister of State have spoken of and given to Yemen over the past few years, as did her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is also in the Chamber?
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that welcome and for his remarks. He is right: successive British Governments have been very clear not just about their commitment to the CDC but about our collective focus on humanitarian need at times of crisis. I look forward to seeing the delegation from the all-party group later today, when I will of course speak more about the work that the Government are doing in Yemen, where we are seeing the most awful and horrendous catastrophe. I will speak to the right hon. Gentleman later in more detail about the type of interventions and the support we are providing to those trapped in that dreadful conflict.
By 2020, we will save 1.4 million children’s lives by immunising 76 million children against killer diseases. We will help at least 11 million children in the poorest countries to gain a decent education, improve nutrition for at least 50 million people who would otherwise go hungry, and help at least 60 million people get access to clean water and sanitation. We will lead the response to humanitarian emergencies. We will lead a major new global programme to accelerate the development of vaccines and drugs to eliminate the world’s deadliest infectious diseases, while investing to save lives from malaria and working to end preventable child and maternal deaths. We will also continue the inspirational leadership of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), on women and girls.
Those commitments stand, along with our commitment to human development and directly meeting the needs of the world’s poorest, which is absolute and unwavering. Indeed, the first major decision I took in my role as Secretary of State for International Development was to increase the UK’s contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria from £800 million to £1.1 billion. That will help to save millions of lives in the years ahead.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is outlining a long list of the Department for International Development’s achievements and her plans for the future, and she is praising her predecessors. Can she explain what has happened since she called for the Department to be scrapped and since she told the Daily Mail this year that most of our aid budget was being “stolen” and “squandered”? Those are her words.
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman has just heard not only what DFID has done in the past under two outstanding Secretaries of State—my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Putney—which is a legacy that we will stand by in our manifesto commitments, but—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, he should listen to my response.
I have already said that we will lead on major global programmes to accelerate the development of vaccines and drugs to eliminate many of the world’s diseases. The hon. Gentleman has also heard me respond to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on the question of humanitarian crises and many of the immediate needs to which we are responding. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the very Select Committee of which he is a member is witnessing at first hand how aid is being spent in crisis situations, in refugee camps, and providing opportunities and, frankly, a lifeline to people around the world who are suffering. That is exactly what my Department is doing and what I am doing as Secretary of State, and I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] This is not about briefing the press, and, if I may say so, I think the hon. Gentleman’s remarks do a huge disservice to the international development community. He is sitting there smugly smiling, but it is an international community that comes together—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not make remarks from a sedentary position, but if he is going to make remarks from a sedentary position, he should not use the word “you” because he should not be accusing me of anything.
Priti Patel
It is not just in times of crisis that the international development community comes together. My Department is championing economic development and investing in people and human capital. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may not like that and may disagree with it, but that is the core purpose of the Department.
Stephen Doughty
The Secretary of State is making some very strong statements. Of course I do not deride the work of the Department; I think it is doing a fantastic job. She has outlined many of the positive things it is doing and the humanitarian aid it is providing to refugees, but why did she say that most of the Department’s budget was being stolen and squandered, without any justification?
Priti Patel
As the hon. Gentleman knows from my appearances at the Select Committee, I have clearly stated that I will drive transparency and accountability in the Department. There have been examples. I am sorry that on an issue as important as not only saving lives but transforming lives and investing in people, he chooses to take such a narrow focus.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On the subject of the Bill, does the Secretary of State recognise that there are concerns that the CDC is not in fact targeting the poorest countries? Although private sector investment is very welcome, surely it needs to be just as targeted and as effectively monitored as investment in non-governmental organisations and other ways of boosting aid.
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. It is right that the focus is on development impact and on outcomes. That has been shown by many of the reforms that the CDC has undertaken since 2010. Yesterday, a National Audit Office report was published which showed exactly that.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend please be reassured that her efforts to ensure that we have accountability and transparency in all aspects of public expenditure, but particularly in the area of international development, are a key part of maintaining public confidence behind the 0.7% target?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We owe that to those who contribute to the taxes that enable the Government to make these important decisions about international development, and in particular our humanitarian responses and how we spend and invest that money. As I will go on to say, there are many examples around the world of lives being transformed, and that is something that our country can be very proud of.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that with regard to the concerns expressed about the CDC, the gravest relate to the period when the Opposition were in government—for example, the excessive levels of pay to CDC staff? Has the Conservative Government not got a grip of that, and is the CDC not much more efficient following the review in 2012 by the then Secretary of State?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and observation. As I outlined at the beginning, the CDC is an established organisation that we should all be proud of. Clearly, there was a period before 2010 when the management of the CDC was, to put it mildly, not doing what it should have been doing. There were concerns about excessive pay and the lack of focus on development outcomes. Since 2010, when DFID led the way forward in working with the CDC, we have seen great progress.
Priti Patel
I must make progress.
As I mentioned earlier, contrary to some of the reports that we have seen in the past week, the future of the CDC will absolutely not come at the expense of DFID’s existing work on humanitarian support, human development and directly tackling what might be called the symptoms of poverty—disease, hunger and preventable suffering.
We all have a deep responsibility to tackle the underlying causes of poverty. That is why successive Governments have rightly focused increasingly on helping countries to grow, lifting the poorest out of poverty forever. That means creating jobs for the world’s poorest people, and driving the structural economic change that will end poverty permanently. To do this, we need to build the broadest possible coalition to fight poverty.
That includes NGOs and civil society organisations from the UK and from developing countries, which do such vital work. DFID’s recent civil society partnership review clearly stated the Government’s desire to work even more collaboratively with them in pursuit of these objectives.
Eliminating poverty also means working in partnership with multilateral agencies such as the Global Fund, with other bilateral development agencies, and directly with Governments in developing countries.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
An example of that was the event that I and the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) went to last week with His Royal Highness the ambassador of Saudi Arabia. DFID is working with wealthy donor countries to unlock enormous potential across the middle east. If not for the leadership shown by DFID, some of that work would be undone.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As he knows, a great deal of work is taking place with other Governments, helping them to develop their own capacity for aid, so that they can work more effectively bilaterally and with multilateral agencies. At a time when we see a great deal of conflict in that region, we are working on an agreement with some countries in the Gulf and the middle east on what their own development bodies and agencies can do to support humanitarian relief as a result of crises taking place on their doorstep.
Today I want to explain why CDC is a vital partner in our efforts to end poverty, for it is widely recognised that aid on its own will not eliminate poverty. No country can defeat poverty and leave aid dependency behind without the prospect of a functioning economy, sustainable economic growth, jobs, trade and investment. Development investments via CDC complement our other work and allow us to fight the scourge of poverty on all fronts. In the world today, faltering economic growth and rising young populations have exposed the chronic need for jobs and better opportunities. At present, most developing countries are not growing fast enough or industrialising fast enough to leave poverty behind.
The additional financing needed to achieve the UN sustainable development goals by 2030 is estimated at $2.5 trillion every year, but current investment levels are less than half that. As the UN and many international development banks have made clear, much of this finance will need to come from the private sector. The chair of the OECD’s development assistance committee, Erik Solheim, has stated:
“There is no longer a dispute about the need for private sector involvement in development. The role of DFIs”—
that is, development finance institutions—
“is to connect development aid with private investment, and explore how we can employ market forces in the world’s most challenging places.”
Dr Dirk Willem te Velde, head of the international economic development group at the Overseas Development Institute, writing in the Financial Times yesterday, said:
“Statistical evidence to be published by the Overseas Development Institute soon suggests that a £10bn increase in exposure of DFIs in Africa would raise average incomes and labour productivity by a quarter of a per cent, which is actually slightly above the average impact of aid overall. Most jobs are created by the private sector, and working with the private sector to create jobs is vital for inclusive growth.”
We know that that will be difficult in the poorest, most fragile and conflict-affected states. These are the hardest markets, where businesses will not go on their own because it is perceived as too risky, yet it is in those very places that jobs and economic opportunities are so desperately needed. CDC does exactly that by creating jobs, stimulating growth and supporting local business.
There are currently only a few investors in the world with the skills and risk appetite to create jobs and opportunities in the most difficult frontier markets. CDC is one of those investors. CDC uses its expertise and capital to support over 1,200 businesses in more than 70 developing countries to grow and create jobs. It is a great British success story that has a long history of creating jobs in the developing world.
This is not just about abstract numbers; importantly, it is about investing in people. The life-changing impact of CDC’s investments can be seen in countries such as Sierra Leone, where the UK has supported businesses to get up and running to drive forward the country’s recovery following the devastating Ebola crisis, which killed thousands and damaged the economy. In the words of Henry Macauley, Sierra Leone’s Energy Minister, whom I met just three weeks ago:
“CDC has played an important role in supporting key businesses during the Ebola crisis and continues to do so in Sierra Leone as the economy now recovers. They are an increasingly important investor in the nation’s power sector and I’ve found them to be a great and promising private sector partner.”
The life-changing impact of the CDC’s investment can also be seen through people such as Yvonne, in Uganda. Thanks to a CDC-supported loan, she could buy a vehicle, a scrubbing machine and a vacuum cleaner for her cleaning business and attend training courses. In just 10 years, she had expanded her business from one person to providing jobs for 175 people. It is people such as Yvonne who we should have in our minds as we debate the Bill.
In the past, legitimate concerns were raised about some aspects of the CDC’s performance. That is why, in recent years, the CDC has modernised and transformed its approach. In 2010, DFID undertook a public consultation and an extensive review of the CDC, and began moving the CDC in a new direction, including by bringing in a new board and chair and hiring a new chief executive. Under its new leadership, the CDC has transformed itself. Before 2011, it operated a financial-return-first strategy, with no screening tool to help filter out insufficiently developmental investments.
Keith Vaz
The Secretary of State may have answered this question, or she may be coming on to answer it, but there were concerns about some of the salaries paid to senior officials at the CDC and about the monitoring of administrative costs. Given that we support this organisation, which is moving in the right direction, is she satisfied that there is proper monitoring of that aspect of its work?
Priti Patel
That is an important point. Back in 2009, the CDC’s then chief executive was criticised quite extensively for the level of their salary and other pay, which stood at £970,000. The current chief exec’s total remuneration is now limited to a maximum of £300,000, and that is because the remuneration policies have changed dramatically since 2012. It is also important to reflect on the fact not only that pay across the organisation has been reduced by over 40%, but that compensation is no longer benchmarked, as it was prior to the changes in 2012, against the private equity industry. This is not a private equity firm at all. The CDC is now benchmarked against other development finance institutions, and any bonuses are based on the CDC’s development performance and returns, whereas, previously, they were based solely on financial performance. That has now changed.
Priti Patel
No, I will not give way.
Under its new leadership, the CDC has transformed itself. As I said, it operated a financial-return-first strategy before 2011. It has now introduced dual objectives to deliver development impact and financial return. It has developed completely new ways of assessing and measuring development through job creation and of screening prospective investments for development impact. It is an innovative and intelligent investor with a core mission of fighting poverty. That was recognised in yesterday’s NAO report, which stresses that DFID’s oversight of the CDC led to
“important, positive changes...a significant departure from the previous strategy”.
Following new objectives agreed with the UK Government, the CDC now invests only in Africa and south Asia, where 80% of the world’s poorest live, and where private capital is scarce. The CDC focuses now on the sectors that create the most jobs and on sectors that create environments for other businesses to thrive, such as infrastructure and financial services. In the last year, CDC-backed businesses have helped to create over 1 million new jobs, and they have paid over $7 billion in local taxes in the last three years. That is money that Governments can use to invest in vital services, such as health and education.
As yesterday’s NAO report recognised, the CDC has addressed Parliament’s concerns about pay, and salaries have been cut, as I have just outlined. The whole ethos of the organisation has changed and, importantly, strengthened, with oversight from DFID. The CDC of today is a different, and much improved, organisation from the one it was many years ago. Some of the media coverage in recent days has not properly reflected that important shift, and I urge all Members to look carefully at the facts rather than some of the reporting.
Of course, there is more to do. Therefore, as part of the Bill, my Department will work to improve the transparency of the organisation further and to strengthen further the assessment of its development impact. As the NAO recognised, my Department has commissioned several independent evaluations of the CDC’s impact. Just last year, a team from Harvard, reviewing the CDC’s investments from 2008 to 2012, concluded that they had been “transformational”, creating hundreds of thousands of new direct jobs and billions of pounds in increased earnings. We are currently in the design stages of a complex new study to generate even more detailed data on the wider market impacts of CDC investments. We are the first Government ever to conduct such an in-depth study into their development finance institution.
There is no question but that the CDC offers value for money. Over the last five years, we have seen significant returns from it. Every penny of profit generated by the CDC is reinvested into businesses across the world’s poorest and most fragile regions, making every taxpayer pound invested in the CDC go further. The NAO further concluded that the CDC now has
“an efficient and economic operating model”
with low costs, compared with other development finance institutions. CDC salaries are covered by the returns the CDC makes on investments, not from development budgets.
Wherever possible, the CDC invests in countries, and it uses neutral jurisdictions only when it is absolutely necessary to do so, to protect taxpayer moneys from being lost to weak legal systems and to bring confidence to other global investors in the hardest-to-reach markets. However, the CDC uses only financial centres that are compliant with international tax transparency standards, as monitored by the OECD’s global forum on transparency and exchange of tax information. There are no exemptions.
Far from hiding investments, the CDC was one of the first development finance institutions to make public investment information about every single investment. In fact, with DFID’s support, the CDC is now a global leader on transparency. It has signed up to the international aid transparency initiative and has an online searchable database on its website, allowing users to access information on every investment and fund in the CDC’s portfolio. I can assure the House that my Department will continue to be an active and engaged shareholder in the CDC, ensuring that it continues to deliver for the world’s poorest and the UK taxpayer.
Richard Fuller
My right hon. Friend is outlining a strong case for what she proposes for the CDC. However, on the issue of probity, there are tremendous resources in the City of London, which could provide support for some of the businesses the CDC invests in as they look to get to the next stage of growth capital. Is there any element in the Bill, or are there any DFID proposals, to encourage City of London firms to provide that support for DFID goals?
Priti Patel
It is important to acknowledge the City of London and the great expertise that exists there when it comes to not only investment in some of the most challenging parts of the world but transparency. Through the work the Government have done on tax and transparency, the City of London has moved incredibly far. My Department is working across the City of London on a range of issues, such as insurance. We are also looking at how we can do more on transparency and accountability, and that is absolutely right.
We will shortly be setting out a new investment policy for the CDC, covering the next five years. That will include a new reporting framework to better capture the broader impact of investments on development, beyond job creation and the tax revenue generated. We will ensure there is maximum transparency, so that CDC investments can be scrutinised and, importantly, so that their impact on combatting poverty is made clear. As I stated, the CDC has a strong and transparent track record on which to build. With our support and oversight, we want the CDC to do more, and that is why we need the Bill.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 set a £1.5 billion limit on the overall amount of Government financial assistance that can be provided to the CDC. That limit was reached in 2015. The need to raise the CDC’s capital limit was clearly signalled in the UK aid strategy back in 2015. The Bill builds on the economic development objectives of Clare Short’s 1999 Act and should be seen not as a new political direction, but as a logical continuation of the cross-party approach that has been in place for decades.
Any money given to CDC will meet the internationally agreed rules about which spending counts as aid. Raising the limit by £4.5 billion to £6 billion and introducing a delegated power to raise the limit further via statutory instrument to £12 billion over time will enable the UK to accelerate the CDC’s growth, so that the UK can deliver on its international development objectives. Let me stress that this £6 billion is not an annual spend; it is a cumulative figure and a limit placed on the total amount of financial assistance that a Government could provide to the CDC over a period of time before coming back to the House to seek a further increase via statutory instrument.
James Duddridge
I fully support what my right hon. Friend is saying. This is a progressive, cross-party movement, and this is not a radical piece of legislation. Decisions have not been made to spend the full £6 billion straight away, but if the Department did commit to spend right up to that limit and fund it each year up to 2020, it would still represent only 8% of the Secretary of State’s budget, so 92% of aid would be spent in a more traditional way. This is a progressive move, not a radical change.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right about the 8% figure. It is also worth pointing out, putting this into context, that total aid spending over the course of this Parliament is likely to be £60 billion.
Some inaccurate reports have suggested that this Bill somehow paves the way for the entire aid budget to be given to the CDC in perpetuity. That is clearly not the case. Increasing the capital limit does not guarantee that we will use our resources in this manner, or commit us to any increases in capital. My priority is to ensure that we achieve maximum value for money with UK aid. The provision of any new capital to the CDC will require a full and detailed business case that will show how further investment will continue to achieve value for money, have a clear development impact for the poorest, and deliver in the UK’s national interests. Furthermore, it is worth noting that because CDC investments generate a return, any additional money we give to the CDC is not spent once and then lost; it contributes to the CDC’s capital, which is continually reinvested now and in future years. Importantly, therefore, it remains an asset that ultimately belongs to the UK taxpayer.
This Bill is fundamentally about people: improving life prospects by helping individuals to find work and earn money, so that they can feed their families, send their children to school and put clothes on their backs; empowering girls and women to determine their own future; and giving people in the poorest and most marginalised places hope, so that they do not feel the pressures to migrate or turn to some of the extreme causes that we see around the world. The CDC is just one part—a relatively small part in the context of overall development spending—of our crucial investment in developing countries. We will continue to invest in our life-saving, life-changing health, education and sanitation programmes, meeting our manifesto commitments. Ultimately, though, this is about jobs, growth and enterprise that will defeat poverty for good. It is right that Britain leads the world to tackle poverty across the world given that we still have more than 1 billion people living on less than a dollar a day. The UK Government are playing a leading role in building a more prosperous world. This Bill is the right thing to do for the poorest people in the world and for British taxpayers, and I commend it to the House.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The vast majority of Members of this House support the UK’s guarantee to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international development. This view is supported by the people of this country, who understand that our aid programme makes a significant contribution to creating peace and economic sustainability around the world and to building a more secure and stable international community. Our aid budget makes a huge difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands of the world’s poorest people. Underpinning the faith that the British people have in our aid programme is the knowledge that the money that is spent in developing countries—taxpayers’ money—is transparent; that the funds are provided for projects that have clear objectives and tangible outcomes; and that the money goes directly to source, with no middlemen, no creaming off the top, and no profiteering from people’s poverty.
We will always welcome any measures that aim to improve the quality of life of those less fortunate than ourselves. This Bill, with the right safeguards, could achieve that. The job of Opposition Members, and of the whole House, is to ensure that some of the previous excesses and failures of the Commonwealth Development Corporation are not repeated. I say that as a friend of the CDC. It was the post-war Labour Government of Clement Attlee who created the forerunner of the CDC. Much of the work of the CDC is vital, and we should of course work to strengthen its ability to support businesses and create jobs around the world.
However, we have a number of serious reservations about this Bill. Since the Government are proposing up to an eightfold increase in the amount it can contribute to the CDC, it is right that we ask questions. Let me begin with executive pay at the CDC. While we would all acknowledge the steps that have been taken to curtail the excesses of the past, what guarantees have the Government received that we will see no repetition of the eye-watering salary hikes that people awarded themselves in the past? It would be fundamentally wrong for the extra money proposed in this Bill to be used to fill the bank accounts of the executives of the CDC instead of going to those who need it the most.
James Duddridge
Does the hon. Lady accept that no one is considering going back to those bad old days? While I do not want this to be a partisan issue, because I think there is a wide degree of consensus, the original deal with the chief executive was signed off by Clare Short, and the new deal, which reduced the salary by a third and placed a cap on the maximum, was signed off by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) when he was Secretary of State. There is no going back to those bad old days; this is about working together on the new framework.
Kate Osamor
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am concerned that we learn from the past. I am not here to pull punches: this is about learning from the past and ensuring that we move forward in the correct, transparent way.
The second question the Government must answer is on the priorities of the CDC. Recent history is not kind to the CDC and the decisions it has made on the allocation of its funds—UK taxpayers’ money. In recent years, the CDC has become a more commercial organisation. In 2004, the CDC created the private equity arm, Actis. In a deal that raised serious concerns on the governance of the corporation, 60% of the equity firm was sold to managers at the CDC at a bargain basement price. In the space of a few years, they had turned the CDC from an aid agency into a cash machine. With the focus turned to maximising profits, mainly for those who worked at the CDC, the traditional areas of financial support that the CDC had focused on for nearly 60 years were being abandoned. Food security through agriculture programmes went, safe and clean water projects were cancelled, and transport and infrastructure projects were abandoned. Poverty reduction—surely key to any development objectives—withered on the vine of self-interest and, I am afraid to say, earning a fast buck.
It is worth comparing the principles and values on which the CDC was founded to achieve its aims with the realities of its present-day operation. In 1998, the CDC spent 50% of its budget on agribusiness in Africa. That investment had two virtues: first, it helped to feed people in those countries, where starvation and hunger were rife; and, secondly, it enabled communities to become more self-sufficient, created jobs, and was a step on the ladder out of poverty. Today, funding for agribusiness has dropped to just 5%.
We see similar patterns in the CDC’s infrastructure programme. For people to live healthy lives, and to enable communities to thrive, not simply survive, we need to help create a solid infrastructure as part of our development priorities. Dirty water and poor sanitation robs the lives of over 300,000 people each year. Infants and young children are especially susceptible to diseases because of their immature immune systems. Their young bodies simply do not have the right immune system to cope with waterborne diseases. According to UNICEF, over 40% of medical facilities in Africa do not have access to clean water. Dirty water and a lack of good sanitation do not just rob people of their lives; they make a country less productive. A recent study estimated that there was a $150 million shortfall for water and sanitation projects in sub-Saharan countries, while the World Health Organisation estimates that we need £535 billion in investment to achieve universal access. I accept that those are huge sums of money, but look at the benefits. It is estimated that every dollar spent on improving water quality and sanitation delivers $4 in increased productivity. With such overwhelming evidence for the health and economic benefits, the case for investing in infrastructure programmes should be beyond doubt.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Another dimension, when we are talking about health, is the pharmaceutical industry and the products that it sells to some African countries. Surely, the Government should be looking at this area and trying to make pharmaceuticals a lot cheaper for those countries.
Kate Osamor
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We need not only to look at the health of poorer people but to make sure that they can access water and sanitation.
It is surprising, if not shocking, that the CDC reduced infrastructure support for water, sanitation and roads from 35% of its budget in 1999 to just 8% a decade later. If the money is no longer going to support agribusiness or infrastructure, where is the CDC spending it? Let us begin by looking at some of its recent investments, such as Xiabu. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am partial to a takeaway on a Friday night—so, it seems, is the CDC, because it has provided thousands of dollars to the Chinese fast food chain Xiabu. That may be a good commercial investment, but is it the best use of the CDC’s resources? Can the Secretary of State set out what guarantees she has obtained that the UK’s increased contribution to the CDC will not go towards such projects?
While the Secretary of State is here, I would like to hear from her that the Government will seek assurances that in Africa the CDC will put more emphasis on food security than it puts into funding the building of new shopping malls at present. I have no doubt that the people of Accra are grateful for their brand new shopping mall, but what strategic role it plays in increasing life expectancy in Ghana is a mystery to me.
James Duddridge
The people who were employed in the construction of those shopping malls in Accra—I have seen them recently—would disagree with the suggestion that that has not helped families in Accra and in nearby villages. Less than 1% of the CDC budget has gone on shopping and infrastructure, which provide a lot of jobs. Agriculture, which the hon. Lady talked about earlier, is incredibly important, but it is less important than it used to be in the modern economy in Africa, where there is a greater degree of diversification and urbanisation.
Kate Osamor
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that he went around Africa in his previous role as a Minister, so he knows a lot about Africa, but there are parts of Ghana where there is no electricity and parts of Ghana where there is no water. Yes, middle-income families may enjoy going to malls, but while many people are living in poverty I do not think that a mall is the best use of CDC resources and money.
The examples that I have given lead me to my third and fourth questions for the Secretary of State. The Government propose to increase funding from £1.5 billion to £6 billion, with the option for the Secretary of State to raise it to £12 billion at a future date. But it seems she is putting the cart before the horse. As yet, the CDC has not published its investment strategy for 2017 to 2021. In the absence of an investment strategy outlining how the additional resources would be spent by the CDC, the Government are essentially proposing that we provide the CDC with a multibillion-pound blank cheque. In 2015, the coalition Government gave the CDC a cash injection of £735 million, and the Secretary of State published the business case for that increased funding at the time. Will the Secretary of State place in the House of Commons Library the full business case for the increase to £6 billion of funding to the CDC? Will she assure the House that if the Government wish to extend that to £12 billion, a business case will be brought to the House?
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend was in the House when the Secretary of State gave me a very welcome assurance concerning Yemen, which we appreciate. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that emergency and humanitarian aid should be ring-fenced and that any resources to the CDC—whatever they may be, after the business case has been prepared—should not take money away from that emergency and humanitarian aid, which is important in Yemen and in other parts of the world?
Kate Osamor
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, humanitarian aid is paramount. In times of crisis, we need to know that that money will be ring-fenced to ensure that those who need it most will be able to get it.
During proceedings on the Bill, we will be setting the Government six questions, which we hope they will be able to address and gain our support. I began my response to the Secretary of State’s opening speech on Second Reading today by setting out the key principle that should guide us on international development funding—transparency. Indeed, the lack of transparency over the CDC’s work has created considerable scepticism about its activities and some of its investments. When spending taxpayers’ money on international development in an age of austerity, it behoves the Government to do all in their power to reassure everyone that their money is being spent properly and effectively. The Secretary of State would alleviate some of the concerns felt by Opposition Members—and, I am sure, in the country at large—if she were to insert a transparency clause into the Bill, which would meet the Government’s stated aim and their commitment to transparency, value for money and tracking development results.
That is particularly important when it comes to the CDC’s use of tax havens for its investments. It is extraordinary that the CDC has routed its investments through tax havens. The CDC and DFID have a moral duty to adopt the highest ethical standards if they are to have moral authority as the UK’s leading development actors. We should not be rewarding tax havens with UK taxpayers’ money, and the Government could and should lever the CDC away from the use of tax havens. Not a penny of the proposed £6 billion should find its way to a tax haven, and the Bill should be explicit in enshrining that principle.
Providing any organisation with £6 billion—and potentially £12 billon—is a significant step, and that is particularly true of an organisation with such a chequered recent past. The House would welcome a clear sense from the Secretary of State of how her Department has evaluated the costs and benefits of providing the CDC with such a significant sum of public money. There is a clear need for the Minister to set out how DFID’s investment plans for CDC have been informed. Has that been achieved by assessing other options for investing these resources. Has it been achieved by comparing their value for money and the potential for development impact?
There are two issues that the Secretary of State should address to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to transparency. At present the CDC is not subject to the scrutiny of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. That is an anomaly, and it should be rectified immediately. Will the Secretary of State insert into the Bill a provision to enable ICAI to scrutinise and audit the effectiveness of the CDC, particularly given the significant increase in the CDC’s funding proposed in this Bill? Secondly, I would like an assurance from the Government that the CDC will not be sold off or privatised during this Parliament. It would, surely, be wrong for this House to provide billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, only for the CDC to be handed over to a private equity firm or suchlike company.
When the Colonial Development Corporation was established in 1948, it had bold ambitions. For much of its life, the CDC has achieved those ambitions, first as the Colonial Development Corporation and then as the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Lives have been saved and lives have been improved as a direct result of the CDC. Sadly, the CDC has lost its way in recent years. The ethos and values that drove its inception six decades ago have been lost, sacrificed on the altar of fast-buck economics. We are beginning to see some welcome reforms to the CDC, but history has taught us that we must remain vigilant.
As I set out at the beginning of my speech, the Opposition firmly believe in the principle of aid as a vehicle for improving the life chances of millions of people. The question the Government must answer before they gain our full support for the Bill is: will they provide the assurance and the guarantee to deliver what we all seek, which is a CDC that truly lives up to its mission
“to support the building of businesses throughout Africa and South Asia, to create jobs and make a lasting difference to people’s lives in some of the world’s poorest places”?
To achieve this, the Government must place the right safeguards in the Bill in Committee. If they do, and the Bill achieves the twin objectives of supporting the people who need it the most and of making the funding fully transparent, the Government will have our support.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my outside interests, which are listed in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This is an extremely good Bill, and I hope it will be welcomed in all corners of the House. During my brief remarks, I very much hope to be able to satisfy the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who leads for the Opposition, on the perfectly fair questions that she posed. The fact that the Government are able to bring the Bill before the House today shows the success of Britain’s development policies in general, and specifically the success of the CDC reforms that we introduced in 2010 and 2011. Today’s Bill is the fruit of those reforms.
It is worth reflecting a little further on the history of the CDC. As has been said, it was founded in 1948. It was the first development finance institution— another British lead—and an early example of Britain’s generosity and of recognising the importance of the private sector and of job creation. The CDC made a huge contribution in the years after the war to agricultural development in the poorest parts of the world with which Britain had a close connection. By 1997, the formula had become a little tired, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation, as it had become, was losing money, which was hardly a good example of private sector entrepreneurialism for poorer countries to emulate.
In 1997, the Blair Government considered privatising the whole CDC. That would have been a huge mistake, since the whole point of the organisation is to complement the private sector, not to compete with it. In the end, the Labour Government privatised the management, while leaving the capital in the public sector. The then Government turned it into a fund of funds: it invested in other people’s funding vehicles, while the private sector did what it is supposed to do, which is focusing on making money.
When I travelled as the shadow International Development spokesman, other countries’ development finance institutions would say to me that the transformation of the CDC after 1997 was a warning to other development finance institutions of what not to do. When I travelled in countries where in the past the CDC had generated enormous good will, people used to say to me, “Whatever happened to the CDC? It has simply disappeared.” Of course, that was right. As the CDC was investing in other people’s funds, it had simply disappeared.
In 2010, the coalition Government said that the CDC, this former great development finance institution, had lost its way. The CDC was under regular attack in the press—particularly in Private Eye—and my judgment, as the Secretary of State, was that the attacks were largely valid. It had been turned from a somewhat sleepy development corporation that was losing money into a city slickers private equity business. It was mostly staffed by the same people, who saw their civil service salaries soar to the exotic levels normally populated by very successful hedge fund managers and private equity investors. The central aim of the coalition was to re-inject the CDC once again with its distinguished development roots without losing the ability to earn a commercial return. Our aspiration on entering government in 2010 was that just as DFID is undoubtedly the leading development ministry in the world, so the CDC should become the envy of all other development finance institutions—the best Government-owned DFI anywhere.
We had three key aims. First, we wanted to regain control of investment expertise by bringing the responsibility for investment back into the CDC. In other words—Labour Members may care to take note—we decided to reverse the Blair Government’s privatisation by bringing the expertise back into the public sector. Secondly, we wanted to broaden the toolkit of financial instruments by which the CDC could achieve this. Thirdly, we wanted to shift the geographical focus of the CDC on to the poorest and most difficult parts of the world—Africa and south Asia. The CDC had previously focused on a loose collection of geographical locations in a very undifferentiated way. Of course, capital in such circumstances naturally gravitates to the areas of lower risk and higher return. That was exactly what we did not want it to do, because for the CDC and development, those are the areas of least value.
It was with dismay that I read in the Financial Times of all newspapers—it has a reputation for outstanding financial journalism, and should therefore know better—a rehash of a past that the CDC has long left behind completely. A moment of research would have shown Financial Times journalists that they were completely out of date. The Financial Times said that
“the government should place the CDC under the same broader level of public scrutiny as DfID.”
The CDC is overseen by DFID, the Treasury, the shareholder executive, the International Development Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and, as yesterday’s report shows, by the NAO. Perhaps in a rather better researched piece, those Financial Times journalists could explain who might be added to this already extensive list.
Contrary to the Financial Times view, the CDC is now well on its way to achieving a reputation as the best DFI in the world. The reforms that we introduced inevitably confronted vested interests, and involved an area of expertise that we did not of course have any right to expect within the civil service. We wanted the CDC to provide both pioneer and patient capital. We wanted pioneer capital because we wanted to show the reach of the private sector at its best in promoting economic activity, jobs, decent working practices, and the provision of key goods and services to the poorest in the most difficult places in the world. We wanted patient capital because it can take a longer view of the financial return and can therefore complement the private sector by adding what is often the key ingredient to the mix—funding that would not otherwise be available to generate jobs, whether in the power sector or in infrastructure—in, once again, the poorest places. All of that had the additional benefit of delivering value for money and a return for the British taxpayer, while having a substantial impact on poverty alleviation.
The Bill is part of the proof that these reforms have worked and that this new approach is succeeding. I do not think it is fanciful to believe that in 50 years’ time, the CDC rather than DFID will be seen as the embodiment of the UK’s strong support and success in helping the world’s poorest and most excluded people. The flow of CDC-type investments made by the developed world in the poor world is now overtaking, in quantum, the level of aid. I believe that the work the CDC is carrying out should command everyone’s support from the far left of the Labour party to the development-sceptic press.
To achieve this position, the CDC has faced the need for and delivered radical change. This would not have been accomplished without the high quality of leadership at the top that has prevailed throughout. We were successful in hiring Diana Noble as the chief executive. Diana Noble will retire next year, and the taxpayer and the development community owe her a great debt of gratitude. She has changed a passive organisation by recruiting outstanding new talent. People tell me that the spirit in the CDC has been transformed. She inherited an organisation of 50 people, a figure that was subsequently reduced to 40 but now stands at approximately 220.
Those extraordinary changes would not have been accomplished, either, without the skills and commitment of Mr Jeremy Sillem, a senior and experienced City financier who served as an adviser to DFID and was subsequently a non-executive director of the CDC while the reforms were implemented, and of Graham Wrigley, who now provides his expertise as the CDC’s chairman. That team, above all, has delivered those changes and deserves the gratitude and thanks of Parliament and the taxpayer. Their personal reward will be the transformation of the lives of very large numbers of extremely poor people.
Our reforms turned the CDC from a one-product business—a fund of funds—into a multi-product one. I am not a golfer, but if I may use a golfing analogy, the CDC was traversing the golf course of international development with only one golf club, that of investing in other people’s funds. We have now equipped it with a full variety of golf clubs, including equity and debt, direct investments, trade finance and infrastructure lending. We have also regained control of the golf swing rather than delegating it to others—I have probably pushed the metaphor as far as I should.
Inevitably, operating in markets such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia is accompanied by considerable risk. Along with development impact, the CDC considers whether it is truly bringing additional funds that are unavailable elsewhere to each investment. It always seeks to avoid the lurking dangers of corruption that are ever present in development. It is a young business that will not always get it right, but for a young banker starting out in the financial world, as I did in 1979, there are few more exciting places to aspire to work across the financial world than the CDC, whose employees deploy their financial skills in an area where they have the power greatly to elevate the social condition of some of the poorest people in the poorest areas of the world. By the way, salaries have been sharply reduced and are well below what the staff at the CDC would earn in the commercial world.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I am just being slightly mischievous, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that all those interested in a career in the CDC cannot expect to spend too much time on the golf course, either on a Friday afternoon or on any other day of the week?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) replies to that intervention, may I just say to him that those of us who do not understand cricket are absolutely delighted to have had a golfing metaphor? It is so much simpler.
Mr Mitchell
I do not play golf, but I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that the staff in the CDC work phenomenally hard, including on Friday afternoons.
There are only a few investors in the world with the skills and risk appetite to undertake such difficult but vital investments, doing the hardest things in the hardest places. In 2014, in response to the Ebola crisis in Sierra Leone, the CDC partnered with Standard Chartered bank to support lending to local businesses and help the country’s economic delivery. In 2013, the CDC made an investment in Feronia, an agricultural production and processing company in the DRC, which is one of the most difficult countries in the world in which to invest. That investment would help people to lift themselves and their families out of poverty and provide much needed support to local agriculture, a sector that the hon. Member for Edmonton quite rightly mentioned. It should never be forgotten that the overwhelming majority of jobs are created by the private sector, not by Government, and having a job—being economically active—is how people all around the world lift themselves out of poverty. Of course, inevitably, not all those investments will succeed.
Since 2011 the CDC has focused its attention intensively on quantifying development impact. For example, this year it invested in a power plant at Virunga park in Matebe that is providing 96 MW of clean energy, creating around 100,000 jobs and boosting economic development. It is the first investment by a DFI in that region of the DRC since the 1980s. In 2015, the CDC invested in the largest independent power producer on the continent, Globeleq Africa, also bringing in Norfund, Norway’s development finance institution. That will add thousands of megawatts of electricity generating capacity over the next 10 years, addressing a massive gap. In my view, the CDC is the only DFI with the vision or appetite to undertake that type of work, including changing the whole strategic direction of the company and replacing the senior team and board.
The Bill ensures that the CDC can receive from the taxpayer the capital injection it will require to carry out the development work with which it is tasked. Many Governments are channelling development funding through DFIs such as the CDC because they use capital injection to address market failure, as the Secretary of State pointed out, and invest funds on a revolving basis in business in developing countries. The extent of the success of the CDC’s development investment means the Bill is required.
In its report published yesterday, the National Audit Office said:
“Through tighter cost control, strengthened corporate governance and closer alignment with the Department’s objectives, CDC now has an efficient and economic operating model”
with “thorough” governance arrangements. It also said that the CDC’s
“current portfolio of investments reflects the strategy it agreed with the Department in 2012…CDC has met the target for financial performance it agreed with the Department.”
Finally, the report made it clear that the CDC measures its effectiveness through financial return and development impact targets—targets that it has met. Measuring development impact is extremely difficult, partly because it is so long term. But above all it is about job creation. It is likely that the CDC is currently involved in investments that will create more than 1 million jobs. In any event, it is to be congratulated for the steps it has taken to quantify development impact and to be encouraged to go further.
For now, my advice to my successors in the Government is to leave the CDC to grow and deliver on the objectives we have set it and to hold it to account for what it does. However, probably the most anxiety-inducing statement the CDC team ever has to face is, “Government officials are coming round to interfere today in what you are doing.” When we hired the current CEO, Diana Noble, who has done such a brilliant job, I remember promising her that Ministers and officials would set the course for the CDC—as the shareholder properly should—but would then leave her to get on with the job and to deliver. I trust my promise is being honoured.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that before I begin my remarks on the Bill, you and the House will allow me to note that today marks the third anniversary of the Clutha tragedy, when a police helicopter crashed into the Clutha bar in Glasgow, killing 10 people. We remember them and pay tribute to them and to the first responders on the scene that night. We hope that, in due time, families and friends will get the closure they require and the answers they seek through a fatal accident inquiry process.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sure that the whole House joins the hon. Gentleman in remembering those who lost their lives that day, and their families and friends.
Patrick Grady
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill is a rare piece of DFID-led legislation—the first in this Parliament, I believe—so I take this opportunity to welcome the new Ministers to the Government Front Bench and the shadow Ministers on the Opposition Front Bench. Lots of Scottish National party spokespeople seem to have been doing that in recent weeks and months, so at least there is consistency from our Benches.
Today’s debate gives us the opportunity to look in detail at the Government’s specific proposals on increasing the funding they can provide to what was the Commonwealth Development Corporation, now more regularly known as CDC Group or the CDC. In doing so, it is worth exploring how the Bill fits into the broader context of the UK’s aid spending and the direction the Secretary of State is setting, and how those fit with the global framework and consensus on poverty reduction.
Aid works. It has saved and transformed countless lives around the world. I have had the privilege of witnessing that with my own eyes in places such as Malawi and Zambia, and of meeting people from all over the world whose lives have been transformed by aid, when they have travelled to Scotland and the rest of the UK to share their testimony.
SNP Members happily give credit to the UK Government for meeting, in recent years and after 40 years of delay, the 0.7% of gross national income target for overseas development assistance spending. Despite the progress made in recent years, the need for aid spending has not gone away. As many analysts and institutions have said, including the International Development Committee, aid flows will need to continue to grow from the billions to the trillions if we are to meet the sustainable development goals—they are also known as the global goals—that have been agreed at the United Nations and if we are to tackle the challenge of climate change. The Secretary of State spoke about market failure. Lord Stern once upon a time described climate change as the biggest market failure of all, and that must be at the forefront of our minds.
I give credit to the Government for their leadership in negotiating and building consensus on the sustainable development goals, but the task is to continue to show leadership as the world works towards meeting them to end poverty and hunger, achieve universal education and gender equality, eliminate preventable disease and empower communities around the world. The first and most important question we must ask of the Bill is how it will help to meet those goals. What assurances can the Government give us that, in their agreements with the CDC and in setting policy direction, the investments that the CDC makes will be geared to the achievement of the global goals?
As a number of hon. Members have said, the Bill is tightly focused, which is perhaps a missed opportunity, because there is a chance to make more explicit in the Bill or the Commonwealth Corporation Act 1999 that poverty reduction is as much a duty of the CDC as it is of the Department for International Development. It is not clear in the Bill how much scope there is for amendments, but who knows how creative hon. Members will be in Committee?
Such a reassurance from the Government would help to make a stronger and clearer case for the role of development finance and for that specific development finance institution. The CDC is rightly proud of being the oldest such institution in the world. As a pioneer, it has had numerous successes, as we have heard, but it has also learned a number hard lessons over the years. To maintain support in the House, it will need to continue to do so. Stories of lavish expenses and inflated salaries, of channelling funds through tax havens, and of investing in luxury hotels and shopping malls, will not inspire confidence among the aid community or the public at large. As we have heard, the National Audit Office yesterday raised a number of concerns about transparency and impact measurement. Despite the progress and reforms of recent years, in 2013 still only 12% of new investments were made in the least developed countries of the world.
Since the Secretary of State’s appointment, she has made great play of seeking value for money for the taxpayer and increasing aid spending transparency. Will she commit to holding the CDC to the same standards as other stakeholders and recipients of DFID funding? She said in her speech that transparency would happen as part of the Bill, but I do not see it in the Bill, so how can we have those transparency guarantees? The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) asked who else could scrutinise the work of the CDC. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) rightly suggested that the Independent Commission for Aid Impact could continue to have a role. Perhaps that provision should be in the Bill.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is right that ICAI should have a role, which it has because it can follow all official development assistance expenditure. He can rest assured that I should have added ICAI to my list.
Patrick Grady
I am happy to take that reassurance from the former Secretary of State, but I hope to hear it from current Ministers.
Fiona Bruce
As chair of the sub-committee of the International Development Committee that scrutinises the work of ICAI, perhaps our sub-committee could be added to that list.
Patrick Grady
DFID and the other bodies rightly face considerable scrutiny, which is as it should be, but we must ensure that it is extended and applied equally to all DFID stakeholders and all the resource that is spent. Perhaps there was an opportunity for the Bill to go further and to place statutory duties on the CDC to report on all its spending to the standards set by the international aid transparency initiative. I wonder what creative amendments might appear in that respect.
Let me be clear that I am not objecting in principle to the concept of development finance. There is a role for the private sector to play in stimulating the economies of developing countries and helping people into work—if carefully managed, it can support innovation and diversification. The Secretary of State’s letter to Members in advance of the Bill gave the example of the CDC’s early investment in the African mobile phone operator that eventually became Celtel. The investment was made when the technology was unproven and the market barely existed. I have seen first hand the impact that mobile phone technology makes in improving people’s lives across sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed, I have been a customer and user of Celtel services on many occasions.
The Scottish Government recently launched their own development finance initiative as part of their international development strategy. The Minister for International Development and Europe, Dr Alasdair Allan, announced in October £1 million of Scottish Government funding to help Malawian businesses over a three year period, which will be match-funded by private investors, providing £2 million in total to invest in Malawi. Those investments will be managed by a new Scottish company, the African Lakes Company Ltd, which has been registered as a limited company for that purpose. The African Lakes Corporation was originally established in Glasgow in 1878 to develop trade as an effective way of displacing slavery in Malawi. More than a century on, that mission has been revived with a contemporary view to investing in Malawi’s future. Through their support for that venture, the Scottish Government aim to show that responsible investment can help Malawi and similar countries to reduce dependence on aid, support the growth of existing businesses and create sustainable livelihoods.
The question is therefore less about the principle of development finance and more about how it is managed and how it fits within the overall picture of aid spending. The Scottish Government commitment of £l million over three years represents just under 4% of their annual development fund budget. The figures proposed in the Bill are of a far greater order—the Bill proposes the quadrupling of the funding cap from £1.5 billion to £6 billion, which would take the total amount that DFID can invest to the equivalent of around half the annual aid budget. I take the Secretary of State’s point that that will not necessarily be invested in one go, but if my understanding of the Bill is correct, it could be invested in one go in principle, which is a concern to some of us. The new maximum, which will be decided by statutory instrument, could be £12 billion, which is approximately the total annual aid budget. It is therefore worth asking, as the hon. Member for Edmonton did, where those figures came from and how they were arrived at. Why £6 billion and not £5 billion or £7 billion? Where is the needs analysis behind that figure?
As we heard in Treasury questions today, total aid spending is very likely to fall as a result of a slowing economy. The 0.7% target is by definition a proportion of total GNI. With further economic uncertainty on the horizon, there is no guarantee that the current figures will remain stable, let alone increase. Would it have been more sensible for Ministers to express the funding limits in the Bill as a percentage, or through some kind of formula that relates to the total amount of aid funding, to make investment in the CDC relate more clearly to the total aid budget at any one time? Although making the cap a proportion recognises the importance of development finance, it also recognises that it is only one small tool in a box, as the Secretary of State said.
We have been presented with the Bill, which incidentally was not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, without seeing the long-promised policy statements in the shape of the bilateral and multilateral aid reviews. We therefore have no real idea exactly how the increase in the investment cap fits with DFID’s broader policy direction and goals. The Secretary of State has said that no disbursements will be made to the CDC without a robust business case. Will she assure us today that such business cases will have poverty reduction and the sustainable development goals, and people rather than profit, at their heart? As I asked earlier, has she given any consideration to the opportunity for building that into the Bill as a statutory duty on the CDC? [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State is not here, I hope that at least one DFID Minister can answer those questions at the end of the debate.
I and many other Members are keen to explore in Committee and other stages the question of how that significant scaling-up of DFID finance to the CDC fits into its broader policy goals and the wider global aid agenda. If satisfactory answers are not forthcoming, and if the Government are not willing to offer the reassurances and amendments we suggest, we reserve the right to oppose the Bill in its entirety on Third Reading.
Greater clarity is urgently needed from DFID and the Government as a whole on the purpose of their aid budget and how they will achieve that purpose. A global consensus framework exists, which this Government, or at least the Government elected in May 2015, helped to negotiate and write in the shape of the sustainable development goals. I said last week in Westminster Hall that, despite what may be read in some of the gutter and right-wing press, there is still public and political consensus in the UK on the importance of aid and the need to tackle global poverty.
The Secretary of State talks increasingly about making aid work in the national interest, but that raises the question: what is the national interest and how is it different from the goal of poverty eradication? Surely meeting the global goals in and of themselves is in the national interest, otherwise there is the implication that previously aid did not work in the national interest or that we have a deeper interest in its effectiveness beyond what the SDGs aim to achieve. If that is the case, what is that interest? What better or more noble purpose is there than the eradication of poverty and disease and the building of peace and equality for all? Surely a global community where everyone’s basic needs are met, where education allows people to thrive and where health and wellbeing contribute to more peaceful societies is by definition in our own interests, as well as the interests of those we are seeking to help.
That is why the goals must be at the heart of the work of the CDC. Ending poverty should not be a happy or convenient by-product of profitable investments; it should be the other way around. If investments that create jobs and provide services that lift people out of poverty go on to make surpluses that can be reinvested in more of the same, all to the good, but it should not be assumed, especially in the context of fragile and developing countries and economies, that generating a return on investment will of itself provide a rising tide that floats all boats. Old-style aid-for-trade and trickle-down investment have left us with a world where we still need a 15-year timetable to meet the global goals, after 15 years working towards their predecessors, the millennium development goals; yet we live in a world of plenty with the knowledge, resources and capacity to meet and exceed all the targets in the goals. What is lacking is the political will. The Government must show they understand that and that their support for the CDC is but one small and proportionate intervention in the struggle for a fairer, more just and more peaceful world.
Every penny that the Government invest in the CDC is a penny not invested in traditional, proven methods of aid delivery, so they have to show why each of those pennies is not better spent on gender empowerment, nutrition, farming, education or any of the other programmes working in partnership, on a non-profit basis, with specialist and grassroots organisations on the ground in developing countries. If they want to maintain the consensus in the House on the use and purpose of aid, the Government must show willingness in the coming stages of the Bill to engage on the points that I and others have raised. I look forward to continuing that debate in the coming days.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my outside interests, among which are some financial interests in developing nations.
The scale of the development problem facing us is largely to do with the projected world population growth over the coming years, so it is right that the CDC focus on Africa and south Asia, as they are key areas of population growth. Twenty African nations are posting fertility rates in excess of five children per woman, and in some that figure is over seven. Africa is predicted to account for 80% of world population growth, quintupling its 1.2 billion population to add around 5 billion to the global population this century, while the number of Africans aged 15 to 24 is expected to nearly double by 2050 to 452 million.
These facts present some of the most outstanding challenges of our time: the impact on global warming, which we heard about earlier; environmental degradation; the impact on biodiversity and access to resources; and the potential consequences of war and migration, all of which can also have a big impact here at home. The only way to meet these immense challenges is to give people opportunities close to where they live, and that is what the CDC is helping to deliver: more job opportunities; better education so that people can take advantage of those opportunities; better health and reproductive care; and the involvement of women in the workforce. We should be helping other people to invest in these sorts of things.
The difference between the CDC and other kinds of aid is that these funds can be used to create businesses that can go on and have their own life and be recycled. Yes, some of the capital can come back to us, for us to reinvest, but, more importantly, these businesses can have a life of their own. If they are doing something well, they will be asked to do it again and again with their own capital, personnel and creativity. If we are to tackle these almost insurmountable challenges, they have to have their own life. The CDC can deliver that potential for scalability into the future and help us to cope with those challenges.
The CDC is also great because it presents an example of good governance and an opportunity for us to lead by example—to inspire entrepreneurs, to build capital and expertise in local markets, and to develop companies and structures capable of stewarding their own capital into the future. This is about building trust in the future in nations where often a pound tomorrow is worth a lot more than a pound in just a few years, because they do not have the necessary confidence in local structures, in the enforceability of contracts or in their politics. If we can build that trust into the future through these methods, we can help to create a virtuous circle that has a great impact.
This investment can also bring us opportunities in terms of commercial information and so on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) made some great points about the way the CDC works and about some of the great people involved with it. This is about creating human connections and using this country’s abilities to help nations develop in a positive way, to break down the barriers to development, to tackle crony capitalism, to reduce regulation, taxes and subsidies and licences, which often favour particular operators, and to enable more rapid growth and greater flexibility in those economies. That will also give stable politics a better chance in these places. I will happily support the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have clearly touched a nerve with some of my comments about the Bill, which I am afraid I will not be giving the wholehearted support that some in the House have given it today.
The Government have attempted to portray the Bill as a minor technical matter, which should go through on the nod with minimal scrutiny and to which we should all give a big hurrah. What appears to be a minor technical two-clause Bill, however, is in fact far more significant and controversial. As we have heard, it proposes an immediate quadrupling of the limits on taxpayer funding of the CDC and then suggests a further doubling at the whim of the Secretary of State and without further primary legislation.
Now the CDC expansion, which has been significant from 1999 to the present day, has required only £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money, a large amount of it in the recapitalisation that took place last year. By stark contrast, the Bill will permit an increase of up to £12 billion over an as yet undefined period, although the explanatory notes make it clear that the Secretary of State intends to
“accelerate CDC’s growth over the current Spending Round”.
That could imply giving three times extra to the CDC— £4.5 billion—in three to four years’ time than it has needed in the last 17 years. According to the explanatory notes, this is justified as a response to an as yet undefined or evidenced
“forecast market demand over CDC’s next strategy cycle and in order for the CDC to play a fuller role in the delivery of the UK’s international development objectives.”
Ministers rarely take powers without the intent to use them fully, and the transfer of powers to use secondary legislation should always be subject to robust scrutiny. I will explore in due course whether I believe this Bill, and the proposed increase for the CDC, meets three key tests. It is not whether it has met its plans as defined in 2012, but whether, first, it has demonstrated enough effectiveness to justify such a huge increase; secondly, whether it ensures an adequate focus on tackling poverty in the poorest countries; and thirdly, whether it acts in a coherent way with respect to the rest of DFID and indeed wider HMG policy.
Let me first suggest my own answer as to why such a huge increase has been proposed, and why now. One of the primary reasons may lie in a little noticed change to the reporting of our aid spending—official development assistance or ODA—last year, which saw the CDC’s contribution to meeting the 0.7% aid target dramatically altered. Until 2015, the investment activities of the CDC could either add to or subtract from our total aid spending. Simply put, we used to look at the net benefit of the CDC to developing countries by subtracting money flowing back to the CDC from the new investments it was making. In fact, this resulted in a positive contribution to our aid spending of £228 million in 2010; £91 million in 2011; £103 million in 2012; £100 million in 2013; and £42 million in 2014.
In 2015, however, there was a significant change. Instead of reporting with the same measure, which incidentally would, according to the House of Commons Library, have resulted in a negative contribution to the aid budget of minus £9 million, DFID changed its reporting so that the capital flow from the UK Government to the CDC is scored as ODA by DFID rather than the CDC scoring its own net disbursements as ODA. Instead of a negative impact on aid last year, the UK reported the capital increase reported to the CDC as aid, which was £450 million—a stark difference. We now looking at the total money DFID puts into the CDC counting as aid, regardless of which country or sector it ends up in, let alone whether it resulted in a net flow of resources to the poorest countries.
Why does this matter and how does it relate to the Bill? It matters because it would allow the Secretary of State to classify the entirety of future capital increases to the CDC as ODA or aid, potentially diverting, and effectively privatising, up to £12 billion of our future aid via the CDC, yet continuing to count it towards the 0.7% target. This is particularly important, given the different focuses and priorities of the CDC. I acknowledge that the differences have narrowed in recent years, and I shall come on to praise the work undertaken by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) in this area. However, the differences between the CDC and DFID’s objectives, and indeed its stated aims, are still significant, not least over whether our aid is focused on the very poorest countries that most need our support or on higher-income countries where we can more easily achieve quicker and bigger returns on investment. I shall return to this point.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the aims are significantly different, yet 83% of the new CDC investments are in DFID partner countries and 56% of new investments are now in fragile and conflict-affected countries. Is that not in line with DFID’s objectives?
Stephen Doughty
As I shall come on to explain more fully, there has been a significant change and there has been a narrowing, but there is still a significant difference. If we look at the bulk of the spending still being in India, we see a significant divergence from DFID’s priorities, as I shall come on to show. We were told that aid to India had ended, but apparently it has not.
This is also significant when coupled with an answer I received to a parliamentary question. I discovered that the amount of aid—ODA—to be spent by Departments other than DFID is set to increase from 18% this year to 26% in 2019. That is over a quarter of our aid spending going through Departments other than DFID. Even if we focus on the lower end of the implied proposal to spend billions extra via the CDC by the end of the spending review—let alone the £12 billion—we could be looking at anywhere from 35% to 45% of the DFID budget being spent, but not by DFID in the traditional sense. If the Secretary of State used her full power and more quickly than expected, it could be even higher. It is particularly ironic that the Secretary of State who promised us greater effectiveness, transparency and accountability in our aid spending appears to be willing to hand over billions of our aid funding to less transparent and less accountable parts of government.
James Duddridge
The hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that aid spent through other Departments is a bad thing. He is shaking his head, which is good, because far from being a bad thing, I would view it as a good thing. If we are helping education institutions in developing countries, we should use the expertise in our Department for Education. If we are looking at tackling local government, it should not be looked at through the DFID lens, but should involve our expertise. The key thing is having the same standards across those Departments and meeting the high quality that DFID deploys.
Stephen Doughty
I was shaking my head because I agreed with much of what the hon. Gentleman was saying, but my question is about the volume—the amount—and the fact that it is increasing so rapidly. It is well known that many other Departments have looked enviously at DFID’s budget and have attempted to take parts of its cash for many years. My questions are these. Is the aid being spent effectively; is it being used in accordance with the correct principles; and is it coherent across Government policy? As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are some fantastic examples of joint units involving the Foreign Office and DFID, but over a quarter of our aid budget is being spent on a massive increase, and that is a big issue.
Mr Mitchell
Surely the hon. Gentleman can be reassured by the fact that the Government have a double commitment, applying not just to the 0.7% but to the way in which it is spent under strict rules. Of course, any money that is spent by another Department is subject to the full investigation and rigour of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which is a very important part of the equation. All ODA expenditure is subject to review and analysis by the development watchdog.
Stephen Doughty
It is indeed. I am a member of the ICAI sub-committee, and I hope that we will look into these matters in due course, as, I understand, will the National Audit Office. That scrutiny is very important.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I have seen the NAO’s report, and what concerns me is the fact that it states:
“It remains a significant challenge for CDC to demonstrate its ultimate objective of creating jobs and making a lasting difference to people’s lives in some of the world’s poorest places. Given the Department’s plans to invest further in CDC, a clearer picture of actual development impact would help to demonstrate…value for money”.
Is that not the central problem? Does it not lie at the heart of the Bill?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. I shall return shortly to what the NAO report actually said, as opposed to the slightly glossed-over version that we heard from the Secretary of State.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman is a member of the International Development Committee. He will therefore be aware that the Committee has committed itself to scrutinising ODA whichever Department it is spent through and that the Secretary of State has confirmed that we should have full authority, and her backing, to do so. If he had attended the ICAI sub-committee meeting last week, he would have seen that, for the first time, we had before us a witness from another Department who was scrutinising its spending of ODA.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed. I apologise for not being present at that meeting, but, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had other commitments at the time. Obviously, the hon. Lady cannot attend all the meetings of all the groups in the House at any time either; she and I are both busy people. I hope that the Committees will investigate those matters, not least because of the volumes that we are talking about, but also because of the lack of transparency when it comes to documentation and the ability to scrutinise CDC’s spending, not least through its use of tax havens.
These dramatic shifts—under the cover of a “minor technical change” that we should all rush through in the House—must always set the alarm bells ringing for those of us who seek to scrutinise the Government and their decisions. I do not want to spend long on this, but we must feel additional alarm when we look at the agenda of the Secretary of State and consider what she has said about the Department being scrapped and about money being “stolen” and squandered. She does not like some of the headlines that have appeared in the Daily Mail. Obviously, she does not like the headlines that have appeared in newspapers such as the Financial Times. However, we are now seeing wild claims and accusations in the right-wing press which are clearly coming from her Department. Indeed, her special adviser has previously called for the 0.7% target to be abandoned, and in 2013 in The Sun described aid as an
“unaccountable, bureaucratic and wasteful industry”.
Why does all this matter to the Bill? I believe that, faced with the legislative and political constraints of the cross-party support for the 0.7% aid target, the Secretary of State has opted for a stealthier route and has chosen to undermine the Department by diverting and reclassifying aid. I appreciate that others may not share my sense of scepticism, so let me now deal with three practical objections to the Bill. The Secretary of State said that she wanted facts, so let us have some.
I should make it clear at the outset that I am not opposed to the existence of a development finance institution of the CDC’s nature, or to its playing its part in our portfolio of international development efforts. Nor, obviously, do I oppose the funding of private sector projects. The development of a vibrant private sector, key infrastructure and the support of new and emerging businesses in the world’s poorest countries should be a key part of any balanced portfolio of development assistance, alongside investments in basic public services such as health, education, water, and support for agricultural improvement to tackle hunger and nutritional challenges.
The Secretary of State likes to give us the impression that she is the only person ever to have realised the importance of private sector development and trade to tackling poverty and promoting economic development, but the fact is that both have been at the heart of DFID’s work since it came into being, under Governments of all political persuasions. Supporting trade is crucial to international development.
James Duddridge
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point that economic development has been important to DFID, but does he agree with me that successive Governments have been wholly unresponsive to co-ordinated work on economic development, whether we call it prosperity or trade? Successive Governments have not pulled that together and grabbed the opportunity, which could really help to grow continents such as Africa out of poverty. Much more should be done, and this House should be holding the Government and future Governments to account on this, and ask them to do more, not less, with the private sector.
Stephen Doughty
It is a mixed record. We had a joint DFID-DTI—as I think the Department was called then—Trade Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who did a lot of good work in trying to bring those things together, ensuring investment went to key infrastructure projects, different corridors in Africa and elsewhere, but it is a mixed record and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
There are many CDC investments that I and others welcome, which are well run and have delivered poverty-reducing outcomes in the poorest countries. We have heard about some of them today, such as those in Sierra Leone and Uganda. Indeed we were with the National Audit Office earlier today talking about some of the projects it had visited which clearly do justify our investment.
But where is the robust business case for such a large increase of billions of pounds of taxpayer spending? Why has this Bill been published before a CDC investment strategy? In the explanatory notes, the Secretary of State describes forecast market demand as the justification for the Bill. However, she has not explained this at all there; neither has she done so today, and nor did she in answer to a parliamentary question I put to her. I asked her to explain this concept of forecast market demand, but instead of an assessment that might justify this spending of up to £12 billion of taxpayers’ money, I was given some classic development waffle, such as:
“As set out in the UN’s Global Goals, urgent action is needed to mobilise”.
The answer did not go into any level of detail that we would expect on the spending of such a considerable sum of money.
Let me also be clear that, as Members may have gathered earlier, I am also critical of a whole series of actions and policies at the CDC that I am sorry to say occurred under the previous Labour Government; the sell-off of Actis was mentioned, and there was also excessive remuneration, and massive investments made in markets that already attracted foreign investors—which incidentally is still going on. These are just some of the issues that should have inspired tougher intervention. To give credit where it is due, many of the actions that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) took in agreeing that new strategy took us away from some of the mistakes made in the past, but my question is whether they have gone far enough in justifying such a huge increase in the funding.
We should look at what the NAO said. Yesterday’s report noted:
“Our previous scrutiny of the Department’s oversight of CDC led to important, positive changes.”
It points to improvements in financial performance, organisation and prospective—let us return to that issue in a moment—development impact, as well as the clamping down on executive remuneration. The NAO also agrees that the strategy set by the Department in 2012 has been met.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) pointed out, the question for the House today is not merely whether the CDC has made improvements on a previous record deeply mired in controversy, or whether it is now adhering to the strategy set for it—which we can argue was right or wrong—in 2012; the question before us is whether a good enough case has been made that the CDC is performing so well and so effectively that it should receive that volume of increase in funding versus other potential outlets for that development spending.
It is common sense that asking any institution, let alone one with a history of recent problems, to take on a significant increase in its funding over a short space of time may lead to less optimal outcomes and, at worst, failure. Were we proposing an additional £12 billion for those dangerous campaigning NGOs or the dastardly World Bank, or worse still the EU development funds, I have no doubt that the Government Benches would be crewed by the anti-aid brigade warning of the risk of our aid being “stolen” or squandered. But because it is for a more obscure part of our development finance architecture and has the words “private equity” and “private sector” associated with it, we seem to be willing to accept a lower level of assuredness.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Did the hon. Gentleman also read the bit of the report that says:
“Through tighter cost control, strengthened corporate governance and closer alignment with the Department’s objectives, CDC now has an efficient and economic operating model”,
and DFID’s
“governance arrangements of CDC are thorough”?
Stephen Doughty
I did; I have read the whole report. It also states:
“It remains a significant challenge for CDC to demonstrate its ultimate objective of creating jobs and making a lasting difference to people’s lives in some of the world’s poorest places.”
It goes on to make other serious criticisms. On reporting impact, the NAO says:
“Changes in reporting development impact over the last four years have made it difficult for CDC and the Department to set out a consistent picture of what has been achieved.”
It criticises the CDC’s failure to deliver on the evaluation contract, which was a key part of the business case for the last recapitalisation involving more than £700 million. It criticises the CDC’s claim to have created 1 million jobs, stating that
“in 2015 it reported that more than one million direct and indirect jobs had been created…CDC does not attribute these jobs directly to the investment it makes in the company. Since 2012 it has been considering how to measure job quality but has not yet established an overall methodology to do so…its progress has been slow”.
Worryingly, the NAO warned that
“recruitment and retention challenges remain a significant risk to CDC’s operations.”
That is crucial for an organisation planning a massive financial expansion.
The CDC has indeed clamped down on excessive pay, although the CEO still takes home more than £300,000 a year, which is significantly more than the Prime Minister. However, the NAO also reports that
“the Department and CDC will shortly be negotiating a new remuneration framework”.
Could we expect salaries to go back up? Particularly worrying, one would think, for a Secretary of State who thinks that most of our aid is being “stolen” or squandered is some of the NAO commentary on the CDC’s efforts to tackle fraud and corruption. The NAO tells us that the CDC has
“only recently established systems to consolidate records of all the allegations it receives…This made it harder for it to provide comprehensive reporting to the Department. ”
The NAO report states that DFID’s own internal audit team concluded that the figure of just four allegations of fraud and corruption at the CDC in the entire period from 2009 to 2016 was “surprisingly low”. At the very least, the CDC is worthy of the same level of robust scrutiny and criticism that is levelled at other development funding outlets.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman asks where the business case is. Has he seen the letter of 23 November from the Secretary of State? In it, she says:
“No new capital to CDC would be released without a business case subject to full Ministerial scrutiny and approval and the agreement of CDC’s board.”
Stephen Doughty
That might be reassuring to the hon. Lady, but it does not reassure me, not least because the CDC has not even let the evaluation contract that was a key part of the last business case.
Let me turn to the disjoint between DFID’s priority countries and those in which the CDC operates. That disjoint is likely to grow even larger with such a significant uplift in funding. Even with the refocus in 2012, the list of 63 countries in which the CDC is allowed to invest is significantly larger than the approximately 35 countries on which DFID normally focuses its efforts. The list includes many countries to which DFID has ended its bilateral funding. The CDC can invest in India, South Africa—albeit with caveats—the luxury Indian ocean islands of the Seychelles, the Maldives and Mauritius, and many countries across north Africa including Egypt. Despite their problems and challenges, those countries would not normally be regarded as among the poorest in the world.
According to the House of Commons Library, the CDC spends more in gross aid and official development assistance than DFID does in certain—often middle income—countries and regions, including some rather odd examples such as Algeria, Costa Rica, Mauritius, Morocco, South Africa and Thailand, as well as the more expected locations such as Cameroon, Niger and Côte d’Ivoire. Even if we discount the pre-2012 legacy investments in Latin America, the CDC is still investing the largest amounts in higher-income countries, according to data released to me in another parliamentary question.
At the top of the CDC investment list are India, which has received £760.5 million since 2009, South Africa with £194 million and, oddly, Egypt with £53.6 million. If we include the pre-2012 legacy investments, we find even more odd examples. India, South Africa—with caveats, as I said—and Egypt remain on the list of eligible countries for CDC investments, which is rather remarkable, given the fact that the last three Conservative Secretaries of State have made a huge meal of the fact that aid to India was ending. I find this strange. I took a long time to be convinced of the need to end our aid programme in India. There is clearly severe poverty in a whole series of Indian states. It is odd that a lion’s share of the CDC’s investments continue to go into a country that is not exactly the kind of frontier place for investment that the Secretary of State was talking about earlier. Is she really saying that India struggles to attract private investment capital and that we should be there at the forefront of those giving aid? I would find that hard to believe.
The House of Commons Library has found that the share of new investments in the poorest least-developed countries increased, but from just 4% to 12%, and the increase was from less than 1% to just 4% in the lower-income countries. The lion’s share of the CDC’s investments remained in the lower middle-income countries. The CDC’s own annual report for 2015 admits that its top four highest country exposures are India with 23%; China with 14%; Nigeria with 7%; and South Africa with 6%. It also tells us that just 6% of its investment goes into agriculture and just 6% into education. Bizarrely, those are not far ahead of real estate and mineral extraction. Focus has clearly improved, but the easiest and quickest returns for the CDC remain in certain sectors that are far removed from traditional, vital development impacts and in huge markets such as India and South Africa, not the world’s poorest countries. If the Secretary of State’s agenda is all about building a bilateral trading relationship with India in the post-Brexit environment and if we need to push our aid that way to sweeten deals, we should come clean about that. Many people feel that things are headed that way. Funds are not going towards the Department’s original development objectives.
Why does the CDC require such a potentially massive capital injection of taxpayers’ money when it managed perfectly well without one until last year? It recycles 100% of its profits and has total net assets of £4 billion, which rose by 16% in the last year, and an investment portfolio of £3 billion. Why does it need additional money in such large volumes?
Turning to tax havens and coherence, the Chancellor told us in last week’s autumn statement that the Government are committed to tackling tax evasion, avoidance and aggressive tax planning, and today the Business Secretary told us all about Government plans to crack down on corporate governance. The Government have repeatedly claimed that they have attempted to crack down on tax havens—not least in the aftermath of the Panama papers. Yet we find the CDC’s investment vehicles in those very papers. No less than 11 CDC subsidiaries are located in the Cayman Islands, 40 in Mauritius, and five in the Channel Islands. Oxfam points that three quarters of CDC investments in 2013 were routed through jurisdictions that feature in the top 20 of the Tax Justice Network’s financial secrecy index. Christian Aid has also been critical of the CDC, stating that it
“has been shown to be a heavy user of secretive tax havens, which serve both to obscure what is really going on with its investments and can also reduce the amount of tax its investee companies pay in poor countries”.
Even if Ministers, the International Development Committee or others wanted to scrutinise properly what is going on, the lack of transparency and detail provided by the CDC and the fancy shell companies make it incredibly difficult.
Our wider development and sustainability policies might also be incoherent. Many CDC projects are clearly coherent with DFID objectives and the sustainable development goals. We heard about electricity in Uganda and other excellent examples of investment in micro-finance, so there are clearly many high-quality projects, but there are some odd inconsistencies. The CDC apparently invests £29.2 million in GEMS Education Africa, the website of which describes a network of private fee-paying schools and education providers in “leafy, residential” locations that charge anything from around 582,000 to 1,287,000 Kenyan shillings a year—up to £10,000. The CDC also holds a 22.8% share in Rainbow Children’s Medicare Private Ltd, a fee-paying private hospital group in India that the NAO visited as part of its inquiry, saying that the investment was apparently in the whole company and not even focused on improving access for the poorest, for example. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), mentioned Feronia Inc. in which the CDC has invested £15.1 million. The main boast on its website is of replanting 13,000 hectares of palm oil, a commodity which is linked to deforestation, habitat degradation and climate change.
Without being able to get more detail from the CDC’s documents, it is difficult to know where the money is going and what it is being used for, but those are odd examples of spending going towards wonderful development objectives. The CDC continues to operate free from day-to-day policy guidance and intervention from Ministers. Oxfam points out that the CDC was assessed as poor in the aid transparency index in 2012, but there have been few improvements since then. All who support the cause of international development and poverty eradication face a tough task in justifying that spending to the public—however small a proportion of overall Government spending it remains. I am sorry to say that the task is not helped in any way by the misleading spin put out weekly in tabloid newspapers by the current Secretary of State, which was not a hallmark of her Conservative or Labour predecessors.
I am normally able to make a case for our development spending by appealing to moral duty and our national interest, not least when it comes to dealing with countries of conflict or instability, or with the huge migration flows we see. I am heartened by those among the younger generations who care about the prospects of our fellow humans around the world. I recently visited Moorland Primary School, in one of the more deprived areas of my constituency, where children told me that they wanted me to speak to Ministers to get more money provided for education in the poorest countries and to ensure that children are able to go to school and that they have healthcare and clean water. I will struggle to explain to those children why the Secretary of State wants to spend billions of our taxes handing money to what is, in effect, a privatised firm that does not need this amount of money; that gives large portions of it to countries that do not need it; that pays its chief executive officer more than £300,000 a year; and that invests through tax havens. It has some laudable aims, but it is not proving its effectiveness.
In conclusion, the Bill massively increases that funding to CDC and it fails three crucial tests. The first of those is the effectiveness test; the NAO assessment simply does not provide the evidence needed to back up such a huge increase in funding—has CDC even requested it? Secondly, it fails the poverty-focus test, as CDC remains massively focused on higher-income countries and high-return sectors, rather than on those that we should be pushing our efforts into. Thirdly, it fails the coherence test, given the continued use of tax havens and projects that simply do not sit comfortably with our wider development objectives. In its current form, this is a bad Bill. That does not mean that I do not support the continuation of the CDC and that I do not recognise that much of its work is good, but this level of increase is a stealthy way of diverting money away from our work in DFID, alongside the diversion to other Departments. We ought to scrutinise the Bill very carefully in Committee.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I suspect I am going to have the privilege of serving on the Committee with the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I will not go into this at the same length as he did, but he should beware: we are both supporters of DFID and of the 0.7% budget, but our enemies out there will use his comments and his narrative to criticise the fundamentals we believe in. I do not want to stand in the way of proper scrutiny, but hon. Members on both sides of the House should be very careful about the tone of the language we use, because we do now have consensus going forward.
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and say from the outset that I am incredibly proud of our 0.7% commitment and of the work that the CDC does. I would find it strange to find any Conservative MP standing to support the work of Clement Attlee and Clare Short in one sentence, let alone one debate, but we do stand united in this work, despite the blips over the years, many of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) has resolved or has at least been able to point in the right direction.
My experience of the CDC has been substantive over time. I was a young banker in a small place called Nhlangano, one of the poorest places in Swaziland. It was CDC investment in the Shiselweni Forestry Company, my main client, that really generated wealth for that area. It put food on the table for the thousands of citizens and the hundreds of other clients that I had as a banker in that country. Over the years, Swaziland has been helped by 16 different CDC projects. The one for which I was the banker has now moved on—it is profitable and continuing, but not under a CDC auspice—but the CDC is still in the forestry sector in Pigg’s Peak, Swaziland.
In the Ivory Coast, I was interested in delving into a francophone country, looking beyond the Commonwealth, to see what we were doing in developing middle-income countries that can provide inspiration and trade throughout the geography of west Africa. Although I did not have any clients from the the CDC, I used to work for Banque Atlantique Côte d’Ivoire, now part of the Atlantic Bank Group, in which the CDC has invested. The small bank I was a member of had only about 30 employees. I am not sure exactly what has happened subsequently, but during that investment period that small bank has become much larger, with banks in Benin, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Togo, Senegal and Cameroon. Those countries—a real mix of countries—are hard for British development aid to reach, but are a really good example of where the CDC can assist.
I wish to mention, as other colleagues have, the great work of Diana Noble, who took on the job at a difficult time and who has transformed the organisation and led a very strong team. I wish her well in her future beyond the CDC.
To those who work at the CDC, I say thank you, because in many ways they are between a rock and a hard place. People involved in African private equity feel that those at the CDC are putting development before profit and are not earning lots of money. The non-governmental organisations think that they are putting profit before development. In truth, they are in a sweet spot in the middle, and they do exactly what Clement Attlee wanted: to do good without losing money. In many ways, this is the gift that keeps on giving. Comparison has been made between a pound that goes into traditional aid and a pound that goes into the CDC. The main difference is that the pound that goes into aid is spent immediately, which is very positive, but the pound that goes into the CDC is retained—it is an investment that grows, whether that is by the 7.8% that we have seen over the past five years, or by a slightly more modest investment target of 3%, which focuses more on the development aspect.
As a former banker, I am perhaps the only Member in the House who can get thoroughly excited about compound interest, but, over time, this is a growing pool of money. There are those who will wonder why we are talking about £1.5 billion, when the assets of the CDC are nearly £3.9 billion. That shows the power of investment—of retaining the money. It is the gift that keeps on giving.
I, too, have looked at the investment in palm oil in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where 9,000 workers are employed. I have dealt with places such as the DRC and Burundi—other colleagues have interacted with them—and they are horrendously difficult places in which to work. They are also politically difficult for the UK Government, but the CDC, through its intermediaries, provides inspiration in those places.
The CDC also actively targets countries that are low on the World Bank’s ease of doing business index, of which I am a great advocate, as a way of proving that business can be conducted more effectively if one can speed up the ease of doing business.
Celtel has been mentioned. Indorama in Nigeria is fantastic. Like Sir Paul Collier, I very much believe that the real benefits and advantages of economic development in Nigeria will come through Port Harcourt and not through the oil industry.
This is, to reiterate a point I made in an intervention, a progressive Bill. I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth that it is a Machiavellian way of diverting money. A business case will come. I do not believe that the Secretary of State will bring forward a business case to spend the full £6 billion over the course of this Parliament. Even if she does, it will still only be 8% of the overall DFID budget for those years. Obviously, the £12 billion of investment is compounded over time. It should not be compared with the slightly larger figure, which is our annual investment in the budget. We need to be careful that our enemies do not take advantage of our criticisms and use the similarity of the figures to make it look like there has been a sea-change on this Bill. If this Bill was about taking money from the poor and making money for the sake of it in India and South Africa, I would not support it.
James Duddridge
I will not take the intervention, because I want to conclude.
I strongly support the CDC. It is the right move and it is a progressive move. I hope that Members from both sides of the House will agree to have a proper debate in Committee and to support the Bill on Third Reading to start to grow Africa in particular but also Asia out of poverty.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). The hon. Gentleman was very robust in saying that the CDC is a gift that keeps on giving, as the aid keeps getting recirculated, but I would gently suggest that if it was as simple as that we would not need international aid at all, because we could just have that gift keeping on giving. It is quite clear that we still need international aid and we need to protect international aid budgets.
It is clear that there is consensus across the House that the principle of the CDC is a good one; a not-for-profit private sector company that encourages growth and additional investment in developing countries is very welcome. We have heard that it has stimulated growth and investment with varying degrees of success over a long period of time. We have also heard that it is not infallible; it has had issues and is starting to address them in a welcome way. Yesterday’s National Audit Office report shows that there are still further issues to address, so I agree we need a robust debate in Committee to try to pick up on them.
We have heard about salaries, and excessive salaries have clearly hit the news in the past. Yesterday’s report welcomes progress on reducing average annual salary costs from a high of £154,000 in 2009 to £90,000 in 2015. That is still quite a decent average salary; I think most people could live off that. The report acknowledges that the CDC has expressed concern about staff attrition and difficulties in recruitment as a consequence of lower salaries, but the report also notes that the staff attrition rate has plateaued at about half of its peak in 2012. I also note that salaries have increased again year on year from 2013. That suggests that a balance has been reached between staff attrition and salaries, but we need to watch that salary levels do not keep on increasing year on year. As we have heard elsewhere, £300,000 for a chief executive is a good salary. It is higher than that of the Prime Minister or of the Secretary of State for International Development. That chief executive’s salary has exceeded £300,000 for two years running now.
Mr Mitchell
Although £300,000 is a large salary, will the hon. Gentleman at least accept that in coming to take this job Diana Noble took a massive salary reduction? He should bear that in mind when considering these salaries.
Alan Brown
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and, yes, if she took a massive reduction in salary that is clearly welcome, and the overall salaries have reduced, which sets a marker for the future if Diana Noble chooses to move on. At least there is a lower salary peg, and she has led the way with that. I accept that, but we need to recognise that it is a substantial salary. That cannot be forgotten.
The NAO report also states that there is now a greater focus on investing in poorer countries rather than markets that already attract foreign investors. That is welcome, but according to a Library paper investment in the poorest countries has increased from 4% to only 12%, with 4% of investment in the next income tier countries. Investment in the upper middle income countries exceeds the combined total of 16% in the lower two tiers. More work needs to be done and a measurable target should be put in place to encourage investment in the lowest income countries.
The NAO report also confirms that, as regards its financial performance, the CDC’s annual return on its portfolio ranges from 4% to 18% against a target of 3.5%. Normally, when a target is massively exceeded that suggests that it is too low or, as seems to be the case here, the returns are too high. If the returns are too high, either more money is being returned from the countries that have been invested in than is necessary or not enough marginal projects are being invested in. That needs to be considered. I accept that some of the historical returns are due to legacy projects that were invested in and had much higher returns because of the hedge fund system, so I hope that that will continue to be addressed and that we will see lower returns and the right investment in projects.
Although the NAO report says that there is a robust cost basis and that the CDC is in a good place to go forward, as has been mentioned by some hon. Members, what stands out is the need for better assessment and reporting of outcomes and the planned impact of investment. A more accurate assessment of the jobs created is required, as well as
“a clearer picture of actual development impact”.
That is crucial. To this end, it is clear that the NAO recommendations on performance targets and an evaluation contract must be implemented as soon as possible.
The NAO believes that the absence of a measure of additionality is a flaw, as additionality is a core principle of the investment strategy. That needs to be remedied. The Department should consider making it mandatory for the CDC to report on the four indicators outlined in paragraph 2.23 of the NAO report, which correlate to the CDC business case.
As has been mentioned, several organisations have expressed concern about the CDC’s tax transparency. “Transparency” is a buzzword that has been used by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. If the CDC does not lead by example, it does not encourage other investors to avoid the use of tax havens. Worse still, the use of tax havens reduces the tax take of developing countries, preventing their Governments from generating additional revenue that they could invest in capital schemes, services or revenue support schemes. As long as the CDC has a model whereby it re-invests profit, it cannot adopt the “profit at any cost” ethos of the worst of the private sector. That becomes self-defeating, and smaller returns resulting from paying its full tax dues should not be a matter for debate.
It is clear that the use of tax havens takes away from the sustainability of developing countries. It is some five years on since the International Development Committee advised that transparency is essential for the public to hold the CDC to account. At present, the CDC is still some way off best practice and the transparency that the Government aspire to. The CDC scored “poor” in the 2012 aid transparency index, so for the Government to commit huge amounts of extra funding before improvements are made is not consistent with the Secretary of State’s stated aim of improving transparency across the aid budget. Aid cannot work in the national interest if three quarters of the CDC’s investments are routed through jurisdictions that feature in the top 20 of the Tax Justice Network’s financial secrecy index. That cannot be in the long-term national interest.
Oxfam has highlighted this issue, as well as other concerns about transparency, suitable investment and the use of tax havens. In addition, Christian Aid, which is a member of the ACT Alliance, a global coalition of more than 130 Churches and organisations engaged in humanitarian assistance, has called for an end to the use of tax havens. It is clear that the practice must be ended.
The founding principles of the CDC are good. Some of its working needs to be fine-tuned, and it is important that this happens before any more Government money is funnelled in. It needs to be explained what share of the overall aid budget this increase constitutes and what other types of aid might be reduced to make way for this investment. As others have asked, why have the Government introduced this Bill before publication of the CDC’s investment strategy for 2017-21? I note that the autumn statement last week shows a net decrease in overseas development assistance of some £80 million next year and a further £210 million the following year. It is crucial, therefore, that an arm’s-length company is not funded at the expense of other required aid. As the NAO report states,
“It remains a significant challenge for CDC to demonstrate its ultimate objective of creating jobs and making a lasting difference to people’s lives in some of the world’s poorest places.”
We must not forget that. We need put in place everything that is necessary to allow that to happen.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Although this is a relatively straightforward Bill, which I had hoped would have the support of all Members of the House, it is worth examining some aspects of the strategic background to our DFID commitments.
I associate myself wholeheartedly with the wise and experienced words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) when they touched on the transformation of the CDC’s work over the past half-decade or so. I must confess that I did not recognise some of the rather more jaundiced views of its work, as set out in the rather long contribution from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
Fiona Bruce
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the selective quoting of the NAO report by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, who is no longer in his place, did not do justice to its conclusion that, overall, DFID’s grip on the CDC is strong and that the CDC has made radical improvements since the NAO’s last report in 2008?
Mark Field
I agree with everything my hon. Friend has to say.
I am glad that the Secretary of State is now back in her place, and I wholeheartedly support her somewhat expansive approach, which has been criticised in certain quarters during the debate. She appears determined to ensure that the UK utilises all its assets, including the DFID budget, to secure an optimal deal for the nation, not just as we extricate ourselves from the EU, but in the years to come.
That must mean extending DFID’s reach beyond the traditional aid referred to in the debate to broader development and infrastructure and to things such as security, but also to community sustainability and resilience across the globe. That change is long overdue, and I should like briefly to set out some of the somewhat negative ways in which DFID’s culture has developed since the Department was established in 1997, which I sincerely trust the Bill will help to address.
DFID was originally seen as a key component of an ethical foreign policy, centralising in a single Department overseas aid moneys that were previously in the budgets of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. The result was that those major Departments of State were left at that time with little or no financial autonomy on key international projects—regrettably, in my view.
Instead, a new culture of programming took hold in DFID, which managed out what was seen as inappropriate spending that could cause presentational problems for the Government of the day. Cautious mandarins became more risk averse, and DFID project money was routinely awarded to known international bodies, such as the World Bank or UNICEF, rather than to smaller, nimbler UK organisations and businesses.
That ensured that the Government would not be seen to be promoting corporate Britain abroad under the cloak of humanitarian assistance, but it also left those recognised brands to deal with any fallout, should questions be raised about the success of particular programmes. Indeed, the very respectability of those organisations tended to mute any testing questioning about the effectiveness and impact of what has become an ever-larger amount of British aid money. That shift, I fear, went hand in hand with the emergence of increasingly professional bidders, who learned to speak the language of DFID programmers to win contracts.
Too often, the result has been ponderous, expensive and wasteful programming, and I know that that culture is very much in the sights of the Secretary of State, who wants to eradicate it. In part, DFID programmers have often been overloaded with cash, which has been increasingly bundled off to the international bodies I mentioned. I am therefore absolutely delighted that the Bill increases the scope for money to be used by domestic bodies that are within the Government’s control and able to enact the Government’s priorities in the new world rapidly unfolding before us.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield laid out the way in which the CDC rightly operates. There is rightly oversight from not just the Government but a range of Select Committees, but we ultimately leave the organisation to get on and do the job that it is best able to achieve.
We need, above all, to ensure that DFID is not as process driven as it has perhaps been in the past, which has reduced our agility in this field and risked the benchmark for the success of our development aid being simply the amount spent, rather than the added value delivered, as has been referred to. That does not make our ongoing 0.7% commitment to overseas aid wrong—some of my right hon. and hon. Friends would probably disagree with that—and I am absolutely supportive of it, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East. Indeed, the case for extending Britain’s reach in this field grows stronger every day as we are confronted domestically with problems whose roots start many thousands of miles away.
I do, though, question whether, particularly as we leave the EU, large parts of DFID’s budget should not now be made available to the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence or the Department for International Trade, all of which should, necessarily and rightly, come under some scrutiny and oversight from DFID, but there should, none the less, be that sense of joined-up co-operation within the Government. That would enable and authorise those on the ground, whether in overseas embassies, military bases, or part and parcel of our intelligence services, to spend sensibly, carefully and locally against agreed objectives rather than within the rather ham-fisted DFID programming process.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I am listening very carefully to my right hon. Friend and agree with everything he has said so far. Does he agree that there are still some savings to be made by bringing all those agents and representatives of Her Majesty’s Government abroad under one umbrella? Too often we see competing officials from the different Departments who, to save money, should all come under the umbrella of, probably, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Mark Field
You can take the boy out of the Foreign Office but obviously, when it comes down to it, you can’t take the Foreign Office out of the boy. I suspect that this will be a live debate going forward. I know that my right hon. Friend feels very strongly about such matters.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is quite right to slap down the former Foreign Office Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), on his implied suggestion that we should go back rather than forwards and put DFID under the Foreign Office: that is basically what he was saying. We have long ago said that that is the wrong way to proceed. Let me point out that there are already pooled funds of the type that he describes. In my day at DFID—I have every reason to believe that this continues—whenever there was eligible funding under the ODA rules that the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office wanted to spend, they would always have access to those funds. The huge amount of DFID money that goes through the Foreign Office now bears testament to that.
Mark Field
I would like to think that I am much too diplomatic to slap anyone down, although he knows where we are all coming from.
Sir Hugo Swire
Just to clarify this, I am not sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) was correct in saying what I was proposing. I was certainly not suggesting that the Department should come back within the Foreign Office. I was merely saying that I saw huge synergies to be achieved overseas where we have representatives from many Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, DFID and the former Department of Energy and Climate Change and that we should look towards making greater savings so that we can spend the money where it is needed.
Mark Field
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was not wilfully misleading anyone on these matters. I am going to be slapped down myself by the Whips if I am not careful, because I need to make a little progress.
I hope that in further empowering the CDC, which, as has been pointed out, is 100% owned by Her Majesty’s Government, we are now making way for a more cross-departmental approach, with the DIT and indeed the FCO able to access CDC funds for projects within the key Commonwealth states, particularly in Africa and South Asia.
In this very dangerous and uncertain world, the importance of integrating our foreign aid with military, diplomatic and trade commitments cannot be overstated. To prevent crime, to curb new waves of immigration and to stop the spread of disease, our efforts can be made more effective by concentrating on the source of an issue. Hunger relief and health programmes may of course be laudable in their own right, but British people want urgently to understand how DFID money benefits them personally, and so there will no doubt be widespread support for more money being channelled through bodies such as the CDC rather than—dare I say it?—virtually unaccountable international organisations that have previously received millions of pounds in UK aid. We should also, as a matter of course, communicate how strengthening our ties with developing countries will be of huge benefit in terms of our trade, energy and security interests in this post-Brexit era. By moving away from a situation where too much of DFID’s budget and powers has been placed in the hands of international non-governmental organisations, I firmly believe that we will be able better to fulfil many more of our nation’s broader strategic interests.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). It is quite pleasant to be in the Chamber listening to the debate, because even though we appear to have differences over tactics and policies, there does seem to be some agreement on the overall objectives that we are trying to achieve, and I very much welcome that.
As far as I can recall this is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said, the first opportunity we have had in this Parliament to discuss the wider strategic direction of the Department. I welcome the fact that the Government have achieved the 0.7% target. I commend them for doing so and providing an example to the rest of the world, particularly to our partner nations, to encourage them to do better with their aid budgets. Now that the Secretary of State is back in her place, I congratulate her and welcome her conversion to supporting her Department’s aims, rather than continuing with her previous attitude.
I was first exposed to the idea of international development as a kid at school in the late ’60s and early ’70s, when my mum was an enthusiastic participant in Christian Aid Week. I remember her spending a lot of time trying to raise money for Christian Aid to support projects in southern and eastern Africa. That was a long time ago, when I was very young, but I thought it was remarkable that, despite the fact that many people in my community lived in straitened circumstances, there was a common decency—people understood that there were always others who were worse off and that they had a common humanitarian responsibility to make some effort to assist, no matter how small.
Even in those days, there were critics of aid—of Christian Aid, Oxfam and all the others—who took a less selfless and more parsimonious attitude. Their criticism was twofold. They questioned whether the aid was actually going to the people in the destination countries who needed it most, and there was a continual suggestion that the people working in aid and organising the efforts were lining their own pockets.
Many of our NGOs—Christian Aid, Oxfam and others—have had to work for the last 40 years under the veil of those accusations. They make quite sure that they can counter those accusations and demonstrate that they are directly involved in projects in the countries that need it and that they work with the people in those countries to achieve sustainable development. They have also had to make public details of their organisation and cut their administrative costs to the core, so that they can demonstrate that they are delivering the maximum number of pennies per pound for the purposes for which that money was given.
I commend all those NGOs for doing so, but here is the problem with the CDC that we need to address. This does not apply to the majority of the projects in which the CDC is engaged, and it is not the CDC’s objective, but in quite a few cases, and not just occasional instances, public money—taxpayers’ money—has been used for purposes that people such as my mum would have difficulty comprehending. How can we justify, for example, the use of $3.5 million to support the development of a gated community in El Salvador for the super-rich? How can we justify the development in Nairobi of the Garden City Village and the shopping malls—$24 million, in that instance? How can we justify the development in Mauritius of the ocean village, with apartments costing a minimum of half a million dollars? It is difficult to hold those examples up and say that we are doing the right thing.
We need to make sure that that does not happen again. I have had arguments with people who justify such projects on the basis of the trickle-down theory. They say, “It may be a five-star hotel in an area of desperate deprivation, but look at the jobs that are being created.” Anyone who seriously thinks that an investment of $20 million or $30 million to create 50 low-paid service jobs in a hotel is an efficient use of aid money needs to re-examine their priorities. Let us assume that we do not have to engage with that neo-con argument.
I am not simply talking about things not being achieved; the situation is worse than that. By spending money on such projects and making mistakes with them, we may replicate and ingrain some of the structural problems that prevent us from raising the lot of the mass of the population in the first place. We need to be absolutely clear that such projects should not be some sort of international welfare scheme for capitalism, where we allow people to get super-rich while the poorest stay where they are or, in relative terms, possibly become even worse off.
In that context, I want to mention the whole question of salaries and remuneration within the CDC. This is not to criticise or castigate any individual in any way, but I thought the Secretary of State did well to keep a straight face earlier in the debate when she talked about the chief executive’s salary being reduced to just £300,000 per year. Most people would question whether it is right that someone leading an organisation whose ostensible role is to combat global poverty should get that level of reward in that job. I accept that part of the game is to play the private equity markets and to try to lever in funds, and we need to let people play such games. However, I welcome the education from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who described the renationalisation of a part of government that was privatised under the Blair Administration. That was right because, while these people are engaged in private equity schemes and trying to play capitalism at its highest level, they should remain public servants. Their ethos and their remuneration—how they are rewarded—should be as part of the Government operation that is working for such people on behalf of this Parliament. They should not be cut loose and allowed to pretend that they can operate like private bankers. I very much hope that we can have a solid look at the level of remuneration that operates in the CDC.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) has mentioned, yesterday’s National Audit Office report says a number of things. I was struck by the fact that it says—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield remarked that people working in the organisation looked over their shoulder with some apprehension when the Department’s officers came to call—there is a need to clarify that the Department should not be involved in individual project decisions and should distance itself. I agree: you do not own a dog and then bark yourself. If we are to hire people to do the job, particularly where it entails taking risks, we should let them get on and do it. I accept that, but the corollary is that we need to be much more hands-on in determining the strategy within which they operate and about the objectives that they are trying to achieve with their individual decisions. I therefore think it is probably putting the cart before the horse to have a discussion on this Bill before we have seen the CDC’s strategy for 2017 to 2021, which I presume is in preparation somewhere. Will the Minister tell us in his response whether we will be able to look at the strategy when it comes to the House?
The other point I want to make is about transparency. In 2013, three quarters of all the money going through the CDC’s accounts went to fund projects in the top 20 least transparent countries, where we are trying to improve things. Back when we discussed the Panama papers earlier in the year, the then Prime Minister and Government were very explicit about how we would try to clean up this mess and about how Britain would lead a campaign for financial transparency throughout the world. The absence of such transparency of course creates the conditions for illegality and for corruption in many of the target countries that we are trying to get aid to. I presume that that attitude has not changed and that we are still trying to lead a campaign for financial transparency. I therefore think it is very important, through the realm of the CDC, to make sure that when we try to lever in deals in these countries, we do so in a completely transparent way. We could start by making a commitment that the CDC will pay all the taxes due on projects in the countries in which it operates. We should also make sure that we use whatever pressure we can apply through third parties to advance the campaign for transparency.
That is pretty much all I have to say, except that we still live in a world where we have tremendous challenges and problems of extreme poverty, malnutrition, disease and illiteracy. I accept the need to play international capitalism at its own game and to try to lever in funds—to operate in the way that the CDC has been doing—but the end objectives must always be to make that situation better: eradicating poverty, combating illiteracy, eradicating disease. When we come back to look at the strategy document, we must set ourselves the challenge of making sure that everything the CDC does—every project it gets involved in—can, at the end of the day, be justified by attaining those objectives.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of a Bill that will strengthen one of the world’s oldest and most respected development organisations. The Commonwealth Development Corporation has always enjoyed cross-party support and has been an important part of the transition of Britain from colonial power to leader of international development. The Bill is a sign of the focus this Government have given to the CDC and to our overseas development programmes across the board. We can be proud of our commitment to supporting overseas development in all its forms.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, when this Government took office in 2010 the CDC was a byword for strategic confusion and mismanagement. Everyone from the National Audit Office to Private Eye could find something to object to in either its structure or its activities. Thanks to the work of this Government, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and followed up by his successors, the CDC and the way DFID manages it have evolved and improved. The CDC has radically transformed its approach over the past five years, following new objectives agreed with the UK Government. It targets investment where it is most needed, has the greatest impact for the poorest and delivers value for money for the UK taxpayer.
Many of the fears about the Bill and criticisms of the CDC that have been aired today belong to a different era. Some of my constituents have raised the issue of the amount of money that we spend on foreign aid. It is important that that money is spent wisely and transparently in helping countries to develop economically. A strong country will provide for its citizens, meaning that there will not be the economic migration that we have seen over the past few years.
By channelling money through the CDC, we can clearly see where it is going and where it is working. Although the National Audit Office report published yesterday identified some further room for improvement, it was very positive about the work done by DFID and the CDC, as the Secretary of State laid out. I am pleased that Members recognise the great improvements made since the 2008 NAO report and the criticisms of the CDC made by Select Committees in the 2005 Parliament.
I will focus on the reality of the CDC, the future of its work and the potential we will create with the passing of the Bill. The long-term aim of overseas development policy is to build economies and societies like our own—educated, free, and politically and economically stable. The philosophy behind the CDC has always been the same: give someone a fish and we feed them today; teach them to fish and they will eat for a lifetime. In particular, investing in women, where much of our aid is targeted, is investment in a generation, as every mother puts money towards educating their children.
The CDC currently invests in more than 1,200 businesses in more than 70 countries. Those investments supported more than 1 million jobs in Africa and Asia in 2015, almost 25,000 of which were created directly last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Marcus Fysh) said, there is a virtuous circle of investment, job creation, tax revenue generation for the host Government, creation of sustainable businesses and reinvestment by the CDC at the end of the cycle.
The CDC has reached the ceiling of current Government backing—the Government’s investment of £735 million last year took it up to the limit of £1.5 billion. Through the reinvestment of past profit, it has built up a bigger portfolio, standing at just under £4 billion. It is therefore clear that the CDC is able to support development and recycle the returns to support further investment. We should not be reluctant to enable the CDC to do more and unlock potential. The NAO is clear that the CDC now has an efficient and economic operating model that is working and has improved its procedures for recording allegations of fraud and corruption.
With the clear investment strategy agreed under this Government, the aim is to make the great majority of new investment directly into businesses. If we want to achieve the global goals for sustainable development by 2030, we need to mobilise the private sector and work together. That helps the CDC in two ways. It allows it to help target its involvement at areas that genuinely meet the remit of supporting businesses that struggle to attract private sector investment. It also helps it to meet one of the goals set out in yesterday’s NAO report, namely better tracking of the success rate of the CDC’s investments. The CDC now concentrates on the poorest countries in Africa and Asia, where business finds it hard to attract stable and responsible investment from the private sector. It is right that the development finance institutions lead the way in those countries, and we should not be shy about it.
We invest more in aid overall than our European partners and invest less through development finance institutions. The CDC estimates the investment gap of unmet demand for capital investment in Africa to be more than $100 billion. If we want to bring jobs and growth to the poor, we must help them to help themselves. This simple and, I hope uncontroversial Bill does that. It is not an approval or a commitment to give the CDC access to £6 billion immediately, but to give it when there is a strong, robust, accountable and transparent business case that will provide the best value that aid can provide. I hope the House supports the Bill.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Sitting through the debate and listening to so many informed contributions has been informative, even the speech from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Perhaps it was a little overlong in duration and repetitive in argument, but none the less it was a valuable contribution to the overall debate. Many of us welcome his general support for the direction of travel in the Bill and his points about oversight were well made.
Although I fully support the 0.7% commitment to aid, I do not agree with its statutory underpinning, which I believe will lead to unintended consequences. One reason why I welcome the Bill is that it helps in that respect. I fully and wholeheartedly welcome the Secretary of State’s introduction of the Bill for three principal reasons: it is modern; it will prove to be effective; and most importantly, it sets a tone of mutual respect between the United Kingdom and those countries and peoples who are the recipients of our DFID budget. The Bill will do that by harnessing the power of entrepreneurs around the world. It is those people who hold the key to so much in terms of the improvement of lives in less developed countries.
The CDC is an institution in which taxpayers can trust. We have talked about oversight and past concerns—as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) said, they are in the past. We should also recognise that the CDC has been around for 60 or 70 years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) spoke of his experience as Secretary of State, when he saw people’s recognition of the brand’s strength. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), who is no longer in his place, spoke of his ministerial experience. Trust in our DFID budget is important. It is not enough for hon. Members to say, “It doesn’t matter. Everything’s fine. We all agree.” Out there in the country, there is tremendous scepticism—it is fuelled not only by the press—about the amount of money, whether it is being spent in the right way, and whether we should continue with the 0.7% commitment. Having institutions that we can trust to spend the money wisely is important. The Bill gives us that and is a big step forward in restoring trust.
The Bill is modern. As I have said, I am not knowledgeable about DFID issues in general, but I was drawn to the 2015 speech by Bono at Georgetown University, when he said:
“Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce, entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid…of course, we know that.”
He was correct. Through the Bill, we must counter some of the pre-scepticism about the role of the private sector in developing countries in achieving some of our development goals. We must put our foot down on the accelerator of supporting the private sector through institutions such as the CDC.
I am tempted to quote Sir Angus Deaton from Bloomberg—he is the Scottish-American economist who won the Nobel prize last year. He said:
“Aid funded projects have understandably done much good…but the negative forces are always present: even in good environments, aid compromises institutions, it contaminates local politics and undermines democracy”.
The greatest bulwark against the corruption of political institutions, and one of the greatest defenders of democracy, is the opportunity for people to have a stake in something. People having a stake in a small business can preserve and protect freedoms, as well as enhance economic wellbeing. Human happiness is not solely a matter of one’s GDP; once one gets above a minimum, other issues start to matter, such as freedom and social environment.
Having that stake is also effective. The CDC and its work as a fund of funds created a distinctive expertise in investing in first-time funds in some of the most challenging investment environments across the world. We should be proud of that track record. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield for explaining the move to direct investment. I had been sceptical, thinking it was drawing the CDC away from a pivotal part of its success, but I now better appreciate the role of direct investment, thanks to his contribution. The CDC nurtures investment talent. Growing entrepreneurship and private enterprise is not just about entrepreneurs; it is about developing people to spot the talented entrepreneurs from the less talented, and in that the CDC does a tremendous job.
That said, I have some questions and concerns about the Bill. Will the Minister explain how, if we are to give more money to the CDC, the skills within it can be developed and monitored? As many hon. Members have said, the worst thing is to pile money in if the team investing the money does not have the skillset, capacity or capability to invest it. What will we do about the investment focus areas? Contrary to other comments, perhaps, I am keen to see the investment focus move into more modern areas that provide opportunities for companies in developing countries to trade with the UK, as well as provide domestic support. Will the CDC be able to lever investors from other countries into its fund to develop further its capital for international development? Will he comment on the likely value of the CDC in the near term, given the comments by President-elect Trump on international development and the likely impact of the rising dollar on turbulence in local currencies in many developing countries?
Finally, I support the Bill because it will create mutual respect. It is time for us to recognise that development in developing countries is a matter for many UK citizens through the diaspora. There is no imbalance in that relationship: a British Nigerian sees themselves as a British subject and, on an equivalent basis, looks to their heritage in Nigeria. The work of DFID should reflect that equivalence in its treatments. The Bill is perhaps a first step towards promoting mutual respect. Other possible measures are turning back protectionist intellectual property restrictions between developed and developing worlds, using the opportunity of Brexit to lower trade barriers, and creating more and effective ways to harness remittances between ourselves and developing countries.
This is a small but important Bill because it sets the tone in the right direction. It sends a message that this organisation, which had a long history of effectiveness, went through a period of turbulence and is now back on the right course, can have the confidence of the British people as it continues to pursue its development goal for people in the poorest countries of the world.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
On behalf of other members of the Select Committee, I inform the House that many of them are abroad on a visit to the middle east but would have spoken in the debate had they been here. It would be wrong for me to indicate how they would have spoken or whether, like me, they support the Bill, but I will put on the record one or two comments previously made by members of the Committee. As long ago as 2011, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said in a debate on the CDC:
“It is extremely important that the Government should continue to support CDC.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 169WH.]
An IDC report on jobs and livelihood in the last Parliament stated:
“We are encouraged that CDC has followed our recommendations and has refocused on job creation.”
A final Select Committee example is a recent report on the sustainable development goals, which stated:
“The Government must ensure that the work it carries out to encourage private sector investment, through CDC…is focused on developing and fragile states”.
It went on to mention
“a positive impact on the achievement of the SDGs”,
which the CDC had the potential to achieve. It was interesting to note that in response the Government stated:
“CDC’s mandate is aligned with achievement of the Goals”.
Before I touch on a few of my prepared remarks, I would like to deal with some of comments made by another member of our Select Committee, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). He mentioned his concerns about the effectiveness, the poverty focus and the coherence of the CDC’s work, and I would like to respond to these.
The hon. Gentleman said that there should be more emphasis on health and education. However, the CDC’s development impact is amplified by the billions of pounds in local taxes that are generated by the companies it invests in. These help to support the public services such as health and education in developing countries. Over the past three years alone, these companies have generated over £7 billion-worth of local tax revenue. It is important to remember the impact that these taxes can have on those kinds of essential services.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about coherence, and he and others have mentioned transparency, but DFID works very closely with the CDC to ensure that it is at the forefront of global standards of transparency in development impact. Information about all the CDC’s investments is available on a comprehensive database on its website, with details of the name and location of every investment in the portfolio. I am sure that further information would be made available if members of the Select Committee requested it. If DFID is working, as we know it is, with the CDC on a new results framework, this will result in an even better capture of the broader impact of investments on development—even beyond job creation and tax revenue generated.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman raised his concerns about investment by the CDC in a private, fee-paying hospital in India, stating that this might be at odds with DFID’s general approach towards the expenditure of UK aid. However, I clearly remember the Select Committee visiting a private, fee-paying school in Africa not so long ago, and Committee members agreed that DFID’s support for that school was, in fact, well spent, particularly when there was no other option for children in that area to obtain an education. I believe these issues need to be looked at in context, and I am not so sure that support for this hospital is so out of line with DFID’s general approach.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Lady raises the issue of private fee-paying education and health. The issue is about where we focus our efforts. Does she not accept that if we continue to support the expansion of private healthcare and education as opposed to supporting public systems that enable free access to healthcare and education, we will effectively supplant countries’ ability to provide national healthcare and education systems that support all their citizens, including the poorest?
Fiona Bruce
As with so many of these cases, it is not an either/or. It is often both when the need is clearly there and the money can be well spent.
I shall move on to my few prepared remarks about the Bill. I absolutely support the Bill and speak in favour of it. It is essential to look at how to support capital investment in countries where there is a paucity of it. A 2014 report from the UN Conference on Trade and Development calculated a £2.5 trillion annual investment gap in key sustainable development sectors, so the CDC has a very important role to play. It is important to remember that the Bill will allow DFID and the British people, as the CDC’s motto states, “to do good without losing money” on an even greater scale than hitherto. I cannot believe that anyone, even aid sceptics, could really object to that.
The NAO report, published yesterday, chronicles the many positive steps that the CDC has taken and the many improvements that it has made. We have heard many references to the report. It says that through
“tighter cost control, strengthened corporate governance and closer alignment with the Department’s objectives, CDC now has an efficient and economic operating model.”
This morning I spoke to NAO officers who had produced the report over eight months and had visited many projects, including some in Africa. They said that DFID now had a really good grip on the CDC’s work, that there were good lines of communication between the CDC and DFID, and that DIFD’s in-country know-how was being utilised, while it was rightly not interfering in day-to-day management. They identified several cases of CDC investments in areas where the private sector would not have initially dared to go, but three years later private sector money had come in. Indeed, in several instances they saw the results of what they described as “catalytic” investments. They said of the 13 or 14 funds they had inspected in Africa that, with one exception, they were “transformational”. I think that we have a really positive report on which to act.
Of course, there are views about previous investments, but I think it encouraging that 98% of investments are now in Africa and south-east Asia and 82% are in one of the seven priority sectors identified in DFID’s key objectives, which were devised in 2012, following the excellent review conducted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell).
Without further ado, I shall end my speech, although there is much more that I would like to say in praise of the CDC.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow so many distinguished speakers in all parts of the House. I thank them all for their contributions.
Let me begin by paying tribute, like many others, to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the former Secretary of State for International Development, for the good work that he has done. He gave us an eloquent history lesson, explaining how the CDC began. I accept much of what he said, but I think the whole House is united in accepting that his important reviews of the CDC back in 2011, and the strategies and policies that developed as a result, have left the CDC in a better place than it was in four years ago.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) rightly reinforced the House’s commitment to the 0.7% target. He also made an important point, which has not been made enough today, about the implications for our strategic development goals. He welcomed the National Audit Office report, as do I, but urged caution in respect of its findings on transparency and the impact of monitoring, about which I shall say more later. He rightly pointed out that we are still awaiting the important multilateral and bilateral aid reports. However, the Secretary of State has assured me that they will be published on Thursday, and I am grateful for that speedy response.
I think the whole House agrees that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is a passionate advocate, and he demonstrated that again today. He made some very important points about the sheer level of funding, another issue about which I shall say more later. He also drew attention to three boxes that needed to be ticked. I agree with him that the case has yet to be made.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), as always, made a passionate speech in his own style. He made an important point about the strategy and policy investment that was not forthcoming, and, like many Members, suggested that we were virtually putting the cart before the horse.
We on this side of the House want to reaffirm our commitment to poverty alleviation, which should be at the centre of DFID’s work. We recognise that the development of businesses around the world has a strong role to play in international development, through building economies by improving infrastructure and helping to put money into people’s pockets at the end of a hard day’s work, which is one of the surest ways of alleviating poverty. We also recognise that it has a strong role to play in the achievement of the eighth sustainable development goal: promoting economic growth, productive employment and decent work. It is therefore right that during the passage of the Bill we scrutinise both the Bill itself and what it will do, or will not do, for developing countries and the ability of the CDC to deliver for them.
Despite the Bill’s small size, it will have huge ramifications for the developing world and the UK’s development agenda. As previously outlined by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, we have several important points that we would like to see addressed.
The first is the worrying concern about the sheer size of the increase in assistance that DFID will be able to give to the CDC. In 2015, the previous International Development Secretary committed an additional £0.7 billion of funding to the CDC, but the Bill seeks to dwarf that by a large measure, by increasing the assistance to £6 billion. Moreover, the Secretary of State seeks the power to increase the limit to £12 billion through a statutory instrument, creating unease on the Opposition Benches that the Secretary of State will easily be able to extend the limit by £6 billion just through an SI, a move we believe to be wrong in principle.
We acknowledge that the assistance limit may have been reached—a substantial limit that has stood for just as substantial a period of time—but increasing assistance to this level has the potential to result in a considerable movement of ODA spending away from DFID in the traditional sense. That is particularly troubling given that the answer provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) stated that 25% of ODA will be spent outside DFID and that the Secretary of State repeatedly states an intention to move DFID’s focus towards trade over traditional aid and development. If the Government want to move so much of DFID funding through the CDC, we need assurances that it is not a mechanism through which they can effectively privatise development, placing more money in the hands of investment funds whose main focus at the end of the day is not poverty but profit, while at the same time moving it out of the hands of development NGOs.
This takes us on to the next issue that we have raised today: for what purpose does the CDC require further assistance? After all, the current £1.5 billion assistance limit has stood a strong test of time and the CDC’s business model sees it largely self-financing, with healthy profits reinvested in projects. Therefore, if we are to support this Bill throughout its passage, we need to see updated documents provided and published by the CDC—namely, a new strategy for 2017 onwards, alongside a new investment policy for the next five years, both of which must set out what the CDC intends to do with such massive assistance being made available to it. Essentially, we must avoid a situation in which we would be putting the cart before the horse by granting funding assistance before actually seeing what purpose it will be used for.
Another area of concern raised is the scrutiny and oversight of the CDC’s development impact. On this issue, we note the findings of yesterday’s NAO report. The accuracy of the CDC’s self-assessment through its development grid and its declaration of the development impact of its investments cannot be guaranteed, because it assesses their prospective impact rather than the actual impact. Consequently, the CDC might believe that it is having a positive impact, but the actual impact could be very different. If DFID wants to increase its assistance to the CDC, it must carry out full, frequent and regular assessments of the development impact, beyond the CDC’s own measuring criteria.
We on this side of the House have raised concerns over the use of tax havens by the CDC, and our concerns are well founded. In 2013, £180 million of the £375 million given to investment funds by the CDC went to funds domiciled in notorious tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Guernsey and Jersey. That is almost 50%. This use of tax havens denies tax revenue to developing countries, avoids capital gains tax and deepens existing governance and corruption issues in developing countries. This is happening despite the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of a crackdown on the use of offshore tax havens in the wake of the BHS scandal, and it is exactly the opposite of the kind of work that the CDC has a duty to carry out.
We have outlined our substantial and genuine concerns about the Bill, and we hope that the Government will give us a genuine response to those concerns and to the six questions that the shadow Secretary of State set out earlier. We look forward to hearing their response. We will not oppose the Bill’s Second Reading this afternoon, but if we do not receive adequate assurances or see positive steps being taken by the Government to address our concerns, we reserve the right to withhold our support for the Bill on Third Reading. Facilitating economic growth is of course important in the developing world, but development should always be the focus, and we on this side of the House will work to ensure that it remains so.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)
I want to say a great thank you to all the hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I particularly praise the tone set by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) and the way in which he picked up on the good atmosphere in the Chamber. I also pay tribute to the tone set by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) and by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), and to the constructive way in which they have approached this short but quite technical piece of legislation.
Four major types of concern seem to have been raised today, and I will try to deal with them briefly, with the aim of stopping at exactly 5.20 pm. Those questions were as follows. Why are we focusing on private sector-led economic development? How do we balance the private and public inclusion in that development? Why are we using development finance institutions and, in particular, what quantity of money are we putting into them? Why are we specifically putting money into the CDC? That last question relates to concerns that have been expressed about the governance and transparency of the CDC. I shall try to deal with those four types of challenge in turn.
The first is a general concern about the weight that we place on the private sector’s role in economic development in general. That concern was expressed by a number of people today, particularly Members on the Opposition Benches. The shadow Secretary of State used the word “profiteering”, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East talked about international capitalism. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) spoke of distracting our attention away from humanitarian concerns, and the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) was worried that some of the investments might be made at the cost of other potential investments. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) emphasised the fact that aid is needed as well, and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) emphasised the importance of health and education.
The way in which to deal with these generic concerns about the role played by the private sector in economic development—and with all the matters in the general portfolio of the Department for International Development —is to state that what we are talking about today is just a part, not the whole, of what DFID does. Economic development is absolutely vital—I will come on to that—but it is currently less than 20% of the Department’s overall portfolio. The shadow Secretary of State quite rightly raised water and sanitation as important elements of our Department’s strategy—they are—but they are not primarily delivered through development finance institutions. The £204 million that we spent in 2015-16 came from other parts of the Department’s budget. As for the humanitarian concerns mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leicester East, the £2 billion that we are spending over this period on Syria alone comes from other parts of the departmental budget.
However, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Marcus Fysh), poverty alleviation cannot happen without economic growth, and that relies on the private sector. It relies on the private sector for jobs, for Government revenues and for the services that the sector provides. It is not a zero-sum game. The hon. Member for Glasgow North issued a challenge when he talked about investments coming at the cost of others, but it is not that kind of zero-sum game. To take a specific example, we were criticised by one Member for some of our investments in electricity, as opposed to other forms of infrastructure, as though that was somehow at the expense of other developmental objectives. However, that electricity not only delivers jobs through the business side, but allows us to deliver our objectives in health and education. We cannot have a decent education service and get children into school if there is no electricity and they have to go 10 miles to pick up firewood. We cannot deliver decent healthcare in Africa unless there is refrigeration for immunisation drugs and unless we have the electric lighting that allows doctors to perform surgery in the clinics.
We are delivering on the STGs, particularly goals 7 and 8 on energy and economic growth. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who is both a distinguished international civil servant and a President of an African state, has said that poverty in Africa cannot be eliminated without private sector growth. That also reflects the demands of Africans themselves. I was taken by the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) about mutual respect. Recent surveys conducted in sub-Saharan Africa show that sub-Saharan Africans identify energy and jobs as two of their top three priorities at a level of 80% or 90%. We should respect their wisdom and desires when we talk about the kind of development investments that we make.
The next question is how to balance the roles of the public and private sectors in delivering development. I do not want to talk about this too much, but it is clear that there are serious constraints on the public sector’s ability to deliver all forms of commercial activity, partly because it often lacks the skills to ensure that those things happen. It lacks the skills to understand the market dynamics, the logistics, the productivity and the efficiency. We have all seen well-intentioned charitable and Government development projects attempt to set up businesses that have not worked. However, as Opposition Members have pointed out, the private sector cannot do it on its own—there are clear market failures. Returning to electricity in Africa as a good example, the private sector has clearly failed. If the private sector had been able to do things on its own, we would not be in a position where only 6 GW of power generating capacity has been built in Africa over the past decade. In China, 8 GW of capacity is built every one to two months.
That brings us to the question why we are putting money into DFIs, which was the particular challenge of the shadow Minister. The shadow Minister and the hon. Members for Glasgow North, for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Edinburgh East focused on the quantity of investment. The response is that I am afraid that some people still confuse stock and flow—in other words, the annual overseas development spend and the creation of a capital fund. The second response is that it is an option, not a commitment. What we are doing is raising the ceiling for what CDC, through rigorous business cases, can request; we are not imposing this on CDC. Over a five-year period, even if the maximum were drawn down, we would be talking about 8% of the total anticipated ODA spend, which is smaller than the amount I calculate the Scottish Government appear to be putting into a similar instrument in proportional terms.
There have been challenges on strategy. The strategy will be produced in line with departmental practice at the end of this year, but this Bill is enabling legislation, so we are putting the horse before the cart. We need the enabling legislation in place—we need the ceilings to be lifted—before we can look at individual business cases that wish to draw down on that money.
That brings us to the overall question why use DFIs at all, and I wish to pay a huge tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who provided perhaps the most powerful explanation of why we go into these mechanisms in the first place. The answer of course is that they bring together the very best of the private sector and the very best of the public sector. They provide the discipline of the private sector in insisting on returns that produce sustainable enterprises and sustainable revenues; and they provide freedom from political interference and they provide leverage. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, let me say that they also allow us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) pointed out, to draw in other forms of capital behind. Some £4 billion of investment from the CDC has drawn an extra £26 billion into our investments in Asia and Africa. In addition, this approach provides good value for money for the taxpayer.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is talking about the capital that this approach has brought in, but that has not always been in areas where capital has not been available—I think of places such as India. Given that he is about to publish the bilateral aid strategy, will he consider forcing the CDC to look more closely at the lower-income countries in Africa and elsewhere that need the investment the most?
Rory Stewart
I am trying to move towards my 5.20 pm conclusion, but let me deal with that quickly. As I was saying—and this partly answers the point—we are combining the best of the private sector incentives with the best of the public sector, because we are exactly able to prioritise maximising development impact. That is where our development impact grid, which, with respect, the hon. Gentleman is not providing enough focus on, answers his question. Members on both sides of the House should be aware that that grid targets explicitly countries with the lowest GDP per capita, countries where investment capital is not available and countries where the business environment is worse—that is the Y axis of the grid. On the X axis of the grid, we have sectors in which the maximum employment is generated. Every business case since 2012 has been assessed exactly against those criteria, which is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has pointed out, many of the criticisms made today—the idea that somehow the CDC has lost its way—are not appropriate for the CDC of 2106; they are appropriate for the CDC of 2012 or 2010.
Let me deal with a few of the objections. An investment in Guatemala was mentioned, but all investments in Latin America stopped in 2012. An investment in Xiabu Xiabu in China was mentioned, but all investments in China were stopped in 2012. The issue of pay was raised, but, as has been pointed out again and again, the pay of the chief executive has been reduced by two thirds, to a third of its predecessor. Tax havens were mentioned, but we no longer, in any way, ever invest for reasons of tax or secrecy; we invest only to find secure bases for investment and to pool other forms of capital. All our investment goes simply into locations that meet the highest OECD transparency standards. On development impact, our DFID chief economist, Stefan Dercon, has worked with some of the most distinguished academics in the world, from Harvard and elsewhere, to create exactly the kind of impact that people are pushing for.
That is why right hon. and hon. Members should support this Bill. It is not only because of the history of the CDC, to which the shadow Secretary of State paid such good tribute to in her opening remarks: its experience of 70 years; the culture it has developed; the extraordinary brand that the institution has in Africa and south Asia; and the focus that my right hon. Friend has brought to this institution since 2010—its rigour and its narrowness of focus, which makes it very unusual among DFIs. It is one of the only DFIs in the world to be spending so much in conflict-affected states. It is accountable directly to DFID, which owns 100% of its shares. The examples of its performance today can be seen in the DRC; in places such as Burundi, where off-grid power would not be built without the CDC; and in its investment in energy through Global in Africa.
In conclusion, we should take pride in this institution; it is a very great British institution. In its historic evolution it has gone from a past where it was dominated in the 1950s by ex-military officers interested in building rafts and going into jungles to its current leadership under Diana Noble, a chief executive who exemplifies much of the best in development thinking and some of most progressive intuition in the British Government. She ensures that we are delivering in Pakistan gender-based programming that affects workers’ rights and that we have an institution that is today highly relevant and that faces and solves some of the greatest development challenges in this century.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill: Programme
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8 December 2016.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration.
(5) Any proceedings in legislative grand committee and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill: Money
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) any increase in payments out of the National Loans Fund or money provided by Parliament resulting from provisions of the Act—
(a) increasing the limit in section 15(1) of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 to £6,000 million; and
(b) conferring power to increase that limit to an amount not exceeding £12,000 million;
(2) any increase attributable to those provisions in the extinguishing of liabilities in respect of guarantees under the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999; and
(3) any increase attributable to those provisions in payments into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 6th December 2016
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 December 2016 - (6 Dec 2016)
The Chair
This is quite an unusual procedure for those who are not used to it. We are now sitting in public and our proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a number of preliminary announcements. Please make sure that mobile phones are switched off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed; please help yourself to water. We will first consider the programme motion. In accordance with my normal practice, we will start with the shadow Secretary of State, and then we will listen to whoever indicates that they wish to speak. We do not need to allocate questions. Is everybody happy with that? Yes? Excellent. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally without debate.
Resolved,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 6 December) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 6 December;
(b) at 11.30 am on Thursday 8 December;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
Date | Time | Witness |
|---|---|---|
Tuesday 6 December | Until no later than 10.30 am | Department for International Development; CDC Group plc |
Tuesday 6 December | Until no later than 11.25 am | National Audit Office; War on Want; Oxfam; Sir Paul Collier, Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford |
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 1.00 pm on Thursday 8 December.—(Rory Stewart.)
The Chair
I can announce that the deadline for amendments to be considered for line by line Committee sittings has passed. I hope everyone got them in on time.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Rory Stewart.)
Examination of witnesses
Diana Noble, Graham Wrigley, Rory Stewart and David Kennedy gave evidence.
The Chair
Do any members of the Committee wish to make declarations of interest? No? Good. We will now hear oral evidence from the Minister and from the chair and chief executive of the CDC. Before calling the first member to ask a question, I would like to remind all members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and we must stick to the timings in the programme motion agreed by the Committee. We have until 10.30 am for this session. Could the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Diana Noble: I am Diana Noble and I am the Chief Executive of CDC.
Graham Wrigley: I am Graham Wrigley and I am the chairman of CDC.
Rory Stewart: I am Rory Stewart and I am the Minister of State, Department for International Development.
David Kennedy: I am David Kennedy and I am the director general for economic development at DFID.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Good morning. CDC’s operational policy published in March 2014 on the payment of taxes and the use of offshore financial centres dictates that CDC would invest through a jurisdiction that is not successfully participating in the Global Forum only in exceptional cases. What would be the exceptional cases in which it would use these jurisdictions?
Diana Noble: Let me first say that CDC’s use of OFCs has nothing to do with secrecy or reducing tax. We take pride in the payment of corporation tax by our portfolio companies in the countries where we invest— it is one of our development indicators. We use OFCs for two important reasons. One is for legal certainty; the other is to pool capital in neutral places. Let me explain both of those. CDC’s mission is to invest and grow businesses in some of the poorest companies in the world. Unfortunately, many of those places do not have legal systems that allow us to invest with certainty that, if there is a dispute, we will be able to get our money back. Of course, one of our big areas of responsibility is to look after UK taxpayers’ money: that is part of our mandate. So unfortunately, for some places where we invest we have to go through an offshore structure.
The second point is that we have a very important mission to pool capital from other investors to come in alongside us into difficult countries. This is an enormously important role. If we look at CDC’s investments from 2004 until now, we have supported fund of funds that total $30 billion in Africa and south Asia, of which CDC has only provided $5 billion—so that is $25 billion from other investors. Those investors come from lots of different jurisdictions themselves, so the capital does have to be pooled somewhere. Those investors, who are already cautious about the countries in which the investments are being made, have a lower risk tolerance than CDC does, for legal certainty; so they insist on a safe jurisdiction. We, however, do play our role, because we insist that that pooling is done in the best, or the most compliant, of the offshore centres in the OECD register.
Do we think that the situation is ideal? We don’t. We look forward to the day when every country where we invest has a safe legal regulatory system, where we can invest directly in every single country; but that is not the case today. What we have done, though, is encourage an important project that we have been working with DFID on, to examine the possibility of an onshore centre in Africa. That work has led to the Governments of Kenya and Rwanda taking this very seriously. It would be a very long-term project, but we are very keen that it gets progressed over time.
Kate Osamor
Q How many offshore jurisdictions do you currently use?
Diana Noble: It is a short list. We can provide absolute clarity about exactly how many, subsequent to this Committee. On the list are certainly Mauritius, which is well accepted as a place for pooling capital, particularly for Africa and south Asia; Guernsey; and Cayman Islands.
Rory Stewart: I have the list: at the moment, it is Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Jersey, Luxembourg and Mauritius.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Q I apologise, Mr Streeter, for being slightly late. Graham, can I ask you a little about the potential for the CDC to attract investment from other investors? Diana was just talking about the fund of funds drawing funds in, but at the top level of the CDC are there opportunities to get sovereign wealth or other enlightened investors, perhaps high net worth individuals, to put their money alongside the increasing capital of the CDC?
Graham Wrigley: That is an interesting question. The other day someone asked us whether it would be possible to turn the CDC into an ISA or a PEP. Looking at how other DFIs are funded, the IFC has created a vehicle whereby people have invested alongside the IFC; the FMO is owned partly by some banks as well as—
The Chair
Q Do you want to explain some of those acronyms for the record?
Graham Wrigley: Yes. I am sorry. The IFC, which is the International Finance Corporation and is part of the World Bank, has created a programme called the AMC, which has mobilised other capital. The FMO is the Dutch equivalent of the CDC and it is partly owned by some banks. The CDC’s business model, though, is one whereby we are 100% owned by the UK Government, and that is how we see ourselves. We see ourselves as we are, as the world’s oldest development finance institution.
We have mobilised other capital mostly through the fund structures, and we are now looking at permanent capital vehicles whereby we will get investors who are interested at the project level. It has not been on our agenda for the past five years to look at raising capital at the CDC level because, as I said, we see ourselves as 100% owned—
Richard Fuller
Q Are you open to putting that on your agenda? If the British taxpayer is being asked to put more money in—Diana was talking about how well we are leveraging in at the project level—surely we should have a strategy. Loads of people, not only in the UK but around the world, may be willing to put their money alongside the expertise of the CDC, so will you look at that?
Rory Stewart: May I come in on that? Technically that would be a call for the Department for International Development rather than for the CDC, and it would be set out in the five-year forward business strategy produced at the end of this year. It is certainly something we can consider. Among the things that we would have to consider is the fact that we are driving the CDC very hard to make high-risk investments in some of the most difficult countries in the world. We have dropped our expectation of the level of financial return because our primary objective is development, so the type of investor who would co-invest with the CDC would have to be a specialised one, engaged, essentially, in some form of philanthropic investing. But we can certainly look at that.
Richard Fuller
Q I am intrigued by Mr Wrigley’s suggestion about an ISA or a PEP, which are much more about individual investors. Every day on the television we see requests for people to put money—£2 a week, £3 a week—into those sorts of things. There is a tremendous interest in this country in development work, and pride in the public support for it. Would you be interested, Minister, in taking up the indication from Mr Wrigley about an ISA/PEP model to galvanise individuals in this country to put some of their money alongside the CDC?
Graham Wrigley: May I be clear that that was not my suggestion? The CDC, as the Minister said, provides incredibly high-risk, development-driven, impact investment in the hardest countries in the world, and it is the last place I would recommend anyone put their pension—
Richard Fuller
Thank you for the clarification, Graham. I did not mean to misinterpret you. It was something you said. But, on the principle, Minister?
Rory Stewart: Perhaps, Mr Fuller, we can sit down and explore your idea in more detail. It is an interesting idea.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Q I have two questions. The first is for the CDC—I do not mind if you answer, Diana, or if Graham does—and the second is for the Minister.
The first question is on crowding in versus crowding out. What is your measure for additionality? Can you tell me numerically what the test is? How do you know for sure that you are not doing what the private sector would do anyway, and how numerically do you know that projects and funds are meeting that test?
Secondly, the Bill proposes an incredible level of freedom on investing in the CDC. Why is the cap so high? Why are we expressing such a high level of confidence in CDC, as opposed to any other aid mechanism?
Diana Noble: I am happy to take the first question. It is a very important question that has been extremely high on the agenda of the board and the management team over the past five years.
We felt back in 2012 that this had not been taken seriously enough by the CDC pre-2012. We engaged an extremely experienced person—ex IFC—to look at the whole area of additionality for us. He wrote a long report and went to talk to all the other DFIs as well. Our guidance to him was, “We want CDC to have the highest standards of additionality across all the DFIs.” This is a difficult area. He has written a long report and I would be very happy to share it with Committee members.
The report led to some broad principles that say that CDC completely understands that we must play a unique role in every investment that we make. This is not generic across a portfolio; this is a standard that the investment committee applies for each investment that we make. We must be satisfied that our unique role is either that we are bringing capital that another investor will not bring or that we are bringing some unique expertise that is important and will lead to a material improvement that another investor will not bring. We take that incredibly seriously.
The team of CDC has no interest in doing what the private sector will already do. We take real pride in being distinctive and bringing something special to our investing companies.
Alison McGovern
Q May I briefly follow up on that? You say that either there is not another investor, which is clear, or that we need to bring some unique experience. What does that really mean? That seems to me like a catch-all.
Rory Stewart: The primary measure that has been set by the Department is the development impact grid, which defines what the most difficult countries are in which to invest. It looks at three criteria—GDP per capita, the amount of capital available and the difficulty of doing business. The last two help us from a strategic level to answer your question. I will hand back to Diana.
Diana Noble: You are right. It is at the point of investment that we say we are bringing expertise to a company. That is a forward look. It would typically be environmental and social issues. For example, we worked with an online retailer in India to transform how they thought about their supply chain and to sign them up to the ethical trading initiative, which was the first time that any online retailer in India had done that.
Of course, we are saying that at the point of the investment. We do not know whether it is going to happen. What we have done—again, we are the first DFI to do this—is implement an external objective review of every case, in which we only justify it on this additional expertise, not on capital. We had our first report back that said that in all of those cases—they are a minority—we did in fact actually deliver and in a lot of cases we delivered more than we expected at the time of the investment committee. I agree with you that none of us should be justifying an investment on an expectation that does not happen.
Rory Stewart: The answer to the second question is that over a five-year period we are looking at a ceiling option on the basis of a business case of CDC being able to draw down up to £4.5 billion. That is a very large sum of taxpayers’ money and we need to be very responsible about it. It is also worth putting that in context. The overall annual expenditure is estimated at £12 billion. To put that £1 billion in context, in a single year we would typically put something in the region of £5 billion into multilateral institutions. To illustrate that what we are putting into CDC is not out of proportion to other comparable investments, the type of funding we produced for the World Bank over the last three-year period was £3.3 billion. We are about to do another replenishment, but it is of that order.
Why are we putting it into CDC? Well, there are a couple of reasons. One is that we believe CDC is a very effective vehicle for delivering jobs and economic development in some of the hardest places in the world. The second thing, contextually, is that there is a difficult issue, to which we can return, of comparing a stock with a flow—in other words, comparing what will be a capital fund for CDC with the annual expenditure of the Department—but even at 8% we are likely to be significantly lower than the amount of money that Germany or France, for example, put into their equivalents.
Alison McGovern
Q Minister, you mentioned the index that is designed to drive investment to the poorest parts of the world, yet we have heard about investment in online retail in India. My understanding was that the Government’s policy is to move investment away from middle income countries, or countries towards the middle income range, such as India. How can the two approaches fit together? It makes no sense.
Rory Stewart: In the grid, we break India down by state and target the poorest states. There is a transition in India. You are absolutely right that the Government have decided to move away from traditional development grants and into technical assistance and the kind of financing that CDC would produce. We do two things in an Indian context: we target the poorest states and, specifically on the question of the online retailer, we are able to do things in India that we might not be able to do in some of the more testing, difficult markets. With that particular online retailer we are also able to focus on driving up labour standards and making sure that skills and worker safety are protected. It is worth bearing it in mind that India, despite all its very strong economic performance, still has some of the very poorest areas in the world. Enormous numbers of people are on less than $2 a day, and many are on less than $1 a day.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Q I would like to probe a little more on the specifics of the hard figures in the Bill—the £6 billion and the ultimate cap of £12 billion. Where do those numbers come from? What was the needs assessment that these are about the amounts of money that the Department feels CDC needs? Was there dialogue between the Department and CDC to reach those amounts? Why go for such hard figures, rather than some kind of proportional formula? Is there any indication of a timescale in which these amounts might eventually be reached?
Rory Stewart: It is a question of setting a ceiling. We welcome this, but it is quite unusual in the Department’s spending to have to go through primary legislation in order to make a financial allocation. I mentioned to Ms McGovern that, in a three-year period, we would allocate, say, £3.3 billion to the World Bank. We do not do that through primary legislation. This Bill attempts to give the Department the ability to do what we do with the rest of our budget, which is to make decisions on the basis of ministerial decisions, accountability to Parliament and strategic decision making. Specifically in relation to CDC, we would like the ability, should a business case emerge, to give it more money without having to come back to Parliament with primary legislation every time we wished to do so.
Where was the figure arrived at? Well, the figure was arrived at after a discussion with CDC about the maximum possible amount it could realistically require over the period, which takes into account its staff resources, the demand in the developing world and its past spend. If you look at CDC’s last round, it put about £1.2 billion through in a year, of which £735 million was a recapitalisation from the Government.
Looking forward over the next five years—2016 to 2021—this would allow them to draw down something of the order of £1 billion a year. In effect, it is only £4.5 billion because of that £6 billion they already have £1.5 billion. On the next bit of what they take in the future, if I’m honest with the Committee, my preference would have been to say, for the reasons and principles I laid out in relation to our other spend—our investment to the World Bank—that Ministers could come back through secondary legislation. A statutory instrument is how I just did a £350 million addition to the World Bank. I think you were on that Committee, Mr Grady. That would be the process we would hope to do with CDC.
My preference would have been to just give Ministers the power to go to a Statutory Instrument Committee to ask for that money, but the Clerks of the House advised us that it would be better to set a financial limit to that power, so we chose for the period 2021 to 2026 the same amount we chose for 2016 to 2021. That is how that figure is arrived at.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Q Just to build on the point made by Mr Grady in his question to the Minister, I listened to the answer, but in the absence of a business case strategy or investment policy I am finding it difficult to understand how we can arrive at those specific figures because there is nothing to suggest how that money will be spent.
Secondly, does CDC have the capacity, given the totality of its lifetime spend of £1.5 billion? Such a massive increase would be an issue. Another question, probably to the Minister, is around the point made earlier by Ms McGovern and the areas where we have availability of private sector financing. Is there any idea of where the new strategy or investment policy will go with that? I take on board the example used—India. I accept that India has pockets of poverty, but in comparison private sector financing is more readily available perhaps than for other target areas.
Rory Stewart: Those are three very good questions around the business case, capacity and private sector financing. I will take them one by one.
The idea of this proposal—the primary legislation—is to provide an indicative ceiling around which a business case can be organised. Within the Department, we would expect to produce a business case and to have some sense of what money would be available. Currently, there would be no money available so it would not be possible at the moment for anyone to write, as the Department would hope, the forward strategy for future investment or produce a business case, which we hope to do in the summer of next year because Parliament would not have given us permission to give any more money to CDC.
Bluntly, if the Committee decided not to pass this legislation, CDC would have to start reducing staff and we would have to scale down significantly the future programme of investments because there would simply be no money legally available to CDC and there would be no purpose in producing a business case in the summer for future investment because that money has already been allocated. So we believe it is important to get your permission in principle for a seemly amount that we could give CDC should a business case be produced to meet it. That brings me to the second question.
I will hand over to Graham and Diane in a second, but I am absolutely certain that the board of CDC and its chief executive will not request the money from us if they do not feel they have the capacity to spend it and if market demand does not exist for that expenditure. They are under a strong obligation to their board to make sure they take this money responsibly, so even in a case in which DFID does its business through consultation with CDC and we decided, for the sake of argument, that a reasonable sum of money going forward over a five-year period was, let us say, £3 billion—I chose £3 billion because the £4.5 billion is a ceiling and we are not saying we will take that. That is what this business case is about. So let’s say it was £3 billion. They would then effectively be able to draw down on a promissory note, effectively. The Department would be saying, “You can draw down that money over a five-year period.” CDC would then have to come up with individual proposals—“Here is a solar programme in Burundi that we think is worth investing in”—and draw down the money from us. I do not want to speak for CDC, but it would certainly not be drawing down money if it did not feel that it had the resources to spend it responsibly.
That brings me to the third question of private sector financing and to Ms McGovern’s question. We are absolutely clear that we do not want to be in the business of crowding out private sector finance. One of the really good criticisms made of CDC in the National Audit Office report, the Public Accounts Committee report and the ICDC report was that it was doing exactly that, for example by making investments in coastal China. We stopped those things from 2012 onwards. The investments that we are now talking about in India are in places such as Bihar or the poorest bits of Uttar Pradesh, where the business environment is very difficult and very little capital is going in. We are also making sure that the grid is followed absolutely with every investment, so that we are not falling into that trap.
Graham Wrigley: This very important question is about how CDC and the shareholder respond to what we think is the very clear need for long-term, patient, impact-driven and additional capital in low-income countries, and about how we do that in a responsible and thoughtful way. We fully understand that this will be a very significant step in CDC’s history, but from our perspective, having worked on this for the last five years, this is evolution, rather than revolution as it might look from the outside.
Let me explain why. If we go back to 2012, when an entirely new mandate was created, a new team was empowered to go off and explore and see what would happen. At that time, the projections showed that if things went well, more capital would be required. That is precisely what happened, and it led to the recapitalisation in 2015. As the Minister has just said, we structured that recapitalisation such that the money could be drawn down if and when there was the market demand. Indeed, it was only this week that the first promissory note for that recapitalisation was called.
Going into the next five years, the team has now been established. It was 40 people back in 2012; we are now at 220. The commitment rates have gone up. We believe that the market need in our markets is growing, and for the last year we have also been working with the Department on a series of potential new programmes focused on high risk and on unlocking new forms of development impact.
The quantum and timing of any capital given to CDC will depend on two things: first, the shareholder making its decision about how CDC stacks up against other opportunities—the opportunity cost was debated in Parliament last week; and secondly, the view from CDC. As chair of CDC, I feel deeply responsible for making sure that any capital that we call is allocated for the purpose of development impact, and that our teams can execute that responsibly. That is the context for where we are now and for the Bill. We see this as a long-term discussion about the shareholding of CDC. CDC has to perform it for the purpose of development impact, which I promise you is what drives everybody who works in CDC.
Rory Stewart: Just to confirm, Graham, am I right that you are formally saying to the Committee that you would not draw down this money if you did not feel that you could spend it responsibly and have the resources to do that?
Graham Wrigley: No, we would not do that.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Q Thank you, Mr Streeter. I should have taken the opportunity to draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; my apologies that I did not do so earlier.
I have two questions, Minister. First, going back to the cap, I wonder whether the Bill is future-proof. I think that we will pass the Bill—it will become an Act—there will be successful drawdown up to 2020 and 2025, and quite possibly at that point you will have to come back to the House to ask for more money. Can you go into a little more detail as to why the Clerks did not advise that? Recently, we have had the multilateral and bilateral review, and that does not get anywhere near the same scrutiny as this relatively, proportionately, smaller amount of money.
Rory Stewart: I think the argument from the Clerks is that Parliament does not like the idea of granting blank cheques, and I can completely understand why you would want to bring us back. Again, this was simply an attempt to get an in-principle agreement that in changing the way in which the CDC was funded, we would move to secondary legislation, but I can completely understand why you would want to put a cap on that, and we have accepted that; we are happy to take that.
James Duddridge
Q This is my second question. As I said, I think that the Bill will be passed, but if it is not and we accept as a Committee the need to put more money into economic development and jobs, what capacity would DFID have to spend the same volume of money? Is there an alternative? During Second Reading, there was a lot of talk about the opportunity cost of giving this money to the CDC. What else could DFID do with the money?
Rory Stewart: The key thing is that this is within our economic development portfolio, which is less than 20% of our spend, so it is about moving money from, essentially, David Kennedy’s part of the Department—within different programmes in his part of the Department. The intention is not to move large sums of money from our humanitarian activity, health activity or education activity. It is a different modality for economic development.
What alternatives might we have were you as a Committee to decide not to approve this legislation? We could, for example, give more money, through the World Bank, to the IFC. We could use a different form of DFI, which was not the CDC, and the World Bank could theoretically spend that money. That would not require primary legislation; it would require my going to you with a statutory instrument in the normal way we give money. Alternatively, we could spend the money, as we have done in the past, on technical assistance. That is a normal part of economic development activity. There are also various forms of livelihood programming that we have done in parts of the world. However, we believe that the CDC is a really good institution; we think that it is in many ways better than the other development finance institutions that we could look at as alternatives if you did not wish to go with the CDC. That is why we strongly suggest that we put the money into the CDC.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Q Over the years since the inception of the Commonwealth Development Corporation in 1948, the Government’s approach to it has fluctuated considerably. In the 1980s it was doing, on a smaller scale, broadly what Graham and Diana are now doing—direct investment—but then there was pressure to separate out and effectively privatise the private equity or venture capital element of it. With 0.7% of GNI going to DFID, you can take a longer, more strategic approach to the CDC, but the effective tensions, potential tensions, between ODA objectives, taxpayer return on equity and pursuing aid goals but not investing in things that might be done by the private sector otherwise, remain and arguably will be more in the public eye as the CDC expands. How will you balance those, and what is the longer-term strategy, in your view, for the future of the CDC?
Rory Stewart: It is a very good question. You are absolutely right: since 1948, the CDC has been through changes. I think that is because it was a very bold and imaginative move by the Attlee Government. It was a very unusual thing at the time; indeed, it was the first DFI. And from the moment that they were invented, DFIs have had to tread a thin line between two quite different things: a private sector modality—a desire to generate a commercial return—and a public developmental objective. A lot of the shifts you mention are about the pendulum swinging back and forth between these two types of objective.
Looking at the history of CDC, there have been times, in the 1980s for example, when CDC made a lot of very bold, risky investments in high development impact and lost money. It did not succeed in making money. There have been other times, under other leaderships—and this was true in the period criticised by the NAO, in the 2000s—when they went to the other extreme. We had a situation in which, during that period, CDC managed to generate £1.5 billion of profit—profit for the UK taxpayer, profit that is put back into the CDC and reinvested, but they were very high rates of return, largely achieved through the fund of funds strategy.
Now, we are using this piece of primary legislation, this discussion of the Committee and also the UK aid strategy and the CDC strategy being undertaken at the end of this year, to provide a much tighter definition of the key characteristics that take us forward. That is, philosophically, that the DFIs work when you get that balance right. The balance is right where the private sector element gives you the commercial discipline to make sure the investments you are making are genuinely sustainable, that they are going to keep those jobs and deliver revenue to the Government and value for money for the taxpayer. However, that has to be balanced with the public objective, which is the ability to make very patient long-term investment, to take a certain degree of risk and to pursue developmental impact. That is why we have put out this grid where, on the X axis and Y axis, we measure with every single investment how much capital is available, how hard the business environment is, how low the GDP capture is on both axes and whether the sector is likely to create jobs. That is also why we brought in Harvard University last year to review this and why we are now going through a 15-year longitudinal study to try and establish this.
I think we are getting better at this, but your warning, Mr Graham, is a good one and everything we are doing in our strategy, our metrics and our measurement is to ensure that we are not back in a world where this pendulum is swinging back and forwards all the while.
The Chair
Just before Mr Graham comes in again, five other colleagues have caught my eye and we must finish this session at 10.30 am, so we are going to have to speed up a little bit.
Richard Graham
Q May I follow up very briefly on three specific points? First, if having private sector expertise in CDC helps it focus on the commercial return element, sustainable investments and so on, which I totally accept, would a partial flotation at some stage not both achieve Richard Fuller’s earlier point—I think it was Richard Fuller who mentioned it—on bringing private money into the CDC, that is, the Government acting as a catalyst to bring money with it, on the one hand, while on the other, assure those people in the private sector that it was not the Government competing against them?
The Centre for Global Development called for the CDC to
“do as much as possible to demonstrate that it’s investing in projects that create jobs and growth which would not otherwise happen.”
Is that an impossible ask?
The last point is on the geographic eligibility. At the moment, you can invest in 63 countries, which is considerably more than the Commonwealth. What about Palestine or the middle east?
Rory Stewart: Okay, here we go.
The Chair
As briefly as you can, please.
Rory Stewart: Those were three very complicated questions, but I will try to deal with them very quickly. No. 1, the reason why a partial flotation would be difficult is that the returns we generate are deliberately low. We are only at about 3% return because we want to have a developmental impact. It would also have a significant impact on our governance arrangements, as we are currently a 100% shareholder.
The second question—is it an impossible ask? No, we do not feel it is an impossible ask. It is tough, but if you look at our investments in solar power around Burundi and CAR, that is a really good example of something that is extremely unlikely to have been done by a normal commercial investor. These are high-risk investments, generating a relatively low return. We are only able to do it because we are a DFI with that patient long-term investment policy.
The third question? I am so sorry, Mr Graham.
Richard Graham
Q Sixty-three countries at the moment. What about Palestine, for example?
Rory Stewart: This very interesting discussion has gone back and forth. As you are aware, the International Development Committee asked CDC to look strongly at investment to deal with the crisis around Syria and at what we can do to help bring stability to the middle east, for example. At the same time, other members of the IDC tabled amendments to the Bill that would not only take us out of middle-income countries in the middle east but would restrict investment to the countries with which DFID has bilateral programmes. My gut instinct is that that is an issue not for primary legislation but for Departments to address through their strategy in response to a changing world.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Q I apologise for my late arrival. I was hosting a general from the British Army. Minister, I want to ask a very specific question about where these figures come from. I want to probe you further on them. You answered a written question from me yesterday—for Hansard, it is 55702—and said that the only capital requests that you received from CDC were for the £735 million. You said that you have not had any others. Can you be clear about whether CDC has requested capital increases to you beyond the £735 million?
Rory Stewart: The process is threefold. We will seek permission from Parliament to be able to recapitalise CDC. We want to know whether you are prepared to allow us to give any more money to CDC—£1, £10, £1 billion or £6 billion. We are looking for the option to give it more money. Then we will produce the five-year forward strategy for CDC, which will come together at the end of the year. Then we will produce a business case in the summer to lay out what we believe, in consultation with CDC, its likely requirements are in order to prepare our promissory notes. The final stage is that CDC will make a request on the basis of the projects it has. That is exactly what we have done with the £735 million.
We have discussed the ceiling that we are proposing to you in detail with Graham and Diana. At this early stage, they believe it is a reasonable maximum limit for the amount that they could conceivably need between 2016 and 2021.
Stephen Doughty
Q Who came up with the figure? Was it Ministers or CDC?
Rory Stewart: We did. Our Department came up with the figure.
Stephen Doughty
Q Okay. May I ask you a separate question? A minute ago, you said that CDC’s support to India is targeted at the poorest states, but you told me yesterday in a written parliamentary answer—55689—that the majority of new disbursements are still going to the richer states in India. In fact, the top disbursement is to Maharashtra, which is where Mumbai is located. You told me that 42%—that is only this year; it has been going up steadily—goes to the poorest, but the majority goes to the richest. Can you explain why that is, and do you want to clarify what you said earlier?
Rory Stewart: My understanding of what is happening there is that every business case in India needs to be scored against our development impact grid. To achieve the score that we are looking for—I believe it is a 2.3 score, and we are generally crossing 3.0—we have to reconcile on the X and Y axes the number of jobs that would be created through the investment. In other words, we focus on the sector, then on GDP per capita, which is broken down by state, then on the difficulty of investment, and then on the amount of available capital. Any investments, even in the wealthier states in India, will have gone through that grid.
Stephen Doughty
Q But the majority is not going to the poorest states. Is that correct?
Rory Stewart: Let me hand over to Diana on this.
Diana Noble: Can I explain our strategy? In a lot of cases, when you want to help poor countries, it is better to back businesses that exist elsewhere and encourage them to expand into those countries. Therefore, a lot of our investment is about the vision that we can create through these investments.
Let me illustrate that with a quick example. Last year, we invested in a mid-size Indian bank—RBL. The vision was to help it expand its business into rural areas, to the rural poor and into poorer states. That is, as I am sure you know, a big priority for the Modi Government. CDC did not just provide capital to RBL; we also helped it with expanding financial literacy training to 25,000 really poor women in Madhya Pradesh to explain to them how they can benefit from savings accounts and bank accounts. There are already results from that. RBL now has 1.9 million new customers in the rural and poorer areas. We are evaluating that by doing a random sample of loans to understand how that translates into new jobs as well. That is a really good example of our having a partnership with a high-quality operator, going to poorer places, helping them and sharing the results.
Rory Stewart: I did not answer your question directly. The answer at the moment is that, from our portfolio, 42% of the investment in India goes into the poorer states. The rest—the remaining 58%—does not go into the poorer states, but into states where we believe the business will benefit the people in India who are in need. Many of those investments are intended to be regional investments, so we may invest in a bank, for example, that is not located in one of the poorer states, in order to benefit ultimately the people in the poorer states.
The best way to evaluate such decisions is by looking at the individual investment and giving us an opportunity to discuss with you the individual company in which we have invested, so that we can discuss our theory of change. It is difficult to decide whether to make a regional investment to help the poorer states or whether to go straight to the poorer states. I think we should be accountable and talk to you about those individual investments so that we can explain why we have a theory of change and investment in a particular company.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Q I would like to ask Diana about job creation. You say that one of CDC’s key strategic aims is to achieve development impact focused on job creation. How do you measure jobs that are created directly and indirectly? Last week, the National Audit Office said in its report that progress on measuring job quality has been slow. How are you working on that? How are you measuring productivity, quality of jobs and income levels?
Diana Noble: As you rightly point out, we focus on jobs because we believe a job is the first and the best step out of poverty. I think everyone on the Committee understands the difference that a job makes to someone in a poor country: to them and to their family. When we talk to workers it is clear that they also use the income particularly to educate their children, so it has a benefit for future generations. How do we measure job creation? This is something that we take very seriously. Two years ago, in partnership with some academics, we put in place a way to measure job creation across the whole of the Africa and south Asia portfolio.
We are the first DFI to collect data from all our portfolio companies. We do not just collect headcount data; we also collect revenues, supply chain, purchases, work and wages as well. The academic uses that to calculate not just the direct job creation but the indirect job creation. As you can imagine, some of our priority sectors, such as financial inclusion and particularly infrastructure and power, have a far greater job impact beyond the direct jobs. So we have now published the methodology on our website. We are going to go through a peer review process because we want it to become one of the industry standards. We have shown the data from that for two years now. We can start to compare and contrast it. It shows that the portfolio has created over 1 million jobs in the past two years. That is a number we take immense pride in.
You also rightly talked about job quality, because it is not just about volume. Quality has lots of different elements to it. What all of us sitting in this room might consider a good job is not necessarily so with the lens that you should use in the countries where we invest.
On job quality, before we make an investment, our fantastic environmental and social team go and sit down with the company and do due diligence on them. They say, “Are you up to standard, particularly in the areas of health and safety?” If they are not at the right standard, an action plan is agreed with management and put in place.
The second thing we do is collect data across the portfolio on fatalities and serious accidents. We have been doing that since 2008. We have very rich data now and have been able to combine that and give training back to portfolio companies and fund managers about the areas that lead to fatalities and serious accidents. We think that gives huge added value to our portfolio.
We are going further than that. We are collecting information on lost time injury frequency, particularly for manufacturing and construction—places where workers are potentially put at harm. We are looking at staff retention for some of our larger investments, because we are advised that it has a big correlation with job quality. We are doing an evaluation in Bangladesh at the moment—everyone on the Committee will be aware of the issues in garment factories there—to try to understand what workers really want out of their jobs, so that we can build that in. There is a big element of learning. We are on a journey, and there is still a long way to go.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The question I wanted to ask has been asked, Mr Streeter.
Patrick Grady
Q I want to press you a little bit more on some of the policy and decision making and the opportunities we have with the Bill. ODA has a clear definition, and the various international development Acts put in place a duty to achieve poverty reduction, but is that sufficient for CDC, as was? We have heard about these business cases and impact grids. All these are policy-level decisions. The 1999 Act does not mention poverty, impact or international development. So, why not take the opportunity with this legislation to do what some of the amendments are attempting to do, which is to make it clear that CDC would have a statutory duty to meet those objectives or, at the very least, to put some of these processes into the legislation? Would that not help to reduce the risk of backsliding, returning to the days of excesses and concerns—which, I accept, are in the past?
Rory Stewart: Mr Grady, broadly speaking we are in sympathy. We are very clear that we expect all investments made by this Department to aim at poverty alleviation and, to relate to one of your amendments, to reinforce the sustainable development goals. The particular space that CDC operates within is our economic development space. We believe that the correct way to respond effectively to a changing world, to allow Ministers and elected Governments to put their policies through, is through the process we have of setting strategy and governance. One thing I was pleased with in the NAO report was the praise it brought forward for our governance. Any money we give to CDC has to follow that test. That is the fundamental test applied, whether we are giving money to CDC, IFC or a UN agency, or whether it is any of the £5 billion a year of multilateral spending. The way in which we control it is through not primary legislation but Government strategy documents.
Graham Wrigley: May I add, from the CDC perspective, that we have developed some organisational principles and pillars that we have shared with the shareholder? They cover the following things. The first is that our purpose is development. That is why everybody at CDC is there—Diana, me and everybody else. Secondly, we are the world’s oldest DFI, set up by Clement Attlee, supported by both major parties over the decades and 100% owned by the UK shareholder. We are very proud of that fact.
We have to balance—a question was asked earlier about this—development impact and financial return. That creates perpetual paranoia about whether we get the right balance. We see our goal as meeting the needs, and Diane will give you an example of that in a sec—
The Chair
She might not. We will draw things to a close now with two more quick questions.
Stephen Doughty
Q Some new research by the House of Commons Library suggests that CDC’s new investments, as a proportion, to Africa are actually falling over the past few years, with a majority going to south Asia, largely to India. Are you satisfied with that, given the poverty focus that is supposed to exist?
Rory Stewart: These are all really good questions. Fundamentally, things will change year on year. We would expect that with an investment strategy, because these guys have to make very difficult decisions. The NAO has been very clear that it does not want DFID Ministers micromanaging or interfering in the individual business decisions of CDC. I hope you would agree with that: if we were in the business of signing off on every single investment CDC makes, it would become a political arm of the Government, where we could be directing it to how it invests.
We set the overall strategy and framework; we have taken CDC out of places like China and given it the freedom to invest in south Asia and Africa. We have agreed a development grid; we are conducting a lot of research on how that happens, but I think it is perfectly reasonable that over a period more investment one year might go into south Asia than Africa. I think the way that we deal with that is through the next strategy that we produce, continuing this process of tightening accountability, but I do not think it is appropriate for me to start vetoing individual investment decisions by the board.
Alison McGovern
Q In this session, Minister, you said that you do not yet have CDC’s strategy, which we knew. We have discussed the fact that there was not much clarity about investments in India and whether or not they were going to the poorest states. You have explained that you are expecting CDC to increase the risk of the investments it makes at the same time as you are radically increasing the amount of capital available to it. So just for clarity, which do you believe to be CDC’s greatest priority? Is it the reduction of poverty; or is it return on investment, so that the CDC has continuity of capital?
Rory Stewart: The priority of CDC has to be to do good without losing money. The point is not to lose money while doing good, so we are focused on jobs and economic development without losing money. That is the guiding principle that CDC follows in everything it does.
The Chair
Final question.
Rory Stewart: I am sorry; there was a strange comment coming from Mr Doughty who, when he is not texting, throws things from the chair. We believe very strongly that economic development and job creation are absolutely core activities in the elimination of poverty. The distinction that Mr Doughty is trying to draw between economic development, job creation and poverty alleviation is extremely unorthodox and it is not one that the chief economist of our Department, or indeed any of the officials of our Department, would accept.
Imran Hussain
Q I have a final question for the Minister. While the CDC has made some progress since 2011, as I have said in the Chamber, does he at least accept that there is room for improvement around a greater focus on poverty alleviation, around greater overview and scrutiny and avoiding tax havens and so on?
Rory Stewart: Yes, we need to continually improve. One reason why this debate is useful, and why the primary legislation is useful, is to shine a light on all this stuff. None of us is at all complacent. These things are very difficult. The DFI is the leader in the world, we believe, in terms of trying to measure things that are very difficult to measure—how to treat job creation and economic development in some of the toughest environments in the world. We can keep improving and you are absolutely right that those things you have mentioned are exactly the kinds of things that our new strategy will attempt to improve, including, for example, caps on the amount of investment that goes to India.
The Chair
Thank you for getting that all done within time. We thank our expert witnesses and the Minister.
Examination of Witnesses
Sir Paul Collier, Tom McDonald, Terry Caulfield, Saranel Benjamin and Gideon Rabinowitz gave evidence.
Stephen Doughty
On a point of order, Mr Streeter. May I clarify something? The Minister made a comment a moment ago about me allegedly texting. I have actually been checking his written answers on my phone, which allows me to check the parliamentary system.
The Chair
That is perfectly in order. Thank you for clarifying that.
Greetings to our second panel. We are going to hear evidence from the National Audit Office, War on Want, Oxfam and Sir Paul Collier. Would you please give your names for the record?
Sir Paul Collier: I am Sir Paul Collier. I am professor of economics and public policy at Oxford University.
Tom McDonald: I am Tom McDonald. I am the National Audit Office director responsible for value for money audits of the Department for International Development.
Terry Caulfield: I am Terry Caulfield. I am an audit manager at the National Audit Office, responsible for our work on the Department for International Development.
The Chair
Terry, you may need to speak up a little bit. We did not quite hear all of that. It is fine for now, but I mention it for future reference.
Saranel Benjamin: I am Saranel Benjamin. I am the international programmes director for War on Want.
Gideon Rabinowitz: I am Gideon Rabinowitz. I manage Oxfam GB’s work on development finance.
Kate Osamor
Q Thank you, panel. This question is for all panel members. Do you feel that CDC is sufficiently focused on poverty eradication in line with DFID’s outcomes?
Sir Paul Collier: In a word, yes. I have been working on Africa for 40 years and it has been frustrating, because Africa is still poor. This year, per capita GDP in Africa is falling. We have a quiet crisis of trying to rekindle African growth. There is no secret about what rekindling growth and getting out of poverty means: it means raising the productivity of ordinary people and we know how to do that. Raising the productivity of ordinary people is what proper firms do. They perform a miracle of productivity every day by bringing ordinary people together at scale and specialisation, and making them dramatically more productive than they would be as isolated individuals. Africa is desperately short of proper firms, and the public interest in getting proper firms to go to Africa is enormous. That is the underlying rationale for CDC, and that is what it is doing.
CDC went through a very poor patch with this fund of funds idea, which was a crazy idea. It now has really expert management. What CDC is doing, and what DFID is doing to support it, is absolutely standard. This is what International Development Association money, which is the collective, concessional money given by the world’s rich countries to the World Bank, is being devoted to. The transfer to the International Finance Corporation—[Interruption.] I will shut up.
The Chair
Thank you, Sir Paul. Let us hear from Oxfam and War on Want.
Gideon Rabinowitz: Thank you for having us on this panel; we appreciate it. Oxfam recognises the importance of investing in economic development and the private sector as a fundamental part of our development efforts. Economic development needs to be a core part of what DFID and the British Government do with regard to aid. Our concern is to make sure that any aid funds that are invested in those causes really support the right types of jobs, growth and investment that reach the very poorest. The international community agreed at the UN that all development effort should be focused on reaching those left behind. That needs to be the prism through which we see this. Given that prism, we recognise that the reforms agreed in 2011 to CDC were a really important step forward. They focus CDC more on the poorest countries and strengthen its focus on looking at development impact and its investment standards, but we also think that that is the start of a journey that CDC needs to go on in the coming years to ensure that it is focused not only on DFID’s mission of development and poverty reduction, but on the international development community’s focus on leaving no one behind.
We want to note a number of areas where we think CDC can do more. The first point relates to its focus on the least developed countries. Only 12% of CDC’s investments currently go to the least developed countries—the most economically and socially vulnerable countries as measured by a comprehensive index by the UN. We have some questions about whether the sector focus is right. Agriculture, where the majority of the world’s poor make their livelihoods, accounts for only 5% of CDC’s investments at present. A decade and a half ago that figure was one third. There needs to be a re-engagement in sectors such as agriculture.
The Chair
I am sure that those points will come out in further questions; this is becoming a bit of a statement.
Gideon Rabinowitz: I will be very brief. The final point is that, whatever new resourcing authority is given to the Government through the Bill, we want it to leverage a continued focus on ratcheting up CDC’s development performance on those issues.
Saranel Benjamin: War on Want’s position is that we believe that UK taxpayers’ money should not be given to private funds that are going to be investing in projects, because that is basically getting returns on poverty—off the backs of the poor. It makes us very uncomfortable that UK taxpayers’ money is being used for that purpose. However, as we heard from the first panel this morning, the percentage of projects in which CDC is investing in Africa has reduced significantly. We were talking about agriculture; we have moved away from projects that were supporting small-scale farmers to those supporting large-scale agribusiness. That is causing displacement of people whose lands are being taken away and it is also creating a loss of livelihoods. I wonder how that goes together with the whole question of poverty eradication, when we are actually perpetuating it. I will come back to that later and maybe talk about a case study that we are looking at.
Stephen Doughty
Q I have a question to the National Audit Office. You have visited a number of CDC projects as part of your review, and you obviously saw some very positive examples in CDC’s portfolio. I think we discussed one in Sierra Leone, but you also visited a number of those in India—I believe it was Terry who visited those projects. Could you say a little bit about the projects that you visited, particularly with regard to the investment in healthcare? I know that CDC is investing in a lot of private healthcare in India, but not necessarily specifically in stuff that benefits poorer people—it is more a kind of general investment.
Terry Caulfield: Yes, we visited two healthcare facilities in Bangalore in India. One of them was perhaps more intended for middle-income families and one was more down the lower end. We came away with the feeling that they were doing a range of things. At the lower end, they were trying to provide maternity facilities for families who would not otherwise have access to them, perhaps for financial or educational reasons or because of other hurdles that they might have had to get over. In that particular case, they were looking to expand the facility in that location and then use that to expand further out. Against the backdrop of an understanding of how access to Indian healthcare works, they were coming in at a number of different levels. There is a diversity there.
Stephen Doughty
Q You make a big point about the issue of prospective development impact and whether CDC can prove its impact. Were you concerned when you heard the earlier panel talking about investments in richer places that theoretically will lead to jobs for poorer people, as people perhaps move to cities and take advantage? Do you think that is a bit too hazy? Can you explain a bit more about where you felt the CDC could be doing better to demonstrate impact?
Tom McDonald: One of the things that struck me from the projects that I visited in Uganda and Kenya was the need for a portfolio approach. Some of the projects clearly will have more of a development impact, and some will clearly do better financially. Some of them are harder to measure than others, particularly if the investment is through a fund or an intermediary.
In the report we say that, despite Parliament having expressed some concerns in 2008 and 2009 about how CDC measures impact, CDC has still been a little slow to put together a comprehensive picture of the approach it would expect to take, together with DFID, to provide Parliament and the taxpayer with a good view of what impact looks like. I should say that we are not suggesting that there is some simple way of doing that. Measuring all the different indirect and direct effects of the investments is complicated. For example, to answer your question directly, there was a commitment in 2012 to put together a measure of what quality of employment would look like. It has not made much progress on that. It has plans in place to try to evaluate some of its major investments and to improve the impact reporting, but for us, it is about the pace and comprehensiveness of that reporting.
James Duddridge
Q May I ask Sir Paul Collier a question in relation to the amount of capital that CDC has? There seems to be a view that CDC can absorb about £1 billion a year. Given your work on urbanisation and the vast amount of infrastructure investment that is needed, do you think that CDC could be challenged to spend much more on an annual basis or to ramp up to that point? That relates in particular to funding the urbanisation that Africa needs to attract the companies that you referred to earlier.
Sir Paul Collier: Africa is going through a rapid and very necessary urbanisation. Africa’s future is urban, but not all cities are environments in which ordinary people can be productive. You can have a mega-slum. At the moment in Dar es Salaam, the modal enterprise has one worker: scale zero, productivity zero, specialisation zero—doomed. Cities need to become platforms where proper firms can function. They need energy supplies and decent connectivity. That is what the infrastructure is there to do, basically: energy and connectivity. That is expensive.
Stephen Doughty
Q CDC could spend £1 billion just in Dar es Salaam.
Sir Paul Collier: CDC needs to scale up and scale up fast. I am hesitant about tying it in knots trying to get precise measures for this and precautionary measures for that, when the reality is that there are no techniques out there. Everyone is trying to build better measures. The International Finance Corporation has just hired for the first time a chief economist at vice-president level, designed to do that. People are trying to develop techniques, but it is difficult. To my mind, CDC’s priority, now that it has got sound, motivated management, needs to be to scale up. The task ahead for Africa is to get both the infrastructure and the private firms in before it is too late.
James Duddridge
Q Should not we be encouraging it to give more than £1 billion a year?
Sir Paul Collier: Yes, of course. The future of aid is to get decent firms to go to places where they will not make much money until there are lots more of them.
Alison McGovern
Q Very briefly, obviously there is a massive need for capital in Africa, and the question is how we should spend UK taxpayers’ money. I would like to come back to you, Tom. As we heard in the previous session, we are asking CDC to take increased risks with quite a lot of increased capital, but we do not yet have its strategy. Do you think that that approach is probably the wrong way round?
Tom McDonald: There is a cart-and-horse problem here, is there not? One of the things that we saw in the 2015 recapitalisation business case was that the Department did go through a thorough process of assessing, in collaboration with CDC, the art of the possible. There are good foundations on which the Department can build.
One of our worries, which we set out in the report, is that CDC has to be comfortable that it can absorb this money in two ways. One is internally: does it have the capacity to grow, still be agile and make decisions in the way it has done in the past? That is its internal operating model, if you like. The other is whether it has access to all the opportunities for investment. Now that it is again in the business of direct investment, that requires a lot more effort from the teams that are putting together these deals. There needs to be a discussion between the two bodies over the remainder of the spending review period, or the Parliament, about whether DFID is clear about what it wants from CDC, where it wants CDC to operate, and the principles on which it wants it to work. From CDC’s perspective, can it cope with the volume of money and can it, in good faith, invest all that in a portfolio of deals that will still allow it to meet its targets?
Gideon Rabinowitz: I have a very quick point to follow up on that. As well as our mission to tackle the injustice of poverty around the world, we are very keen in our work and our engagement with the development community to push for adequate public scrutiny and trust in the work that the British Government and institutions such as CDC do. We think that needs to be central to this debate, so these are really good issues that we are discussing. The absence of this investment strategy is making it a little difficult to get a fuller perspective. There is clearly a dynamic situation around CDC. I have looked at the business case for the last capitalisation last year, which said,
“CDC has previously determined that given investment needs, it could productively deploy up to £1bn of additional capital.”
We heard from this morning’s witnesses that that situation seems to have changed. An additional point was made in the business case that, of the £735 million that DFID allocated to CDC last year, it would need to go beyond that only in 2019. It is a very fluid situation, and the lack of clarity over that investment strategy and how the situation on the ground with CDC is changing poses challenges. It is important to get that clarity.
Richard Graham
Q A very quick question for you, Tom—probably a one-word answer. If I got you right earlier, you were calling for a more effective measurement of the quality of jobs generated by CDC. Do we have such a measurement in the UK?
Tom McDonald: A one-word answer would be no.
Richard Graham
Q Thank you. Saranel, it is clear that you would not want to see any money going from the taxpayer to CDC that would mean either selling it or closing it down, or possibly both. How would that help DFID achieve its goals of supporting businesses and jobs in the developing world?
Saranel Benjamin: I think we differ in how we see development. However, the fact that CDC is operating without a strategy begs the question of what it is prioritising. Why would one prioritise private education or schools, or private healthcare, in countries where the majority of people are not getting access to that? How does that justify the better use of UK taxpayers’ money? I think the question was raised earlier about whether we are choosing poverty reduction or profit-making.
Richard Graham
Q Okay. So you are against specific investments that have been, or might be, made. Are you against investment in businesses full stop?
Saranel Benjamin: I am against using business to conduct development in the global south.
Richard Graham
Q So you do not believe that creating jobs through business is a constructive way of meeting development aims?
Saranel Benjamin: I don’t think that that is the only thing that should be done in terms of development, but from CDC’s point of view, that seems to be not just about job creation, but about supporting projects that have absolutely nothing to do with poverty reduction. I cannot see how supporting top-level real estate in Kenya, for example, is about poverty reduction.
Patrick Grady
Q I just want to ask any panel member who might want to reflect on the levels of transparency in CDC and the opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. I particularly want to ask the reps from War on Want and Oxfam how their transparency in reporting requirements from DFID have changed in recent years and whether they have any views on how they should apply to CDC.
Gideon Rabinowitz: Oxfam is a signatory to the international aid transparency initiative, which is the comprehensive aid transparency framework that is applied across the development community. The initiative was started and promoted by the UK Government, who have obviously played an important leveraging role in promoting transparency across the world.
We are ambitious implementers of IRT and in our dialogue with DFID right now, we are being encouraged to look at how we can apply those standards and the standards introduced by the initiative further down our supply chain with our local partners. It will be a challenge, but one that we shall pursue head on. Throughout the chain of delivery partners we work with, we will look at ways we can address those standards.
One of the questions we think it would be really useful for the Committee to think about is, how—whatever is agreed through the legislation—can we help to ratchet up the level of transparency of CDC? It has made progress, but the last time it was assessed against IRT standards, it scored “poor”. We have not seen a fundamental change in the level of information that is currently reporting, so it has some catching up to do. We hope this legislation can help.
Saranel Benjamin: That is a really good question, because while listening to everybody talking, I was thinking that when we have to apply to DFID for funding, there is absolutely no way we would get funding if we just went and said, “Can I have £500,000 and I will give you the strategy later?” That would never happen for the development sector.
James Duddridge
Q You are not owned by DFID. It is not like for like at all, is it?
Saranel Benjamin: No, but it is still the use of taxpayers’ money, which DFID—
James Duddridge
It is a ridiculous comment.
Saranel Benjamin: No, DFID subjects the development sector to a number of processes involving deep scrutiny of all our work. It does not do that with CDC. The fact is that a case study such as Feronia, for example, can exist. Either CDC can say that it did not know that it was happening or DFID can say that it did not know that it was happening. It seems to me that there is a lack of oversight.
Fiona Bruce
Q Can I ask Terry and Tom about value for money? How should CDC be scrutinised by the various bodies that will scrutinise it, assuming it gets this increased money—DFID, Parliament, the International Development Select Committee, ICAI and the Sub-Committee on the Select Committee, which I chair, which scrutinises ICAI? In view of the increased funding, how can we ensure that we scrutinise value for money effectively? What measurements should we be using?
Tom McDonald: That is a very good question. The first duty is with DFID as the shareholder. What we have seen of the reforms that have been put in place since 2012 is an increased volume of reporting from CDC back to the Department, characterised by a no-surprises policy. CDC is very clear that if it is thinking of undertaking something new or innovative it will consult with DFID first. Similarly, it will have quarterly shareholder meetings and with the shareholder produces a significant volume of information. These are all improvements from the previous regime that Members have talked about before and they help to mitigate the risk that CDC at some point in the future might engage in some of the poor behaviour that we saw previously.
That is the first line of defence in terms of scrutiny. Who else might do that? We will clearly continue to have an interest. We have been writing reports on CDC for at least 20 years. Obviously, it is up to Parliament how else it wishes to do that. The difficulty, as with other aspects of DFID’s spending, is following the money. We have this problem with multilateral expenditure. When DFID makes a payment to a CDC or a multilateral body, it is quite for us as the auditors to track that money through to the eventual point of impact. We have to be creative about it and find ways of doing that. It is not straightforward.
Fiona Bruce
Q I am probing a little, if I may. You say that it is up to us how we do it, but you have just spent eight months looking at CDC day in and day out. I am seeking to glean the benefit of that detailed insight when the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and our Sub-Committee, which scrutinises it, looks at the issue. What should we be focusing on? Where should we be asking questions?
Tom McDonald: If you look at our value for money conclusion, we essentially divided it between, on one hand, the economy and efficiency with which CDC was being run and with which DFID was overseeing it, and the effectiveness of CDC. Looking at the first two e’s, we concluded that DFID’s oversight of CDC has improved considerably, and that CDC’s operating model is now pretty economic and efficient. It is a pretty good way for CDC to organise itself and spend the money that DFID has allocated to it.
On the subject of effectiveness, which we discussed at the beginning, this is clearly not an easy thing, but we still think there is more to do. There is more on which DFID could press CDC, and there is perhaps more on which Parliament could press both DFID and CDC to give a better picture of what CDC itself says is its ultimate objective: changing people’s lives, not just creating jobs.
Imran Hussain
Q Just a further question to Ms Benjamin from War on Want, to follow up from colleagues. I am slightly lost. Are you saying that you are principally against the development finance institution model—that would considerably weaken where I thought you were coming from—or are you concentrating on specific instances where you think the money was not spent well and most efficiently to target poverty alleviation? You gave the example of the Republic of the Congo. Can you elaborate on that and be more specific about where you are heading? I am slightly confused about where you are going with it.
Saranel Benjamin: As I said, we come from very different development backgrounds. For War on Want, a charity that works with partners in the global south, it is not about creating jobs; that is our approach. We are about supporting grassroots communities and organisations to allow them to envision the change that they want to see in their own countries. For me, when I see a private firm like CDC investing or looking for opportunities, I see it looking for an entry point for the UK to make a profit in the global south. For me, that is what it looks like. Given the use of tax havens, those countries are not really benefiting from what is being invested in those countries.
Again, look at the quality of jobs being created. Feronia in the DRC is one example. Workers are being paid less than $2 a day. Are you telling me that that is poverty reduction? Is that job creation? There is a dispute about the land on which Feronia operates; it is a 100-year-old land struggle. The largest investor in Feronia is CDC, which holds 67% of the investments owned in Feronia. The land dispute has been going on for a number of years, and communities have been displaced off that land. CDC claims that it is all legitimate, but it refuses to make the lease agreements or concessions publicly available. We have requested them from CDC, and have yet to have an acknowledgment that the email was received.
Rory Stewart
Q Very quickly, for Tom McDonald and Sir Paul Collier, Saranel has just said that CDC exists for the UK to make a profit in the global south, and the countries are not really benefiting from those investments. Do you agree with that?
Tom McDonald: We did not assess the whole portfolio, in terms of the impact that it was having. We have to rely to some extent on the prospective assessment of impact that CDC is now doing on a regularised basis for all its investments. I honestly cannot give a yes or no answer as to the impact on the south.
Rory Stewart
Q Do you agree that the prime purpose of CDC is for the British Government to make a profit in the global south, and that our investments are not benefiting the people in those countries, which is Saranel’s claim?
Tom McDonald: From what we saw when we visited the projects in east Africa and India, there is a clear desire to benefit the people of those countries, as well as for CDC to achieve its own targets.
Rory Stewart
Sir Paul?
Sir Paul Collier: It is not worth entertaining, I am afraid.
The Chair
Well, just answer the question, if you will.
Sir Paul Collier: I am sorry. It is self-evident that the path out of poverty involves business. It is also self-evident that not enough modern business is going to these very poor countries. So it is a very strong public interest to use public money to try and encourage firms to go to areas where they are needed but where they will not make much money. That is the rationale for the whole of the development finance institution enterprises. Clearly, CDC is controlled by DFID; DFID is controlled by Parliament; and the objective of getting people out of poverty runs right through both organisations.
Rory Stewart
Q Just as a quick follow-up, Sir Paul, you have used the phrase “public risk capital”; would you expand a little bit on what you are saying about the need for public involvement?
Sir Paul Collier: Yes. These environments are risky environments, in which there are not great amounts of money to be made by private enterprise. That is why so few firms go there. So one of the purposes of public money is to bear some of the risk. I believe we should be prepared to lose some public money in incentivising firms to go to places where there is a public interest. Parliament has not, and DFID has not, authorised CDC to go that step—yet. I very much hope that that will happen. In the negotiations for the latest International Development Association round—IDA 18, which is being signed this month—the World Bank’s aid arm is authorised to lose money in International Finance Corporation investments, to get firms to go to places where there is big public interest. We are on a journey, and scaling up CDC is part of that journey.
Richard Fuller
Q Just on the issue of low-tax environments and tax havens, and their use by CDC, I am not sure if you were all present for the earlier evidence session, in which a question was asked about that, but essentially the point was that in a number of the locations in which CDC operates they do not have the financial infrastructure or probity to encourage either CDC or other investors around that. Do you think that CDC makes effective and good use of tax havens in its investing, and do you have any concerns about that?
Sir Paul Collier: I should say that I was instrumental in the British G8 trying to clamp down on secrecy havens and get the compulsory register of beneficial ownership, so I had a lot of fight to push this agenda forward. The use of the overseas territories for registering companies has a triple function: sometimes it is a tax haven, which is bad; sometimes it is a secrecy haven for banking, which is worse; and sometimes it is a neutral administrative centre for a lot of third-party investments. If a company from the middle east wants to invest, along with a company from India and a company from Singapore, along with CDC, they try to find a neutral territory.
Richard Fuller
Q So CDC is the third of those.
Sir Paul Collier: Yes, where CDC is a party in it, and often it will be—
Richard Fuller
Q I think we understand, but I appreciate you clarifying. Mr McDonald, from the point of view of the NAO?
Tom McDonald: We did not actually look at that in our reports—
Richard Fuller
Q Do you have any concerns about it?
Tom McDonald: I am aware of the CDC’s position, but we have no view as to—
Richard Fuller
Q If you had a concern about it, would you have looked at it?
Tom McDonald: [Pause.] I suppose—
Richard Fuller
Q I think one can infer that you did not have a concern, as you have done an extensive review of CDC and you did not even think about it as a topic to look at.
Tom McDonald: We did consider it at the beginning. It didn’t—
Richard Fuller
Oh, you did consider it. But it wasn’t a priority.
Tom McDonald: It didn’t emerge as a priority.
Richard Fuller
You are quite evasive, Mr McDonald, in your answers. I mean, just in the answers to the Minister you were quite evasive.
Richard Fuller
Q Specifically on this, Mr McDonald, you should have told the Committee right at the start, yes, you thought about it, but you didn’t think it of concern to look at in your inquiry, shouldn’t you?
Tom McDonald: When we start a value-for-money audit, we have to consider a huge number of issues. This was one of the ones that we considered at the beginning but didn’t undertake any detailed field work on. Apologies.
Stephen Doughty
Q I have a follow-up question for Oxfam or War on Want. I do not agree with everything War on Want says, but a good point it made was about the differing standards that appear to be applied to the CDC as opposed to non-governmental organisations, other multilaterals and so on. The multilateral aid review is pretty robust on how we should deal with multilaterals—publish every item of spending over £500 and so on. Gideon, perhaps you could say a little more about where a double standard might be going on here in expectations.
Gideon Rabinowitz: I have made the point already: it is clear and on the record that the CDC has a bit of catching up to do on transparency. One of the reasons why it would be helpful for it to make progress on transparency is that everyone would then know a lot more about where it is investing, what it is investing in, what the justifications for those investments are, and why it thinks it is providing financial and value additionality in those investments. We would all be starting this debate from a different position if there was greater awareness of what the CDC was doing and how it is working.
The other point that we are keen to emphasise is that if there is some way in which the Bill can leverage that additional transparency to include encouragement of reporting around a wider range of development impacts and indicators to help secure our confidence that the CDC is focused on the right investments, that would be very valuable. The type of indicators that we have to report against in our programmes could be rolled out more broadly in some of those investments.
Stephen Doughty
Q May I ask a separate point, Paul? You said, “Take more risk. Get in there. Get things done.” Are you not worried that the CDC’s profile appears to be declining in Africa and still heavily focused on middle-income countries? Looking at the projects in lower-income countries, there appears to be quite a lot of diversity, but do you think that they ought to be even more risky, more poverty-focused, or more focused on Africa than on, say, India?
Sir Paul Collier: Yes, I do. I should also say that with risk comes an incidence of failure. The CDC is in a risk business in difficult environments; we should all get used to accepting a rate of failure. The CDC should not be judged by the fact that it will have some failures. If it has no failures, it is not doing its job.
Stephen Doughty
Q It is too risk-averse at the moment, do you think?
Sir Paul Collier: That may be true, actually. The emphasis on scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, without any understanding of context, drives people into that sort of risk-averse behaviour. Yes, we need transparency and scrutiny, but that has to be in the context of an understanding that the basic mission we want the CDC to do is difficult and will involve a rate of failure.
Fiona Bruce
Q On scaling up and the challenges of recruitment and retention, which are highlighted in the NAO report, I am interested to know whether you think that CDC will be able to meet the recruiting challenge and what particular skill sets are needed for CDC, as opposed to other international development work, bearing in mind that a lot of people want to work in this field. Why will CDC have particular challenges?
Tom McDonald: CDC does face a significant challenge if it is going to make use of additional capital to recruit and retain the people it needs to manage that money. In the past, CDC has found it to be quite a slow process to recruit people at the senior level, but it gets there. The real difficulty is recruiting and retaining people at the middle levels of management, because CDC is competing, effectively, with other funds and private equity employers who can afford to pay a lot more. What CDC has changed is that whereas it used to benchmark its salaries against the private equity industry and therefore pay people a lot more through their overall benefits packages, now it benchmarks pay against other DFIs, which we think is a good step. The danger is that as average pay has come down, CDC is in the process of reconsidering its remuneration framework with DFID. That would be something we would want to watch very carefully, because the pressures on retention and recruitment might start to force that average pay up again next year.
Fiona Bruce
Q I was not so much concerned about pay levels—well, I am concerned about pay levels, but I am particularly concerned about the skill sets that you are saying there is potentially a shortage of, or there could be a shortage of, for these particular appointments.
Tom McDonald: I don’t think there is an absolute shortage of skill sets. It is about finding the right packages and opportunities to get the right people in to do the job. Because of the change in strategy since 2012, CDC needs a lot more people with experience of making direct investments—understanding the context, as Sir Paul was describing, knowing what an opportunity looks like in a local market, and then being able to put a deal together that makes commercial sense, but also has a development impact. There probably are not that many people who have both of those skill sets.
Richard Fuller
On a point of order, Mr Streeter. In some comments earlier about Mr McDonald, I used the word “evasive”, which on reflection I think was overly strong. I would not like those to remain without correction.
The Chair
Thank you—much appreciated, and I did notice.
Thank you, witnesses, for all your expert evidence, which has been greatly appreciated by the Committee.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Andrew Griffiths.)
Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 6th December 2016
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 December 2016 - (6 Dec 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Before we begin, I ask that everyone ensures that all electronic devices are turned off or are switched to silent mode. Members may remove their jackets if they wish—although it may be a little chilly today for that.
The selection list for this afternoon’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first, and other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection and grouping list, and decisions are taken in the order on the amendment paper. I hope that explanation is helpful to Members.
Clause 1
Amount of the limit on government assistance
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “£6,000” and insert “£3,000”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “£6,000” and insert “£5,999”.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “£6,000 million” and insert
“the amount specified in subsection (1A)”.
This amendment paves the way for amendment 4.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) After subsection (1), insert—
(1A) The amount specified in this subsection is whichever is the lesser of the following amounts—
(i) £6,000 million,
(ii) the amount determined in accordance with subsection (1B).
(1B) The Secretary of State shall determine the amount for the purposes of this subsection by estimating the amount which will constitute 5% of official development assistance in the relevant period determined in accordance with subsection (1C).
(1C) That period begins with the financial year in which the Secretary of State considers that the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation (determined in accordance with subsection (2)) will exceed £1,500 million and ends at the end of the fourth subsequent financial year.
(1D) For the purposes of this section, “official development assistance” has the same meaning as in the most recent annual report laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.””.”.
This amendment, together with amendment 3, would replace the proposed limit on government assistance under section 15 with a new amount, expressed as either £6 billion or 5% of forecast official development assistance over a five year period, whichever is the lesser amount.
Stephen Doughty
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan, and for the first time, I think. I know you take a keen interest in these matters, so it is particularly delightful to serve under you, as it was to serve under Mr Streeter this morning—I know he is equally interested in the Bill. We had a wide-ranging debate on Second Reading and a wide range of issues were also explored by all members of the Committee during some excellent scrutiny of the witnesses who were before us this morning.
Amendment 6 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton and for Bradford East. It regards the nub of the matter, which is the amount of money—aid money; taxpayers’ money—that the Bill intends to allow the CDC to receive. It is a very large sum: up to £6 billion, leading up to £12 billion, which I know we will come to discuss in due course.
As I said on Second Reading, I am not opposed to the existence of the CDC and I am not opposed to much of the important work that it does; I recognise that it does some excellent work. Indeed, the National Audit Office is clear that the CDC is largely meeting its own standards and the strategy that was set for it in 2012. However, that is not the issue before the House or, indeed, the Committee; rather it is whether we should grant such large sums of money to CDC as opposed to directing that important aid money to other uses.
Despite having listened carefully to the Minister and the CDC itself—I have met its representatives—and reading much of the documentation about the Bill, I am still at a loss as to where the £6 billion and £12 billion figures have come from; I do not believe that the case has been made for that expenditure. There may be a case for increasing capital for the CDC, and I am sure we will hear many of those arguments today, but I have certainly not seen the case to justify the expenditure of a potential extra £4.5 billion over this spending round, as implied by the Minister’s earlier comments and the contents of the explanatory notes to the Bill, nor do I see the rationale for potentially expanding that sum to £12 billion.
The information we have before us is very vague. Paragraph 10 of the explanatory notes to the Bill says:
“Increasing the limit on government assistance to £6,000 million will enable the Secretary of State to accelerate CDC’s growth over the current Spending Round in response to forecast market demand—”
which is not actually explained anywhere, nor has it been explained in answers to questions I have put to Ministers—
“over CDC’s next strategy cycle and in order for CDC—”
this, again, is very vague—
“to play a fuller role in the delivery of the UK’s international development objectives.”
Those are very short sentences and paragraphs to justify the potential spending of £6 billion, rising to £12 billion. Let us remember that the CDC only required capitalisation from the UK Government of £1.5 billion over the entire period between 1999 and 2016. We understand that the bulk of that has come at the CDC’s request, although I know that there are a variety of views out there on that. In recent years, we have seen the big recapitalisation of £735 million in two tranches, which I am glad to say was accompanied by a business case. Not all of that case was met, but at least there was some rationale for it—whether it should have gone through is not relevant now—whereas there is no rationale for the proposed increase.
I think it was the NAO that said that there is a cart-and-horse problem here. This is a huge potential uplift and we have not seen any kind of rationale for it, any clear statistics, analysis of markets or suggested project sectors, just a vague assurance that it will all be all right on the night and that Parliament should therefore go ahead and approve large sums of money on the nod. We have also heard doubts expressed by the NAO and others about whether the CDC even has the absorptive capacity to accept that sort of uplift in such a short space of time.
We had reassurances from the Minister that the uplift would only come in response to clear demand and with the clear ability to take it on, but the reality is that the NAO has criticised the CDC for risks in its staffing and for its organisation. Even regardless of that criticism, I question whether any organisation could take such an uplift in such a short space of time, whether it was a non-governmental organisation, the World Bank or a UN agency. We ought to treat our scrutiny of development finance institutions and multilateral agencies with the same brush, whether they are close to the Department for International Development or slightly further away; I will come back to that point in due course.
The other issue is that there is an opportunity cost here that I hope we will be able to explore in the debate. The Minister earlier seemed to suggest that if we do not give the money to the CDC, we will inevitably have to give it to a development finance institution that is performing less well or is perhaps even less focused than the CDC, but I do not think that he has made that case very clearly.
I have read in detail the multilateral aid review that the Minister published last week and that we scrutinised in an urgent question on Friday. It does a lot of good things; it gets into the meat of what some agencies are doing and it points out agencies that are not performing well. Has the CDC been put through that level of rigour? Is it subject to the same expectations of transparency, poverty focus, effectiveness and accountability to beneficiaries, taxpayers and the Government? I am not sure that it is. Where would it appear in the multilateral aid review’s graph of agencies? Undoubtedly it would do well in some areas but in others I suspect it would not, particularly given the NAO’s commentary.
Given what DFID expects not only of multilaterals but of its bilateral partnerships and its partnerships with civil society organisations, there seems to be a double standard. One example is that DFID now expects multilateral agencies to publish details of everything they spend over £500. That is a good thing, but we clearly do not have the same transparency from the CDC. Yet we are planning to give it extra billions of taxpayers’ money via the Bill—initially up to £6 billion and later up to £12 billion. At the very least, we ought to provide a level playing field for assessment and expectation, so that we are absolutely sure we are investing our money in the routes that will lead to the greatest reduction in poverty, that align with our wider development objectives, that are coherent and that meet the wider objectives of the Government and the Department.
Conversations with the CDC and comments from the Minister have revealed a crucial issue: the CDC has not requested this capital increase. The Minister told me that in a written answer last night and confirmed it in this morning’s Committee sitting, and the CDC itself has also confirmed it to me. That seems a very odd situation. I can understand a generic conversation—“Well, if x were y and y were z, we might be able to take a bit more money or do this or that”. But not even to have a request, never mind a clear rationale or expectation of what could be done with £6 billion of taxpayer funding—let alone £12 billion—is extremely concerning. Is the tail wagging the dog? Is this Ministers putting pressure on an organisation to accept significant increases in money, perhaps for some other purpose which I will come on to, rather than it being based on a real set of demands and a real set of expectations of what could be delivered? I am concerned when I hear that from the Minister or from the CDC, and I am concerned when it is confirmed in writing. It is in contrast to the situation in which it made a request for recapitalisation in the last year. It was perfectly reasonable for there to have been a request—I do not know about the value—but the CDC put forward a business plan which was discussed over a period and the Department agreed the £735 million.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)
indicated dissent.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is shaking his head but the CDC did request £735 million; it told me so. Perhaps the Minister wants to intervene? The Minister’s own written answer to me last night, when I had asked him specifically what recapitalisations had been requested by the CDC in each of the past six years, told me that it had requested £735 million. So I am confused as to why he is shaking his head; perhaps he would like to intervene?
Rory Stewart
Thank you. It is a great pleasure, Ms Ryan, to serve under your chairmanship. I will try not to intervene too much, since this is not really my responsibility, but as a point of information, I think there are two separate issues here. The first is the question of the CDC calling on a promissory note, which is what would happen in the future. In terms of the £735 million request the hon. Gentleman is talking about, when the Government have funds available and have legislative authority to allow money to go into the CDC, the CDC will then make a request. That would be true in the future too, so if the Bill gets through Parliament and the money is available, so the option is available, and the promissory note and the business case from DFID are in place, at that point the request would come from the CDC. One would not anticipate the request coming from the CDC at this stage. That has not happened in the past and it would not happen in the future.
Stephen Doughty
I find that a very odd suggestion when we are talking about such large sums. One would expect there to be the architecture of a request, or the basic bare bones of a request, even if the specific details were not there. We are not talking here about £100 million or £200 million, large sums as those are, we are talking about £6 billion and £12 billion. These are huge sums as a proportion of the overall aid budget and in terms of our commitments to other multilateral development finance institutions. Now the Minister suggests that we just accept these back-of-a-fag-packet calculations— £6 billion, £12 billion—without any kind of rationale for what they are. He said earlier that the department had come up with those figures, that he had come up with those figures, and they had been presented to the CDC, rather than the other way around. One would expect the CDC, as the expert in the markets and sectors it is investing in, to be suggesting to Ministers, perhaps, where potential investments could be made, where returns could be achieved and where poverty eradication could be delivered.
Rory Stewart
I am contradicting myself by intervening again. There is an important distinction here. This is a piece of enabling legislation. The CDC is in a very unusual position. Unlike our normal relationship, where we can, for an NGO such as Oxfam, give money without coming to Parliament, or for a multilateral organisation such as the World Bank, go through secondary legislation, a statutory instrument, this is unusual. This is one of the only organisations we deal with where Parliament had imposed a cap. So what we are asking for is enabling legislation which would allow DFID, if it had a request from the CDC, to give it the money. This is not our giving it the money, it is creating an option and a ceiling against which, in the future, the CDC would be able to present a business case.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister suggests we should not be sceptical of the Government and their intents. It is the role of this House to be sceptical of the Government and their intents. To suggest that Ministers are going to take powers but might not use them is a slightly curious argument: I have not seen many cases of that in the past. The timing of this is very odd, given some of the other circumstances, which I will come on to.
Stephen Doughty
I will give way in a moment, but I just want to make one point. We have seen a very important change in the definition of the ODA, which occurred only last year. Previously, as I said on Second Reading, it was the issue of the CDC net disbursements that contributed to our ODA figures. Normally we looked at the money that the CDC was investing, returns from that investment, the function of the two and ended up, usually, with a positive number. Over the past five years it had been a £100 million or £200 million positive contribution to our aid effort. In fact, last year it would actually have been a negative contribution of minus £9 million. However, the Government changed the rules. They decided to count the capital inflow into the CDC—all of it, in its entirety—as ODA, as aid, rather than the function of what is actually, potentially, being achieved.
Jeremy Lefroy
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about the capacity of DFID and, indeed, the capacity of the two continents—Africa and part of the continent of Asia, south Asia—to absorb this kind of money, but does he not agree that one major challenge facing the world at the moment is the need to create in the next 15 years 1 billion jobs, most of which will be in those countries, and that the amount of money that we are talking about is tiny in comparison with the amount that would be required to create those jobs and thereby to alleviate poverty?
Stephen Doughty
I agree that the challenge of creating jobs is huge and one in which we and others should be playing a role, but it is not solely our role. Again, I hope that one question that we will get on to discussing is whether we should be providing what is in effect private capital in some of these locations or whether the capital should be coming from other sources: other Governments, institutions or DFIs. Indeed, should that be the responsibility of the Governments themselves? We will undoubtedly come on to that in discussion of some of the new clauses, but one of my fundamental questions is about the focus of this money: where is it going currently, and is it doing all that it could do? Professor Collier himself said this morning, in relation to the current bias of funding towards south Asia and India in particular, that he thought that there should be more focus on Africa. I agree.
Jeremy Lefroy
I agree, too, on that point. Will the hon. Gentleman also accept this point about the other DFIs? The Dutch DFI has invested far more money than we have, and the Netherlands has a population one quarter the size of the UK’s. The French Proparco is in a similar position to the UK, but the Germans have invested three times as much. We are laggards in this respect.
Stephen Doughty
We are not here to discuss the Dutch DFI, but I do know a reasonable amount about it. It provides only marginally more than us. It does do interesting work; it does not do exactly the same work as us. I do not know its history of recapitalisations and how much additional ODA money it has received recently. It would be interesting to look at that. However, the question here is this. What is the best use of our money? Are we not investing or have we reduced investment in other sectors where we could be using our aid in order to do this, and is that the right choice? That is the question before us, and when we look at, for example, DFID’s closures of bilateral programmes in places such as Burundi, we do not have clarity from the bilateral aid review on whether there will be further closures or changes.
We have heard worrying things about cuts in bilateral funding for HIV/AIDS programmes, despite the good money that is going into the global fund. We have seen a shift away from certain sectors and from budget support. We have seen a shift away from investing in free healthcare and education, and in teacher salaries, and with removing user fees for healthcare, for example. When the CDC invests in private healthcare and private school systems, we might have a debate about the role that voluntary and private play in healthcare and schools, but again it is an opportunity cost—it is a choice about where we invest these things.
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s wider point about the importance of jobs, investing and crowding in capital into some of these sectors, but we have to question what we should be doing with our money and whether that is right versus other potential sources. I contend that the Government simply have not come forward with a case that justifies this level of cap. Some increase in the CDC’s budget might be justified, but certainly not at this level.
Stephen Doughty
I will give way in a moment, once I have made another point.
All that needs to be seen in line with some of the other issues. I mentioned the diversion of aid and the shifting of aid between priorities, but by 2019 26% of ODA will be spent by Departments other than DFID. That is a significant shift from where it was. As the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East knows, I am not opposed to cross-Government working or other Departments spending ODA, but that level of it is concerning. With the CDC on top of that, as well as the prosperity fund, which we discover was given £1.3 billion of ODA in September this year—much of it spent through other Departments and yet ending up in India, China, Malaysia, Mexico and other locations—the picture of where our aid spending is shifting to gets worrying. Is it shifting away from the poorest countries and the poorest people, and from the core services that I believe we should be supporting?
Rory Stewart
Given that the hon. Gentleman seems to have such fundamental concerns about the CDC—its accounting practices, the role of Government, its strategy, its spending—will he clarify why he is proposing to give it £3 billion in his amendment?
Stephen Doughty
As the Minister knows, in this House we have a thing called probing amendments and, like the Minister, I have drawn up a suggested figure—
Stephen Doughty
Indeed. We can put any figure down and, without the rationale, we can have a debate—the Minister might criticise me for a £3 billion figure, I can criticise the Minister for a £6 billion figure. The fact, however, is that the Minister has not provided a clear rationale or business case for £6 billion—nor has he for £12 billion—and there are some interesting suggestions from the SNP Members about proportions. Those are all issues that we ought to discuss. I made it clear earlier, I am not opposed to the CDC getting more money, but I am concerned about the period over which it gets it, the total amount and the caveats that we might then place on the CDC to receive it.
Stephen Doughty
I will happily give way, although the Minister said that he would not intervene all the time.
Rory Stewart
I am just trying to understand. The hon. Gentleman is seriously proposing an amendment to this House which we will vote on to give £3 billion to the CDC. Will he justify why he wishes to give it £3 billion? This is a real amendment, to a real piece of legislation before this Committee.
Stephen Doughty
It is not Question Time for me; it is Question Time for the Minister—[Interruption.] It is Question Time for the Minister proposing the legislation. He must explain the rationale—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. May we keep this within the rules? If people want to make an intervention and the Member gives way, that is fine; shouting across the Floor is not fine. Everyone will get an opportunity to speak.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East is looking anxious to intervene. He has, for example, posted an amendment suggesting reducing the CDC funding to £1—I will happily give way to him to explain that.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
It is actually £1 million, but my amendment is probing, as the hon. Gentleman’s is. What the hon. Gentleman is getting wrong—I do not think wilfully—is that the Minister does not need to present a business case and, indeed, he should not present a business case now. This is a figure that might be reached on the basis of drawdown and a request of the CDC with a business case which he will then analyse.
Stephen Doughty
But the CDC has not made such a request and, as the NAO said this morning, it is the cart before horse. That is the problem. I do not expect the Minister to provide a detailed analysis of every single project that we will invest in over the next 10 years, but a paragraph in the explanatory notes and some vague assurances about market demand are simply not good enough. We are talking about spending, potentially, billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Would we suggest the same amount went to a non-governmental organisation such as Oxfam or indeed the World Bank?
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the central issue is not an increase in funding but the sheer level of funding? This is an organisation that in its whole life has had funding of £1.5 billion. On the Opposition Benches we want to probe why there is such a significant increase, which is a reasonable view to take.
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely, and that gets to the nub of the issue. The Minister has been a veteran of many debates in this House and in Committee, so he knows full well the format in which debate takes place on amendments. Amendments are tabled to discuss the fundamental issues and the matters around them. Therefore, given the faux outrage at me for suggesting £3 billion versus £6 billion, he needs to explain—he has not done yet—his rationale for £6 billion and £12 billion, which I have yet to hear.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am curious, partly because the hon. Gentleman’s amendment proposes an absolute sum of money, but more because everything he has said so far suggests that he is almost as close to the lady from War on Want in disapproving strongly about the activities of the CDC and the ability of Government to allow it to access more capital if it makes the right case for doing so. Therefore, I suggest the emphasis is slightly on him to try to demonstrate to members of the Committee why he has decided that £3 billion is the appropriate figure. I imagine that he was influenced this morning by hearing Sir Paul say that we need to get on with investing more in business in order to provide the jobs that Africa in particular so badly needs. I leave it to him to point out that that is what he thinks.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to what I said either on Second Reading or in Committee this morning. He knows full well that I do not support the views of War on Want on the role of business and private capital in supporting developments, jobs and job creation. I made it clear that I did not support that part of its views. What I did support was the suggestion that the CDC is being given a different set of rules to play by from other development finance institutions and indeed other routes on which we can put our valuable aid money, for which we should demand the highest levels of scrutiny, transparency and effectiveness, and coherence with the rest of our programme.
I do not want to stray too far from the terms of the amendment, but in the new clauses we will discuss some of those issues of coherence. Without additional safeguards and caveats on where that money is spent, the transparency arrangements, the business case that should be presented and so on, whatever number we put in, whether it is £1 million less that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East suggests, the £3 billion less that I suggest or indeed any other figure, or a proportion as suggested by SNP Members, we could see multiple distortive effects. For example, the value of investments currently going into middle-income countries is still significantly higher than into lower-income countries. The value of investments going into Africa has gone down and the value of investments going into south Asia—mostly to India, a country to which we were supposed to end giving aid—has in fact gone up. The reality is, if we boost the CDC’s budget further without any change in that overall strategy, we will see a multiplication of that effect.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
On a point of clarity, when the hon. Gentleman talks about the value of investments, does he mean the valuation of investments made historically, and therefore revalued on the balance sheet, or is he talking about new disbursements?
Stephen Doughty
I am talking about the issue before us today, which is about new investment and new disbursements. The figures I am referring to about those shifts relate to new disbursements by CDC—new investments made in recent years. We can have a lengthy debate about what went on in CDC before 2012 and the legacy investments that are still part of the portfolio—
Stephen Doughty
We are not going to do that here. We are talking about the future. We are talking about where this money would go. I am concerned that in recent years, despite the progress, there has not been a big enough shift into the types of markets, sectors and places that would fit more coherently with DFID’s objectives. The CDC is operating in 65 countries and DFID in only 35. I accept that there might be some difference in that and some difference of focus, but that is a huge difference and yet potentially we will decide to give billions more.
I will draw my remarks to a close, but I simply do not see that the case has been set out or the rationale has been given. I do not think there is enough clarity on the absorptive capacity. I do not think there is enough justification of the opportunity costs of not investing by other routes. The crucial fact is that the CDC did not request this money. Did it even request the legislation, I wonder? Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide us with documents to that effect, asking for the legislation to be made available. The CDC has just been given £735 million extra. It seems slightly odd that it then requests a Bill for £6 billion or £12 billion more.
I am very interested to hear what the SNP has to say about its proposals to other Members.
James Duddridge
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I have only two groups of points. The first is on process. I am a great fan of the “Daily Politics” show and was very disappointed when the hon. Member for Cardiff and Penarth resigned from the Front Bench. This is the first time I have sat on a Bill Committee where a Back Bencher has led the amendments in this way. The Labour Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Edmonton and for Bradford East, have added their names to the amendments, but have not tabled any in their own names. I will not do so in this debate, but I am thinking about leading a debate on the good use of Short money, because the Labour Front Bench is paid to do the job that is being done by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth on its behalf.
The Chair
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman stick to the issues in front of us? A discussion of Short money is not relevant here.
Stephen Doughty
I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will confirm that they are in full support. In fact, we have discussed the amendments at great length. It is simply a procedural point. I was not aware until I was informed by the Clerk earlier about the ordering of names, despite having been on many Bill Committees. I was informed by the Chair at the start that I would be called first because my name came first in the list. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the amendments have been fully discussed with the Front Benchers and have their full support. No doubt the Front Benchers will speak to the amendments in due course.
James Duddridge
Fantastic. My Front Bench also seems to be aware of that situation. I look forward to listening to the SNP’s contribution on amendments 3 and 4 and to seeing how its Front Bench is taking things forward.
Amendments 1 and 2, which I tabled, are probing amendments. I had taken myself off to table amendments that increased, not decreased, the amount and was told that while it would be permissible to table them, it would not be permissible for them to be selected, because of the money resolution. I therefore want to enter into a debate about whether it is the right amount. I have tabled an amendment that would make it lower, rather than higher, although I believe that there is capacity to invest more money in CDC, and faster. I do not share the scepticism of others around the table. I hope to see the £6 billion target reached earlier, rather than later.
This morning’s evidence session was incredibly useful and covered a lot of the points and queries that I would have wanted the Minister to address in his remarks. With that in mind, I will not detain the Committee any further.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I will speak to amendments 3 and 4, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill.
I agree with pretty much everything the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth had to say. The Minister has been asked repeatedly how the figures of £6 billion and £12 billion were arrived at. It increasingly sounds as if they were arbitrary figures based on a best-guess discussion with the CDC about what it might manage to spend over a particular period in the coming years.
Amendments 3 and 4 try to relate the amount of investment in the CDC more clearly to the overall amount of official development assistance the Government are likely to have at their disposal over a spending review period of the lifetime of a Parliament. Of course, the amount of ODA can go up or down in any given year, because it is, by definition, a proportionate target: it is a percentage of gross national income. Indeed, in the autumn statement a couple of weeks ago, the ODA forecasts were revised down because the economy as a whole is contracting, not least because of the Brexit result.
Using those forecasts, the Library estimates that amendment 4 would mean that £3.77 billion of additional investment could be made on top of the £1.5 billion already invested, making a total investment of £5.02 billion. The effect of amendment 5, which I appreciate we are not discussing immediately, would be to bring the upper cap to £9.77 billion. As the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East just said, the money resolution means that those numbers cannot go above £6 billion or £12 billion in any event. It is worth noting that introducing such a formula would mean that in the event of a significant decline in GNI—some sort of catastrophic economic collapse, which I am sure will not happen under this Government—the cap on investment could reduce, meaning that the Government would have to divest.
James Duddridge
The first time the hon. Gentleman mentioned a contraction in the economy I let it go, but I thought the economy was growing at about 2.2%. It is the fastest growing economy in either the G7 or the G8—forgive me for not knowing which. Does he have the wrong numbers, or is he drawing a distinction between GNI and GDP and being selective?
Patrick Grady
As I said, the autumn statement demonstrated that GNI will go down and therefore the ODA forecasts are being revised down as well. The point I am trying to make is that if we are going to find a way of varying the cap on investment in the CDC, finding a way to make it proportionate to overall aid spending would seem to be the more sensible way of doing that.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
In amendments 4 and 5, my hon. Friend and I have suggested a percentage adjustment mechanism. In this case, the figure of 5% is proffered. Does he agree that such a mechanism is altogether more equitable and appropriate? Will he elaborate on that for the Committee’s further consideration?
Patrick Grady
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The point of equity and proportionality is what I am trying to test. As I have said, under my formula, the figures would come out not that much lower than the caps proposed in the Bill. Let us accept, in good faith, that we will hear some rationale for those caps. My formula would take us not a million miles away from those numbers. The point is that under my formula, the caps would vary over time, depending on what the total ODA spend was likely to be.
Even if the Minister objects to the particular formula, I will be keen to hear why some kind of proportionate formula is not preferable to the hard numbers in the Bill. We have heard about other amendments that probe those numbers. A formula that linked the caps to the total ODA spend over a period of time surely would help to clarify the link with the overall amount of ODA and the balance of the Government’s development priorities, which we will discuss when we debate the new clauses.
Jeremy Lefroy
I will make four brief points. First, there are several reasons for bringing forward the Bill, but one of the major reasons is that reducing the expected rate of return of the CDC’s investments, which I absolutely agree with, creates a need for more capital.
Under the last Labour Government, the CDC grew substantially, was well managed, invested in funds and made a lot of money out of significant investments, such as that in Celtel. All of that was good and I welcomed it, but it perhaps was not in accordance with the CDC’s original mission, although I would argue that it helped to reduce poverty. Capital was generated internally to quite a considerable extent. The required rate of return was relatively high, those returns came in and that money was reinvested.
Now that CDC is quite rightly supposed to focus on harder investments with lower rates of return and higher risk, there inevitably will not be as much free cash flow or free capital available for investment, so the shareholder —the UK Government, DFID and the taxpayer—needs to be prepared to put in more capital if we are to meet those objectives.
The second point is about middle-income countries. I fully accept the Minister’s point about the importance of targeting lower-income countries wherever possible, but let us not forget that the range for middle-income countries is, frankly, ridiculous. It goes from just over £1,000 to £13,000 per year. At the lower end are countries that are basically low-income countries and at the higher end are relatively wealthy countries. If we categorise all middle-income countries as somehow moderately wealthy, that is simply not the case. There was a point—not now, sadly, because of what is happening there—when South Sudan was briefly a middle-income country; look at where it is now. We have to be very careful when we talk about middle-income countries as though they are a homogenous group; they are not.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point and I have no doubt we will discuss this further. Is he not concerned, though, when he looks at the amount that is going into India, for example, and at individual states within India, where the majority of even the CDC’s new disbursements are still going to the richest states rather than the poorest? The top disbursement was to Maharashtra, where Mumbai is.
Jeremy Lefroy
Absolutely, we should look at that. However, there are more of the poorest people in India than in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. If you take the view that a company in India in which you invest is likely to have national ambitions and wants to work across India, you would hope that it would therefore target the poorest as well as those who are perhaps better off. I agree, though, that the CDC needs to look at this and ensure that it does not stray back into the realms of investing only in fairly soft, nice, high rate of return investments.
My third point is about employment. I have already mentioned the figure of 1 billion jobs. The World Bank says that 600 million jobs are required across the world in the next decade; others have put it as high as 1 billion. There will be more of those 1 billion jobs in the middle-income countries than in the low-income countries, so we need to invest across the two if we are to tackle this enormous threat.
I was in Tunisia last week at the launch of the Parliamentary Network’s middle east and north Africa chapter—I chair the global network. The problems that a country such as Tunisia faces, with a population of 10 million and unemployment among graduates of 60%, are enormous. We know the social consequences of that. Tunisia has a very high rate of young people who have gone to Syria and Iraq to fight for Daesh. That is one consequence of the very high rates of unemployment and the lack of hope in those countries.
Finally, this is about investment. We talk about money being spent, but it is actually investment. Once it goes in, provided it is well-managed, it is recycled. As I have said, the money that made about £500 million of profit from Celtel under the last Labour Government was recycled into investment and is still there. Some of it may have been invested twice since then. This is not a one-off hit where we make a grant to an organisation and it does excellent work, but is then gone. It is money that goes round and round, that is recycled and that creates jobs.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point and I agree that it is investment and it is recycled—the CDC has shown that. However, does he not agree that that applies to our whole aid budget? If we invest in the education of a girl through a bilateral programme, with the opportunities that provides in her life and the opportunity it gives her to contribute to the economy, that is, similarly, an investment.
James Duddridge
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth is wrong. It is not an investment in the same way, in that it is not so easily controlled. An investment in a girl’s education is, indeed, an investment, but we are discussing an investment that has an actual return, which we can reinvest and have some degree of control over, as the aid budget is targeted in different ways. It is a different type of investment. As I said on Second Reading, it is a gift that keeps giving.
Jeremy Lefroy
I will conclude by saying that I feel a little like I am in the middle of a great argument, but I probably agree in some way with both Members.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. This is the first time for me, but I am sure there will be many more.
I want to speak about investment. That word has been used many times and in the absence of an investment strategy from the CDC, we feel very sceptical about why we should use taxpayers’ money in this way. It is only fair to ask the Minister to present that to us, so that we can have a debate in which we feel we have all the information. That is my brief contribution on this group of amendments.
Imran Hussain
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship today, Ms Ryan.
I will sum up the points that we are making. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has gone into some detail, as always, on where we stand. I want to place the Labour Front Bench firmly in line with his views, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East.
The issue here is the Government’s intention. We are not in any way, shape or form anti-DFI or against the spirit of the corporation. It was brought in by a Labour Government many years ago and we accept, on the record, that the CDC has been improved since 2011, as I said on Second Reading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth set out, we want to be satisfied on the rationale behind the level of increase; the lack of strategies and investment policies—the phrase “cart before horse” has been mentioned on many occasions and I will not go into it further—the CDC’s capacity; and the fact that it has not requested this money. Those are all pertinent points. Finally, regarding the concern about where and how this money is currently being spent, I agree with Members on both sides of the Committee on the logical point of view that has been put forward. Nevertheless, that concern remains.
The Minister’s earlier intervention was most helpful, when he set out his reason for why the business case, the strategy and the investment policy were not forthcoming. He gave the guarantee, which I want to press him on, that no money would go to the CDC unless it was requested by the CDC. Even so, it has to be done in the light of a proper business case, a strategy and an investment policy. Secondly, I press him to give some indication as to when those important strategies and policies will come forward. They are central to these proposals and I hope he genuinely gives us dates and assurances in that regard.
Rory Stewart
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan.
I will begin by saying that I have a lot of sympathy with the points that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth is making; they are all incredibly important. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of CDC and has identified a number of issues in relation to CDC that we take very seriously. They range across its accounting principles, its reporting framework, the scope of the countries in which it operates, its overall effectiveness, its absorptive capacity, the strategy and business case systems, theories of change and types of investment. I think these are all good concerns and there is nothing mentioned by the hon. Gentleman that I would disagree with in principle. These are the kinds of questions we would expect DFID and Parliament to ask, as well as CDC to ask of itself before it makes an investment.
The real question is what is appropriate to put in the Bill, what is appropriate to be done through Parliament, what is appropriate to be done through the Department and what is appropriate to be done through CDC. That is where I hope I can provide a bit of assurance to right hon. and hon. Members of all parties.
I think we can take it as read that there is an overall agreement that we should give some more money to CDC. There is some disagreement about how much more money—the different amendments suggest different views on how much money and how that money is calculated—but the basic principle is that CDC is a good thing, that economic development is a good thing, that DFIs are a good thing and that, particularly at this moment, as Sir Paul Collier pointed out strongly in this morning’s evidence session, we should be investing more in economic development and jobs in Africa. That is something we all agree. The question is how we do it and how we ensure that it is done in the right way.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North proposed a quite detailed amendment, but there is a small technical issue. He suggested that we aim at a 5% ODA amount, but there are two issues with that. We considered looking at that in the Bill, but the reasons we rejected it were twofold. There is an issue with confusing a stock with a flow. In other words, the measure is designed to create the capital that is invested and reinvested over time— that initial investment made by the Attlee Government continues to be recycled nearly 70 years later—whereas the ODA allocation is an annual allocation and an annual spend.
There is an issue around trying to compare a stock and a flow, and we can go on to that. In fact, rather good graphs have been produced, comparing stock and flow investments of Germany, France and the Netherlands, showing that, in proportional terms, Germany is spending nearly three times as much and France is spending nearly twice as much as we are. The reason I have not deployed those kinds of arguments is that I just do not think that that stock and flow comparison is good.
However, there is a more technical reason why we would reject the exact amendment. The way in which the amendment is written—at least on the basis of the analysis by our in-house lawyers—is that it would refer to the entire cap for the entire sum available to CDC. In other words, that 5% would not be 5% of future money. The way in which the amendment is drafted means that it would incorporate the £1.5 billion of its existing money. That would therefore limit us to only a further £1.5 billion over a five-year period. That would not be 5% of ODA. It would be about 2.5% of ODA, which we think would be considerably lower. The £3 billion number, which is what right hon. and hon. Members have been getting at, is a more plausible figure as an additional amount to the £1.5 billion. We can talk about that over time.
Very quickly, I will deal with the question of additional responsibilities, which is at the core of the questions asked by the shadow Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edmonton—and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East. The basic questions are: are we are putting the cart before the horse, why are we using taxpayers’ money for this kind of investment, when will we present our strategy, what are our real intentions, and what kind of guarantees are taking place? The answer is that, in effect, we have a whole series of procedures. What we are asking Parliament to do is only the first stage of a whole series of checks and balances.
We are asking this Committee, and we are asking Parliament, to agree to the principle of lifting the existing cap on CDC—in other words, putting CDC more into the type of arrangement that we would have with any of our other donors. It is very unusual that CDC has a capped amount. That is not true for the amount of money we give to an NGO or to the World Bank. In fact, we are actually giving more to the World Bank than we would envisage giving to CDC. We are asking Parliament to lift the cap.
The next bit—the question of how the business strategy, the business case and individual investment decisions are written—would then be taken forward by the Department, in line with the UK aid strategy, and debated in Parliament. Directly to answer the question of the hon. Member for Bradford East, who wanted dates, in December 2016 we will complete our business strategy, which will lay out the strategy for the next five years for CDC. It is the strategy that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth was referring to as our last strategy. We will have a new strategy of that sort. That strategy will do a number of things that will address concerns raised in many of the amendments as the Bill passes through the House. It will, for example, tighten our impact assessments, put more focus on gender and set a cap on India. The next thing that will happen is that in summer 2017—this is quite a slow process—we will bring together a business case to draw down a promissory note of money; in other words, to say, “This is the amount of money we believe is the kind of money that CDC may need to call up.”
Stephen Doughty
It is very helpful of the Minister to set out this process. Did I hear him correctly a moment ago when he said there would be a cap on India?
Rory Stewart
Indeed. I am happy to repeat that for the record. The intention is that, in our forthcoming business strategy, there will be a cap on the amount that CDC can spend on India.
As we move forward to the summer, we will produce the business case. The business case will define the amount of money, whatever that is. It could be, for example, £3 billion, which is roughly in line with some of the amendments that have come forward, but we would have the option to go up to £4.5 billion. I do not honestly believe that that business case will be going up to £4.5 billion, but we would have the option to do that.
The next stage is that CDCs needs to make very detailed investment decisions, which take a long time. A lot of these investment decisions take two to three years. Let us say that CDC was going into solar power in Burundi. It would have to get in on the ground. It would have to ensure that it had a viable business and then it would have to go through our development grid, which is the next stage of the process. That means ensuring that it had checked GDP per capita, it had checked the amount of capital available, it had checked the business environment and it had checked that this is a sector that creates jobs. That is just the first stage.
The next stage CDC needs to go through is to present a development impact theory. That individual investment needs to have a theory: exactly what contribution is this going to make to jobs, economic development and poverty alleviation? Within our strategy, at the end of this year, DFID will ask CDC to publish that development impact theory, so that the theory can be seen case by case with every investment and it will be possible to challenge that theory.
At that stage, CDC would then come back and call down on the promissory note to call down that money. Then other forms of monitoring come on. We are a 100% shareholder of CDC, which is why some of the analogies with giving money to NGOs or World Bank institutions are slightly different. This is us giving money to a wholly owned DFID institution. Every quarter, we as DFID shareholders meet the board and assess its performance. We have an annual review process. On top of that we have all the other processes: NAO, Public Accounts Committee and the International Development Committee. Independent Commission for Aid Impact reports would also be able to get into the business of CDC. It is that and, finally, it is our basic confidence in our institution that allows us to even begin the process. We would not come to the Committee asking for permission to make more money available unless we were confident that we had a good management team in place with a strong history and a strong track record of development; otherwise, we would be wasting hon. Members’ time.
We believe that this is a good institution that will be in a position for us to produce the business case, and that it will be in a position to find investments. I absolutely guarantee—
Imran Hussain
Is the Minister giving an absolute assurance that no further investment will go to CDC before the full, thorough business case and investment policy comes before the House again?
Rory Stewart
I am giving an absolute assurance to the hon. Gentleman that no money will be given to CDC until a full strategy is developed and published, which can be debated in the House—that is a strategy coming in December—and no money will go to CDC until a full business case is written in huge detail, which will be prepared in the summer of 2017. Following on from that, there will be the individual investment decisions. I am happy to give that assurance. On that, I would ask the hon. Gentleman kindly to withdraw the amendment.
Stephen Doughty
This has been a helpful debate and we have covered some useful issues. I am still not convinced but I appreciate the steps the Minister has taken to explain some of the process and his assurances that issues that I and others have raised are being taken seriously. I welcome that; the Minister said nothing in principle that I would disagree with. I will record that and remember that as the Bill passes through its remaining stages.
I am intrigued by the Minister’s admission that there would be a cap on India. I would certainly like to know more about that. Is he able to give us a specific value or percentage? Given some of the wider points I have made, and no doubt will make with regard to other amendments, it would help if he would explain whether the Department has thinking on that on other countries. On the subject of middle-income countries versus lower-income countries, there are some odd situations where CDC seems to be putting money into places like Egypt. That country is not without its problems and not without poverty, but is not exactly a focus country for DFID. I would say there is a huge divergence between where DFID is operating bilaterally and where CDC is.
It would help if the Minister explained where CDC sits in relation to the transparency that is expected of other development finance institutions. It is all very well to go through the scrutiny and the checks and balances, because it is clear what those are, but it appears to me —I am not satisfied on this point—that CDC is being held to a different standard. We might not be a 100% shareholder in the World Bank, but we hold significant shareholdings as a major donor, and we take those very seriously. We use our influence there as a voting board member to take decisions, whether on individual loans or overall strategies.
The Chair
Before I call the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, it may be helpful for the Committee to be aware that, if amendment 7 is agreed to, not only will all of the other amendments in the group fall, but all of the new clauses cannot be debated because they all refer to a provision that amendment 7 would remove. Nevertheless, I have decided that it would be helpful for there to be separate debates afterwards on some of the new clauses—but I do not wish to hear repeated arguments about the principle of the delegated power.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to set a limit on government assistance above £6 billion up to £12 billion by means of secondary legislation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “£12,000” and insert “£11,999”.
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “£12,000 million” and insert
“the amount specified in subsection (4A).
(4A) The amount specified in this subsection is whichever is the lesser of the following amounts—
(i) £12,000 million,
(ii) the current limit at the time plus the amount determined in accordance with subsection (4B).
(4B) The Secretary of State shall determine the amount for the purposes of this subsection by estimating the amount which will constitute 5% of official development assistance in the relevant period determined in accordance with subsection (4C).
(4C) That period begins with the financial year in which the Secretary of State considers that the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation (determined in accordance with subsection (2)) will exceed the current limit at the time and ends at the end of the fourth subsequent financial year.
(4D) For the purposes of this section—
‘the current limit at the time’ means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under subsection (4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under subsection (4) then in force;
‘official development assistance’ has the same meaning as in the most recent annual report laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.”.
This amendment would set a new limit on the power to make regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15, expressed as either £12 billion or the current limit at the time plus 5% of official development assistance over a five year period, whichever is the lesser amount.
Clause stand part.
Stephen Doughty
I am conscious of your admonishment not to repeat the arguments I made when I moved amendment 6, Chair. I will discuss a few other issues, specifically around the use of a statutory instrument in this way, the value of it and the way in which other replenishments and funding rounds are agreed for development finance institutions.
Many of the arguments that we have already discussed also apply to amendment 7, although I will come to one that we did not cover, but the fundamental issue is whether the Government should be given this level of power. There is a debate to be had about how much we give CDC, over what time period and with what caveats, but giving the Secretary of State the power to come back at the time of their choosing, which could be next week or in 10 years’ time, and not just increase the amount by another couple of billion but double it, is very significant. I am always extremely reluctant to grant Ministers such powers, whether they are financial powers or Executive powers.
We all know that despite the procedures of this House and the fact that many Members take an active interest in Delegated Legislation Committees and statutory instruments, secondary legislation often does not receive the same scrutiny as primary legislation. It often goes through on the nod or is scheduled on funny days when Members are not available. Obviously it is the responsibility of all Members to turn up and hold the Government to scrutiny, but given the debate we have had on the matter in this Committee and in the legislative process, it seems odd not to ask the Government to come back later with another Bill.
Let us not forget that a Bill was not required from 1999 to today, when only £1.5 billion was used. Even if there was an expansion, not to require another Bill for quite a significant period and just to put through another uptick, perhaps by a mischievous future Secretary of State or the current one, seems very odd.
I must come back to the Minister’s point about other development finance institutions and the processes they are subject to. Most development finance institutions, including the global health fund, the World Bank’s International Development Association, individual development banks and UN agencies, tend to go through replenishment rounds. They agree a set period, put out strategies and requests to donors for funding and come back on a three or four-year cycle. Those requests have to be justified so that we can scrutinise them and say whether we agree. Indeed, that is the very purpose of the multilateral aid review: to look into whether we are giving money in all the right areas and where we think some development finance institutions are underperforming.
I am concerned that, although CDC may be doing better in line with its 2012 plan, making improvements and shifting its focuses, as we have heard from the Minister, without any ability to come back and have a full, thorough debate about the nature of the organisation, the caveats that are placed on it and the overall cap of funding that it should receive, we are giving Ministers a completely open-ended power to increase that funding very significantly. Let us not forget that £12 billion is equivalent, roughly, to the annual aid budget—I know the Minister has made it clear that it will not be used in one year, but it is a very significant sum of money. We ought to be acting with real caution when giving Ministers such powers.
It would help if the Minister could be clear about the time periods he is looking at. If he is talking about 20 years, let us hear him say that. I would still be nervous even so, because a future Secretary of State or Minister might change their mind, but it would help to smooth the debate if we heard that statement from the Minister.
The other issue that the Committee did not discuss in our consideration of the previous amendment was the focus on sectors. I mentioned the problem of multiplying potential shifts into certain countries or regions, away from stated objectives; that argument applies equally to sectors. If we increased the limit to £12 billion, it would be magnified even further. I was concerned to receive an answer from the Minister today about certain sectors in which he stated that the CDC continues to disburse into some really questionable areas. One is private, fee-paying education—the CDC’s portfolio value in 2015 was £56.9 million. Another is private healthcare providers and services, in which the CDC had a total portfolio value in 2015 of £117.9 million. Its portfolio value in extractive industries—metals and mining—was £9.3 million; the portfolio value in palm oil, which we have discussed in relation to the Feronia case and other matters, was £20.4 million; the value of the investment in real estate is £147.7 million; and in fossil fuels, the current value of CDC’s portfolio is £250 million. That seems to me to be at complete odds with DFID’s wider development objectives for Government coherence.
To come back to the nature of the amendment—I can see Ms Ryan looking anxiously at me—those sorts of issue will be magnified even further by rapid increases in the budget without caveats being placed on it. Ms Ryan, you have rightly said that were we to vote on the amendment, and were it to pass, we would not get a chance to discuss some of those other matters, but the power being given here without assurances is simply not acceptable and I have great concerns about giving that power to Ministers.
James Duddridge
I shall raise only two points. I made all the comments I could possibly make on amendment 2 in the previous debate, so I will not detain the Committee further. I am sure it is terribly bad form, but I hope, Ms Ryan, that you will not mind, if we are still sitting when the business in the Chamber gets to the Adjournment debate, which is on rail services in my constituency, Southend, that I rush off before any possible vote.
Patrick Grady
I share many of the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. Amendment 5, tabled in my name, would apply the same formula to the upper cap as my previous amendment, and I have obviously heard the Committee’s view on that. I heard the Minister’s view as well and I appreciate the fact that he has given it some consideration. Even if that particular formula would not meet the standards that DFID would like it to meet, it would be interesting to see whether there was a way of coming up with a proportionate formula. That would answer a number of points that have been made today.
We have heard from a number of witnesses and in other evidence to the Bill, as well as from other hon. Members on Second Reading and since, that the £12 billion figure is particularly high, especially as it might theoretically be some years down the line before that maximum is reached or a need for it is felt. In that case, the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth about the use of a statutory instrument are correct; it would perhaps be better if the Government were to come back with primary legislation in due course. We may come on to some of these issues in the debates on the new clauses, but the hon. Gentleman made a point earlier about the number of other arm’s length bodies that have the potential to receive an 800% increase in their funding from the Government with so little scrutiny. We should bear that in mind.
Richard Fuller
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I speak against amendment 7 —that will be no surprise—and in favour of clause 1(3). I would like to use the opportunity to probe the Minister a little, without straying too much into strategies, about the general thinking on direct versus indirect investing and how that relates to the figures, particularly the figure of £12 billion.
It is my view that the CDC has had unparalleled success in identifying and stimulating people in a variety of countries to set up first-time funds that then contribute to economic development in countries around the world. That role is, in itself, a tremendous aspect of British development policy—finding people in new countries who can then assist in the economic development of their countries.
We heard on Second Reading from the former Secretary of State about why getting the CDC to focus a bit more on direct investing had an advantage, in that people would then recognise that the CDC was there—it was good branding for us, developed a deeper understanding of countries and we were less stand-offish—but there is a value in indirect investing. As the Minister will know, the UK budget is only part of the money in that role. There is a multiplier effect from the CDC providing its money into first-time funds, because those funds then attract third-party funds as well. Does the Minister feel there is the right balance between direct and indirect investing? Can he reassure me that the CDC will continue to focus on the identification and creation of first-time funds in developing countries and that he shares the view of its role in the development agenda for the United Kingdom?
Jeremy Lefroy
I accept that the potential increase from £6 billion to £12 billion is very substantial. I note that subsection (3) talks about regulations. Does the Minister envisage gradual increases, perhaps of a billion at a time, through regulations under secondary legislation? I believe that secondary legislation is a very adequate way in which to do this and that hon. Members need to take it very seriously, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has mentioned. However, it might reassure Members if somewhere in the Bill or in an amendment it was stated that the increases would be no more than, say, £2 billion at a time. After all, we are now considering raising the amount by £4.5 billion in the Bill, yet, as I understand it, we are looking to put it up by £6 billion through secondary legislation. It might therefore be proportionate to indicate that we would expect the Government to come back to the House on more than one occasion if the sum were to go from £6 billion to £12 billion.
Imran Hussain
For the sake of avoiding repetition, I will cite the case I previously outlined, because I think the arguments are exactly the same. The only additional point is that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, who makes the point that using a statutory instrument to double the increase, if not more, is something that MPs will be uncomfortable with, for obvious reasons.
Rory Stewart
Ms Ryan, thank you very much for chairing this debate. I will deal with these issues very quickly, because I do not wish to detain people very long. A few issues of fact: first, this will not be an additional £12 billion on top of the £6 billion. We are talking about lifting the ceiling, so it will be an additional £6 billion. Essentially, the whole debate—we keep coming back to it in different ways—is about the fact that the CDC, through an accident in history, is governed by completely different rules from any other body to which we can give money. In the initial legislation, from 1948 onwards, a cap was put on the amount of money that the Government could put in. An additional cap was put in during the early 2000s when the Government were proposing to sell off CDC. The cap was put in there simply so that the Government did not pump more money into this organisation before it was sold off. That was a perfectly legitimate intention of primary legislation, but it puts us in an eccentric position in that it is possible for us to give, theoretically, unlimited money to an NGO, to a research council or any other body, to the World Bank and to other financial institutions, whereas the CDC is the only institution for which we have to return to primary legislation every time we wish to give it money.
The point about this ability to go up to £12 billion in the future would be that it would try to put the CDC into a similar position to the other recipients. In other words, on the basis of Parliament, the Minister and the Department, a decision would be made on the strategy on how the money was to be allocated. Money could be allocated to an NGO, it could be allocated to CDC, and we would do that through the normal departmental process.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked about time. My strong belief, which I am happy to put on the record, is that the money we are asking for—that first ability to increase by £4.5 billion—would be the absolute maximum over the next five-year period up to 2021. We do not intend to come back for the next money until at least after 2021-22. At that point a new Government—it could be a Government, theoretically, of the Labour party—would have the option to come, through secondary legislation, and ask for the ability to increase the cap up to £12 billion. That, again, I would anticipate being for continuous, steady state investment. That £12 billion simply reflects, again, about £1 billion a year from the 2021 period going forward to 2026. That is the kind of money we are talking about and that is the kind of plan that is in place.
To conclude, we have heard very detailed, powerful and encyclopaedic speeches from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. He has already made enormous arguments about the sectors and countries in which we should be investing. I request, if possible, that we do not return to those when the amendments are discussed, because they have already been made in enormous detail during the debate so far.
Stephen Doughty
Ms Ryan, I am sure that you, rather than the Minister, will decide what is in order. I have no doubt that we will want to explore some of those issues in further detail. I am sure the Minister does not want to, but I hope we can prevail on you. The fundamental issue here concerns my outstanding question: why £12 billion? Where has this figure come from? What is it based on? It seems to have been arbitrarily picked out of the air. It is an 800% potential increase, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North pointed out along the way.
It is helpful that the Minister talked about the timescale. He says that it goes up to 2021 and that he does not intend to come back before 2022. My question is, why give this power now at all? Why not just require another simple, one-clause Bill to increase the cap if CDC is shown to be performing, to be reforming, to be diverting its focus more to poverty eradication, more to some of the countries we want to work in, or some of the sectors we would like to see it working in? Why not come back? This happens with other legislation. An armed forces Bill comes through regularly to maintain funding for our standing armed forces, and there are many other instances where simple pieces of legislation are proposed and receive the required level of scrutiny—indeed, this has happened with the CDC in its lifetime. My concern is why we would give such extensive powers at this stage. I take in good faith the assurance of the Minister, but obviously, as I have said before, that does not apply to future Ministers. The Minister mentioned the issue of selling off CDC; what if a Minister wanted to do that in the future? This would allow a Government to pump money into it before a sell-off. That is concerning and should concern all of us in this Committee.
I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford about gradual increases. Will the Minister reflect on the possibility of considering an India cap of a certain amount beyond which CDC could not increase, whether it be £1 billion or less, at a time, whether that was a year or a two-year period, and coming back with secondary legislation to do that? That might give a lot more assurance as to the scale of the increase and it would not be prey to the sorts of pressures that I know exist within the Department in terms of overspending more generally. We have a 0.7% target that we need to meet. As the CDC contributes to that, it is incredibly tempting, if there has been underspending in one Department or another, to suddenly pump a load of new capital into it, record it as official development assistance for that year, as has happened, and have it contribute to the overall figure.
However, I think the Minister has said some important things. I want to hear more about the caveats and strategy for CDC going forward and while I wholly object to the suggestion of giving statutory instrument powers, secondary legislation powers, I am sure that this will be an issue that those at the other end of the building will look at in great detail in due course. At this stage I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Short title, extent and commencement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Rory Stewart
As hon. Members will be aware, clause 2 is entirely standard. The only point of any note is that in this case, the Bill will come into force on Royal Assent. As we have discussed, this is an enabling Bill. The amendment made by the Bill to the cap and the introduction of the delegated power have no immediate effect and nothing is gained by subjecting them to delay or later commencement by Ministers, so it is appropriate that they come into force on the day the Bill is passed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: poverty reduction
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
‘15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: poverty reduction
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he has also laid before the House of Commons a review in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) A review under this subsection must provide the Secretary of State’s assessment of the extent to which the increase in the limit on the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
(3) In this section, “reduction in poverty” shall have the same meaning as in section 1(1) of the International Development Act 2002.’” —(Patrick Grady.)
This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be preceded by a review, also to be laid before the House of Commons, of the extent to which the increase in the limit will contribute to a reduction in poverty, the aim of development assistance.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Patrick Grady
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I mentioned during the evidence session that nowhere in the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 do we find the words “poverty” or “impact,” or even the phrase “international development”. We have heard much on Second Reading and in Committee—in evidence and during our debates—about the robust business cases, policies and decision-making procedures that are in place in DFID and CDC, but at the end of the day, that is all they are: policies and procedures. New clause 1—and perhaps some of the other new clauses—attempts to make it much clearer in the legislation that governs the CDC that it must meet the same high standards set for DFID and all the other Departments that spend money towards the ODA target. The new clause would require any proposal by the Government to raise the limit on Government assistance to CDC to be accompanied by a report to the House about how such an increase in investment was expected to lead to a reduction in poverty, as defined by the International Development Act 2002.
As we have just heard, the Government are asking for authority to increase their investment in CDC to up to £12 billion by statutory instrument. That is both a significant amount in itself and nearly 10 times the current investment cap. As I said a minute ago, I wonder how many other arm’s length bodies have received or have the potential to receive such an increase—800%—in their funding from the Government by statutory instrument without any additional information justifying that being required to be laid before Parliament.
If Parliament is to be asked to increase the funding cap, it should have information at its disposal to help it make that decision. Ministers keep telling us that robust business cases will be presented, but—
Philip Boswell
My hon. Friend quite rightly focuses on the robust business case that is required. New clause 2 would better enable transparent goals and practice in terms of checks and balances to be implemented prior to a commitment on funds—
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman mentioned new clause 2. We are debating new clause 1.
Philip Boswell
My apologies, Ms Ryan; I meant new clause 1. Given the previous concerns about potential bad practice, which were raised on Second Reading, does my hon. Friend recognise the potential for misuse of this substantial fund as an enticement in titanic and desperate international trade negotiations due to Brexit? Should not a serious, transparent and fully accountable stage-gate approval review be implemented before any funding is approved on a case-by-case basis?
Patrick Grady
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said, Ministers have told us that robust business cases will be presented, but that is an assurance from the current crop of Ministers and the current generation of CDC officials. Putting reporting requirements in the Bill would help to future-proof against any risk of CDC backsliding into the kinds of questionable behaviours that were raised on Second Reading. My hon. Friend also raises interesting points about precisely how this massive potential investment in CDC relates to the Government’s ongoing trade agenda and their interests in trading with different parts of the world, especially in the light of Brexit.
The mechanism proposed in the new clause may not be perfect, and some of the other new clauses are, in some ways, a bit more robust and may place a heavier burden on the Government, but are the Government prepared to use this opportunity to make it clear in the Bill—as they seem to be doing in debate and in the evidence we have heard—that the primary purpose of the CDC and the taxpayers’ money that it spends is to reduce poverty around the world, and that people come before profit?
Stephen Doughty
I am interested in this new clause. I think it will be very helpful to have the CDC more tightly linked to the terms of the International Development Act 2002. That set an important legal framework, which has guided the use of our ODA aid over the past 14 years, and therefore there are important safeguards within it that need to be closely looked at as regards the CDC. One of the issues is with the transparency around the CDC. Perhaps the Minister can clarify some of these, but when someone delves into the detail of some of the projects, organisations and programmes that we are funding, although there are a significant number of projects that are clearly focused on poverty reduction and are in some of the poorest countries in the world, there are others where it is questionable as to what the poverty-focused role is.
We heard this morning about the private healthcare provider in India. We could, but will not at this stage, get into a lengthy debate about the merits of private and voluntary healthcare versus public funded healthcare in developing countries, the role in transition and so on. It concerns me that CDC appears to be investing in a private fee-paying hospital without a focus on access for some of the poorest patients, for example, or some explanation as to why that money is focused on poverty eradication rather than as just a generalised investment.
I looked into one of the others called Qiming Venture Partners, which is a Chinese-based entrepreneurial fund. It describes itself as one of the top funders of entrepreneurs in the internet and consumer products; I struggle to see how that relates to poverty reduction. It has some very interesting pictures on its website of its staff sitting on tanks in Mongolia. I am happy for the Minister to clarify the nature of that investment, and if it is something completely different I will happily withdraw my comments about it, but it is very odd.
Another one we heard about this morning was Feronia. Clearly that is an investment in agribusiness, and we can see links there to poverty reduction and jobs in the agribusiness sector. However, there are also questions about the potential negative effects on livelihoods and poverty eradication because the investment is in palm oil. There are questions about land grabs, the rights of people living in the area and whether that is even a sustainable product to be investing in. Again, it seems odd that we are investing in fossil fuel projects when we are told that climate change is one of the biggest threats to developing countries and people in the poorest countries. I know that that is not just a problem to CDC; it applies to some of our investments through other development finance institutions, and is something we ought to look at much more closely.
I feel that tying CDC more closely to the wider terms under which DFID operates, and the wider terms in which our ODA is spent, would be helpful. Otherwise we might get some very interesting challenges and could even have legal challenges—judicial reviews—on some of these projects, particularly if we were to put in large sums of new money. I am sure that some of the campaigning organisations would take great interest in seeing whether some of these projects actually adhere to the principles that we set out for the Department and the spending of our ODA. I am encouraged by the new clause, and am certainly interested in the Minister’s comments on it.
Rory Stewart
This is an important principle—we should be focused on poverty reduction and the particular aspect of poverty reduction through job creation and economic development. I absolutely agree, and that is central to the mission of the CDC and its investment policy, but we are circling around a bigger issue: where is the appropriate place for this to happen?
I think that the only disagreement between myself and the hon. Member for Glasgow North is that this is a straightforward Bill, which is designed to lift the cap. We believe that the appropriate place to determine spending decisions and exactly how strategy works is through the normal departmental process. That would be true for our investments in the World Bank and in Unicef, money we would give to Oxfam or Save the Children, or anybody. We have procedures and processes to do that, which do not happen through primary legislation. We will continue to present that five-year strategy in December for the hon. Member for Glasgow North and other right hon. Members to interrogate. We will continue to present the business cases. We will be held absolutely accountable in law. In 2015 we passed a law that we would spend 0.7% on overseas development assistance as defined by the OECD. The money we are giving is governed by that legislation, which commits us legally to make sure that that money is driven precisely in the directions that the hon. Member has raised.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth continues to raise many different issues. I am struggling to work out in which sequence to answer them, because many of them are things I thought the hon. Gentleman was attempting to raise in later amendments. I hope that we are not going to keep hearing again and again about the same caseloads.
Richard Graham
It seems to me that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has raised interesting points about individual investments by the CDC. He is concerned about where the geographic spend is. The figures probably suggest that it has been 48% in Africa over the last few years, but there is an interesting question there, on which the Minister might want to comment: if one invests in a business that is, for the sake of argument, based in Mumbai but investing in east Africa, is that geographically described as an Indian investment or an east African investment? The hon. Member then had questions about sectoral investment. There are interesting questions there, because if someone is building hospitals, they are also in construction, and therefore there are jobs for people building the hospital. Is that classified as an investment in health, in construction, or both?
The Chair
Order. This is an intervention. If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak longer, he needs to indicate—
Richard Graham
I will bring it to an end almost immediately. It struck me that the Minister might want to confirm that the CDC can be held to account directly before the Select Committee and that that is the place to ask specific questions on specific investments and their sectoral and geographic emphasis, rather than in this Bill Committee.
The Chair
I think it is for me to decide where the best place for the questions is, and I have allowed them.
Rory Stewart
To conclude, and to follow up from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, the questions about poverty and the impacts of our investments need to be asked again and again, right through the process. They need to be asked in Parliament; they can be asked through urgent questions; they can be asked through this process. They also need to be asked primarily in details about the CDC’s mission, its investment policy, the ex ante decision making based on the development impact grid, through the development impact theory on each individual investment, and we have to do it in a way that gets a very difficult balance right, because the National Audit Office has been very clear that it does not want the Department micromanaging and interfering in individual business cases and decisions. We are supposed to be setting the overall strategy, driving where the money is meant to be and driving it towards exactly the kind of indicators that right hon. and hon. Members have raised. Given the number of measures that the Government will be taking to address exactly the issues raised, not in the Bill but through all the existing other processes, within both the CDC and the Department and the wider parliamentary and public accountability process, I ask politely that the new clause be withdrawn.
Patrick Grady
That was an interesting and helpful response from the Minister. He has repeatedly said throughout this process that the CDC is different from all the organisations that DFID disburses funds to, precisely because of the way it is constituted in statute and the historical legacy, going back 70 years. This is an important opportunity to include in the Bill some of the assurances that the Minister continues to give us, to make it clear that poverty reduction is one of the purposes of the CDC. I hear what the Minister says about withdrawing the new clause at this stage. If I do so, I hope that he will understand if we choose to come back at a later stage with more detail. Perhaps the Government would indicate that they are willing to work on how we can build into the legislation some of the reassurances that we keep asking for and they say they are going to give us. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: Sustainable Development Goals
After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: Sustainable Development Goals
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he has also laid before the House of Commons a review in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) A review under this subsection must provide the Secretary of State’s assessment of the extent to which the increase in the limit on the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation is likely to contribute to achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
(3) In this section, “the Sustainable Development Goals” means the Goals adopted at the United Nations on 25 September 2015.””—(Patrick Grady.)
This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be preceded by a review, also to be laid before the House of Commons, of the extent to which the increase in the limit will contribute to achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—
Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: assessment of contribution to Sustainable Development Goals
After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: assessment of contribution to Sustainable Development Goals
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he has also laid before the House of Commons the documents specified in subsection (2).
(2) The document specified in this subsection is a report containing an assessment by—
(a) CDC, and
(b) the Secretary of State
of the extent to which the proposed use of the new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time will contribute to progress in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals.
(3) In this section—
“the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force;
“the Sustainable Development Goals” means the Goals adopted at the United Nations on 25 September 2015.””
This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be preceded by the laying before the House of Commons of assessments by both CDC itself and the Secretary of State of the extent to which additional investment will contribute towards progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.
Patrick Grady
I have already explained why reporting requirements are important and we heard the Minister’s response. The new clause asks for a report on how increasing the limit on Government assistance would help to achieve the sustainable development goals. It is worth putting on record why that is important. The sustainable development goals ought to be the overriding framework that explains in more detail what poverty reduction and international development look like in practice in the 21st century.
As I did on Second Reading, I pay tribute to the work of the previous Prime Minister in leading the process that drafted and achieved the agreement of the global sustainable development goals by every country at the United Nations. The emphasis now has to be on meeting those goals.
I received correspondence from the Secretary of State in response to my contribution on Second Reading and she emphasised the CDC is working towards some of the specific SDG goals: number 8 on employment, number 5 on gender empowerment, number 7 on energy access and number 13 on climate change. But the SDG framework is holistic and it is important to show how progress is being made across the board, and that progress in one area is not being traded off against progress in another.
As with the previous requirement to report on poverty reduction that we had hoped for, this proposed new clause would help prevent any risk of backsliding. It would clearly frame the work of the CDC in a global context that would shape the global development agenda through to 2030. Even if the Minister is not willing to accept the new clause, here or on Report, it would still be useful to hear assurances on how the totality of the sustainable development goals are to be reflected in the CDC’s work through the additional funding of this Bill.
Stephen Doughty
I want to make some brief comments. As with the previous new clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman, it is helpful to align more closely the CDC to the overarching frameworks that apply to DFID and our aid budget. DFID has been a leader in going out to fight for the global goals, and in working with other Government Departments. However, the global goals do not apply only to DFID; they apply to our domestic Departments. They bring up important issues of coherence and focus, as I touched on earlier. If we are using them to apply to other areas of DFID spending such as our bilateral programme, funding through other multilaterals, the ODA being spent by other Government Departments and domestic policy on climate change, there is no reason to expect that the CDC should do any less.
We have heard the idea of micromanaging CDC discussed a few times. When we look at the sectors it is investing in at the moment, there are clear inconsistencies. I know the Minister does not like me to bring up examples but I will because they are important and I want to understand why those inconsistencies arise. We could include a much clearer framework about poverty eradication around those 17 global goals that cover everything from hunger, health and wellbeing, the quality of education and affordable and—crucially—clean energy. It is slightly odd that the CDC seems to be investing in fossil fuels.
The goals also include sustainable cities and communities, climate action, peace, justice, strong institutions and partnerships. The crucial issue is, who is involved in development and taking decisions? Are these measures just done to people in developing countries by corporations or investors or do they involve people living in poverty or excluded in some way in decisions about their future? Those are admirable goals and should form a guiding framework for the work and spending of our aid money, whether that is by an NGO, DFID directly or the CDC.
Imran Hussain
I associate myself with comments made by the SNP Front Bench team and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. I am not going to repeat what has been said, but I will make two additional points. The CDC should work towards the SDGs as much as possible, but as we stand, there is some confusion around their overall monitoring. Those criteria have not been released and I urge the Minister to consider that.
The other option, not the least option open to the Minister—and I am sure he will give assurances—is a matter that can also be dealt with through the business case and the strategies enshrined in that, to make sure the most effective way of contributing to the SDGs is laid out before Parliament.
Rory Stewart
This is an example of a clause where we strongly agree that SDGs are central to what the CDC should be doing. We are already delivering on these things. In 2015 alone, 326 women received jobs through the CDC investments; that is SDG 5. We provided 56,000 GW of electricity; that is SDG 7. SDG 8 on economic growth is, of course, central to everything the CDC does.
The bigger argument is that, as the SDGs were presented, people talked about a $2.5 trillion demand per annum for investment in the world’s poorest countries. The CDC is the major instrument that will be used by the British Government to deliver that kind of investment into the private sector.
However, to respond to the shadow Minister’s point, I think this is a good way of focusing the Department’s mind and making sure that, as we develop the strategy for the CDC going forward over the next five years, the SDGs are baked into that process. We take the SNP spokesman’s suggestion that it is important to understand the SDGs as a holistic set: that we do not simply look at them goal by goal, but that we group them together.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister made helpful comments earlier on about capping aid to India. Is he willing to consider looking at restricting, for example, the CDC’s ability to invest in fossil fuels, as this seems at odds with the global goals?
Rory Stewart
It is a good challenge. We invest enormously in renewable energy. We have just made a difficult investment in solar energy in Burundi and the Central African Republic—not a place where most people want to go into investment. Unfortunately, Africa’s need for energy is extraordinary. We do not invest in coal, for example, that is not something we go into, but we support some gas-powered stations through Globeleq. That is a difficult trade-off, but we believe Africa is currently falling behind. As I have mentioned before, China has been building about 8 GW of power in a two-month period, with Africa delivering 6 GW of power over a decade.
I feel that we have to get the balance of our investments right and I respectfully disagree with the argument put. I do not think it would be responsible for economic development in Africa to put us into a position where we cannot invest at all in any conventional energy source. With that, I would ask that new clause 2 be withdrawn.
Patrick Grady
What the Minister said at the end was disappointing, because, in fact, there is an opportunity for Africa and many parts of the developing world to leapfrog the technologies that have polluted our skies and buildings and all the rest of it over so many years. Surely, if the CDC’s investment is for anything, it should be in innovative, clean technologies. That is what we are trying to get to with the various amendments and new clauses we have been tabling, to make it clear in statute that this is its duty and not to allow it space to make excuses such as “Well, it’s difficult” and “We have to do this” and that jobs are more important than the longer-term viability of the planet. I am not convinced that is the case.
That is why we continue to seek assurances. Again, if we withdraw this new clause, we hope the Minister will reflect on the points made over the course of the debate in Committee. When the Bill comes back to the House on Report there might yet be ways in which it can be strengthened to take some of the points on board and reflect them going forward. On that basis, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prior bilateral programme
After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prior bilateral programme
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) That condition is that any new investment in a country enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is in a country to which the Secretary of State provides assistance through a bilateral programme at the time.
(3) In this section—
“country” has the same meaning as in section 17 of the International Development Act 2002;
“the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force;
“assistance” has the same meaning as in section 5 of the International Development Act 2002.””—(Stephen Doughty.)
This new clause would limit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) to countries where the United Kingdom maintains a bilateral programme at the time.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New Clause 4
Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: limitation to eligible countries
‘(1) After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: limitation to eligible countries
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) That condition is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is in a country in Schedule 2A (Eligible countries).
(3) In this section “the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.”
(2) After Schedule 2 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (Modification of Companies Act 1985 &c), insert—
“Schedule 2A
Eligible Countries
Afghanistan | |
Angola | |
Bangladesh | |
Benin | |
Burkina Faso | |
Burundi | |
Cameroon | |
Central African Republic | |
Chad | |
Congo (Democratic Republic of) | |
Congo (Republic of) | |
Côte d’Ivoire | |
Equatorial Guinea | |
Eritrea | |
Ethiopia | |
Gabon | |
Gambia, The | |
Ghana | |
Guinea | |
Guinea-Bissau | |
Kenya | |
Lesotho | |
Liberia | |
Madagascar | |
Malawi | |
Mali | |
Mozambique | |
Myanmar | |
Nepal | |
Niger | |
Nigeria | |
Pakistan | |
Rwanda | |
Senegal | |
Sierra Leone | |
Somalia | |
South Sudan | |
Sudan | |
Swaziland | |
Tanzania | |
Togo | |
Uganda | |
Zambia | |
Zimbabwe.” |
This new clause would limit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) to certain eligible countries.
New Clause 5
Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: LDCs and LICs
After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: LDCs and LICs
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) That condition is that any new investment in a country enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is in a country which is classified as either—
(a) one of the least developed countries, or
(b) one of the other low income countries.
(3) In determining the classification of a country for the purposes of subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall use the latest analytical classification of the world’s economies prepared by the World Bank.
(4) In this section, “the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.””
This new clause would limit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) to the least developed countries and other low income countries.
Stephen Doughty
The new clauses are all probing and designed to get further into this issue of the CDC’s disjoint from DFID’s overall focus, whether that is the disjoint from the Department’s bilateral programme, from its focus on individual countries, or from its focus on income and countries considered to be least developed or low income. Again, I mention the Minister’s interesting comments about India; I would be interested to know if he would consider looking at the broader issue.
The three new clauses look separately at the respective issues. The first one would amend the Bill to require that the CDC’s new money was only invested in countries where DFID has a bilateral programme. New clause 4 would set out a very specific list as to where CDC was able to invest. I know that it already has a list, but I think that it should be shorter and I have suggested some countries that could be removed from it. I am sure we can have a debate about that.
New clause 5 suggests that any new disbursements should be focused on those countries defined as least developed or low income, rather than on middle-income countries where the significant proportion of the CDC spending does appear to be going.
The disjoint is very clear on the bilateral front. DFID currently invests in 35 countries. We are not sure where that is going because we do not have any detail on the bilateral aid review—perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to whether that list is likely to increase, decrease or change in some way—but the CDC is in 63 countries. When we look at where other aid is being spent through other Government Departments, that number gets even higher. This is a worrying trend.
Library briefings for this Bill go into quite a bit of detail, particularly with regard to new clause 5, on relative investment by income group between 2010 and 2013. I am referring to page 5 of the Commons briefing for those who have it with them. It reflects that there has been an improvement in the situation, and it says that there is
“an increased emphasis on the poorest countries brought about by the new investment policy between 2010 and 2013. The share of new investments in the very poorest least developed countries (LDCs) increased from 4% to 12%, and from less than 1% to 4% in other low income countries (LICs). The share decreased in both lower middle income (LMICs) and upper middle income countries (UMICs).”
I did try to get the data on the two most recent years but I understand that the OECD has not given its full analysis of which countries fall into those categories and, conscious of some of the points made earlier, that information would be very helpful. I hope for, and would expect that there has been, a further trend in the direction highlighted. Again, it would be helpful for the Minister and the Department’s statisticians to set this out for us. However, there is still a huge distortive effect. The share of new investments even just up to 12% in the least developed countries—12% of the CDC’s investments by income group—is not a lot. I am not saying that investments in the middle-income countries are not going to the poorest people, because in some of those cases they clearly are, but when we delve into the detail, as we have done in the case of India, the picture is not clear and the majority of the investments, as of today, still go to the richer states rather than the poorest.
South Africa is another concerning example. The situation with South Africa and whether the CDC is allowed to invest is a complex one, but I asked the Minister in a written question whether or not there was an analysis of investment by state and I was told that the CDC does not assess its South African investments by state. We are not even able to understand whether the CDC’s investments are going into poorer or richer parts of South Africa. We get an answer by portfolios and by sectors, but that is concerning to me.
Richard Graham
It looks as if new clauses 3, 4 and 5 offer three different options on the way in which the CDC could spend money geographically. They do so first by limiting its list of eligible countries to those where bilateral aid is already happening; secondly, by limiting that list to a new schedule to the Bill in new clause 4—schedule 2A—that the hon. Gentleman has tabled, which looks to be of about 43 countries and gives no particular explanation as to how those were chosen or why they differ; and thirdly new clause 5 uses other multilateral definitions. Which option is the hon. Gentleman advocating? All three contradict each other to some extent.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed, but—the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the flow of debate in Committee—the tabling of probing amendments to discuss and debate different suggestions is very much the way in which we scrutinise, suggest alternatives and allow debate in the House. Personally, I think the latter option in new clause 5—some sort of measure based around ensuring that the CDC more closely focuses on the LDCs and LICs—would allow the CDC to have a little bit more flexibility than by restricting it to the bilateral programme.
That option would recognise some legacy investments—for example, those that have been mentioned in which money being spent in one country might actually benefit another. Perhaps some of the partnerships between India and Africa, which are very interesting, are such examples. I do not want to completely rule those out; there are some legitimate reasons for them. I want to see a much tighter focus on the poorest countries than appears to be the case at the moment. It is difficult to see where things are without the data for the last year, but we can see where they were a couple of years ago.
If we look at the trend in the last few years, in terms of new investments by region, another briefing helpfully provided by the House of Commons Library shows that the share of the total percentage of investments going to Africa has actually declined since 2012, while the share going to south Asia—which I would imagine, were we to delve into the detail, is going to India—has gone up. That concerns me, not least given what Professor Collier said, and what other Members who I know support the CDC getting more money have said. Those are the facts and statistics provided by the neutral House of Commons Library; they are there. It will be much more helpful to see where those trends are going and where the focus is, and then to be assured that Ministers were going to bear down in terms of setting caveats for the CDC—whether those are over specific countries where DFID has synergies with its bilateral programme, or, indeed, an overall focus on poverty eradication.
I am intrigued to hear that the CDC plans to expand its network of offices. At a time when we are talking about one UN and bringing UN agencies together in one office, and about an enhanced in-country co-operation between DFID and the Foreign Office, it seems slightly odd that the CDC could open new offices in locations where we do not maintain a bilateral programme and where there are not necessarily those synergies. I think that Ministers ought to look much more carefully at that, to ensure that there is coherence between what the CDC is doing and what the rest of Government are doing.
I will leave to one side comments on the detail of some of the sectoral arrangements in some of the locations. I conclude by appealing to the Minister to give us a bit more detail and a bit more assurance on what sort of caveats and guidance will be given—not micromanagement but clear guidance about what kind of shift Ministers expect in return for a new investment, particularly if it is a large one. For example, would they expect the CDC to stop investing completely in middle-income countries over the next three or four years? That seems to be incongruous with what the Department itself has said; the Government have made a big deal of ending aid to India, China, South Africa and other locations, yet we see aid to those locations increasing through this CDC route. That seems to be a difficult argument to make.
We all struggle with making the argument for international development to our constituents. At the moment, there is a good degree of cross-party consensus in the House about the importance of international development and aid, but I have difficulty explaining why we should be supporting some of the poorest people in the world to my constituents; I have real difficulty explaining why aid money should be used to fund a private hospital in India. We all need to take care to ensure that we are robustly focusing our aid, our effort and our limited taxpayer funding on the poorest and on the countries that align most closely with our existing development programmes, where we have an added advantage.
Jeremy Lefroy
I have to say that I agree with a considerable number of the hon. Gentleman’s points, although I see some problems with the way in which the new clauses address them. For instance, if we restricted new capital to a certain list of countries, where would that leave the self-generated capital, both from existing investments and from these investments once they are sold? That does not seem to be clear, so in effect we would have to segregate capital raised through the profits or the free cash flow of the sale of existing investments, and capital raised through the sale of new investments that had been restricted to certain countries.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but has that not already happened with regard to legacy investments in Latin America, for example, as a result of the changes in the strategy for CDC in 2012?
Jeremy Lefroy
Yes, it has, absolutely, but what I am saying is that the new clauses are not specific enough to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants.
I must also repeat my earlier point that middle-income countries are a very broad church. I think I mentioned that they cover gross national incomes between £1,000 and £13,000; forgive me, but I meant between just over $1,000 and just over $13,000—dollars, not pounds, although that is less of a difference than it was a year ago. I believe firmly that a country with a gross national income of $2,000 or $3,000 per head per year is absolutely the kind of country that we should be investing in to create the jobs I referred to earlier, but it would be counted as a middle income country.
My final point is that when we invest in multilateral institutions such as the World Bank through IDA, we are investing in low income countries; but when we invest through the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is the major part of the World Bank, we are investing indirectly in middle income countries, including India, China, Brazil and all the other countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I would not like us to treat the CDC differently from our investments in the World Bank or in other multilateral institutions such as the Global Fund.
Imran Hussain
Again, I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. I have two additional general points. We have to look at the 2011 review. There were clear purposes behind it, one of which was that the CDC had lost its focus. As a result of the review, we saw the new universe of countries and, as I said earlier, have ended up in a better place today than we were in four or five years ago.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must not lose our focus on development impact and where it can be greatest, and nor must CDC. We must continue to focus on the poorest countries, where the impact will be felt the most and where it is most needed. The CDC’s ultimate goal must be to alleviate poverty, and that goal is not best achieved in some of the countries that have been used as examples.
Rory Stewart
If I may, I will focus not on particular sectors but on the issues addressed by the new clauses: the type of countries in which CDC should be working.
I wish to make four arguments. First, there are significant technical problems with the amendments, but I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee’s time with them, so I will move on.
Secondly, there is a conceptual difference between DFIs and the bilateral programmes at DFID. It is perfectly reasonable for a Government looking at their overseas development programme not to limit themselves to where they happen to have a bilateral programme. A bilateral programme traditionally means somewhere where we happen to have a DFID office and are running our own bilateral programmes through our own staff. There might be an argument that we do not wish to have a bilateral programme in a country because we already have CDC operations taking place in that country.
The third argument, which I again do not wish to rehearse because it covers a lot of the issues that we have talked about today, is how to get the balance right between Parliament—it is absolutely right that Parliament should have the job of determining the overall financial allocation—and the discretion given to the Secretary of State and the Department to determine country programmes. It would be unfortunate if we ended up specifying in primary legislation a specific list of countries where we would and would not operate, as a result of the judgment calls that a Secretary of State or Department, from any party, has to make—the world changes very quickly.
Right hon. and hon. Members have raised some difficult judgment calls. India has 35% of the world’s population who exist on $1.25 a day, which is more, in absolute numbers, than the number of poor people in sub-Saharan Africa. That is a difficult philosophical discussion, and different people on different sides of the House will have different views on whether we wish to focus on that, but whether we focus on those people or not seems reasonably to be a judgment call for the Department and perfectly in accordance with the International Development Act 2002. It is also true that it may be necessary to make investments in a wealthier state in order to help a poorer state. It may be necessary to use South Africa’s financial institutions in order to support poverty alleviation in other African countries.
Finally, it may be necessary to respond to quickly changing events in the world. For example, nobody predicted the conflagration in Syria. We are suddenly having to put bilateral programmes into middle income countries—Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon—where we never had bilateral programmes four years ago, in order to deal with 3.5 million refugees, horrendous killing, an extreme humanitarian disaster and a UN tier 3 emergency. The International Development Committee has been asking us to get the CDC to invest in exactly those situations. The new clause would prohibit us in primary legislation from doing that. With respect, I believe that these things are best left to the discretion of the Department. We are very happy to share all our thinking on how those decisions are made with Parliament in the normal fashion. With that, I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister and the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for their comments. In response to the hon. Member for Stafford, I should point out that the fact that some of the other DFIs are focused in some of those other middle income countries is all the more reason for the CDC to have a different focus. We have less control in those organisations, by being a part-shareholder and part-donor. We have 100% control over what the CDC does. If we are contributing in that way to some particular important niche project that the World Bank is funding, for example, why do we need to add to that with an organisation over which we have a greater degree of strategic control? We are supposed to be leading—that is the mantra—and setting an example. We should perhaps be going to some of those more difficult locations that Professor Collier was talking about and addressing some of the innovative solutions that the hon. Member for Glasgow North was talking about on green energy. We ought to be leading, not just matching what other development finance institutions are doing.
The Minister makes a good point about not limiting the provisions to the bilateral programme in strictly defined terms, as the new clause—a probing amendment—would do. The example that he gave of Syria was a good one. There is also a very good argument to be made about francophone Africa, where CDC and our bilateral programme could play a bigger role and we could perhaps come alongside other investors. The Minister had a fair point on tight definitions and on listing countries.
I would ask the Minister to look again at the issue of the rankings of countries. In terms of CDC’s total disbursements in Africa and south Asia over the past seven years, the lion’s share has gone to India and South Africa, with £760.5 million and £194 million respectively. Money has also been disbursed to some very odd locations —these are not small amounts. Some £27.6 million has gone to Mauritius, £12.6 million to Morocco, £53.6 million to Egypt and £9.8 million to Algeria. That does not seem to fit into the categories that the Minister alluded to.
There is a debate to be had about India. I accept the point that he made, but it is not the argument that has been used in the past by advisers in his Department. In fact, the special adviser to the Department when he was at the TaxPayers’ Alliance resoundingly criticised DFID for continuing aid to India which, he argued, had a space programme and everything else. He said that all aid should be stopped. The Government, including his Government, have made a big fanfare to the public and to this House about aid to India ending, and yet it continues. I think there is an inconsistency there, and it would be useful to know where we stand and where we are heading, because it is not what is being said.
Rory Stewart
Just to clarify the position on the record. The Government intend to stop all conventional bilateral grant aid to India. Support in India will then be targeted through technical assistance and through the CDC instrument of financial investment in private sector companies.
So the distinction that the Government are making is between traditional bilateral grant aid and instruments such as the CDC. Specifically on the question of balance, I absolutely take these points on board—60% of the investments since 2012 have been made in Africa, only 40% in south Asia, including Pakistan and Bangladesh. I absolutely understand the importance of keeping a rigorous development grid and development impact theory to make sure that CDC focuses on the countries that need aid most.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for his point. It was not the impression that was given by the Government at the time about aid to India. The clarification is helpful, but again we get into the value and the total amount that is going to India rather than other locations. For me, and for many others who contributed to this debate, it is simply too high. That is why I welcome what the Minister has said about a cap. However, I urge him to look at a cap in some of these other countries. There are some very odd outlier examples here which do not really fit in any way with our wider objectives, our strategic interests, or our poverty reduction objectives. There does not seem to be any clear explanation, and I think we ought to be bearing down more tightly on that.
It would be helpful for the Minister to explain, as we go through the next few days on the Bill, whether he would consider tough stretch targets.
Stephen Doughty
Well, we do have another day—the Whip is commenting—which we could get to, depending on where we are. We will certainly have time on Report and Third Reading, but it would be helpful to know by then the sort of stretch targets that the Minister envisages for the CDC, if it were to get extra money, and where it would be forced, perhaps not completely banning it from all investment in middle income countries—I accept some of the points that have been made—to have a much, much more significant focus for where its new investments are going, because it is clearly not meeting that at the current time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
“Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on use of tax havens
After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on use of tax havens
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) That condition is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is not in either—
(a) an investment entity, or
(b) a company
which uses, or seems to the Secretary of State likely to use, tax havens.
(3) In determining whether the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Secretary of State shall consider—
(a) information provided by the OECD on countries or territories which are considered to be tax havens, and
(b) such information as is available to the Secretary of State, whether supplied by the CDC or others, about the current location of funds of the potentially relevant entities for the purposes of subsection (2).
(4) In this section, “the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.””.—(Stephen Doughty.)
This new clause would prohibit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) from going to an investment vehicle or company which uses or seems likely to use tax havens.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause relates to the issue of tax havens, which has been a persistent concern, not just on this side of the House, which is why it is in the name of myself and of my hon. Friends. I know that it is a matter of concern to Members across the House and to many of the campaigning organisations out there. There seems to be a major issue of incoherence between the Government’s stated policy to bear down on tax avoidance and the types of vehicles that facilitate it, and CDC’s continued investment, even to this year, through these vehicles.
I have had the argument made to me about the reason for using investment vehicles and companies that are not located in the country where the investment takes place. I think that it is a very reasonable argument, in that sometimes the legal framework—the fiduciary control frameworks—whatever they might be, are not good enough for us to be spending taxpayers’ money, or for CDC to be spending its own funds, or, when it comes to other investors, for them to be willing to accept the risk of, for example, a fund in a particular African country.
However, I struggle to understand why so many of the investments continue to be made through offshore havens such as the Cayman Islands and Mauritius rather than simply under the law of England and Wales. Some would argue that the UK is a tax haven. We are not going to get into that debate here, but I do not understand why these investments are being made through Cayman in particular.
Kate Osamor
I have not spoken a lot today. That is not because I have not been in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, which I believe is the right way of saying it—I have heard many versions today. I want to speak on this clause, because my issue relates to tax havens and the way the CDC is using them. In the evidence session earlier today, Diana Noble of the CDC admitted that at times it has to use tax havens, but I feel that DFID should be looking at transparency. We should be working more closely with CDC because we are setting up a system that could be exploited, and I am concerned that we could be sitting back and not using the power that I believe DFID could be using.
This is the time to look at how the relationship was initially set up and at how we might reform that relationship, not because we should be micromanaging but because we should be taking some responsibility for taxpayers’ money. I say that because, while there is cross-party support for DFID in this House, there is a lot of tension outside among people who do not agree with the way we are spending money. If this was highlighted and got into the wrong hands—the Daily Mail—it could turn into a situation in which the Government would have to fight back. I ask that we look at that relationship, make it a lot more transparent and also look at what will happen when Diana Noble moves on, because a new CEO may not able to turn things around the way she has. She has made great changes, but she is moving on, so we need to look at how that new relationship with DFID will be, and this is the time to change that situation.
I support the clause and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that we will not be in a situation going forward whereby the CDC, or similar organisations, have to use tax havens because the country they are functioning in does not have systems to take the tax.
Jeremy Lefroy
I have a lot of sympathy with the points made. I cannot support this new clause because I do not think that the international situation lends itself to being practical for the CDC at the moment. Regrettably, there is not the range of options for CDC to make its investments at the moment alongside other partners. When it is direct investments, which I am very glad to see the CDC has started to do again since the new arrangements in 2011-12, there is absolutely no reason why the investment cannot be made directly into the share capital of the company in which the investment is being made. However, when you are trying to leverage other investments, as the CDC often does, alongside other DFIs or other private sector entities, you have to arrive at a mutual agreement as to what jurisdiction is most suitable, both from the point of view of the ability of the legal system to uphold agreements and in terms of when dividends are paid, and whether double tax arrangements and so on are in place.
These are all practical matters, but I very much agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth that there is an opportunity here for the CDC to set the pace—for instance, here in the United Kingdom, where we have such a fine legal system, as is being displayed right at this very moment across the road.
Jeremy Lefroy
That is true from whatever point of view we approach the matter. Why can we not set up the kind of structure, based in the UK, that would be perfectly reasonable for funds to see as an acceptable basis for making their investment alongside the CDC?
Rory Stewart
I shall try, for the sake of right hon. and hon. Members who are under time pressure, to be quite short in answering. Of course, I agree strongly with points made about the absolute importance of this. The CDC never invests in any of these locations in order to save tax or to avoid scrutiny. There are only two reasons why we would do it, and those are the reasons that were raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth; which is to say either because the regulatory environment in the country in which we are investing is not sufficiently robust for us to be able to trust UK taxpayers’ money to that location, or because we are attempting to accumulate a larger fund where we are trying to get co-investors. We are very proud of that. We have brought in, at times, £1 billion of investment and have managed to bring in £30 billion behind it, so that is a multiplier effect of 30 which might not have been possible had we not been able to ensure that we were able to go through certain offshore centres.
However, we are very focused on this issue. The Labour Government made great progress in focusing on the white list. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands. To be absolutely clear, as I think he is aware, we do not, nor would ever, invest in those locations, nor would we invest in Panama. We only invest in the places that have been put through the OECD’s Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes as compliant locations.
Nevertheless, I agree that in the long run we need to develop financial sectors within Africa to ensure we can make secure investments through African locations, rather than having to go through offshore centres. DFID is now running a big programme on that, which is something the CDC can learn from. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, we absolutely should be taking the lead on this. On that basis, I ask that the motion be withdrawn.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister provided some helpful assurances, but again, I want to see much clearer targets and guidance. I still do not feel satisfied on the indirect effects. He mentioned that we do not invest in Panama, but of course, many of the CDC’s investments turned up in the Panama papers. The reputational damage that does not only to the United Kingdom but to the CDC is significant, because it suggests an organisation and a Government who do not take these commitments seriously, however much we might be able to explain an individual instance.
The 2014 report from Eurodad—the European Network on Debt and Development—found that 118 out of 157 fund investments made by the CDC went through jurisdictions that feature at the top of the financial secrecy index. To be clear on the scale, between 2000 and 2013, these funds received a total of $3.8 billion in original CDC commitments, including $553 million in 2013 alone. Whether or not there is avoidance or malfeasance going on with the CDC portion of these investments, the indirect effects in terms of payments being made to fund managers and financial services businesses in the Cayman Islands and others that may be engaged in other activities is significant. Transparency is also significant, in terms of being able to assess and properly scrutinise the information available. I am keen to press the new clause to a vote. It is important that we test the Committee’s view on it, although no doubt we will return to this issue in due course.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause regards prohibitions on the sectors in which the CDC can invest. I have chosen four issues about which I think there are questions—and questions have been asked. We could equally add the issue of fossil fuels, which has already been discussed. I have specified the for-profit education sector, the for-profit health sector, the real estate sector and mineral extraction. [Interruption.] I notice the Minister disappearing for a moment; I will allow him a moment to use the bathroom.
Stephen Doughty
Moving swiftly on. I hope that the Whip can report my comments to him.
My concern—obviously I have been through some of the examples before—is the percentage investment in different sectors. We have heard the presentations, whether from the Secretary of State, or the chief executive and chair today, about how wonderful the CDC is, and all the wonderful work that it does; but they tend to draw on specific projects, which I do not doubt do excellent work on poverty eradication, and make a difference. However, those reflect only part of the picture.
From an overview of the CDC’s portfolio, 40% is invested in what, I think, according to the House of Commons Library, is designated as “other”; 16% is in the financial sector; 8% is in power; 9% is in industry and manufacturing; 12% is in other infrastructure; 6% is in agribusiness; and 9% is in services. When we look at new CDC investments by sector from 2012 to 2015, according to the Library the share of new investment seems heavily focused on the financial services industry.
I know that the CDC makes many important investments that the Government promote, including access to microfinance, technological solutions or enhancing banking services for the poor. I have nothing against the financial services industry. Indeed, I have many financial services industries in my constituency. I am well aware of the important work that has been done under many Governments on investing in mobile phone banking technology, for example; again, that work began under a Labour Government but has continued to a great fruition in recent years.
There seems, however, to have been a very heavy focus on the financial services sector and very little on anything else, whether industry, healthcare, education or other sectors. Of the investment in education and healthcare, for example, as we saw from the example of India, a significant proportion seems to be going to the for-profit sector. I do not want to reiterate statistics that we heard earlier, but that seems to me to be of great concern. It does not seem to be in line with DFID’s previous objectives of expanding free healthcare and investing in health systems.
I worry—and this is where we come to the issue of opportunity costs of investment in the CDC versus other potential routes—that the Department has started to skew significantly away from some of the work that was done to support the development of strong, national, public, free-at-point-of-use healthcare and education systems. We know how much of a deterrent user fees are to the poorest and to other excluded groups in accessing healthcare.
We also know from DFID’s past how strategic catalytic investment in those sectors has resulted in massive uptake. Importantly, there is also a secondary effect—citizens demanding from their Governments that public health and education services should be provided. That creates the virtuous circle, the social contract, and has much wider benefits for governance, relationships between citizens and the state, and the promotion of democracy and stability. I am therefore concerned that CDC is investing in private solutions, that money still appears to be going into things such as real estate, and that there are questionable investments in such things as palm oil.
I mentioned South Africa earlier, but did not talk about specific sectors. We can see that the bulk of investments in South Africa went into the financial sector, and then agribusiness and food. That is surprising. I have visited South Africa many times and, if we are investing in some of the poorest people there, the issues are often food security and access to HIV treatments, among others. Yes, financial services are important, but the skewing that appears to be happening in the projects seems odd. Again, without being able to access detailed information on the nature of individual investments, we cannot necessarily create aggregates for whether the investments in healthcare or education, for example, are to help more vulnerable and more excluded people to get services, albeit at a low cost, or whether we just see a generalised investment, as in the Rainbow Hospitals in India.
Can the Minister explain the plans the Department has for pushing the CDC and why he thinks the split is so geared towards financial services as opposed to other sectors? Can he also specifically comment on the investments in the for-profit education and health sectors and the other ones I mentioned in this new clause?
Rory Stewart
These are a very good set of questions. Indeed, we are concerned—as is the hon. Gentleman—about which sectors we invest in. To reveal a little of the thinking in the forthcoming strategy, we are likely to put more of an emphasis on agriculture. The biggest element for investment is infrastructure and energy and I spoke at length on Second Reading about why we take electricity generation so seriously. I am not going to rehearse those arguments now. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of why that is an important sector for Africa.
Financial services is also a vital sector, for the reasons laid out by Sir Paul Collier in the evidence session, which we all had the privilege to hear today. Poverty alleviation in Africa will have to be driven by much more productive, specialised businesses. In addition to energy, the fundamental constraint on the development of those business at the moment is the availability of capital. Foreign direct investment levels in Africa are at an all-time low. We see this in livelihoods and supporting these lower income groups, through the support we provide through microfinance. Indeed, microfinance and all that kind of activity is included within financial services.
Large sums of capital available for medium and larger-sized enterprise, however, are going to be central. To pin down what we mean by this with an example, in Sierra Leone after the Ebola crisis, a number of serious investments were possible but were stopped because of people’s fear about the Ebola crisis. It was our ability to take a more patient, long-term view as a public investor that allowed us to provide the capital investment that generates those jobs. A lot of these economic development opportunities and jobs we are talking about are driven by financial services.
To return to the shadow Minister’s challenge, this is assessed by us in the individual development impact theory attached to each case. With regards to the new clause under consideration, we would oppose the idea of limiting in the Bill the sectors in which someone could invest, because sectors are very country-specific. To take an example from Afghanistan, I can completely understand why the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth wishes to say there should be no investment in the mineral sector. However, in a country such as Afghanistan, the mineral sector is almost the only credible possibility for macroeconomic growth and therefore for the country as a whole. Supporting marble, jewellery extraction and other exploitation of natural resources in Afghanistan is a lifeline for that country in a place where they are struggling to generate private-sector investment and have a huge effect on revenue.
We will not get drawn into a difficult discussion about the position of private health and education, except to say again, from an Afghan context, I have seen directly how some of the poorest people who have been unable to access healthcare manage to access it through affordable, low-cost health clinics. This is in Kabul, where wealthier people are giving about $1 or $1.50 a day to be able to go to a health clinic. That money is then often recycled to allow a proportion of people to access the clinic at a more affordable rate.
Even without that cross-subsidy, in many countries, the only way we can get health and education to people in the short term, unfortunately, is by supporting these structures. There is a disagreement that we are not going to be able to resolve today, where we believe the private provision of education and healthcare can be a good way of delivering those kinds of service. With that, I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for his comments. I was pleased to hear that he thinks there might be more of a focus on agriculture and a strategy for it. That is an important step forward. As I made clear, I think that financial services are important, and I agree with many of the points he made. My question is, is there too much going into them to the exclusion of other sectors? I and other Members want there to be a clearer rationale for why that is happening at the expense of other things.
I do not think there is much disagreement about the importance of investing in infrastructure and energy, with the exception of the point about fossil fuels, which we discussed earlier. I wish we had done more of that in this country—that is what the previous Labour shadow team argued for, and we continue to do so. However, there remains an outstanding question about why so much of the new investment is going into just that one sector and why small amounts are going into others.
The point that the Minister made about the mineral sector in Afghanistan is fair, but I am sure he understands why there is a lot of scepticism, given the history of exploitation and poverty creation through the extractive industries, particularly in Africa and elsewhere. The UK led on the extractive industries transparency initiative, the Kimberley process and other measures for bearing down on the negative side effects. I hope that, if CDC invests in those potentially highly controversial sectors in the future, it will have a very clear public rationale for why it is doing so and will set out what the benefits are and what safeguards have been put in place; otherwise, there is the risk of creating a different impression.
The Minister is right that we do not agree on the issue of health and education. I do not think that the UK Government should be investing in private healthcare and education in developing countries. There is a role for the private health and education sectors in those countries—I am not opposed to the existence of a private health and education sector in this country, although I would not choose to use it myself—but should we be helping to expand them? Should we be bankrolling them by investing taxpayers’ capital into, for example, private hospitals, when it is not clear how those services will be made more accessible to the poorest? I urge the Minister to look more closely at that issue.
I came across the example—perhaps the Minister can write to me about it—of an investment we are making in an education programme called GEMS Africa, which appears to be running a series of private schools in what it describes as leafy residential suburbs in Nairobi and charging up to £10,000 a year. That does not sound like low-cost education—it is certainly not no-cost. It would be good to have some clarity about the type and nature of some of these investments, because that does not seem to be right. I think the Department should focus its resources on supporting the development of strong public health and education systems that are free at the point of use. We did excellent work on that previously, and it is a shame that we have moved away from that. I hope the Department will rethink that. I am sure we will debate this issue further, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: adherence to DFID partnership principles
After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: adherence to DFID partnership principles
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) That condition is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time will be an entity which has agreed to adhere to the DFID partnership principles.
(3) In this section—
‘the current limit at the time’ means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force;
‘the DFID partnership principles’ means—
(a) the principles set out in the DFID guidance note of March 2014 entitled ‘the Partnership Principles’, or
(b) any DFID guidance note of the same title issued with the approval of the Secretary of State.”—(Stephen Doughty.)
This new clause would require any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) to go only to entities which agree to adhere to the DFID partnership principles.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I do not want to detain the Committee for too long on this new clause, because it refers to some of the issues that we discussed earlier, in terms of setting the overall framework for what CDC is doing and ensuring it is coherent with what the rest of Government—specifically DFID—are doing. Members may or may not be familiar with the partnership principles, which are an important set of principles that underpins DFID’s bilateral work, the types of relationships it has and the kinds of restrictions and caveats it places on that work.
For the benefit of the Committee, there are four partnership principles. The first is a commitment to reducing poverty and achieving what was then the millennium development goals—I am sure it is now the sustainable development goals. That is the commitment of a partner to address the constraints to poverty reduction and progress against those goals. The second is a commitment to respecting human rights and other international obligations. That is the commitment of a partner to respect human rights—particularly economic, social and cultural rights—as well as the civil and political rights of poor people. Third is a commitment to strengthen financial management and accountability and to reduce the risk of funds being misused through weak administration or corruption. The fourth is a commitment to domestic accountability, which is enabling people—a little bit to do with what I was just talking about with private healthcare and education—to hold their Government and public authorities to account for delivering on their commitments and responsibilities, and not undermining that either by supplanting those relationships or by diverting people’s attention.
Rory Stewart
Again, I shall endeavour to be short, before we move on to the final new clause, because Members need to go.
I am very pleased with the tone of the debate. As a result of the Opposition challenges, we will take their proposed measures seriously. The Opposition will hold us to account when they see the strategy and how we plan to address things. Unfortunately, however, there is a technical reason why we are reluctant to accept the new clause, which is that partnership principles are primarily addressed to Governments. At the core of our partnership principles is the intention to strengthen
“the management of public finances”
and to enable
“people to hold the government and public authorities to account”,
so we would be reluctant to extend them for technical reasons.
The basic theme behind the new clause, however, is correct, and we shall deal with that through internal processes. We now have a team in CDC who focus on issues of ethics, and they look exactly at business integrity. Until about three weeks ago, in fact, we had a larger team looking at such issues than the International Finance Corporation itself has.
We touched on Feronia, and I am happy to talk about it in more detail—perhaps we can even visit it. The case is a difficult one. The company has been around in various forms for 100 years. It is trying to sustain jobs three weeks upriver in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We are really serious about improving standards there and, since we increased our investment, we have been pushing up wage rates and improving safety standards, but there are huge challenges. We have inherited some 19th-century boilers and other challenges, and we have to work closely, but it is a classic example of the challenges of CDC going into a real frontier market, in a difficult and sometimes dangerous place, where 9,000 people depend on us directly and 30,000 indirectly for their jobs. We are trying to get the balance right as we gradually increase standards while maintaining that important part of the economy of the area.
With that, I ask politely for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Stephen Doughty
I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister took the new clause. I accept the technical reason. Obviously, the partnership principles apply to partner Governments, but it seems they could be transposed quite easily. It is quite clear that the headline standards CDC would be expected to adhere to would be the same as the Department’s bilateral programme as a whole.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments about Feronia. It would be good to have more information in writing about that and what steps are being taken. I accept his point that there are sometimes difficult examples and situations. Professor Collier made the point this morning that we should be taking more risk, and we do not expect everything to be perfect or right from day one, particularly when we are operating in difficult environments. However, when repeated concerns are raised about a particular case but there appears to not be the clearest response, we risk going back to the darker days of CDC’s past and some of the other investments. There were serious issues, which I do not want to dwell on, off the coast of west Africa and so on that enjoyed a great deal of scrutiny and criticism at the time.
A key point we have been debating is that if we expand CDC’s resources at a huge pace and by such a significant amount, without safeguards, particularly if we are increasing the appetite for risk, there is a risk that more will go wrong. Without a clear caveat, clear standards and transparency, so that we here in Parliament and citizens of developing countries can scrutinise fully these investments and whether they hold to principles of human rights and ethics, we will potentially get ourselves into very serious difficulties. That is why I am so worried about the quantum of increase, despite the Minister’s welcome statement about his intentions. I hope he will look seriously at the possibility of ensuring CDC adheres in that way. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: report and business case
After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: report and business case
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he has also laid before the House of Commons the documents specified in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) The document specified in this subsection is a report submitted by the CDC to the Secretary of State giving an account, in respect of the most recently completed financial year, of—
(a) the investment activities of the CDC by country and sector, and
(b) the remuneration of staff, including anonymised information on individuals receiving a salary during the financial year in question in excess of £150,000.
(3) The document specified in this subsection is a business case for the proposed use of the new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time which includes information on—
(a) the expected market demand,
(b) the proposed sectors,
(c) the proposed locations, and
(d) the prospective development returns.
(4) In this section, ‘the current limit at the time’ means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.”—(Stephen Doughty.)
This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be preceded by the laying before the House of Commons of an annual report for the preceding financial year giving information on investment activities and remuneration and a detailed business case for the proposed additional investment.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will not dwell on this new clause too long, because it simply states some of the arguments I made earlier about the sort of business case and rationale that my hon. Friends and I feel should be provided before significant increases in CDC’s capital receipts go ahead.
The new clause mentions expected market demand, proposed sectors, proposed locations and prospective development returns, as well as clear and transparent information on the investment activities of CDC and on remuneration. I have not dwelled too much on remuneration, but it bears looking at. Although the headline salaries of CDC’s chief executive and others have come down significantly, which I welcome, they are still substantial. The number of staff within CDC who are in the higher income brackets concerns me. I realise there is a trade-off here, and it is not a debate we will conclude today, but we should set out all that information clearly before Parliament authorises such significant increases of money.
I feel we have had a productive debate today on many of the issues. I welcome the new information that the Minister provided. It would be good to see some of that in writing, and perhaps through further amendments, but I still fundamentally feel that the increase is too big, with too much power being given to Secretaries of State. Who knows if the Minister will be in his place in the future? It is too much of a temptation, without clear safeguards.
I hope that other Members who join us on Report will look carefully at these issues. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will table amendments for the whole House to vote on, in the light of information we have heard today from the Minister. Serious concerns remain. I do not think the Minister has made the case yet, and certainly not for this level of increase, but I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote.
Rory Stewart
With your permission, Ms Ryan, I hope to thank people more formally on a point of order, but this has been an excellent and testing debate. I will try to come back to that point.
We take the issues that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has raised seriously. We have an online searchable database in which is contained all the remuneration, every investment decision and every fund, including the name, description, location and sector. The annual reports and accounts are now published with that information. We are pushing—he will see this in the new strategy coming forward—for even more transparency.
We already feel that CDC is a real leader among DFIs in the world, but that is not good enough. It is not good enough for us to be better than other DFIs. We can keep improving. After the evidence session, I had a conversation with Oxfam about the concrete proposals it has for more that we could do internally. We are very open to those kind of challenges. There are absolutely no issues from us or from CDC in trying to prove again and again that we are a world leader on transparency. I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that he will withdraw the new clause.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for his remarks. I think it would be helpful and more likely to gain support across the House were he to come back with a lower level of increase over a defined period and were he not to give those secondary powers. I do not think anyone is suggesting that there is not the potential for more good work to be done through CDC, but it is the question of the value and the caveats that need to be put in place before that goes forward. I do not think that the Government have made that business case yet. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister in due course, and I thank everyone who has taken part in today’s debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Rory Stewart
On a point of order, Ms Ryan. I put on record my enormous thanks to the Bill team, to the Doorkeepers, to Hansard, to the Clerks and to you for your chairmanship. Please put on record that we have explored all the amendments at great length and are finishing the Committee half a day early. In particular, I give huge thanks to all the Members—the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend East and for Bedford, the hon. Member for Glasgow North, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, the hon. Member for Bradford East, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and the hon. Member for Edmonton—who contributed greatly to our debates. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Strood and for Sutton and Cheam, the hon. Member for Wirral South, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and the hon. Member for Ogmore for their attendance.
I will conclude with a personal note. I pay huge tribute to the level of scrutiny I have received from the hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Glasgow North. I am extremely pleased, to be honest, that I am defending an institution that I am genuinely proud of and that does a genuinely good job. If I was not confident about the institution I am defending, it would have been extremely uncomfortable to be subjected to that level of expertise and scrutiny. I thank them so much for doing such a good job of holding us to account. I again thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, Hansard and everybody for allowing us to conclude half a day early.
Kate Osamor
Further to that point of order, Ms Ryan. I want to tag on to the Minister’s remarks and thank everyone who contributed today. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has worked tremendously hard, and I wanted to thank him for all his work and the scrutiny he has put the Minister under. I appreciate it, and it has helped the debate no end.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
Tuesday 10th January 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 10 January 2017 - (10 Jan 2017)
16:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 299 - Question accordingly negatived.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: report and business case—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: business case and strategic plan
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if the Secretary of State has also laid before the House of Commons the documents specified in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) The document specified in this subsection is a business case for the proposed use of the new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the limit in force which includes information on—
(a) the expected market demand,
(b) the proposed sectors,
(c) the proposed locations, and
(d) the prospective development returns.
(3) The document specified in this subsection is a strategic plan for the development of the activities of the CDC in consequence of the proposed increase in the limit in force.””
This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be preceded by the laying before the House of Commons of a detailed business case for the proposed additional investment and a strategic plan in relation to the additional investment.
New clause 3—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: poverty reduction purposes for spending outside LDCs—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: poverty reduction purposes for spending outside LDCs
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) or the condition in subsection (3) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the limit in force is in a country which is classified as one of the least developed countries.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the limit in force will have a significant impact on the reduction in poverty (within the meaning given in section 1(1) of the International Development Act 2002) in the country or countries concerned.
(4) In determining the classification of a country for the purposes of subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall use the latest analytical classification of the world’s economies prepared by the World Bank.””
This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be for additional investment which is either in least developed countries or which makes a significant impact on poverty reduction in another country.
New clause 4—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: independent assessment of aid impact—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: independent assessment of aid impact
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if the Secretary of State is satisfied that arrangements are in place for the independent assessment of the aid impact of new CDC investment which meet the conditions in this section.
(2) The first condition is that a framework agreement has been reached between CDC and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact for the Commission to carry out such an assessment on an annual basis.
(3) The second condition is that each annual assessment will be able to assess projects with a monetary value equivalent to at least 5 per cent of the total value of current investments in the year in question by the CDC.
(4) The third condition is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Independent Commission for Aid Impact has the additional resources required to carry out such annual assessments without impairing its capacity to undertake its other work.””
This new clause would require any proposal to increase the limit by secondary legislation to be contingent on an agreement being reached for an annual independent assessment of aid impact to be carried out by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact covering at least 5% of CDC’s investment portfolio at the time.
New clause 6—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: review of poverty reduction impact and contribution to Sustainable Development Goals—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: poverty reduction
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he has also laid before the House of Commons a review in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) A review under this subsection must provide the Secretary of State’s assessment of the extent to which the increase in the limit on the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation is likely to contribute to—
(a) a reduction in poverty, and
(b) achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
(3) In this section—
“reduction in poverty” shall have the same meaning as in section 1(1) of the International Development Act 2002; and
“the Sustainable Development Goals” means the Goals adopted at the United Nations on 25 September 2015.””
This new clause would require any draft regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15(4) to be preceded by a review, also to be laid before the House of Commons, of the extent to which the increase in the limit will contribute to a reduction in poverty, the aim of development assistance, and to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
New clause 7—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on investment in certain sectors—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on investment in certain sectors
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) That condition is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is not in any of the following sectors—
(a) education providers that charge the end user,
(b) healthcare providers that charge the end user,
(c) the real estate sector,
(d) mineral extraction,
(e) the palm oil sector,
(f) the fossil fuel sector.
(3) In this section—
“the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.””
This new clause would prohibit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) from being in the sectors specified in subsection (2).
New clause 8—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on use of tax havens—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: prohibition on use of tax havens
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) That condition is that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is not in either—
(a) an investment entity, or
(b) a company
which uses, or seems to the Secretary of State likely to use, tax havens.
(3) In determining whether the condition in subsection (2) is met, the Secretary of State shall consider—
(a) information provided by the OECD on countries or territories which are considered to be tax havens, and
(b) such information as is available to the Secretary of State, whether supplied by the CDC or others, about the current location of funds of the potentially relevant entities for the purposes of subsection (2).
(4) In this section—
“the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.””
This new clause would prohibit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) from going to an investment vehicle or company which uses or seems likely to use tax havens.
New clause 9—Conditions for exercise of power to increase limit: countries, poverty reduction and SDGs—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Conditions for exercise of power to increase limit: countries, poverty reduction and SDGs
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the conditions in subsection (2), (4) and (5) are met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that any new investment in a country enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is in a country which is classified as either—
(a) one of the least developed countries, or
(b) one of the other low income countries.
(3) In determining the classification of a country for the purposes of subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall use the latest analytical classification of the world’s economies prepared by the World Bank.
(4) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
(5) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that any new investment enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time is likely to contribute to achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
(6) In this section—
“the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force;
“reduction in poverty” shall have the same meaning as in section 1(1) of the International Development Act 2002; and
“the Sustainable Development Goals” means the Goals adopted at the United Nations on 25 September 2015.””
This new clause would limit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) to the least developed countries and other low income countries and require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that such new investment contributed to the reduction of poverty and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
New clause 10—Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: proportion of annual official development assistance—
“After section 15 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 (limit on government assistance), insert—
“15A Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: proportion of annual official development assistance
(1) The Secretary of State may only lay a draft of regulations under section 15(4) before the House of Commons if he is satisfied that the conditions in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the total value of any re-capitalisation of CDC enabled by the proposed increase in the current limit at the time will not, in any one calendar year, constitute more than 5% of total official development assistance.
(3) In this section—
“official development assistance” has the same meaning as in the most recent annual report laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006;
“the current limit at the time” means —
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under section 15(4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under section 15(4) then in force.””
This new clause would limit any new investment arising from any increase in the limit on government assistance under regulations under section 15(4) to 5% of official development assistance in any one calendar year.
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “£6,000 million” and insert
“the amount specified in subsection (1A)”.
This amendment paves the way for amendment 3.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 4, leave out “£6,000” and insert “£4,000”.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 4, at end, insert—
“(1A) After subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) The amount specified in this subsection is whichever is the lesser of the following amounts—
(a) £6,000 million,
(b) £1,500 million plus the amount determined in accordance with subsection (1B).
(1B) The Secretary of State shall determine the amount for the purposes of this subsection by estimating the amount which will constitute 4% of official development assistance in the relevant period determined in accordance with subsection (1C).
(1C) That period begins with the financial year in which the Secretary of State considers that the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation (determined in accordance with subsection (2)) will exceed £1,500 and ends at the end of the fourth subsequent financial year.
(1D) For the purposes of this section, “official development assistance” has the same meaning as in the most recent annual report laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.””
This amendment would replace the proposed limit on government assistance under section 15 with a new amount, expressed as either £6 billion or the existing investment of £1.5 billion plus a sum not more than 4% of forecast official development assistance over a five year period, whichever is the lesser amount.
Amendment 6, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to set a limit on government assistance above £6 billion up to £12 billion by means of secondary legislation.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 7, leave out “£12,000 million” and insert
“the amount specified in subsection (4A).
(4A) The amount specified in this subsection is whichever is the lesser of the following amounts—
(a) £12,000 million,
(b) the current limit at the time plus the amount determined in accordance with subsection (4B).
(4B) The Secretary of State shall determine the amount for the purposes of this subsection by estimating the amount which will constitute 4% of official development assistance in the relevant period determined in accordance with subsection (4C).
(4C) That period begins with the financial year in which the Secretary of State considers that the Crown’s assistance to the Corporation (determined in accordance with subsection (2)) will exceed the current limit at the time and ends at the end of the fourth subsequent financial year.
(4D) For the purposes of this section—
“the current limit at the time” means—
(a) prior to the making of any regulations under subsection (4), £6,000 million,
(b) thereafter, the limit set in regulations made under subsection (4) then in force;
“official development assistance” has the same meaning as in the most recent annual report laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.”
The amendment would set a new limit on the power to make regulations to increase the limit on government assistance under section 15, expressed as either £12 billion or the current limit at the time plus 4% of official development assistance over a five year period, whichever is the lesser amount.
Amendment 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not exercise the power under subsection (4) to increase the limit by more than the amount that the Secretary of State estimates is required to meet the plans for investment by CDC in the ensuing three years.”
This amendment has the effect of restricting each increase in the limit by secondary legislation to an amount necessary to support additional investment by CDC over a three year period.
Kate Osamor
Labour Members are unswerving in our belief that the UK must continue to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid. It is imperative, however, that the Government deliver this aid in a way that is accountable, ensures value for money, and delivers on the UK’s development objectives.
Although we support the aims of the Bill—it has reached Report without amendment—we remain concerned about the lack of safeguards. In new clause 2, we ask that no increase in the limit be granted without a report or business case. New clauses 3 and 9 are at the heart of the work of the Department for International Development, which leads the UK’s work to end extreme poverty. We on the Front Bench ask the Government to make sure that the Minister is satisfied that any new investment enabled by a proposed increase in the limit will have a significant impact in reducing poverty.
The Department must be at the forefront of tackling global poverty reduction. It is vital that the bolstering of CDC’s resources does not mean a reduction in funds for emergency and humanitarian aid in places such as northern Nigeria, Yemen and Syria, and in other parts of the world that face grave humanitarian crises. Will the Minister commit to ring-fencing such funds so that those in the direst need of help are able to receive it? Long-term investment and the establishment of a sustainable economy in order to kick-start jobs and growth are, of course, crucial to any credible development programme, but a development programme should, at its core, be a coalition of long-term investment and short-term relief. The consequences of losing sight of the latter element would be grave indeed. Just as the UK has a duty to help to lay the foundations for secure, sustainable economies in the poorest areas, where investment is a risk that few are willing to take, the UK also has a duty to assist those who bear the full force of conflict, climate change and food insecurity.
As was laid out on Second Reading, transparency should be the driving force behind any shift in the focus of the aid budget. I now speak to new clauses 4 and 8. It is vital that taxpayers’ money is spent not only effectively, but as transparently as possible. To that end, it is incumbent on the Government to put in place mechanisms that ensure maximum visibility regarding where aid money is being spent, and that minimise public scepticism. We all know that transparency is something that DFID does very well indeed.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Before the hon. Lady moved on to the important issue of transparency, she was talking about balance. It is fair to make the point, is it not, that CDC’s proportion of our development budget for its type, as foreign direct investment, is lower, at 4%, than comparables such as the French FDI of 12% and the Dutch at 30%? For the sake of proportion, it is fair to say that even with that increase, the UK will still spend more on development aid than most of our European peers do, and the proportion of FDI will be smaller than it is for many of those peers.
Kate Osamor
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point, but the Bill still needs scrutiny. That is what I am laying out.
We all know that transparency is something that DFID does very well indeed. Its performance in the aid transparency index demonstrates an international gold standard in that regard. Historically, however, the same cannot be said for CDC. It is of the utmost importance that the proportion of the ODA budget that is channelled through CDC be subject to the same checks on outcomes and value for money to which DFID holds itself. New clause 4 lays down conditions that would guarantee transparent governance through an agreed framework reached with the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and CDC. Proper annual measurements of outcome would be a welcome addition to the Bill.
In relation to new clauses 1 and 8 and the issue of CDC use of separate financial centres where countries do not have sufficiently robust regulatory environments, now is the time to put on record the Government’s commitment to strengthening financial service centres in developing countries. The Opposition know that the importance of addressing and tackling CDC’s use of tax havens cannot be overstated. Although we heard assurances in Committee from Diana Noble, the chief executive of CDC, that using offshore financial centres ensures legal certainty and lessens risk for investors, far more than reassurance is needed to ensure transparency on that point. We need clear legislative safeguards, which is why the Front-Bench team will press new clause 1 to a vote. New clause 1 requires any proposal to increase the limit by secondary legislation to be accompanied by a thorough analysis of CDCs use of such centres. Where the countries in question do not have sufficiently robust regulatory environments, it is the UK’s job to ensure that those centres are made more robust.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes some important points. Does she agree that the changes made to CDC five years ago, under which CDC was encouraged to make direct investments in developing countries—contrary to the preceding situation, in which it made investments in funds situated offshore—were a major step forward?
Kate Osamor
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I will touch on that in my speech. Regardless of any development, we must always be robust and we must be able to show taxpayers that we have a transparent and accountable system. That is at the forefront of our objections to the Bill.
I seek assurances from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), that he will consider supporting the implementation of such safeguards. It is of course to be applauded that the whole ethos of CDC has been transformed since it was the subject of widespread controversy some years ago. It is testimony to the organisation’s willingness to change that it reacted to that criticism by becoming a more positive institution and implementing an overhaul of the systems that were in place. These efforts were praised in the most recent report by the National Audit Office, which assessed CDC’s progress in implementing the recommendations that the NAO made in a report in 2008. It was heartening to read in the follow-up report that CDC has proved successful in adapting its strategy in accordance with NAO’s earlier recommendations, including instituting frameworks to limit excessive pay and to refocus CDC’s priorities on the world’s very poorest nations, rather than investing in markets that already attract foreign investors.
Kate Osamor
No, I need to make some headway.
It was also encouraging to learn that CDC has not only met but exceeded the targets agreed with DFID relating to its financial performance and development impact, and has improved its procedures for documenting fraud and corruption. Although we on the Front Bench praise CDC for making those changes, we must not forget that the recent NAO report was by no means unequivocally positive, and that it highlighted significant areas for improvement. Allow me to quote directly from a passage in the report examining the efficiency of CDC’s methods of capturing its development impact:
“It remains a significant challenge for CDC to demonstrate its ultimate objective of creating jobs and making a lasting difference to people’s lives in some of the world’s poorest places. Given the Department’s plans to invest further in CDC, a clearer picture of actual development impact would help to demonstrate the value for money of the Department’s investment.”
That is quite some statement. According to the NAO, it is “a significant challenge” for CDC to demonstrate how effectively it does the very thing it was set up to do.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The hon. Lady refers to a quote about the challenges of capturing impact. That is an ongoing challenge in all aid work. In terms of efficiency, which is what she is referring to, the NAO report concluded:
“Through tighter cost control, strengthened corporate governance and closer alignment with the Department’s objectives, CDC now has an efficient and economic operating model.”
Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a testament to the improvements that have been made to CDC’s work over the last few years?
Kate Osamor
I said in my opening remarks that CDC has improved, but the report says that it is still very hard to know and to demonstrate the impact of development, and work on that still needs to be done. The report is not totally scathing, but we must pick up such objections. If CDC was transparent, I am sure Labour Members would not have to stand up in the Chamber and say what we are now saying.
New clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), lays down conditions about investing only in certain sectors and about not investing in sectors that provide little or no development impact in ending poverty. These sectors include the fossil fuel sector, the primary education and healthcare sectors that charge at the point of contact, the building of real estate, mineral extraction and work in the palm oil sector. If DFID’s investment in CDC is to increase the level proposed in the Bill, this challenge must be urgently addressed and resolved.
In spite of CDC’s very welcome improvements, the NAO’s recommendations show that we should not forget that it remains very much a work in progress for this organisation to demonstrate transparently and robustly that it is achieving its objectives. With that in mind, we cannot regard the Bill as the end of the process. There is no room for complacency within CDC or DFID on the need to alter the organisation’s processes further to ensure and to demonstrate the delivery of its goals. Given the scale of the proposed increase in DFID funding—from a limit of £1.5 billion to one of £6 billion —and the resulting consequences both for the UK’s development programme and indeed for the developing countries it supports, it is right that the Bill is robustly challenged and meticulously scrutinised where it is found lacking, and that stringent precautions are appended to it where necessary.
New clause 10 lays out that any proposed increase in the current limit would not in any one calendar year constitute more than 5% of total official development assistance.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I want to take the hon. Lady back to new clause 7—I tried to intervene earlier—when she listed the sectors that she feels should be excluded. Does she not agree, however, that by specifically mentioning
“education providers that charge the end user”
as an exception, she risks children in some of the most underprivileged communities not being able to access education? From some Select Committee work, we know that such means are the only way of getting education for many of these children.
Kate Osamor
The hon. Lady makes a valid point, but I am talking about private education, for which someone with no money would have to pay. I do not think we should support that in a developing country, because we do not do it in this country. If someone wants to pay to go to university, there are challenges in relation to that, but I am talking, ideally, about primary education.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
New clause 7 is in my name, and I will speak about it in due course. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an important choice for DFID to make? It previously invested significantly in promoting free healthcare and education—making it available to all people, and removing such user fees—so to allow the CDC to continue to invest in private, fee-paying education is a significant shift away from the work the Department did in the past.
Kate Osamor
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, with which I totally agree.
Kate Osamor
I now need to make some progress.
Labour Members remain positive about the Bill’s ability to achieve its aim of improving the quality of life of people in some of the least developed countries in the world, but we believe that this can be achieved to its fullest extent only if appropriate safeguards are put in place. We retain our right to withdraw our support for the Bill if it becomes clear that the Government have not made sufficient progress.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is the beginning of a new term after a long Christmas holiday, but may I remind Members that, if they want to speak, it is really easy—they just have to stand up?
Mrs Drummond
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was expecting the Minister to respond to the first speaker, and I did not realise that I would be called next.
Stephen Doughty
I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady’s point, but does she not accept that there is a bit of a double standard? The Secretary of State issued a letter on 16 December to other DFID suppliers—institutions, non-governmental organisations and people in receipt of our aid money—making it very clear that they should not invest in tax havens, yet she seems unwilling to apply the same to the CDC, which is also in receipt of taxpayers’ funding. Is that not a double standard?
Mrs Drummond
No, because we are investing in very difficult areas where robust systems may not already be in place, plus the CDC has very clear guidelines about where the money is going, so we can track it much more easily than we can with other aid agencies.
Jeremy Lefroy
Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not so much about offshore centres being invested in by funds from a variety of jurisdictions, but about the tax paid in-country for activities undertaken in that country? In that respect, the investments made by the CDC are excellent and provide major tax revenues of billions of dollars a year for those country’s Treasuries.
Mrs Drummond
I thank my hon. Friend for his very clear explanation, which beefs up what I have said.
On the case for raising investment limits, amendments l, 3 and 6 and new clauses 2, 5 and 10 would hamper the CDC in the same way. We have already extensively debated the need to increase the limit, and we have had assurances from the Minister and the CDC that business cases for further capital will be clearly made. We will have the full strategy document this year, backed by an analysis from the CDC of the development impact. We will have both before any additional money goes through the CDC.
On the focus of spending, I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the question of which specific investments are made must be delegated to DFID and the CDC. That would give the Government oversight and ensure that sustainable development goals are at the heart of the investment. Putting countries or, indeed, limiting sectors in legislation would make delivering the development process cumbersome, and I believe that it would hobble the CDC.
Pauline Latham
Does my hon. Friend agree that supporting the CDC is absolutely vital if we are to achieve the global sustainable development goals by 2030? We need to mobilise the private sector to fill an annual financing gap of about $2.5 trillion every year.
Mrs Drummond
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One reason that I am so passionate about the CDC is that we need to build the capacity of developing countries. In my first speech on this subject, I said give a man fish and he will eat it, but give him a fishing rod and he is set for life. That is exactly the philosophy behind the CDC that I am so keen on.
There are circumstances in which some relatively more developed countries are host to companies involved in much poorer ones. As with the misplaced fears about offshore financial centres, we should not close off any path to investment and development. New clauses 3, 4, 6 and 9 all fail in that respect. All the amendments before us share a fundamental weakness and a misunderstanding of the CDC’s role in the world. We put less of our development investment through the CDC than other countries do through their equivalent bodies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) mentioned earlier. We should be doing more through the CDC if we want to develop mature and robust market economies in the developing world, which is why I welcome the Bill.
Markets are transparent and flexible, and they empower people who take part in them. The aim of our development policy should always be to encourage self-sufficiency and the development of market economies. As I said in my first contribution on the Bill, the CDC is transparent, as the NAO report agreed. I champion the CDC’s philosophy of enabling people to build their own businesses, rather than handing out grants. It is an efficient and transparent model, and we should all give the Bill our wholehearted support and continue to be a major investor in improving the lives of our fellow citizens in developing countries.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I will speak to amendment 3 and new clause 6, which are in my name, and I will offer support for the Labour party’s amendments that I have added my name to.
Nobody here is arguing that the CDC should not exist. We all recognise there is a role for development finance and private investment. As I noted on Second Reading, the Scottish Government have just set up their own investment mechanism in Malawi. But even if we wanted to change some of the deeper fundamentals, that is not in the scope of the Bill. The Government, probably deliberately, have presented a very narrow Bill with the aim of increasing the statutory limit of their investment. Therefore, by definition, that is what our amendments must focus on.
I hope that the Government will see—certainly in the amendments I have tabled and, I think, in the Labour ones—that we have tried to respond to and take on board some of their concerns about some of our amendments in Committee. It is up to the Government to respond and indicate how they will take our concerns on board. We all want to work constructively with the Government on the Bill. We want to recognise and maintain the consensus on the importance of aid, our commitment to 0.7% and the effective use of those resources.
Amendment 3, which is in my name, and amendments 2 and 4, which are contingent on it, gets to the heart of the technical aspect of the Bill: what the cap on investment in the CDC should be. The Government have been repeatedly asked for their reasons behind the figures of £6 billion and £12 billion in the Bill, and I am afraid that they have still come up short. The best we have heard is that this is roughly what they think is needed, or could be managed, over the coming years. In the lifetime of this Parliament, that could still equate to an additional £1.5 billion to £2 billion a year of investment from the official development assistance budget to the CDC. As we have repeatedly said, every penny invested in the CDC is a penny not invested in other mainstream, grassroots and not-for-profit development projects and support.
On Second Reading, I asked about the use of a formula to link the cap with overall ODA budgets, and I proposed such a formula in Committee. The Minister’s first concern about a formula was that it would blur the line between stock and flow. But the aid budget is a flow. It goes up and it can, theoretically, go down as well. I recognise that the CDC investment is a stock: once funds are transferred, that is where they stay and they remain part of the overall capital fund. However, the formula would ask the Government, each time they want to disburse funds to CDC, to calculate how those funds will relate to overall aid spending in the coming years.
The Minister’s second concern was that my formula in Committee effectively discounted the £1.5 billion already invested in the CDC. Amendment 3 and the contingent amendments take that into account. By my calculations, based on figures from the Library, this formula would still allow the Government to invest an extra £3 billion, or a total of £4.5 billion, in the CDC by 2021. Even if the Government will not accept the amendment and we cannot persuade enough of their Back Benchers to join us in the Lobby to support it, I hope that they will commit to recognising that the £6 billion figure currently stated in the legislation is a maximum and that any additional investment they intend to make will ultimately reflect the ebb and flow of overall ODA calculations in any given spending round.
Irrespective of the caps and limits, much concern has been expressed throughout the passage of the Bill over how some aspects of the CDC’s resources have been spent in the past and how they will continue to be spent in the future. That is what I seek to address with new clause 6, which is particularly important in the context of increasing—potentially quadrupling—the overall resources available to the CDC. I welcome the range of amendments in Committee and here today that attempt to place various conditions on the exercise of the power to increase the limit.
As I said at the start, owing to the scope of the Bill, my amendments and those of Labour Members must relate to the increase in the limit from £6 billion to £12 billion under the terms of section 15(4) of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999. Try as we might, it has not been possible to find a way to attach conditions to the investment of up to £6 billion. The Government have indicated that the timetable for using the statutory instrument powers would be some way in the distance, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be some kind of conditionality and review process before those powers are used, especially given that we will apparently have so much time to prepare.
New clause 6 combines two conditions I called for in Committee: before the Government could increase the limit of their investment, the Secretary of State would be required to make an assessment of how an increased limit would contribute to a reduction in poverty, which is the statutory aim of ODA in the International Development Act 2002, and how that increase would help to meet the sustainable development goals. The Government have repeatedly argued that the CDC is doing both those things very effectively, in which case this is hardly an onerous request, but the new clause would have the effect of making it much clearer that this is the CDC’s overall purpose and that commercial gain, returns on investment and even raw figures on the number of jobs created are not an end in themselves, but only the means to the end of reducing poverty and building a more stable and secure world. Again, the responsibility is on the Government, if they will not accept our amendments, at least to acknowledge the concerns being expressed and to give commitments to show in any business case they publish for further investment how the key pillars of poverty reduction and the global sustainable development goals will be advanced.
I briefly speak in favour of, and indicate the Scottish National party’s support for, the range of thoughtful amendments tabled by the Labour shadow team and by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who serves on the Select Committee on International Development. I welcome the fact that there has been cross-party support for the amendments and suggest that the Government pay attention to that. There remains consensus in this House and across the country in support of the principle of aid, the 0.7% target and, of course, the effective use of that aid. Many of Labour’s amendments, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) said, simply ask DFID to hold the CDC to the same standards that the Government now demand of their external stakeholders. Their recent bilateral and multilateral development reviews were pretty much unilateral declarations of everything that was terrible and wasteful on the part of so many of their stakeholders and demanded that the highest standards of efficiency, impact and transparency be applied to them. It stands to reason that those standards should also be demanded of the CDC.
A Government who say they want to crack down on tax dodging should not be allowing an agency of which they are the sole stakeholder to be making use of offshore tax havens. A Government who want value for money and clear impact from their aid budget should not be afraid to ask for reporting on exactly those areas. My colleagues and I will be happy to join the Labour party, hon. Members from other Opposition parties, and any Conservative Member persuaded of the case in the Lobby in support of any amendments they wish to press.
I said on Second Reading that it was disappointing that the scope of the Bill was so narrow. The Government had the opportunity to widen the scope to strengthen the CDC’s effectiveness, transparency and accountability. They also had that opportunity with the substantial and, in some cases, creative amendments that have been proposed by Opposition Members from different parties. If Ministers continue to indicate an unwillingness to accept amendments—it is disappointing that they did not table any of their own to reflect the concerns raised by Members—they must give the strongest possible commitments now in response to the concerns we have raised. The Government must recognise, as the Labour Front Bench spokesperson said, that this is the beginning, and not the end, of a process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Fuller
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am taking absolutely to heart your suggestion that, this being the new year, we have to stand up to get the chance to speak.
I would like to start by thanking all the members of staff at the CDC for the work they do on behalf of British taxpayers and, more importantly, for the people who depend on the CDC for their employment in many of the most troubled and difficult countries in the world. Over the past few weeks, the CDC has been the subject of much ill-founded and hostile criticism, and that must make its job much, much harder, so it is important to put on record our support for the work they do in helping to achieve our country’s development goals.
I would also like to thank the Front-Bench spokesman for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor). She did a very good job in putting forward some points of scrutiny and in holding back on some of the wilder suggestions that might have been foisted on her in order to batter the Bill. The fact that historically there has been a cross-party consensus—given what she has said, it continues—on the valuable role of the CDC in achieving our development goals is important. It is a long-standing institution in our country; it is part of the British brand internationally, and she has done a great service today by focusing on the one amendment she wishes to press to a vote but pushing back on other ideas, which other Opposition Members might have asked her to press.
Pauline Latham
I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that the CDC last year upped its investment rate to $1.5 billion, which is the level projected for the next five years. Does that investment rate show that recapitalisation is not about some supposed new direction for the CDC but about allowing the good work it has done under its management to continue?
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to be clear what is being proposed today. The proposal is not to do more than is being done now, but to enable the CDC to continue to do what it is doing now. If we were to take some of the suggestions from the SNP and others, that might imply that that support should be reduced in the future, and that would be to the detriment of the countries affected and the British taxpayer.
Patrick Grady
ODA flows and gross national income can go up or down, so if, for some reason, GNI were to contract, and the ODA budget were to contract, surely it would make sense for the amount of overall capital investment in the CDC to contract so that more money was available for the traditional aid flows.
Richard Fuller
That is the hon. Gentleman’s point of view, but it is not my point of view, and I will come to the point about balance in a minute.
A general view of the amendments is that they seek to solve problems that do not exist, but that may exist. Statute is not the right way to approach such circumstances; that is a matter for oversight and scrutiny by the departmental Ministers and by us here in Parliament on behalf of our taxpayers—it is not about putting things into Bills. On that basis, I will oppose every amendment that has been proposed today.
There would be some validity to the amendments if there was a question about this aspect of foreign direct investment being unusually large. There might be something to them if the CDC had a poor investment record because it was losing shed loads of taxpayers’ money by making poor investments, if it was clearly ignoring development goals and was being held to account in reports for doing that, or if a problem in reporting oversight was evident and explained in various reports. However, not a single one of those conditions pertains to the circumstances of the CDC, so there is no a priori reason to put these amendments in place.
As I mentioned earlier, the proportion of our development budget that goes to our development finance institution—the CDC—is 4% if taken over five years, which is the usual investment period for a fund. That compares to PROPARCO of France, which has 12% of the development budget; DEG in Germany, which has 8% of the budget; and FMO in Holland, which is a very successful DFI, and which has 30% of the budget. So we are not unusually large—we are actually unusually small. In terms of such initiatives, we should be looking for a measured and slow increase in our ability to invest, so that we can play a fuller role. So I do not think that the point about that really holds.
The point about the poor investment record does not hold either. I have the numbers here, and the truth of the matter is that in terms of its annual return—this is a commercial return, and we have to understand that there are commercial returns for funds—the CDC was set a target of 3.5%, and it achieved 7.8% over the past five years. So there are not really grounds for saying that it is a poor performer in terms of its core function of investing on a commercial basis or that it is doing something untoward.
On the missing development goals, I understand that there is a bit of a laundry list of sectors that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) wishes to turn his nose up to. I have no idea whether the list in his new clause is a full list or whether it just contains things he does not like. One of my hon. Friends made a good point about why there are good reasons to support parts of them. We will hear from the hon. Gentleman in a minute, and I am sure he will make an excellent case for that laundry list. However, in the meantime, I would say that there is not really any evidence of the CDC missing its development goals. Even the National Audit Office report mentioned that the CDC had met the targets for its financial performance, which was point 11 in its summary. In point 12, it said that the
“CDC has exceeded the target for prospective development impact it agreed with the Department.”
So there is no basis in that respect for the amendments.
Are there concerns about reporting for CDC? There may be, but I have not heard them. I cannot point to something that says there are concerns. I do not think that we have heard concerns about reporting on Second Reading, in the evidence stages or today. There may be additional pieces of information we wish to have, and they are listed in some of the amendments, but no real concerns have been raised that these things have not been provided in the past and that we should therefore ensure that the CDC provides them. Therefore, on the issue of whether there is a problem at the CDC that the amendments are needed to correct, there is no justification for the amendments whatever.
We have to be clear about what the role of tax havens has been. The hon. Member for Edmonton was very fair in pointing out that the CDC’s chief executive had made it clear that the CDC does not use tax havens in its policies, and the chief executive explained where those are used and why they are used. I am perfectly happy to rest on the judgment of the CDC, on its governance structures and on the oversight by the Department to make sure that that continues. I do not need to put a statutory underpinning on that. I also do not see that there is a problem at the moment in terms of the CDC having wandered off from what it said it would do. If there was such a problem, I would say, “Okay, maybe it is time for statute,” but the hon. Lady has not presented—maybe others will—a recent concern where that has happened. Therefore, I cannot see a reason for supporting new clause 1, although I understand that she wants to put it to a vote. I think we broadly accept—from that point of view, having a discussion about this is perhaps valuable—that there should be a strong message from Parliament about the use of tax havens and about what is and is not appropriate. If that is her intention, that is a perfectly reasonable point for her to make.
The CDC is a valuable institution. It has support from both sides of the House. I look forward to having further discussion on the amendments and then supporting the Bill on Third Reading.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
In July last year, as part of our ongoing inquiry, the International Development Committee visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As part of that, we went to see a hydroelectric power plant in the Virunga national park, which has been part-funded by the CDC. It is reinvesting a proportion of its earnings into community development projects and protecting the environment. The plant is bringing electricity to a region in which only 15% of the population has previously had access to power, and it has the potential to generate millions of dollars each year and thousands of jobs for local communities. I cite that because such projects are impressive and demonstrate the positive impact that the CDC is already having.
Pauline Latham
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was also on that visit, and that is probably one of the most impressive projects I have ever seen. It provides light to so many people in the DRC who so desperately need it. Those are just the sorts of projects we have talked about and said that the CDC should be investing in more, because they create jobs and make life better for so many more people.
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Lady is a highly valued member of the International Development Committee and I agree with her. The purpose of my remarks on Report this afternoon is to reinforce the point she made. Those are positive projects. We want to ensure that the high-quality we saw in that example in Congo becomes the norm for all the CDC’s investments, particularly as the limit is increased, which I will come to in a moment.
The private sector provides around nine out of every 10 jobs in developing countries. Its development and success is vital in helping countries to achieve sustainable and long-term development. I therefore believe it makes sense to increase the CDC’s investment threshold.
Poverty reduction must be at the heart of the Government’s development agenda, which must explicitly include the work of the CDC. In 2011, the predecessor International Development Committee produced a report, “The Future of CDC”, as the group approached its then cap of £1.5 billion, as set out in the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999. The Committee’s report concluded that the CDC’s mandate should be changed to a specific focus on poverty alleviation. Given that job creation is one of the very best ways to reduce poverty, it is important that the Government have a development investment arm that will help poorer countries to create new and innovative jobs.
As has been said by Members on both sides of the House, the CDC made significant changes following the 2008 National Audit Office report and the 2011 International Development Committee report in line with recommendations to move towards a focus on the alleviation of poverty. As has also been said, those changes were reviewed recently by a further NAO report released just before Second Reading of the Bill in November 2016. The report was mostly positive, and noted that the 2012 to 2016 investment strategy shifted the CDC’s investment focus to poorer countries, which is welcome. The report noted that the CDC had exceeded the targets agreed with DFID relating to financial performance and development impact. However, it also said that the CDC should do more to measure the development impact of its investments. That would not only provide a better basis for investment decisions, but increase the transparency of the CDC.
Poverty alleviation is absolutely central if we are to make a success of the global goals—the sustainable development goals agreed in 2015. Africa needs to generate 15 million new jobs every year if it is to achieve its global goals. That can be achieved only by working with the private sector, including organisations such as CDC. CDC has helped to create nearly 25,000 jobs in Africa and south Asia directly, and it says it has helped to create more than 1 million jobs indirectly. The businesses in its portfolio support around 18 million jobs. I am therefore happy to see the increase in the threshold, but I have a number of concerns to which I should like the Minister to respond.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will know that I respect not only his passion, but the balanced way in which he deals with CDC issues. Does he share my concern that we risk having a more prescriptive approach towards the CDC, which is a part-private sector organisation, than we have towards a range of non-governmental organisations that are beneficiaries of large-scale DFID programmes, which might be somewhat distorting? Although he makes valid points about the concerns, if we are to hamstring CDC in the way that one or two of the proposals would have us do, it would be an undesirable outcome for DFID.
Stephen Twigg
I am certainly not arguing for prescriptions to be applied to the CDC that would not be applied to other organisations funded by DFID. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has made the valid point that, shortly before Christmas, the Secretary of State set out a number of conditions for suppliers to the Department, and that they should apply to the CDC. I am emphasising my support for the proposal to put poverty reduction at the heart of the CDC. All hon. Members would agree that that should be at the heart of the Government’s entire development and aid strategy, including DFID. I can plead not guilty to the charge that the right hon. Gentleman puts to me. I am not proposing in any sense to hamstring the CDC. I am certainly not proposing, and I do not believe the Opposition amendments seek, to impose any restriction on the CDC that would be out of step with the restrictions we apply to other bodies funded through overseas development assistance.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes a strong point, which is very much the point. The proposals are about bringing the CDC more in line with DFID’s overall priority countries and sectors, and with the restrictions placed on other UK aid money.
Stephen Twigg
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have read what the Minister said in Committee—reassurance can be gained from it—but I look forward to hearing him again today. It is very important that we have a sense that, with a very substantial increase in the potential money going through the CDC, we will ensure that it is geared towards poverty reduction wherever it is invested. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, part of that is the question of which parts of the world and which countries the CDC will invest in. Investments in some countries can deliver a lot more jobs and poverty reduction than investments in others.
As I have said, I am happy with an increase in the investment threshold, but we must ensure that the money is spent wisely. The 2012 to 2016 investment plan has expired and we are yet to see the 2017 to 2021 investment plan. I suggest that it would have been beneficial for the Bill, the Government and the CDC if Parliament had seen the plans for the next four years of investment before it was asked to raise the investment threshold. The amendment from my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State would ensure that, if the Government introduce regulations further to increase the limit, they would have to be preceded by a detailed plan of investment from the CDC that could be scrutinised by Parliament. I welcome and support that amendment.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Successive Governments can be proud of the role played by DFID in improving lives and the economies of some of the world’s poorest countries but, in light of much of the public debate on international development spending, much of what my hon. Friend says on parliamentary scrutiny is correct in principle. Does he agree that that is absolutely essential for maintaining and building public confidence in international development spending?
Stephen Twigg
I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says, which chimes with my conclusion on the importance of scrutiny of both the CDC and the Government, including scrutiny by the House.
Mark Field
I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says—in the context of the debate it would be useful to have an idea of the programmes that the CDC has in mind for the future. I hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, there is another opportunity to have one. However, does he recognise that, given the nature of the CDC’s expertise and experience, it might to an extent have slightly different goals from other NGOs who receive DFID money? In other words, given the CDC’s expertise, particularly its private sector expertise and experience, the absolute predominance of the alleviation of poverty could in some cases not entirely apply to everything it does.
Stephen Twigg
The focus and priority needs to be on poverty alleviation. At the beginning of my speech, I gave the example of a project we visited—the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) reinforced the point. That project undoubtedly delivered things beyond poverty reduction, but at the heart of that investment and its impact was the reduction of poverty. Keeping the reduction of poverty in mind is a useful lodestar for DFID when it approaches the work of the CDC. I would need some persuading that a project should be funded that did not have some connection to the alleviation and reduction of poverty.
Let me now turn to the issues of scrutiny that were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). The recent NAO report, as was rightly said by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), revealed that the target development impact score is on average being met, but only on average. The CDC is making some investments that fall below the target. Some 23% of investments since 2013 have fallen below the target score based on their investment difficulty and propensity to generate employment. Given that the objective stated in the CDC’s current investment policy is to
“focus its investments into the geographies and sectors where there is the most potential for development impact”,
it is unclear why the CDC is investing in projects that achieve lower scores. So I say to the Minister that, along with a more robust approach to measuring development impact, I would like a minimum threshold for impact implemented in the new investment strategy.
As with all DFID spending—and, indeed, broader aid spending by other Government Departments—the International Development Committee will scrutinise very closely the CDC’s work in the months and years ahead. It is vital that we ensure the British taxpayer gets value for money for every pound spent on international development. As has been said on all sides of the House, the CDC has become more transparent following the Committee’s 2011 report and the NAO report in 2008, but more can still be done to ensure that money is being spent as well as possible. One way that could be achieved—I ask the Minister to explore this—is to allow the Independent Commission for Aid Impact to play a bigger role, for example carrying out a regular assessment of CDC investments, allowing scrutiny so we can really ensure full effectiveness and value for money of the programmes in which the CDC invests.
I think we can say that the CDC has been a world leader among development finance institutions in publishing details of its investments since 2012 under the International Aid Transparency Initiative. That is very welcome, but I suggest it would improve transparency further if it published similar details on its entire active investment portfolio, including those made prior to 2012. I ask the Minister to address that point when he responds to the debate. That would enable greater scrutiny of the CDC’s entire portfolio and hopefully provide assurance to the public that all the CDC investments are focused where they need to be: on the goal of poverty reduction.
In conclusion, I believe that the CDC has helped the UK to be a leader in global development, but as with any area of Government spending we need to ensure that every penny is going where it can have the greatest effect: the right places and the right people delivering value for money for the taxpayer. One way to achieve that is by regular scrutiny of the CDC, including by Parliament. I give a commitment that the International Development Committee will play its role in ensuring that we scrutinise and hold to account both the Department and the CDC as the additional money is allocated. Most importantly, as with all areas of development spending, we need to ensure that the ultimate goal is poverty alleviation and eradication, and that we never lose focus on that.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your generosity in allowing me to contribute for a short time.
The CDC has a really important discrete role in our international development portfolio. There are few organisations with the skills and abilities to manage such risk in the most difficult markets. Often, it will bring an economic frontier country, area or sector the opportunities leading towards a risk profile that more established and traditional investment vehicles can get involved in. That is to be welcomed. It supports more than 1,200 businesses in more than 70 developing countries to create jobs.
We discussed a number of issues in Committee, including the fact that investments are not necessarily direct. Amendments tabled both in Committee and on Report address whether that serves to divert resources from the least-developed countries. I would say that it is sometimes necessary to invest in opportunities in other countries as long as the outcomes go to the most needy and the least-developed countries. At the end of the day, that is what we are trying to do with our international development effort.
As many Members have said, it is important to concentrate on our core goals and the SDGs. In Committee, the Minister was explicit in saying he did not believe we needed more legislation. The International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 already enshrines in legislation the need to focus on poverty reduction and the SDGs, and they are already enshrined in DFID’s own principles and processes, so I do not believe that we need to have yet more primary legislation.
On the limits referred to in relation to some of the amendments, we have to remember this is effectively an enabling Bill, which is why it is so short. It is not an immediate call to spend. It is not a case of saying, “Here’s £6 billion tomorrow and then we’re going to raise it further the day after.” The Bill simply seeks to bring the CDC in line with other organisations that have similar requests of Departments. In Committee, the Minister said that any requests for money would have to be subject to DFID’s strategy and have to have a robust business plan that was considered fully before any money was handed over. That can easily be done on a departmental level. I totally agree with my colleague and Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). As a new Member, I look forward to being able to scrutinise the work of CDC.
I note that the CDC has changed. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) that some amendments address problems that may not occur or rehearse old problems from before 2010 when the then Secretary of State reorganised the CDC. I do not support amendments on problems that may or may not happen, or have happened in the past but have been largely sorted out. The CDC has moved from pre-2010 looking at low impact, high return investment programmes, to a far more proactive viewpoint to ensure we take into account the SDGs and poverty reduction. I will be scrutinising that along with my colleague the Chair of the Select Committee, but I will not be supporting the amendments, for the reasons I have set out. This can best be done at Department and Committee level through post and pre-decision scrutiny. In conclusion, I look forward to the Bill becoming an Act.
Stephen Doughty
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 7 and the other new clauses and amendments in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
It is fantastic to see so great a consensus in the room around the 0.7% aid target and Britain’s role in international development—in contrast, perhaps, to the shriller debate in the media in recent weeks. It might surprise those hon. Members who have criticised my amendments that there is actually much agreement around the role of CDC; I believe it has a vital role to play—I made this clear in Committee, as I am sure the Minister would acknowledge—in the wider portfolio of our international development effort and in the spending of our official development assistance.
I would like to thank my fellow Co-operative party MPs and the shadow Front-Bench team, as well as other Members from across the House, for adding their names to many of my amendments. It shows the level of very reasonable concern around the many unanswered questions concerning the priorities and operations of CDC. Those questions need to be addressed before we can countenance such a large increase in the official development assistance resources it receives from DFID. I am not suggesting that CDC should not get any more resources—it has reached the cap of £1.5 billion set in 1999 and clearly needs some increase and headroom to expand its activities—but it is worth recognising that it has coped well by recycling resources within itself, partly thanks to some of the investment successes it has enjoyed.
Richard Fuller
Is not the level of investment now consistent with this increase? For CDC’s current level of activity to be maintained, it requires this level of increase, so cannot concerns about too rapid growth perhaps be overstated?
Stephen Doughty
I do not believe that that case has been made; there has been no justification at any point for the actual figures. To maintain CDC at its current level of activity, we need to realise that it has managed perfectly well with £1.5 billion since 1999 and has recycled it within its own budgets. If it was going up by £1.5 billion or £2 billion, I could understand it with a view to creating space for the next 10 years, but £6 billion and £12 billion seem to me to be well out of the appropriate range.
Wendy Morton
From my understanding of the Bill and on the basis of evidence given in Committee, I would like to read the quote that
“no money will go to CDC until a full business case is written in huge detail, which will be prepared in the summer of 2017.”––[Official Report, Commonwealth Development Corporation Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2016; c. 9.]
The suggestion that we are going to give a huge chunk of money to CDC straight away is perhaps creating an unfair impression.
Stephen Doughty
Clearly, the hon. Lady did not listen to what I was saying. I did not say that. I said that the Minister had acknowledged that it was not going to be spent in one year, which was the fear when this was initially proposed. What we are asking for in the amendments is just that clear business case. I hope that the Minister—he was nodding earlier—will be able to set out how that process and scrutiny of it will occur, which is only right. There was only limited scrutiny of the last amounts spent, which were quite significant.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
What my hon. Friend describes is, in civil service language, the ghastly phrase “absorptive capacity”. He will know that, unfortunately, the Department for International Development has allocated some funding into various World Bank trust funds that have not been fully spent with the originally envisaged timescale, suggesting that the Department is beginning to struggle to find suitable sources that can absorb its money as it wants. My hon. Friend is, in my view, right to worry aloud that this is a huge increase in money without any proven capacity to spend it.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed. My hon. Friend, one of the longest-serving Ministers at DFID, knows this only too well. He makes a very important point. I have spoken to other experts in the sector who suggest that to absorb that amount, even a doubling would be a struggle, so it certainly applies to the levels we are seeing. That is why it would be much more helpful if the Minister were clear about the schedule for this spending. What is his idea of the number of years over which this increase would be spent before we might require another Act to increase it even further?
We tabled some crucial amendments, as did SNP Members, in new clauses 3, 4 and 6 and my own new clause 9, emphasising the importance of focusing on the poorest, least developed and low-income countries and of ensuring that we remain coherent with the sustainable development goals—the global goals agreed by the UN—and focused on poverty eradication rather than other priorities.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Has not DFID led the world on the importance of aid transparency and a focus on poverty reduction? The problem at the heart of these proposals is that there is very little prospect of transparency of how these resources are spent. Equally, there is very little ability for the Government to guarantee that the resources will be deployed and focused on poverty reduction. Is that not a matter of major concern?
Stephen Doughty
I think it is, and that gets to the point. A lot of information is provided by CDC online, and it is important to acknowledge that much of it is helpful. We can get into individual projects and see the particular spending on those individual projects. However, it is not the same when it comes to the level of spending, which is what the NAO was looking at. It is important to be able to prove prospective development impact and show where it is going.
To take just one example, the NAO looked at the issue of funding going into the health sector in India, and tried to get clear information about where the money was being spent in a particular hospital group. It looked at whether it was going to the poorest or to middle-income patients. The NAO told us in its evidence that it was going to middle-income patients, which does not strike me as a correct use of CDC’s money. That is not to say that the investment is not good in and of itself—I am sure that enabling access to hospital for people in general is a good thing. The question is whether we should be spending our aid money on that. Surely we should be focusing on the poorest.
When we examine the figures in depth—they can be found in a House of Commons Library research paper—we see that although the proportion of CDC’s investments in the least developed countries has increased, it is still significantly lower than the proportion of its investments in middle-income countries. As for spending in individual countries, it is a fact that in India most of CDC’s money is being spent in what are known to be the richest states. The highest proportion of its investments goes to Maharashtra, which is where Mumbai is located. I am not saying that the individual investments there are not good, effective or useful; I am saying that it is a question of priorities. In Committee, it was helpful to hear the Minister speak of the possibility of a cap or restriction on funds that go to India and elsewhere in south Asia rather than to Africa. Giving evidence to the Committee, Professor Paul Collier said that he shared the concern that had been expressed about whether CDC was focusing enough resources on the poorest countries. New clause 9, for instance, relates to those issues.
The wider issue of spending routes that is raised in both the SNP’s amendment 3 and our new clause 10 is crucial. We are not suggesting that CDC should not be given more money, or that it should not have a chance to expand its operations and the autonomy that it enjoys, but we believe that those elements should be in proportion to other forms of official development assistance. It is important that we introduce safeguards. By 2019-20, 6% of United Kingdom official development assistance will be spent by other Government Departments. Money goes into the prosperity fund and other Government funds, and there is often far less scrutiny and oversight than there is in DFID. That worries me, and I know that it worries other Members on both sides of the House.
We need to achieve a fair balance. CDC has its role to play in the portfolio, but that must be proportionate to other ways in which we can spend the money. We must ensure that we are pulling all the levers of development, rather than just one at the expense of others. For that reason, I am inclined to support amendment 3 if it is pressed to a vote.
I want to say something about tax havens, although I shall not do so at length, because we discussed the issue a great deal in Committee and we have also discussed it today. I find it surprising—this relates to new clauses 1 and 8—that CDC continues to use tax havens such as the Cayman islands and Mauritius. A fair point has been made about the importance of stable financial arrangements for investments. In some countries it is clearly not possible to set up arrangements within the legal structures of those countries to ensure that the right fiduciary controls are in place. However, I do not understand why we are not setting up such vehicles in England and Wales, or in other jurisdictions. Why are so many of them in the Cayman islands and Mauritius?
Moreover—I have asked parliamentary questions about this—we are paying management fees to financial services organisations, in the Cayman islands and elsewhere, that also support the far less transparent activities of other corporations and individuals. I find it deeply worrying that, whether or not there is anything untoward about an individual CDC investment, we may be indirectly supporting the flourishing of the tax avoidance and evasion that exists in overseas territories.
Mr Gareth Thomas
Is my hon. Friend aware of comments made by the Secretary of State when she was a Treasury Minister about tax evasion and the need to limit the use of tax havens? Why does the Treasury seem to be concerned about the issue, and why is DFID suddenly not concerned about it? One would have thought that, when it came to such a crucial issue, there would be joined-up government.
Stephen Doughty
That was also a great surprise to me. I referred earlier to the letter that the Secretary of State sent to many of the other DFID contractors on 16 December. That letter was very clear about tax avoidance measures and tax havens. It contained a series of criteria, most of which I think are very reasonable, and which we should expect to be observed by organisations that are benefiting from our aid spending. My question is this: why are those criteria not being applied to CDC? The Secretary of State repeatedly refused to confirm that they would be. There seems to be one rule for one organisation and a different rule for others.
Eurodad research found that 118 out of 157 fund investments made by CDC went through jurisdictions that feature in the top 20 of the Tax Justice Network’s Financial Secrecy Index. That does not seem to me to be coherent with the other statements that are being made by the Government. Indeed, the will of the House has been shown by cross-party support for amendments to other Bills that would crack down on tax avoidance and evasion.
Lastly, I want to return to the issue of coherence, and I urge colleagues to support new clause 7. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) referred to this as some sort of laundry list and suggested I was creating hypothetical straw men that did not actually exist and was dealing with things that have happened in the past. That is not the case; I am talking about things that are happening now. It is a fact that, as data revealed to me since the Committee stage in parliamentary questions show, in 2015 alone CDC invested £56.9 million in private fee-paying education and £117.9 million in private fee-paying healthcare.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I shall speak in support of a number of the measures on the amendment paper, but first I want to make a couple of comments about the political context in which this debate is taking place. I turned on the television over the weekend to see on the tickertape at the bottom of the news channel screen the information that our Government had stopped funding a girl band in Africa. I was shocked by this—I did not realise we were funding girl bands or bands of any other kind in Africa or elsewhere—so I thought I would look into the matter a little more. Of course, on doing so, I discovered that that was not the story at all.
The story was loosely based on a project in Ethiopia called Girl Effect, which is a huge programme that is aimed at empowering young women throughout that country. It has 500 direct participants and more than 10,000 participants online, and it operates from 8,000 schools throughout the country. It is designed to use music and performing arts to give young women in that country confidence so that they can take part in Ethiopian political and social life. It is undeniably a good thing. It was set up by DFID in 2011, and every time that DFID has reviewed it, it has been given an A* rating. It is exactly the type of project that we should be supporting, but it is unusual and unconventional. It is not the same as handing out food to people who are starving, so the case needs to be made for it. We also need to be aware of how these things can be caricatured and used to argue against the provisions that we are talking about today.
That entire Girl Effect project was described in the Daily Mail as the British Government funding the equivalent of the Spice Girls. The implication was quite clear: millions of pounds of our taxpayers’ money was being used not to feed the poor, the starving or the illiterate, but to fund five young women and turn them into rich pop stars. That was not true. The reporting was a good example of what we might call fake news—I believe that that is the term used these days. It was connected to reality by the thinnest threads of truth, yet for many people reading the Daily Mail and the other papers that took up the story, or looking at the tickertape along the bottom of their screen, it created the impression that they were given.
Lots of people, including some in this Chamber who ran to the press to comment on that story, will use these caricatures to denigrate and oppose any foreign aid activity by this country. They use the ridiculous argument that we should be spending money at home before we spend it abroad, as though the poverty and inequality in this country, which we must tackle, was on a par with the hell in sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty, oppression and the daily grind are the normal way of existence for the mass of people in those countries. Knowing that those caricatures exist and that we need to be careful about how we present these arguments brings me to the new clauses and amendments before us today.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good case, but considering that a third of all Ethiopian girls do not go to school, would it not be better for female empowerment if the money were spent on giving them an education? Would that not be more empowering than promoting a pop group?
Tommy Sheppard
I do not want to have a big discussion about the project, but I will respond by saying that we should do both. Of course we should also try to put money into formal education, but the importance of that project was that it understood that digital communication was a much more effective way of reaching young people in Ethiopia than the bricks and mortar of a formal educational establishment. It also understood that music and lyrics can sometimes be better than formal texts at getting through to people, educating them and inspiring them with big ideas. That is true in this country as well. Those things have contributed to the social education of young women in Ethiopia. As I said, the Department for International Development itself said that the project was worth supporting.
The important point in all these debates is that we can win public support for foreign aid and rally the public behind the 0.7% contribution, provided that we are transparent about what we are doing, and that we demonstrate at every turn that the people who are getting the money are those who really need it. It is therefore important that those criteria are demonstrated through the work of CDC Group and others, and that evidence is produced.
I am not sure which amendments and new clauses will be pressed to a Division, but I will vote for whichever ones are, because they would all strengthen the Bill. In my 20 months in this Chamber, this is the first time that I have seen a Bill come back on Report without a single Government amendment. I find that surprising. I know that the Bill is concise and brief, but given the concerns that were expressed on Second Reading about the work of CDC Group, I would have thought that the Bill could have been tightened up a little. I hope that the Government will consider supporting some of the new clauses and amendments because they would make the Bill more efficacious in achieving its objectives.
New clause 6 states that before CDC Group gets a major uplift in funding, the case will have to be made that it is meeting the sustainable development goals and tackling poverty and inequality in the country in which the money is deployed. Let me put it another way. If a project was not tackling poverty or combating inequality, and not contributing to achieving the sustainable development goals, why on earth should we fund it? When it comes to prioritising when money is tight, we have to make sure that it is spent on what it is supposed to be spent on.
On Second Reading we discussed some of the—shall we say?—past mistakes in a number of CDC’s decisions. We talked about the shopping malls, luxury hotels and other inappropriate projects in which CDC Group invested, and we were assured—by the Minister of State, I think—that those things were in the past, that we had learned from them and that they would not be repeated in the future. Well, if that is the case, what is the difficulty in building such a provision into the Bill so that when CDC gets a budget uplift, it will have an obligation to demonstrate that what that uplift is spent on will contribute to meeting these goals and fulfilling these criteria? That is self-evidently a way of ensuring that we do not rely on hope by instead writing down what, as a matter of policy, we want.
Amendments 3 and 4, to which I have put my name, would link an uplift in CDC Group’s funds to the overall ODA budget. It is important to look at doing that; the formula that has been suggested is not onerous and is perfectly achievable. There is an idea abroad that what might be happening is the outsourcing or privatisation of our foreign aid activity, and that pre-eminence is given to a market approach. We will have problems if that impression is not countered, because the truth of the matter is that there is a role for spending public money to try to support the creation of a small business sector in developing countries, to invest in such sectors and to create jobs, but let us not kid ourselves. The vast bulk of our priority aid should be directed at people who need it in order to combat the malnutrition, illiteracy, poverty and starvation that are present throughout such countries. That cannot be done by setting up a small business; it needs to be done through direct state and NGO intervention. That is why we should make it clear that the vast bulk of our foreign aid effort will remain in that sphere.
Although CDC Group and the market have a contribution to make, particularly in countries that are some stages along the process of development, that will not be the primary way in which we do things. I commend amendments 3 and 4 to the House because if we were to agree to them, we would strengthen the Bill and demonstrate to people what our intentions really are: to ensure that the hard-earned taxes that they pay—people politically agree that a small slice should be deployed for foreign aid—are spent doing the things that they want to be done. Those things are combating poverty and inequality in the developing world, and making sure that we get to a more equal world society, which of course is in our long-term interest, too.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). I am speaking today because of concerns brought to me by constituents, and only concerns brought to me by constituents. No NGOs have lobbied me. Constituents contacted me before Second Reading to express concern that, if the Bill were passed, we would run the real risk of aid money being spent inappropriately, and of our commitment to aid, of which we can all be proud, being undermined. I return to that concern, which I raised on Second Reading, and to what for me and my constituents are the core issues: directing the money to where it is needed most; scrutiny; and transparency.
On Second Reading, I quoted the recent NAO report on CDC. I know that has already been quoted today, but it bears listening to again. The report concluded:
“It remains a significant challenge for CDC to demonstrate its ultimate objective of creating jobs and making a lasting difference to people’s lives in some of the world’s poorest places. Given the Department’s plans to invest further in CDC, a clearer picture of actual development impact would help to demonstrate…value for money”.
We are not getting the actual development impact promised. We cannot see what the development proposals are for the future; we are being asked to trust. Perhaps the Lords will see that, but we cannot.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)
I begin by thanking right hon. and hon. Members. This has been a very instructive process. The new clauses and amendments tabled reflect what was a really good Bill Committee stage. The Government have huge respect for the intelligence, focus and precision of these amendments, and we hope that Members will see that all the concerns that have been expressed are going to be addressed through the strategy that is produced.
Before I address the new clauses and amendments in turn, I pay tribute very strongly to the Members on both sides of the House who have demonstrated their support for international development. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who gave an extremely powerful speech in support of international development and about the importance of standing up and having the courage to defend complex and innovative projects.
Mr Gareth Thomas
At the outset of his remarks, will the Minister explain why the legislation has preceded the strategy?
Rory Stewart
I shall deal with that when discussing the second set of amendments, which relate to that directly, but first I want to continue to pay tribute to other Members of Parliament, from both sides of the House, for their support for CDC. I was struck by the support of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for the Virunga project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, by the in-principle support of the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), and particularly by the phrase produced by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) that is absolutely right in guiding us as we go forward: we need to get the right balance between long-term investment and short-term need.
I should just recapitulate the extraordinary work that CDC has done and echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). It has been a really tough time. As Members of Parliament, we are used to being under full public scrutiny and attack. CDC works very hard and has delivered some high-quality projects, and this has been a very tough period for it.
Three types of amendments have been tabled. The first set basically says yes, we should be giving money to CDC, but we should be giving slightly less money to CDC; the second set says that there should be restrictions on the Government’s ability to give money to CDC; and the third set would restrict what CDC itself can do with the money. Essentially, the Government’s position is that these are all good points, but they are better dealt with through the governance mechanisms and the strategy than through statutory, primary legislation.
I shall deal first with amendments 1 to 5 and new clause 10, which essentially say yes, we should give money to CDC, but we should give less money to CDC. Why do we disagree with what was essentially the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)? First, because, with respect, I still believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow North is confusing the stock and the flow. The fact is that the money put into CDC will be recycled. For the sake of argument, if an investment was 10 to 12 years in length and CDC had $12 billion in the pot, it would be in a position to maintain the current rate of investment of around $1 billion a year—the money would come back and go bounce again at around $1 billion a year. It is not fair to compare what happens in a capital stock used for equity debt investment with the annual expenditure of a Department.
Secondly, there is the question of demand, which the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth referred to. The demand is almost limitless. It is calculated that $2.5 trillion is going to be required annually by 2030 to meet the sustainable development goals, which is why the relevant question is not the demand for the money but the question of the absorptive capacity, which the hon. Gentleman raised.
Thirdly, the Bill is enabling legislation that sets a ceiling—a maximum limit; it is not saying, “This is the amount of money we are going to give.” Fourthly, the design is for the money to go into patient, long-term investment. The three-year review proposed in one of the amendments simply will not work for investments that are intended to be, on average, 10 years in length.
Mr Ivan Lewis
If the Bill is passed and its consequences are added to the fact that more than 25% of DFID’s spending currently goes through other Government Departments, the result will be that more than 50% of our aid will no longer be spent through DFID. Does it not raise serious questions about the Government’s intentions for DFID to remain as a stand-alone Department with a place at the Cabinet table if more than 50% of its spending will be spent by CDC and other Departments? No other Government Department would come to the House and ask for more than 50% of its resources to be spent via other means.
Rory Stewart
There are two distinct points there: DFID’s spending and the proportion of the spending. The first thing to understand is that CDC is 100% owned by the Department for International Development, which is one reason why a number of these amendments are not appropriate. On the proportion of money spent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) eloquently pointed out, the small increase that we are talking about in terms of the annual amount that CDC will be able to invest will still be much smaller than comparable organisations in Holland, Germany and France. It will be about a third of the amount that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation can invest—OPIC is just one of the US’s development finance institutions that is able to invest—and only about a sixth of what the International Finance Corporation puts out a year. We are not talking—comparatively, globally—about a large amount of money. We are talking about something in the region of 8% at maximum—even if we hit the maximum of official development assistance—and the other 92% will continue to go in the normal way through non-governmental organisations and organisations such as UNICEF for the objectives that we pursue.
Stephen Doughty
It would be helpful if the Minister clarified the time period over which this increase, if it was granted, would be played out with CDC. The explanatory notes to the Bill say very clearly that the £6 billion is intended to be used in this spending review to accelerate CDC’s growth. Is that his view, and what about the £12 billion? Is that spread over a 10-year period, a 20-year period or a five-year period? Can he give us a ballpark figure?
Rory Stewart
Let me clarify this. The £6 billion represents an additional £4.5 billion, because CDC already has £1.5 billion. We anticipate that that would cover the next five-year period to enable CDC, at maximum—we do not expect it to draw down the maximum amount—to be able to make the kinds of levels of investment that it made last year. The next £6 billion—it is not an additional £12 billion, but an additional £6 billion—would apply to the next five-year period. We are looking at a steady state allocation, which might, at maximum, allow CDC to meet the kind of expenditure levels that it gets next year.
Let me move on now to new clauses 2, 5 and 6 and amendment 6. Essentially, these are a series of measures that restrict the power of the Government to give money to CDC. They do that either by saying that they should not be able to boost the amount of money that CDC has through delegated legislation, or through asking for a strategy to be put in place before the money is disbursed. Again, these measures are not appropriate. The role of Parliament as specified for CDC in the Overseas Resources Development Act 1948 and the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 quite correctly relates to two things: the setting up of this body and the creation of a cap on the amount of money that this body is given.
However, it is not normal for Parliament to get involved in the detailed implementation of specialist business cases. That is true in everything that the legislature does in its relationship to the Executive. The money allocated to our Department in general through the Budget, which this House votes on, is then delegated to civil servants and to the Government to determine how it is spent. The same will be true here, but the strategy that will come forward will reflect very closely the arguments that have been made at the Committee stage and on Report. We will continue to remain in very close touch with Members of Parliament, and we will be judged by our ability to deliver, through that strategy, something that will address those concerns—above all, through the development impact grid and the development impact assessments on the individual business cases, which will address these particular issues.
Mr Gareth Thomas
Will the Minister specifically comment on the use of tax havens by CDC, and will he and other Ministers in his Department echo previous statements by the Secretary of State and instruct CDC to desist from using tax havens for future investments?
Rory Stewart
That is an invitation to move on to the last group of amendments, which comprises new clauses 8, 9, 3 and 7, one of which relates to the issue of offshore financial centres. These are restrictions on what CDC itself can do. There is a suggestion that there should be an annual obligation on ICAI to produce reports on CDC. Then there are restrictions on the routes through which CDC can put its money, and there are attempts through the new clauses to restrict the sectors and the countries in which CDC can invest. Let me take them in turn.
On ICAI, we are very open to scrutiny. The CDC has been scrutinised by the International Development Committee, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. We expect it to be scrutinised in that way and to be scrutinised by ICAI. We welcome scrutiny from ICAI. However, we do not think it is for the Government to impose obligations on an independent regulator. It should be for ICAI to determine its priorities and where it thinks the problems are, and to be able to apply its scrutiny accordingly. It may determine that an annual scrutiny of 10-year investments does not make sense and decide to do it more frequently, but that should be for ICAI, not for statutory legislation of this House.
Rory Stewart
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
I would like to begin by reiterating my thanks and the tribute we owe to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their shared belief in the importance of international development. At the absolute core of the Bill is our moral obligation to some of the very poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members for the important points raised, which will be reflected in the new strategy as it comes forward.
I will briefly lay out once more why believe that this is a good Bill. At its core is our understanding that there is extreme poverty and suffering in the world and that economic development will play an important part in addressing it. There is enormous demand in the poorest countries of the world for well-paid jobs. It is one of the first things that any of us discover when we go to Africa and other developing regions. As the Chairman of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said, 90% of the growth and employment in the poorest countries of the world is currently driven by the private sector. As he also said, Africa requires 15 million more jobs a year. Every one of those well-paid jobs is an opportunity for a family to deliver the stuff we all care about—for parents to provide education for their children and the healthcare their families need. Above all, it is through the revenue these jobs generate for Governments that a long-term sustainable future can be maintained. That is what allows a Government to pay for their education and healthcare systems and, if there is an earthquake or some other natural disaster, to access the resources to address it. In the end, the only long-term sustainable path is through the generation of that economic development and growth.
Why CDC? We have chosen CDC because it brings together two important things: on the one hand, the rigour of the private sector and its ability to work out whether investments make sense—are there genuine markets for these goods; can these jobs really be sustained? —and, on the other hand, the values of the public sector. The latter are what ensure we go into the hardest countries in the world—for example, that we do renewable energy in Burundi or the Central African Republic or get into Sierra Leone when Ebola happens—and, above all, ensure that investments are not about short-term commercial returns but are patient, long-term investments of the kind that the commercial sector will often not deliver.
Why CDC? Well, having been established in 1948, it is the longest-serving, as well as the best, development finance institution in the world. It proved it in the 1960s, through its investments in Kenya, and, much more recently, since 2012, with its fantastic reforms, which we have talked about at all stages of the Bill, on salaries, transparency, offshore financial centres, the geography of investments and the sectors in which we invest, all of which is summed up in the development impact grid. That is what answers a lot of the points made in the discussion today, and that is what allows us to make sure that every investment focuses on the areas that generate the most jobs and on the countries where investment is most difficult, where the least capital is available and where GDP per capita is lowest.
We can see this in the real world: in the 17 million indirect jobs created by CDC; in its investments in places such as Burundi and the Central African Republic; in the hydroelectric investment in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo—not an easy place to invest in—which the Chairman of the International Development Committee referred to; and, actually, in the Globeleq investment, where CDC’s investment will help to generate 5,000 MW of power in Africa over the next decade. To put the latter in context, Africa managed only 6,000 MW over the previous decade, so that is almost the entire generation of Africa over the previous decade being driven by a single company supported by CDC. Moreover, there is value for money for the taxpayer because the money is recycled, and the need is absolutely there, as we can see from the fact that we need $2.5 trillion of investment by 2030.
In conclusion, our Department will do many other things besides CDC. Much of the money will continue to flow through NGOs such as Save the Children, CARE and Oxfam. Many of our investments will be with valued partners such as UNICEF. More than 90% of the money we will spend through overseas development assistance will continue to go to health, education and humanitarian assistance. Within that, not all the money in economic development will go through CDC. It will also go through our investments that will take place through support to Governments and technical assistance. However, that CDC investment, combining the rigour of the private sector, the focus on markets and the values of the public sector, reflects the values of the British public who care about poverty and show in their own philanthropic giving how much they care about some of the most vulnerable people in the world. We are showing our respect for the British people by pushing forward with a proven model that will provide the sustainable growth required to address some of the most vulnerable and poorest people in the world. This is our moral obligation.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Minister’s comments in thanking right hon. and hon. Members of all parties who have participated in what I believe has been a very constructive debate—irrespective of whether the amendments and new clauses have been accepted. What they set out has been utilised in the best possible way, as hon. Members have used them to raise some very important points. I offer my thanks, too, to all the non-governmental organisations that supported us throughout the process, to those who came before us in Committee to present written and oral evidence and to staff in the Public Bill Office, whose assistance has been invaluable, as always.
I would like to thank my hon. Friends who have spoken with great concern and passion about the Bill, and I particularly mention my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), whose experience in the Department for International Development is widely respected and was visibly expressed in today’s debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who is no longer in her place, who also served outstandingly in Public Bill Committee. I do not want my hon. Friends’ valuable contributions to go unnoticed, and I include that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the Chair of the International Development Committee, who always makes a passionate case and has an informed stance on the matters in hand.
Let me be clear that in today’s constructive debate no Member has opposed the principle or spirit of the CDC itself, and no one has criticised its role and mission statement. All Members, particularly Opposition Members, have made the point time and again that we must not lose sight of the CDC’s sole or founding principle, which is poverty alleviation. We have all accepted that, and we have had constructive debates in Committee and on Report. The amendments and new clauses that were tabled have had some support from across the House. Some were tabled as probing amendments, but some were amendments intended to strengthen the Bill.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, we outlined a number of concerns that we held over its provisions, including on the accountability and scrutiny of the investments made by the CDC, on the need of the CDC to focus its investments on efforts to alleviate poverty and on the necessity of a business case from the CDC. These concerns have been fundamental to our position on the Bill, and they are concerns about which we have sought strong assurances from the Government.
On accountability and scrutiny, we had concerns, as illustrated in our amendments, over the fact that the CDC’s investments are not independently assessed on a frequent and regular basis. The absence of such assessments undermines the credibility of the CDC and its investments, and it weakens public confidence that taxpayers’ money, through DFID, is being spent by the CDC on efforts to alleviate poverty and help the poorest in the world. It is vital for every pound, every penny, of development to be directed towards that goal, and strong, independent scrutiny of the development impact of the investments would assure us of that.
We have heard assurances from the Minister today and in Committee that he would welcome further independent assessment by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. I feel that he has listened, and I am grateful to him for that. We have also been assured that the annual reports and accounts provided by the CDC contain ample information, and that the CDC will be held to account for any discrepancies by either the Public Accounts Committee or the International Development Committee. I am sure that they will make any such discrepancy the subject of inquiries, as they have in the past.
As I have said, it is vital for us to ensure that the CDC’s investments focus on the alleviation of poverty, which is DFID’s legal aim and purpose. Given past investments involving the construction of luxury hotels and shopping centres in well-developed areas, Labour Members were concerned about the possibility that the CDC would use its additional finance to return to such activity. However, the National Audit Office report, which was published just before the debate on Second Reading, makes it clear that that is no longer the case, following the important reforms set in motion by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not in the Chamber today.
The Minister has been kind enough to provide assurances in response to some of the concerns that have been expressed today, so we will not oppose the Bill’s Third Reading.
Jeremy Lefroy
Whether people live in the United Kingdom, Tanzania or Colombia, the most important route out of poverty is a good job or a good livelihood, and that is why I fundamentally support the work of the CDC. It has done excellent work throughout the world for nearly 70 years, and in recent years it has concentrated on the most needy countries, where there is the highest level of unemployment or the highest level of poverty. I welcome the fact that the Government are to invest more through the CDC in the coming years.
However, I think that today’s debate, and our debates in Committee and on other occasions, have made it clear that the CDC must be careful. It must invest in areas in which commercial investors would not normally invest; otherwise, it should be the commercial sector that invests in them. The CDC must invest in the areas that create the greatest number of jobs in return for the investment made. That will often involve agriculture, and it will often involve difficult investments, because it is not easy to invest in agriculture in remote areas. However, that is what the CDC is there for: it is not there for an easy life. I know that—given the management that it has had recently, and given the calibre of its staff—it is up to those challenges, and I welcome the Bill.
Patrick Grady
My I add my thanks to all the stakeholders and staff who have contributed to the Bill process? This is the first piece of legislation on which I have worked as an SNP spokesperson, so I am particularly grateful to the Clerk of Bills for his advice, to my staff and the SNP research team, and to the various non-governmental organisations that have provided input. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for their contributions during the Bill’s various stages. I also recognise the commitment and hard work of the CDC’s staff, and their positive engagement with the Opposition parties.
This is the first piece of DFID legislation in the current Parliament, but I wonder whether it will be the last. The Minister might be aware that I tabled a question to the Secretary of State about the applicability of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 now that the millennium development goals it requires DFID to report on have been replaced by the sustainable development goals. The International Development Committee proposed a consolidating international development Act to bring together all the various pieces of legislation passed over recent years. Perhaps that is not such a bad idea, especially as the debate about the purpose of aid and development seems to be getting louder.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East said on Report, throughout the Christmas recess there seemed to be a drip-feed of very negative stories about aid spending, particularly in the gutter press. It is absolutely right that examples of waste and inefficiency are exposed and questions asked about value for money, but the answer is to improve transparency and efficiency, and to measure impact—especially over the longer term—and not simply to cut off the supply or take heavy-handed, but ultimately counter-productive, action.
The debate on the CDC Bill has catalysed a broader debate about the use and purpose of aid, and the Government can be assured in the coming months that the SNP will be happy to support the cross-party and public consensus on our moral duty to help people most in need around the world, and the symbolism and very real impact of meeting the 0.7% aid target. However, as we have just heard on Report, if the highest standards of transparency and effectiveness are to be demanded from DFID’s external stakeholders, they must equally be applied across Government and to their arm’s-length agencies, starting with the CDC in this Bill.
The Government did not accept amendments, but I join the Opposition Front-Bench team in welcoming the commitments the Government have given. We will, through the procedures of this House, hold them to account for those commitments. There is a consensus behind the need for continual improvement of the CDC, and we want to maintain that consensus.
The Government will see this legislation passed today—their majority in the House assures them of that—and it is unlikely, due to the nature of the Bill, that the House of Lords will have any opportunity to amend or delay its progress on to the statute book. So the Government are being given a significant responsibility today; they are asking for the power to quadruple the budget of an agency which has a long but chequered history. The CDC has had significant successes in its history, but significant concerns have been raised and remain. If its resource base is to be massively scaled up, so must be its accountability and the standards it is held to. I hope the Secretary of State and her Ministers will confirm that they are prepared for the CDC, the Department, and themselves as Ministers, to be held to those standards.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I will say about three sentences.
It is both a moral and practical responsibility and an opportunity to aid other countries. Christian Aid was set up after the second world war to develop Europe, and its success over the next 20 years was fantastic. The same can apply to Africa and other parts of the world, and the CDC has the opportunity, through infrastructure and education, to achieve that.
We must reduce barriers and provide opportunities, and provide a welcome to other countries having the same aspirations and achievements we have had ourselves.
Stephen Doughty
I, too, want to place on record my thanks to the Clerk of Bills and all my colleagues on the Front and Back Benches who have taken part. We have heard excellent contributions from both sides of the House in what has been a very informative and useful process of scrutiny of this Bill through Second Reading, Committee and Report. Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings Nos. 24, 96, 134, 136 to 142, 159, 302, 305 and 307 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 23, 25 to 95, 97 to 133, 135, 143 to 158, 160 to 301, 303, 304 and 306 Three hours after the commencement of those proceedings
I was pleased to hear the Minister setting out a little more detail on the period over which we can expect the CDC to be drawing down moneys. His suggestion that it will be a five and 10-year period in two tranches is much more reassuring than some of the earlier suggestions. There will, however, be a temptation to draw that down at a faster rate because of changes in reporting how our aid is calculated and what proportion the CDC counts towards that. So while I take what the Minister said with great sincerity, I urge him to caution against those who would suggest dumping money, as it were, into the CDC as a way of artificially meeting the 0.7% target. He should only go there with a clear plan and business case, and a clear understanding of how that is going to contribute towards poverty eradication.
I am concerned that we are still not going far enough on tax havens. I listened to what the Minister said and will look with interest at that strategy and what practical steps are taken to see us moving resources out of those jurisdictions, and the secondary effects we can have there.
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) about the role that the CDC should play. It should not go for an easy life by going where commercial resources already go. There was some suggestion in the debate that we were almost the only source of funding for many of these investments, but that is patently not the case. In our development spending overall, and certainly in the case of the CDC, we ought to be acting as a catalyst for the very best in poverty eradication, for placing the very best focus on difficult sectors, areas and countries where others will not go, and for achieving the highest standards in sustainability and human rights. We ought to be acting as a catalyst in the world, not just going for an easy return and an easy life.
There is something that I still do not quite understand, and I hope that Ministers will reflect on this. The Secretary of State set out some good principles in her letter of 16 December on transparency, on open-book breakdowns of salaries, tenders and material costs, on due diligence in supply chains, on tax status and compliance, and on disclosures of conflicts of interest. I do not see why those principles cannot be applied equally to the CDC, just as they will be applied to other spenders of our aid spending. I urge Ministers to look carefully at this again. That is a reasonable set of requirements and it would be helpful if they could be applied to the CDC.
On the question of the countries that the CDC focuses on, there has been a shift. It is important to recognise that the CDC is investing more in the poorest countries, but it needs to go much further. I urge Ministers not to have any poverty of ambition in setting the framework and parameters for the CDC, particularly in relation to future disbursements, to ensure that the money goes to the poorest countries and not to middle-income countries that can often draw down other sources of funding and finance.
It was reassuring to hear many positive voices today making the case for our wider role in international development and for our 0.7% aid target. Indeed, it was good to hear the Prime Minister the other day rejecting the more shrill views from some on her own Benches and from the likes of the Daily Mail that we should scrap the aid target and that we should not be spending any international development money at all. She rejected that. This is not a zero sum game. It is not only morally wrong for us to ignore gross poverty, instability and insecurity, as the Minister said; it also fundamentally goes against our national interest and security and global security and stability. Those are good reasons why, with reasonable scrutiny and with reasonable questions being asked about all areas of our development spending, we must maintain our wider commitment to the poorest people and countries in the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Policing and Crime Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Policing and Crime Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7 March 2016 in the last Session of Parliament (Policing and Crime Bill (Programme)) and the Order of 26 April 2016 in the last Session of Parliament (Policing and Crime Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Subsequent stages
(4) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(5) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Spencer.)
Question agreed to.
Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
Wednesday 11th January 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 January 2017 - (10 Jan 2017)
Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
Thursday 9th February 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 January 2017 - (10 Jan 2017)
Lord Bates
That the Bill be now read a second time.
(Money Bill) Relevant documents: 14th and 15th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, this is a short, two-clause Bill. It is a necessary piece of enabling legislation to ensure that the CDC is able to continue investing in the world’s poorest countries to create jobs, support local businesses and stimulate economic development. No country can defeat poverty and end aid dependency without sustained economic growth and a thriving private sector. Strong profitable businesses are needed to create better jobs and generate the tax revenues required to deliver improved public services.
There is, however, a huge unmet demand for capital in developing countries. In the poorest and most fragile countries, there is a long way to go to create the right conditions for investors to have the confidence to meet and fill this gap.
In 2015, the UN agreed the sustainable development goals, which are the focus of the Department for International Development through its UK aid strategy. The financing required to achieve these goals is estimated to be $2.5 trillion dollars a year through to 2030. This far outstrips what can be funded through traditional aid-funded programmes and public finance. This is where the CDC comes in.
The CDC was founded back in 1948 and has enjoyed support from successive Governments. It is wholly owned by the UK Government and is a development finance institution, deploying patient public capital to achieve an objective of doing good while not losing money.
The CDC has a portfolio of £4 billion invested in more than 1,200 businesses in more than 70 countries. In 2015, businesses backed by the CDC helped to create 1,030,000 new jobs in Africa and southern Asia. Over three years, these businesses have generated more than $7 billion in tax revenues to the countries in which CDC has invested.
The CDC invests long term to achieve development impact. It has a higher risk appetite and can take a more patient view of financial returns than private investors, but by demonstrating that responsible investing in difficult markets can be commercially viable, it helps to crowd in the private finance that the poorest countries desperately need.
In 2015, the CDC helped to mobilise an additional $832 million of capital from private investors. Over the years, it has made ground-breaking investments in unproven markets, planting the first seeds for industries that have since become mainstream, such as tea exports in Kenya and mobile telecoms in Africa. As an investor, the CDC sees the potential of the people of a country rather than its problems.
The NAO completed a value-for-money study of the CDC last year. Its report highlights the transformation that the CDC has undergone over the past five years, following the agreement of a new strategy and investment policy with DfID in 2012. The CDC now invests only in Africa and south Asia—two regions that account for 80% of the world’s poor. It is the only development financial institution to have this narrow a geographical focus. It now targets the sectors that create the most jobs in an economy. CDC investments in the energy sector are providing the investment needed to improve access and power economic growth in Africa. In the financial sector, the CDC has enabled microfinance institutions and retail banks to advance loans to support small businesses in agriculture and manufacturing in south Asia.
While the CDC continues to invest through funds, it has now built up its capacity to make direct investments and do debt deals alongside equity. It has also tightened controls on costs and cut average salaries by over 25% over five years. It has become a leader among its peers in transparency: it was the first development financial institution to sign up to the International Aid Transparency Initiative and provide full information on the name and location of all its investments.
The Bill is focused on one issue only: raising the limit on the level of financial support that we can provide to the CDC under the CDC Act. The Bill is needed because the current limit, set 17 years ago, has been reached. The Bill will raise the cumulative financial limit by £4.5 billion to £6 billion. It also introduces a delegated power to raise the limit further via statutory instrument, to an upper limit of £12 billion.
To be clear, the Bill is not a commitment to provide this level of financial support to the CDC, nor is it a target to be achieved in a set timeframe. No new capital will be provided to the CDC without a new strategy and business case setting out the market demand, value for money and how development impacts are to be achieved. Both will be published and Ministers held to account in the usual way. Furthermore, after ministerial approval the CDC would be able to draw down the capital only when needed in response to market demand.
The Bill passed its stages in the other place unopposed, reflecting the cross-party nature of its objectives, but not without careful scrutiny. In Committee in the other place, expert witnesses gave oral evidence and several noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord Boateng and Lord Stern—provided helpful written submissions which have been taken into account.
There was a healthy debate in the other place, responded to by my honourable friend Rory Stewart, but I would argue that that genuine interest and concern is best addressed through the CDC’s strategy rather than via primary legislation. Work is under way to finalise the CDC’s new five-year strategy. It is critically important to get this right and address the issues raised during the Bill’s passage by NGOs, Members of both Houses and the National Audit Office.
We need to capture better the full development impact of the CDC’s investments. We need to ensure that the CDC’s policy on the use of offshore financial centres is reviewed regularly and meets the OECD’s high standards in this area, and that it pilots new approaches to deepen development impact still further.
The passage of the Bill is an important step to enable the CDC to continue playing a central role in the delivery of the UK’s international development objectives: to boost economic growth and eradicate extreme poverty by 2030. It complements other approaches through which the UK is playing a leading role in the international development market, including in our responses to humanitarian disasters, global epidemics and pandemics.
The CDC is a great British organisation with a proven track record and a clear development focus. The Bill will help the CDC to continue its pioneering work, creating opportunities and bringing hope and opportunity to the poorest people in the world. It is an institution of which British taxpayers can be rightly proud. I beg to move.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear introduction to the Bill. I am glad he is in the post that he is in, because he is a man who has taken our responsibilities in this sphere very seriously during his life. I am also very glad indeed that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will be speaking in the debate, as he made a distinguished contribution to the history of the CDC when he was leading it.
I declare an interest because, for a short while in the mid-1970s, I was the sponsoring Minister for the CDC and I took great interest in it. What I liked about the CDC in those days was that it took very seriously the issue of the development of human capacity. When I visited, the staff took great pleasure in telling me how they were developing hands-on capacity.
That was important to see in the context of the Conservative Party’s own record. I was frankly rather impressed in the 1960s, when the Conservative Government took the initiative in setting up government machinery to meet third-world commitments. They called the department the Department of Technical Cooperation. Indeed, I do not mind telling the House that I spent a certain amount of time at our party headquarters trying to argue that it was a good title; if we were going to have a great emphasis—as we did, thank God—on the central role of overseas development in our programmes, then we ought to look seriously at the title the Conservatives had used. I never felt that the Ministry of Overseas Development quite got to the heart of the concept as the notion of technical co-operation did. I saw the CDC as fulfilling the spirit that says, “Nothing will succeed unless we are developing human capacity”.
I am therefore rather sad that, given the history of the CDC, it has now gone down the road of becoming, in effect, just another merchant bank. It seems to me that the emphasis, originality and creativity that was there has been lost. I do not believe that responsibility for this development can be laid entirely at the feet of the party opposite. Whether it was inadvertent, or however it happened, we were not as vigilant on this point as we should have been.
The Minister has explained the origins of the Bill. It is true that in the informed constituency in this country—a very real and good one on these matters—there is and has been a certain amount of concern. Here I declare an interest as a former director of Oxfam. We are well blessed to have the quality of NGOs we have operating in this sphere, and we should take their concerns very seriously.
What are those concerns? Some are centred on the real development impact of the CDC as it is today and whether recent reforms have adequately improved its effectiveness. It continues to face challenges relating to transparency, monitoring and reporting on its development impact, as well as on routing its investments through tax havens. The Bill provides us with our first opportunity since 1999 to shape the legislative framework for government oversight of the CDC and update it to clarify the purpose of public funding for the CDC, a suitable level for future public funding and the conditions under which it is to be provided and utilised; how the CDC will address the UK Government’s priorities for aid, such as transparency, value for money and achieving development results; and how the CDC can improve its investment standards—for example, on the use of tax havens.
More specifically, concerns have been centred on an overconcentration on the higher rates of returns on its investments. A focus on large formal enterprises, the use of narrowly defined impact indicators, and minimal investment in sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing raise concerns about its development impact for ordinary human beings. The National Audit Office’s recent review of the CDC reported that it,
“remains a significant challenge for CDC to demonstrate its ultimate objective of creating jobs and making a lasting difference to people’s lives in some of the world’s poorest places”.
That observation cannot be cast lightly aside.
As for transparency, the CDC was assessed as poor, with 22.5%, in the Aid Transparency Index, and there have been no major improvements in its transparency since then—or none that I can detect. I acknowledge that the Government and the CDC itself take these concerns seriously but, as late as 2013, 75% of the CDC’s investments were routed through jurisdictions that feature in the top 20 of Tax Justice Network’s financial secrecy index.
During deliberations on the Bill in the other place, Ministers failed to provide a clear and robust case for why the CDC required the level of additional funding and whether it had the capacity and opportunities to invest it effectively. This therefore remains a major question, especially as in DfID’s business case for the £735 million in funding committed to the CDC in 2015 it stated that the CDC had assessed that it had the capacity to invest an additional £1 billion and would require additional funding from DfID only in 2019.
I conclude by putting specific questions to the Minister. I do not want to overdo it, but I repeat the points because I have very great respect for the present Minister and I am sure he will take these questions seriously. First, why have the Government introduced the Bill before publishing the CDC’s investment strategy for 2017-21? Why does the Bill allow the Government to utilise the ceiling of £6 billion to £12 billion for funding the CDC, given that in 2015 it assessed it could invest an additional £1 billion for the Government? Why have the Government not included in the proposed Bill standards that the CDC should meet in order to address the Government’s commitment to transparency, value for money and tracking development results, as well as on issues such as the CDC’s use of tax havens for its investments? How will the CDC be asked to improve its functioning and contribution to development results as a condition of future funding increases? How will the CDC be asked to improve its transparency and reduce the volume of investments it routes through tax havens as a condition of future funding? Finally, how have DfID’s investment plans for the CDC been informed by assessing other options for investing these resources and comparing their value for money and potential for development impact?
As somebody who worked in this sphere for a good deal of my life and who continues to work in an honorary capacity in many ways since becoming a Member of this House, I have difficulty with the term “development impact”. I believe the real heart of the challenge of our co-operation with communities across the world is their empowerment. It is about their taking control themselves. It is about enhancing their capacity. “Impact” suggests it is us bringing something to the country, which we are then evaluating. Our evaluation needs to concentrate far more on how the local community appreciates and benefits from what happens.
My other point, and it is not a popular one in the age of the market, is that in real human terms very often the real effect of this co-operation will not be judged until perhaps decades later. The constant pressure to produce immediate evidence of impact sometimes distorts lasting effective development. I ask the Minister to consider these matters seriously and I look forward greatly to his reply.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing this Bill. It is a privilege, as ever, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, with his long commitment to development and huge experience in this area. The CDC has, of course, played an important part in our development efforts in recent years, particularly since its remit was redrawn in the early days of the coalition and under the stewardship of its current CEO, Diana Noble. It is vital that we promote economic development. That is what will transform societies and pull people out of poverty. We have seen that around the world. Investment in the green revolution in agriculture in India was later to underpin India’s growth in other parts of its economy. The CDC, refocused on poorer countries and frontier markets, has helped in that regard.
Even before that refocusing, it has been a significant contributor. A key investment, of course, was that in M-Pesa in Kenya, to which the Minister referred, kick-starting a transformative method of ensuring that the un-banked were brought within the financial sector. I know that the CDC later regretted that it had no equity stake in the project given the profits now flowing in Kenya and elsewhere, which is a shame. When it is criticised for supporting some developments, it is important to look behind that work and see what skills are being imparted or jobs created. I have seen what it looked to do in Nepal and northern Nigeria in very difficult markets, but finding markets elsewhere easier. Where the CDC leads, it is often then easier to secure other private investment, which is especially important where it is operating in the truly difficult frontier markets.
But we are looking at the CDC as it is now, and even here there have been criticisms as to whether it is sufficiently poverty-focused, for example. I recall the concern in the 2000s about where its focus was. Was it any different, it was asked, from other private equity businesses as it invested in the growing markets of China and India? Andrew Mitchell and Alan Duncan, with their experience in both development and banking, did much to refocus what the CDC did. Diana Noble, as its chief executive, has transformed the organisation most impressively and there is a constant check on how transformative it is in some of the most challenging places. But, of course, she is standing down.
When I was DfID Minister, I was impressed that the CDC had not had its funds topped up in decades because it had so successfully reinvested what it was earning. There was then a relatively small top-up, certainly small compared with what we are looking at here. Did the CDC ask for this increase, and what does it plan to do in terms of attracting staff to manage such increases? What we see here causes me considerable concern, especially as the Bill enables the Secretary of State to increase the amount yet further by secondary legislation. That does not seem wise because I also remember the controversy when there were moves to sell the CDC off, early in Labour’s years in government, and Actis was spun off. Those involved, largely employed by the CDC, profited enormously. Suppose that down the track the Government decided to sell off the CDC. Would we not regret having filled its coffers? It would certainly make it more saleable.
Suppose we were to have a Secretary of State who thinks that this should be the main vehicle for aid money? There is plenty of scope for that. What about all the vital areas that DfID needs to support if we are to improve human development in the poorest countries? Human development underpins the ability of all economies to grow. To meet the SDG of eradicating extreme poverty by 2030, leaving no one behind, that growth needs to be underpinned and to be equitable, including women and girls as well as men and boys.
Suppose the Secretary of State altered the terms on which the CDC invested? What then? It is not at all clear that its funds would be used for addressing the SDGs as the ODA commitment surely means we must do. The Minister will know as well as I do how widely drawn the ODA is, but up until now DfID has been commendably focused on the poorest. Suppose that changed? It is all very well saying that the CDC would have to produce a robust business case, but suppose in the future the need for business cases was dispensed with? They have existed in their present extended form only for less than five years, and even then, having gone through a number of them when I was a DfID Minister, I can say that they are labour intensive and not always as useful as one might want them to be.
Suppose the business case continued, but the parameters that the Secretary of State laid down changed. For example, although in order to count as ODA, benefit needed to be seen in developing countries, it was decided that a close second must be to benefit British investors. The Minister will know exactly what I mean. What then?
This Bill hugely increases the potential capital for the CDC to £6 billion, with the Secretary of State able to increase it further to £12 billion by regulations alone. This is quite an increase from £1.5 billion.
I realise that we have no chance to amend this Bill, as it will go through all its stages here today. Much as I admire what the CDC is doing, I do not think that issuing this relatively blank cheque for a Secretary of State or for a future CDC under a new CEO is wise. The noble Lord says that the CDC will have a new strategy. Surely those in the Commons and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, are right in saying that we should have seen that first.
I know that the Minister will have the situation of the poorest people in the world in his mind. I look forward, therefore, to hearing what he has to say in response to my concerns and what safeguards will be built in, in terms of scrutiny of what the CDC does.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome this Bill. When the new world order appears to be more disorder and one of the key themes of the World Economic Forum in Davos is rising inequality and the threat this poses to economic and political stability, the Bill comes at an opportune time.
Clearly, addressing poverty is critical to addressing global inequality. We have moved from the millennium development goals to the sustainable development goals and the role of the private sector has been recognised as a central part of achieving this agenda. Many of the major development initiatives in Africa have come from foreign aid agencies, local and international NGOs and publicly funded multilateral financial institutions. So I wish to focus my few remarks in support of this Bill on the key role that the CDC has played and continues to play in some of the most challenging countries in Africa.
During the last 15 years, the growing Africa-focused private equity community has had a unique opportunity to play its role in what is becoming a development relationship. Private equity has been good for African economic development. It has helped to promote a healthy business sector, as well as creating jobs and alleviating political instability, while taking pressure off Governments to be universal problem solvers. Here, certainly, the CDC has played its role in the development of the private equity industry, particularly in the last two decades. It was an early investor in the 1990s, while the DFIs still focused on debt. Since then, the number of private equity funds has grown from around a dozen Africa-focused funds managing some $1 billion, to well over 200 firms managing over $30 billion. The CDC has played an incredibly important role in poverty reduction, working with these private sector companies and investors to create sustainable growth in its target countries.
As the Minister mentioned in his introductory comments, the CDC is now a transformed institution. From 2012, when the CDC invested some £200 million a year in a broad geography from Latin America to south Asia to Africa, with a staff complement of 50, it has now well over 250 staff. It is investing and will continue to invest more than £1.2 billion a year, focused on Africa and south Asia.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the CDC has become just another investment bank. There have been some notable success stories. While the humanitarian response to tackling the Ebola crisis in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea was very successful and essential, the CDC made a valuable contribution in rebuilding many affected businesses by providing much-needed SME loans. As the Brookings Institution rightly mentioned in its recent Foresight Africa report, with many millions of young Africans entering the labour market every year, job creation remains a top agenda item. Here I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that human resource development must be a core focus.
The potential threat of climate change has put many parts of Africa at risk of disasters such as floods and droughts. Many Governments continue to face corruption and violence, and global political uncertainty has complicated peacekeeping efforts, aid disbursement and overall investment. Among the many challenges facing sub-Saharan Africa are not just unemployment but lack of infrastructure, food insecurity, inadequate access to education and healthcare and, of course, to clean water, in all of which the CDC is playing a key role. Often the public sector is ill equipped to tackle these challenges, and this is where the private sector can play a critical role. The CDC, with its well-respected 70-year track record, has made a very important contribution in identifying and nurturing management teams and companies that have provided and continue to provide solutions to many of these problems.
Sub-Saharan Africa suffered one of its worst years in terms of foreign direct investment last year. This was due partly to the fall in commodity prices, particularly the oil price, as well to other concerns, including those of international investors about collapsing local currencies, and was exacerbated by high levels of corruption and lack of accountability. Although technology has continued to transform the continent with the introduction of broadband and many other innovative, transformational technologies, the many challenges that Africa faces are unlikely to be solved in the short to medium term. This will obviously impact negatively on the lives of millions of the poorest people. That is why it is important that the CDC continue to provide much-needed capital and mobilise other international private capital to co-invest in well-run businesses with high levels of integrity and high social and environmental standards. I stress the importance of long-term capital in this regard. These projects can range from building schools to the establishment of hospitals, agribusinesses, renewable energy, ports and logistical infrastructure. While these are all needed in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the CDC has not shied away from going to some of the most challenging areas. Here I mention some of the agribusinesses in which the CDC has invested in northern Nigeria, which have had a transformational impact on many of the people there.
A good example of the CDC’s work is the development in Virunga in Eastern Congo. The CDC has helped to construct a hydropower plant that has already transformed the lives of many of those in the area who were living in desperate conditions, through providing jobs and training to former child soldiers who became socially excluded adults. This will in all likelihood have an added benefit of reducing the erosion of natural resources in the parks, which includes the rampant problem of wildlife poaching.
I warmly support the Bill, which provides much-needed long-term additional funding to the CDC, but as it is a money Bill that will not be deliberated on further in your Lordships’ House, it is important that a firm business plan is in place outlining the medium and long-term road map for the CDC, with appropriate checks and balances. In this regard I was reassured by the Minister’s comments in introducing the Bill.
Finally, I acknowledge the leadership, commitment, dedication and vision of the CDC’s chief executive, Diana Noble, who will sadly retire in June this year, and pay tribute to the able chairmanship of Graham Wrigley.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on his excellent introduction to the Bill. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I greatly welcome the Bill and wish to speak out in support of it and the CDC. What it has done over the last five years or so is no mean achievement, making successful investments in parts of the world that are difficult to operate in. It has been a civilised and professional body; references to merchant banks are not entirely fair, because it has focused on need just as much as on commercial attractions.
The CDC has also become very capable of investing and managing third-party funds in Africa and India. I hope that that may develop as a new part of its business. As I understand it, it operates in three separate parts. There has been private equity investment, largely in east Asia and Africa, amounting to some $3 billion. A professional fee of, I think, 0.25% is paid for the management of those assets. The Bill will significantly increase the scope here. The second area has been direct equity investment, again in south Asia and Africa, of the order of $1.2 billion, and thirdly debt investment of some $400 million. As has been pointed out, the increase in the size of those investments over the last five years has arisen from their success rather than from additional funding.
The Bill is about significant increases in funding for the CDC—an initial increase from £1.5 billion to £6 billion, and then a route is provided with delegated powers for the Secretary of State to go up to £12 billion. That is a substantial increase, but it is not widely realised that the CDC and its associates are wholly government-owned. This is not the Government funding third-party entities; they are funding another limb of government to operate effectively on a commercial basis. It is still a government entity.
I am a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which, as noble Lords will be aware, has opined that the Bill inappropriately delegates power without demonstrating the need for it. Personally, I have mixed views. I understand the point but I repeat my own: that this is government advancing funds to another part of itself. I tend to think that is justifiable, and that the case for increasing the funding has also proven itself, so I do not see the need for primary legislation to authorise the additional funding.
The key point is that the CDC’s record, particularly over the last five years, stands for itself. I remember times when there was criticism of it, and it is extremely heartening to see how successful it has been, in very difficult territory.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund. As such, I have had the opportunity to see the work of the CDC in support of agribusiness in Africa and renewable energy. I am bound to say that I welcome this Bill; I welcome, too, the Minister’s championing of the CDC within the department. I think that it will benefit from his attention. Frankly, if truth be told, the CDC has not in the past benefited from any ministerial champion at all, which has been part of its problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, happily gave it some of her attention but, certainly in my time in government, it must be said that it did not have any champions.
We must also recognise that, at one time under the Labour Government, the CDC was being fattened up to be privatised—that was the reality. It was therefore given a mandate of making as much money as it could, but no target at all in relation to its contribution to the eradication of poverty or to development. We have to be frank: we need to learn the lessons of the past in order to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past in the future. The good news is that, for the past five years, a process of reform of the CDC has been under way, which has seen a renewed focus on the reduction of poverty and is to be warmly welcomed.
My noble friend Lord Judd, whose knowledge of these matters is, in my experience, unparalleled, was exactly on point when he suggested that, going forward, it is absolutely vital that the CDC continues to focus on empowerment and enablement on the African continent; ensuring that small and medium-sized business can grow and link to global markets; and improving value chains across the continent. This is about saying that we will stand alongside Africa as it develops its own agribusinesses and manufacturing capacity, because it is in these areas that there is currently a marked deficit on that continent.
Real gains have made in the past decades in terms of economic growth—six or seven of the top 10 fastest-growing economies in the world now are to be found in Africa, which is a tribute to entrepreneurs there. There have been vast improvements in terms of governance—the recent successful transitions of power in both Nigeria and Ghana are examples. Across the continent, there has also been a renewed focus on the part of African Governments on creating enabling environments in which it is possible for business to flourish.
This creates a real opportunity for the CDC to get alongside those businesses. One particular aspect of Africa’s development on which I seek to concentrate—including the potential role of the CDC—is the role that small and medium-sized enterprises can and must play in the continent’s development. In Africa, they contribute to around 40% of GDP and to some 50% of employment overall. In some sectors, their level of job creation can be even higher. For example, informal and formal SMEs together account for about three-quarters of total employment in manufacturing. However, the reality is that it is very difficult indeed for small and medium-sized enterprises in Africa to obtain funding from the banks. That is because in the main the banks are risk-averse and do not understand the sectors—the agrisector in particular—in which SMEs are emerging. Significantly, SMEs also suffer from very high interest rates. That is the fact of the matter on the ground, on the continent.
To address that, the CDC has seen it as part of its mission to support those businesses through supporting banks. So, taking the example of a recent investment it has made, it has supported the dfcu Bank in Uganda, which focuses on tackling the lack of long-term funding for SMEs in a country—Uganda—where they contribute around 70% of GDP. A bank such as that could not hope to obtain on the open market the sort of funding that the CDC can give it, on the terms that the CDC can give it. If you were simply applying market judgments and the bottom line to support for banks that work with SMEs, you would not be able to raise capital. The CDC, with its focus, is able to do so.
The CDC needs to be encouraged to focus on and address market failure. That, after all, is the justification for putting public money into it—I cannot think of any other. We are putting public money into something that addresses the failures of the market so that markets can work better for the poor, and to support development. As all sides of the House agree, the long-term and medium-term solution to Africa’s problems does not lie in overseas development assistance but in the development of a sustainable private sector and the capacity within Africa to generate, through tax revenues, sufficient money to do all the things that we expect the state to do in our own country. We want enabling states; we certainly want states that encourage and support a private sector that can create wealth and provide employment. That ought to be the focus of the CDC in the future.
I ask the Minister to ensure that this House has an opportunity to discuss the future strategy of the CDC—that an investment strategy is not adopted without consideration of views from all sides of this House—because, as today’s speakers list shows, there is real expertise in the Chamber. That expertise can encourage, support and spread the word about the importance of investment in this area, and all that investment can do.
I end on this note: we are in a challenging time for global security, and the best protection for any of us in the world is job creation. Africa has the fastest-growing population of young people in the world, and if there are young people in Africa who do not really have an opportunity to gain sustainable livelihoods, whether in urban or rural areas—Africa also has the fastest rate of urbanisation in the world—they will fall prey to those who would exploit them for their own purposes.
In northern Nigeria we see a classic example of this. Boko Haram exists because young people feel disaffected, cut off from relevant educational opportunities and the prospect of getting sustainable livelihoods. The great work that the CDC is doing in that area—creating real job opportunities with real employment and providing real added value—is a classic example of the sort of response that we ought to be making to today’s challenges. I wish the CDC all the very best with its task and hope that the Minister will continue to champion it in his department.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and I agree with much of what he said. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. I have a particular interest because when I chaired the International Development Committee in the House of Commons, we carried out an inquiry published in 2011, before the change in strategy. The noble Lord anticipated some criticisms of the Labour Government, which I did not want to make too forcefully, but he was right that the corporation was being looked at for privatisation. Douglas Alexander got it focused more on poverty but it really took Andrew Mitchell and a wholesale review to come to a strategic change.
One recommendation in our report was to split the fund. The Government did not agree, but did split the corporation’s objectives from being just a fund of funds to separating funds and direct investment and going back to some of the traditions of the early days of the CDC when it invested directly in companies and enterprises, not just through funds. That has obviously had an impact over the last few years and is becoming a more significant part of the portfolio, but it is still very small. I hope that the new strategy will help to explain how we can achieve more of that and find ways to fill the market failures in those gaps to make the transformation. The reality is that I do not believe that any country has significantly lifted its people out of poverty without having a vibrant private sector. The role of development finance funds of the CDC’s kind is extremely important in helping that to happen.
My noble friend Lady Northover identified a number of concerns, which I hope that the Minister will directly address. There have been reservations expressed that we are going for a quadrupling, and then a further doubling, when we do not have a strategy nor yet a clear indication of how that money will be spent. The Minister rightly says that there is a huge demand for a huge amount of money; the question is how much of that would be more appropriately met by an organisation such as CDC, as opposed to the wider market. Given the sort of criticisms that the sector currently faces, the Government need to be careful about putting substantial additional funds into CDC—although I would not put it in these terms—without being absolutely clear that there will be proper accountability, proper results and a proper strategy. If they are not, they will find the sort of heat that they have experienced in the popular press being turned on them for exactly this. It would be extremely unfortunate if that were to happen and we must make sure that it does not.
The reality is that we need to invest in projects that are riskier and offer a poorer return, because those are precisely the projects that the private sector, and by definition the market, will not address. The CDC has shown that they are there and can generate a return. The question is whether there will really be £12 billion of that kind of investment available over the next few years.
The Secretary of State has said that she wants the focus of UK aid to be on trade and investment. That is a kind of mantra across the Government, who are desperate to demonstrate that we can get agreements on trade and investment. But there is a consensus in this House, which I hope is not under challenge, that our aid and development focus should be on poverty reduction. That is our fundamental objective. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, mentioned the importance of creating jobs and livelihoods. Quite terrifyingly, the forecast of job requirements in Africa alone is not in the millions or even the tens of millions. Hundreds of millions of jobs will have to be found in a relatively short time, which is really quite a scary thought because, if those jobs cannot be found, there will be an awful lot of idle hands looking for something to do—and I fear that those things may not always be positive and constructive. There is no doubt at all that we need to do that.
The other thing I will talk about is the mix of our aid budget and focus, because this is a big increase in one particular component of DfID’s spending. The Minister gave me a reply earlier this week relating to the Government’s humanitarian response. He said that our spend over the last three years has gone from £826 million to £1,266 million—that is, from 12% of total ODA to 17%. Everybody understands why that has happened and there is clear public support for that. Nevertheless that is an increasing proportion of the budget which, by definition, is not available for other aspects of development spending. There have been indications of cutbacks in some development programmes, partly because of that pressure.
The second thing is that the depreciation in the value of the pound—on average 20%—means that the purchasing power of our aid budget has been correspondingly reduced and so there is less scope. Those people who seem to think, because of our commitment of 0.7%, that somehow DfID and our development budget is awash with funds are not really facing up to the pressures of impending famines as well as of traditional development.
There is a clear synergy between the role of development and the role of private sector investment. Clearly investors, whether they are indigenous to a country or outside it or in partnership, benefit from having an educated, healthy workforce and decent infrastructure investment. The two things fit together. Indeed, one of the reasons that many enterprises are reluctant to invest in developing countries is a lack of those things, coupled with problems of governance and corruption that make them difficult places to do business. If the CDC and development can work together to make that environment more conducive, the private sector will be able to take more of the burden on itself and help to address the development needs. We can look to countries such as China, India and Vietnam that have demonstrated how that kind of partnership can lift millions of people out of poverty over a relatively short period of time.
There is a clear need to ensure that extra money going into the CDC is not at the expense of development programmes. I completely agree that the objective in the end is for countries to have the capacity and the resources to run their own services and be free of aid, but we should not cut off that aid prematurely before they have actually established that degree of viability. That would be a point of concern for me. I know it is unpredictable but it would be helpful if the Government and DfID gave us a little bit more guidance on their strategic objectives in terms of how much they feel is reasonable for humanitarian support, how much is going into development and how much is going into the private sector. It would help us to get a clearer idea of the strategy behind it.
Just as a general comment, the people in the sector whom I meet, whether they work for private contractors, NGOs or organisations generally working with development, feel very beleaguered at the moment. They feel under sustained attack—not all of it justified or even accurate—not only from the popular press but also from the more serious media with an inadequately robust response and defence from DfID as well as across the Government. Much more can be done to explain how transformational UK aid is and how effective we are at delivering real results, giving people the good-news stories that are out there of how, thanks to our intervention and the partnerships we build both from our own expertise and that of the country we are operating in, we are helping to make a real difference.
People who say aid does not work are simply ignoring the facts. We have reduced poverty, we have massively delivered on health objectives, we have got more children into education and we are beginning to raise the quality of these services. We have set ourselves an ambition of ending absolute poverty by 2030—no mean commitment—and to do that we will have to maintain our level of commitment but we also have to explain it much more fully and clearly.
Therefore, while the CDC has a role to play, its changed focus over the past five or six years makes it better equipped to spend more fully. I still have reservations about whether there are enough of the right kind of projects to absorb this extra spending, and I would be interested to see the strategies around how that could be done. I support what we are trying to do, but it is important that we show how the CDC fits in with the strategy of development, humanitarian response, building resilience and capacity and helping, as the second-largest bilateral donor in the world, to lead the way to end absolute poverty by 2030. This has to be a contribution to that.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Boateng, with their historical experience of the CDC, and I am much looking forward to the speech of my old noble friend Lord Eccles, who has seen the CDC almost from the beginning.
I was surprised that this Bill was made a money Bill, considering the huge questions raised by the expansion of the DfID programme. I know we have limited powers in this House, but I tried to complain. I went to the Chief Whip, who agreed to talk to the Lord Speaker, but I decided I could not take it any further. A central issue in the Bill seems to me whether, in handing over such a large proportion of our aid to the private sector and to one particular body, we may be bypassing some of the core principles that have governed the aid programme over many years.
I know that the CDC has changed considerably under new management. I have discussed this directly with the CEO, Diana Noble, quite recently. My noble friend Lord St John made a very strong case for the CDC. I accept that it has responded to radical change. To take only one example, in 2015 more than 1 million jobs were indirectly created by the CDC in Africa and Asia alone. I also have great admiration for the Minister of State in another place, Rory Stewart, whose work with the voluntary sector is well known, as is the experience of our own Minister, but having read Mr Stewart’s replies to the debate in the Commons, I am not yet convinced that the CDC has embraced poverty reduction, which, incidentally, is not quite the same as job creation.
The Minister used the words “doing good while not losing money”. That does not seem to be an adequate description of our international development programme, because poverty reduction has been the focus of our aid programme for some time. We abolished tied aid a generation ago, and the failures of huge projects such as Pergau and Narmada marked the end of large-scale UK investments during the 1980s. Since then, successive Aid Ministers have listened to criticism and have won public support for more programmes which demonstrate people’s participation, meet the needs of the very poorest in society, create partnerships and bring non-governmental organisations directly into the planning and execution of projects. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned that. I was encouraged to hear the Minister say that there is still room for improvement, presumably in the direction of the very poorest. That is precisely the dilemma the CDC faces.
As someone familiar with some of the UK’s best NGOs which are working alongside the poorest and in partnership with DfID, I have seen this work at first hand and I know that it brings real benefits to society. I do not need persuading that the private sector, and the CDC in particular, can be an effective channel to the poor. In fact, business is a good route for the voluntary sector to follow. For instance, the business model in which women create their own credit and loan scheme, originated with the Grameen Bank and other microcredit organisations, is still widely respected. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, mentioned SMEs in Africa, which are another important channel.
When it comes to investment decisions, which are not risk free, and due diligence at a higher level of management, there comes a point when must priorities change. Pay scales rise and the interests of the corporation itself may take over from those of the beneficiary. This is a built-in dilemma which was discussed in some detail yesterday in the Public Accounts Committee which I attended. Investment really belongs to a different tradition, and this is why the CDC is being kept separate from the mainstream aid programme. One might be forgiven for asking whether it needs to focus on the poor at all.
Additionally, there is the issue of accountability. Does the CDC really know how its funds are being used on the ground and where they are directed and, even more importantly, can it monitor progress and impact at a later date? Fortunately, we now have really good watchdogs in the form of ICAI, the NAO and DfID itself, not forgetting the IDC, other Select Committees and occasionally our own EU Select Committees which have occasionally covered the EU aid programme. The CDC is very closely scrutinised.
On the whole, the CDC comes out well from various reports and audits. It has responded to recommendations and its transformation is much admired. There are some criticisms worth mentioning, some of them highly technical, which were examined, inevitably in much more detail, in the Commons debates, and I am sorry that we cannot do that today. For example, the NAO found that the development impact target measures prospective impact rather than actual impact. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised this point. There are also recruitment and retention challenges. The CDC may be on the right track, but it still has to demonstrate that it can make a lasting difference to the lives of the poorest. ICAI reports have come out with similar comments, although they recognise the growing role of foreign direct investment in development. My noble friend Lord St John made that point.
Finally, there is also a problem of public information. Far too little is known about the CDC programme, while DfID projects are much more visible, and this creates discrepancies. ICAI last year pointed out the anomaly that the CDC is moving DfID back to BRICs and middle-income countries. While DfID has scaled down its aid programme in India, the CDC’s investment there amounts to one-quarter of its portfolio. Is the tail wagging the dog? Does this mean that India suddenly again becomes a developing country and not a middle-income country? Should not the public be aware of this, because many people have argued that the poorest in India should always be a priority? I also believe that the CDC should arrange visits, perhaps through the CPA as well as the IDC, so that more MPs and others can go out to see the work it is doing because it is so important.
I am sorry to strike a discordant note during the passage of this Bill, but while I recognise the value of the CDC’s work, I shall need more convincing that it is really about poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned the CDC’s effect on DfID, which is important. The SNP and others put down several amendments on these matters, but I think Her Majesty’s Government have still skilfully avoided the answer. The CDC apart, with the future loss of EU channels of funding and the fall in growth rates and commodity prices in Africa, DfID already faces a considerable challenge in rethinking its responsibilities to the developing world.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I worked for the CDC from 1981 to 1994. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, for nine of those years, I was its chief executive. There is one other coincidence: my noble friend Lord Flight now lives in a house in which I lived for a while and in which Lord Reith, who was a most successful chairman of the CDC in the 1950s and 1960s, had also lived. I do not know whether there is any message in that coincidence, but it is interesting.
I would like to concentrate on the period from 2010, on which the debate is concentrating. My period is irrelevant, except that I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about technology transfer and capacity building. A development finance institution such as CDC does not have a role unless it is involved in both technology transfer and capacity building and, therefore, the creation of greater human capacity for people to do things that they did not know how to do before. I could tell your Lordships many stories about how CDC has achieved that in the past, but I would like to concentrate on the period from 2010.
Before doing that, I want to refer to some comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, about the period before 2010. We are all talking about CDC, but that is inaccurate. It is, in fact, the CDC Group. In 1997, the decision was made in the manifesto that a Bill would be put before Parliament which would have the purpose of changing CDC from being a loan-financed public corporation to becoming an institution with share capital which would then become 75% private and 25% continuing to be owned by the Government.
That is the 1999 Act that we are talking about amending today. It set up the possibility of CDC, then renamed the CDC Group with a shareholding, becoming 75% private owned and 25% retained by the Government. That did not happen. I will not go into the story of why it did not happen, although I am pretty familiar with it. I will just say that I believe that the 1999 Bill was a mistake and that there should never have been a campaign to take any part of the CDC out of public ownership. It should always have remained in public ownership. Although I sit on this side of the House, I can assure your Lordships that, when I was chief executive of CDC in the days of Margaret Thatcher, I was completely consistent with my board that it would be wrong for CDC to seek to be privatised; it should stay in public ownership.
That is where CDC is today and that is why what has happened since 2010 is of very great interest to Parliament. It is a great pleasure to find that Parliament is again debating CDC. Although years ago, CDC was quite frequently debated in Parliament, there was a big gap from about 2004 until 2010 when, frankly, the general opinion was, “Sweep it under the carpet and don’t talk about it”.
From 2010, under the Secretary of State, Andrew Mitchell, a decision was made by the coalition Government to see if they could put CDC back on track. It had become, as I think a noble Lord mentioned, a fund of funds. As a fund of funds it was no longer a development finance institution. The chain of accountability to Parliament was broken by CDC becoming a fund of funds and that needed to be restored. That was spotted by the coalition Government and, as has been said, they made arrangements to appoint a new chief executive, Diana Noble, who has done an extremely fine job, and a chairman, Graham Wrigley, who, in my opinion, has also done an extremely fine job. They have been getting the CDC back on track.
While the Bill is extremely welcome, we need to keep close attention on the business plans of CDC. It is a very important duty not only of DfID but also of Parliament to understand where CDC is going. As your Lordships will understand, it takes a very long time for the things that have been brought into CDC’s portfolio to work out. The usual time before a CDC investment is realised may be about 10 years. We are still living with a great deal of what CDC invested in as a fund of funds before 2010, which is going to take quite a long time to work its way out.
In the strategic future, the question which has been raised by many noble Lords is what proportion of the CDC portfolio is going to be directly invested. Only a direct investor can encompass innovation and going to places where the private sector will not naturally go. Several of those places have been mentioned, including northern Nigeria and the Congo. We can all think of many places in Africa where the fully private sector will hesitate to go. These are the places into which CDC in—it is true—70 years has always been willing to go and had the capacity to go without making serious mistakes.
With a small exception in the period between 1999 and 2010, CDC always made a surplus of income over expenditure throughout the years. When we authorise this increase in capital, we should not worry that CDC will lose that money. If it is true to its past, it will not. It will keep that money and use it as a revolving fund which will enable it to do more and more economic development.
As a condition of that economic development, I come back to the transfer of the knowledge of technologies such as from—I do not know—a generic pill manufacturer. That would be a very beneficial thing to be happening to a greater extent in Africa. However, anyone investing in that would need to know about pharmaceuticals and how to set up and manage a factory. It is very important that, when a strategic plan comes, we can see that CDC has proprietary technology of its own. It has always had some and still has—power generation and mobile telephones are two examples of where CDC has had technology and has deployed it.
The people in CDC are also very important. The staff has been built up recently from, I think, 50 when it was just a finance house to about 250 today. Within the capacity of staff employed by CDC, we need people who understand businesses and how to set up and manage them, as well as people who know how to finance them.
I welcome the Bill and believe very strongly in economic development, not only in financial rates of return but also in what I would call, not development impact, but economic rates of return, in which the social as well as other effects are measured. CDC going forward in that way, rebuilding itself as it has already done with very considerable success, will get even more into the forefront of being out there, doing things that the fully private sector is not in a position or not ready to do. As it goes forward, it will leverage in money from less certain people, because they know that if they come in alongside CDC, it is likely to work and to work well.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow so many noble Lords who have had experience of these matters over very many years and particularly of the splendid historical context in which we see the CDC. This short Bill is twice as long as another little Bill that we will have when we return after the recess. We may have a couple of hours now, but of course there are five whole days so far in the weeks that follow, although there could be more. We have no opportunity to amend this Bill, as money is at stake.
We know that there are two basic aims: to quadruple the resources available to the CDC and then, by order, to double them on top of that. Because we cannot amend the Bill at all, it is an act of faith as far as we in this place are concerned. We have to have faith that the funds will be properly used. I do not wish to detract at all from the concerns that have been expressed by so many noble Lords, and look forward to hearing about a sound business plan and strategy.
I have only two points to raise. First, when the resources available are increased, will the CDC, where appropriate, have the opportunity to invest beyond the continent of Africa and the countries of south Asia? I do not think there are any legal constraints on this. It is not in the text of the Bill, and the title says “Commonwealth”, but it certainly seems that investment goes beyond Commonwealth countries. Will the new resources allow investment elsewhere?
The second point, which may not come as any surprise to the Minister, is about the British Overseas Territories. It is government policy that their reasonable needs are the first call on the UK aid programme. For each aided territory, DfID’s objective is to assist it in reaching self-sufficiency. The extension of the potential CDC resources would be but a pinprick for the CDC but could be highly significant for dependent territories such as Montserrat and the St Helena group of islands. I have a particular interest in St Helena, having made two visits there. Even with the delays, the availability of the airport there for mainstream use is keenly awaited, which we hope will happen during this summer. We know that there are detractors around, so it is important just to mention that there have now been several medivac flights of small aeroplanes, and six people are alive now who might not be had they had to wait three weeks to get a boat to Cape Town.
However, St Helena still needs the infrastructure to cater for airborne visitors. When I was there three and a half years ago, two very significant developments were about to happen, but they have not taken place. It would be a proper use of CDC resources to assist with some of these developments in order to take St Helena away from DfID dependency, whether by investment, loan or even guaranteed support.
Baroness Flather (CB)
My Lords, I have no personal relationship with the CDC, although not for want of trying. I went to see Diana Noble but was dismissed—metaphorically, not literally—because she left after 20 minutes. I was trying to find out what it does and how it works, but got nothing. However, that is not the reason why I am speaking today. I was not pleased, but that is not the important part.
I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, when she dealt with DfID issues to ask her some questions about the CDC. She did not answer them, but just repeated what the CDC had told her to say. I then wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and I must thank him, in front of all your Lordships, for writing to me properly and giving me a lot more information. But there are some issues which worry me. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Sandwich made the point about poverty reduction. It is difficult to see how some of the investments I have found out about through research, which I will talk about, fulfil the objective of reducing poverty.
The other point which worries me very much is the need for a proper independent review of the CDC’s work. I think most of your Lordships have taken on board what it says, and may know more about its work in depth than I do, but since the Harvard review, which looked at 2008 to 2012, there has not been a proper independent review. Any organisation which receives government money should have regular independent reviews. Some of the things said about the CDC have not been very encouraging. The shadow Minister for Development, Mary Creagh, has said that,
“the government’s own aid watchdog gave their private sector aid spending an amber-red rating and warned that ministers lack targets and a clear focus on reducing poverty”.
Maybe that will be dealt with in the new measures we will read about. She went on:
“Ministers must ensure this new investment in the CDC is transparent, focused on helping the poorest people in the world and delivers value for money for British taxpayers.”
I think it does, but I do not know how much it does for the poorest people. There was also a certain amount of criticism about gated communities, shopping centres and luxury properties in poor countries. According to the Global Justice Now advocacy group:
“CDC have a track record of ploughing money into dubious ‘aid’ projects like the Garden City luxury housing and shopping complex in Kenya and a luxury hotel in Lagos, Nigeria”.
There are issues about the work of the CDC because we do not get outside reviewers to look at it. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, said that the National Audit Office looks at it but that is not quite what I had in mind. It has to be looked at by people who are involved in development, not national audit. Even if it spends its money properly, I doubt whether it manages to keep all of it clean, because I am sure it has to grease some palms in some of the countries it is working in—although the less said about that, the better.
It worries me that there is no real review of the CDC’s work. Let me go through some of its current investments. It has now invested $6 million in Bridge International Academies, a company that runs fee-paying schools in Kenya. That is all very well, but why does it have to invest that much money in fee-paying schools? What people need instead is non-fee-paying schools, or schools where the fees are so small that they can manage to pay them. This deeply concerns me.
Rainbow Children’s Hospitals is a corporate hospital chain in India that provides mother-and-baby care and fertility treatment. The question was asked whether India is a middle-income country or a poor country. India has more poor people than many other countries, but there is so much money that Christine Lagarde said in her lecture two years ago that the Indian billionaires could remove poverty overnight. I do not see why the CDC has to invest in the corporate sector in India. There is a lot of money for money-making in India. People do not give money for the poor or for poverty reduction, but they are very happy to invest in the corporate sector.
Finally—and the worst of all—there is Narayana Health, a corporate multi-speciality hospital chainI have made some enquiries about Narayana. It is not just a hospital chain but one of the biggest conglomerates, and does all sorts of things. Its hub is in southern India and is almost like a small town. Why are we giving it money? I do not understand why we are giving money to Narayana Health, which is one of the richest organisations. I do not want my tax money—if it is my tax money—to go to Narayana Health. It has been given $48 million. It does not need money. It has more money than it can spend.
To me, these things are very worrying. I would like somebody to take a much stronger interest in the CDC’s investment policies: which countries it is investing in and what the return is. It invested in another chain of fee-paying schools, saying, “This is very good because you only pay $6 a month to get your child in there”. Although $6 seems nothing to noble Lords sitting here, it could mean a lot to a really poor person in Africa. Will they be able to find $6 to send their child do school? So I ask the Minister please to make sure that the money is being spent for poverty reduction as well as job creation. Just creating jobs will not change a country entirely. Poverty reduction has to be a priority.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for introducing this Bill to your Lordships’ House. Having listened to the speeches of other noble Lords, I am also reminded—if I needed reminding—yet again about the wealth of experience, and the breadth and depth of geographical knowledge, that exists in this House. I thank everybody who has contributed to my knowledge in this area.
This is a Bill that seeks to divert the policy of a government department quite significantly. It is a Bill that was neither trailed in the Conservative Party manifesto, nor mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. Moreover, it has been hastened with unseemly speed to its place on the statute book. Indeed, the passage of the Bill through the Commons gave rise to a good number of complaints from NGOs and think tanks that they had not been able to meet the very tight timescales made available to them and had had their submissions to the International Development Committee’s inquiry committee rejected. The Bill has been designated as a money Bill, so we in your Lordships’ House have no means by which to amend it or add conditions and safeguards—in short, no means to carry out our responsibility to give it proper scrutiny and make refinements which the Government may in time have come to appreciate. This is a pity, because taxpayers’ money—quite a lot of taxpayers’ money—is being moved from under the jurisdiction solely of Governments to an organisation which is not wholly accountable, given that it invests through funds of funds, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, pointed out. That money is then outside of accountability through the Government and through DfID.
I am not the only one who thinks that the Bill’s designation as a money Bill is inappropriate. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, agreed with me, as did the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which said:
“We consider that the Bill contains an inappropriate delegation of power unless the Government can provide a convincing explanation of the need for this Henry VIII power”.
The Government did respond, but not convincingly. The need for development aid confronts us daily on our screens. Surely this is not the time to open up another line of attack for the vitriolic campaign that the Daily Mail and other rags are waging against the Department for International Development. That is what I fear this Bill will encourage. As we have seen, the CDC is vulnerable to attacks. In making this momentous and generous increase in the budget of the CDC, the Secretary of State risks exposing the entire 0.7% of GNI available for aid, yet again, to another round of attacks from parts of the media. She could have given herself some ammunition to rebut the attacks by putting some safeguards into the Bill, but then she has hardly been beforehand in rebutting any of the attacks levelled at her department. I know to his credit that the Minister is supportive of the 0.7% ODA, but will he convey to his boss that her history of attacks on DfID during the EU referendum campaign and her record of failing to defend the department on becoming its head are not reassuring?
I move on to why I think this Bill would have benefited from some refinements. It seeks to allow the CDC a massive increase of £4.5 billion to its overall spend to raise the ceiling to £6 billion, with an option to increase it further by another £6 billion by secondary legislation to a total of £12 billion. This raises eyebrows as the CDC has a chequered past—historically coming under heavy criticism in the really bad old days. Before 2012, the CDC spent 100% of its budget through funds of funds in projects that could hardly be described as pro-poor, including as they did, the arms trade. Nowadays, one-third of the CDC’s investments are made in other intermediary funds—funds of funds—a third are syndicated with other funds, co-invested; and a third are direct investments. We hope that the proportion of direct investments which give greater accountability to taxpayers will increase under the new strategy, once that is published.
First, let me address the problems posed with respect to transparency in the reporting of data. This is important because we need to be sure that ODA invested in the CDC can be traceable and accountable to taxpayers, in line with DfID’s international commitment on aid transparency. It is true that reporting has improved; however, a full two-thirds of the CDC’s investments remain opaque.
The CDC needs to take this on board and push for greater transparency in the deals it does with intermediaries, be they co-investees or other funds. These deals are rarely published with clarity, giving rise to allegations of secrecy and nefarious goings-on. It must publish what it funds. This has become even more imperative given that, since 2014, all capital transfer to the CDC is now reported as ODA by DfID to the OECD credit reporting system, but not all CDC investments are eligible as ODA.
The International Aid Transparency Initiative standard in 2012 rated the CDC as poor—a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—and asked it to publish what it funds. Why can it not publish country-by-country data? Neither DfID nor the CDC publishes data that give us a complete picture of how public money is invested. We do not know who is accountable: DfID or the CDC. This is unsatisfactory, and some clarity from the Minister on this question would be appreciated.
Given that 100% of the capital transfer from DfID to the CDC will now count as ODA, it is essential, to avoid controversy, that CDC projects demonstrate that they are focused on ending poverty. Closely linking its performance framework, evaluation and reporting, strategies and policies to the International Development Act 2002, the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 and the UN sustainable development goals would go some way to countering media attacks. However, the recent NAO report on the CDC’s development impact framework does not include indicators for development impact achieved. Moreover, the CDC is not formally required to report on that. Why not?
Will the Government change their current reporting structure so that the CDC is subject to and compliant with the International Development Act 2002—surely not a big ask? Measuring impact is so important, and a really hot topic in the sector. The CDC has £5 million put aside to invest in a research project to develop a methodology to measure impact, yet that money lies unused. That is inexcusable.
The CDC’s preference for using job creation as a measure of impact is crude. Nor is it readily verifiable, as its intermediaries and co-investees can choose to provide no back-up data for their assertions. The CDC itself must not remain silent when it is attacked in the press. It is imperative that it defends itself, and to do so it must have facts and figures at its fingertips. It is no longer enough to say that it is in the business of job creation: that is only one indicator and is, moreover, unqualified. To be more meaningful, we need to know the quality of the jobs, pay and working conditions of employees, gender and age of the workforce and whether any training or education is delivered.
I move on to the criticism that the CDC has come under because of its use of tax havens. I hear what Diana Noble, the CDC’s CEO—for whom I have great regard, incidentally—says in defence of their use: that it is sometimes unavoidable when co-investees will not commit to a project where they believe there are not sufficient safeguards for the money or to avoid double taxation. My response is that the use of tax havens leads to the diversion of tax revenues from the poorest nations in the world—revenues that could be spent on health, education, clean water and so on—and all efforts must be made to put in place extra precautions and lend expertise to develop more robust financial practices that move that agenda forward. Development is, after all, the key word. These precautions may eat into profit margins, but profits at the CDC are still well above the 3.5% agreed with Ministers—for example, last year’s profits were 16%. The Prime Minister cannot on the one hand promise a crackdown on companies’ use of tax havens and at the same time sanction their use by a government-owned company.
The CDC must be careful to guard against scandal. It must not appear in the press for the wrong reasons. Every deal must meet the Daily Mail resilience test. Will it stand up to allegations of propping up corrupt leaders? Can a luxury mall be justified—for example, would the project struggle to attract investment elsewhere if the CDC were not to invest in it? Can the project withstand allegations of “public money, private profit”? The CDC’s remit is to invest in private enterprises that would typically struggle to attract investment elsewhere, as stated in its mission statement. Does it really need to invest in high-end private education or for-profit private health? These highly profitable enterprises, targeted at the well-off, usually in middle-income parts of a country, are justified, the CDC says, because the country is overall a low-income country. The CDC would do itself a favour if it were to cease investing in such businesses and stick to its objective: invest to contribute to economic growth for the benefit of the poor.
That is not to say that investing in health is wrong—far from it. The health sector is a key area where the impact of aid is clear and one that the public can connect with—very important—so the economic benefits of spending on health are strong, estimated to exceed cost by a factor of 20 in lower or middle-income countries. However, recently published figures for UK bilateral aid show that health has dropped from being the largest area of spending to fourth place. There is a trend of moving away from social development sectors into areas such as economic development and infrastructure, which may not always be pro-poor. That is something we must guard against. Each has its place, but we must ensure that one important sector does not lose out in place of another—a point my noble friend Lord Bruce made far more ably than I can. The CDC’s investment in health can be targeted so that it is demonstrably pro-poor.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I highlight the lack of strategy. The current strategy ended last year. During the Bill’s passage through the Commons, the Minister, Rory Stewart, said in his response that the amendments addressing the points I have highlighted were all valid, but that they were best addressed through internal governance and the forthcoming investment strategy rather than primary legislation. We were told by the Minister that this already much-delayed strategy would be with us by last December. It is now February, and we have had no sight of the new strategy which will guide the investments under which up to £12 billion of taxpayers’ money will be spent. This is unsatisfactory.
We must add to that the fact that the current CEO, Diana Noble, is due to leave shortly and the CDC will be under new leadership. I congratulate Ms Noble on her work for the CDC over the past five years. It cannot have been easy. The changes she has wrought have moved the organisation in the right direction. However, as I have outlined, this is very much work in progress. The appointment of a new head of the organisation will inevitably mean a different way of doing things but, without knowing who the new head will be or what the CDC’s vision for 2017-22 will look like, we are being asked to give our consent to a blank cheque.
I confess that I feel uncomfortable about doing that. However, the Bill’s passage is assured. I hope that the Government and the CDC will take on board not only my comments but those made by others in your Lordships’ House, and ensure that the CDC does not become the weak underbelly of DfID and leave itself open to attacks from those elements in the media which have never understood the imperative for the 0.7% commitment of GNI towards international aid.
UN figures tell us that more than 65 million people across the world have had to leave their homes to seek safety and to try to meet basic human needs for both themselves and their families. If we are to deter even more of them, in their desperation, from exposing themselves to the risks of dangerous journeys across continents, then we must work to ease their misery in their own countries. This is a moral imperative that benefits us as much as them.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in this House there has been strong support for the 0.7% aid target and Britain’s role in international development. There is also a broad consensus around the role of the CDC, as we have heard in this debate.
Job creation is one of the best ways to reduce poverty; it is important that the Government have a development investment arm that will help poorer countries to create new and innovative jobs. However, the focus for such work must be on the poorest, least developed and lowest-income countries, and on ensuring that the work is consistent with the sustainable development goals agreed by the UN.
As we have heard, the CDC made significant changes following the 2008 National Audit Office report and—as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, reminded us—following the 2011 International Development Committee report, in line with recommendations to move towards a focus on the alleviation of poverty. This shift in focus is a major achievement of Diana Noble. She has done a terrific job and will be sorely missed. The changes were reviewed recently by a further NAO report released just before the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons in November 2016.
The report was mostly positive. It noted that the 2012 to 2016 investment strategy shifted the CDC’s investment focus, which is clearly welcome. It noted that the CDC had exceeded the targets agreed with DfID relating to financial performance and development impact. However, it also said that the CDC should do more to measure the development impact of its investments. This would not only provide a better basis for investment decisions, but increase the transparency of the CDC.
Poverty alleviation is absolutely central if we are to make a success of the SDGs and Agenda 2030. As the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said, the adoption of SDGs has resulted in an international consensus that the private sector needs to play an even greater role in delivering a sustainable future for everyone, by integrating the aims of the goals into its business practices.
Developing countries currently face an annual investment gap of $2.5 trillion to achieve the global goals by 2030. The goals can be achieved only by working with the private sector, including with DFI organisations such as the CDC. The CDC states that it is committed to helping to achieve the global goals by focusing on those where it can have most impact: goal 7 on affordable and clean energy—as we have heard, we know there is an infrastructure need, particularly in Africa—as well as goal 9 on industry, innovation and infrastructure, and goal 8 on decent work and economic growth. Noble Lords have made the point that the CDC is investing in areas where labour standards are a key issue for its investment. In the most difficult countries, I know it has even built in proper workplace representation, which is vital in terms of delivering on our SDG objectives.
We are told that the ending of extreme poverty by 2030 is central to the CDC strategy. The 2012 to 2016 investment plan has, as we have heard, expired and we are yet to see the 2017 to 2021 investment plan. Like many noble Lords, I am disappointed that Parliament is being asked to raise the investment threshold before seeing the plans for the next four years of investment.
In terms of measuring the development impact of its investments, I ask the Minister whether he can assure the House that in the new investment strategy a more robust approach to measuring development impact will be implemented. Like my noble friend Lord Boateng, I also hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that Parliament—this House in particular—will have the opportunity to debate and consider the new investment strategy. There is no doubt that the CDC has become more transparent, but more can still be done to ensure that money is being spent as well as possible. One way this could be achieved is to allow the Independent Commission for Aid Impact to play a bigger role—for example, by carrying out a regular assessment of CDC investments, allowing scrutiny so that we can ensure the full effectiveness and value for money of the programmes in which the CDC invests.
We should be proud. The CDC has been a world leader among development finance institutions in publishing details of its investments since 2012 under the International Aid Transparency Initiative. But it would improve transparency further if it published similar details on its entire active investment portfolio, including those investments made prior to 2012. That would enable greater scrutiny of the CDC’s entire portfolio and hopefully provide assurances to the public that all CDC investments are focused where they need to be—on the goal of poverty reduction.
My noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, as well as other noble Lords, highlighted two particular areas of concern: first, the volume of the Government’s proposed new investment for the CDC and, secondly, the CDC’s continued use of tax havens. Regarding volume, a critical issue, which noble Lords have raised, is whether the CDC can absorb this funding—does it have the capacity to deal with it? I hope the Minister will be clear today about the schedule for this spending. What is his idea of the number of years over which the increase would be spent before we might require another Act to increase it even further?
On tax havens, it is disappointing that, despite the Government’s stated objective in cracking down on tax evasion, the CDC continues to use them, including the Cayman Islands and Mauritius. I met the chair and the chief executive of the CDC recently and raised this concern with them. They responded in the way that we have heard about in this debate, by stressing the importance of stable financial arrangements for investments. In some countries—this is pretty obvious—it is clearly not possible to set up arrangements within their legal structures to ensure that the right duties and controls are in place.
Surely a way for the Government to address legitimate concerns would have been to include on the face of the Bill standards for the CDC to meet, in terms of the commitment to transparency, value for money and tracking development results. Since this opportunity has been missed, I ask the Minister whether the CDC will be asked—in the strategy that I hope your Lordships’ House will have the opportunity to debate—to improve its transparency and reduce the volume of investments it routes through tax havens.
While I believe that it makes sense to increase the CDC’s investment threshold, we need to ensure, as with any area of government spending, that every penny is going where it can have the greatest effect—the right places and the right people delivering value for money for the taxpayer. One way in which to achieve that would be to ensure that we could have regular scrutiny and proper debates in Parliament on the CDC’s activities.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions in what has been a thoughtful and fascinating debate that has ranged quite widely over a number of different headings. Broadly, I have categorised those—although there is a significant overlap—into: the CDC’s role in the private sector, which the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, referred to with practical examples, as did my noble friend Lord Flight with other examples, and it was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and my noble friend Lord Eccles; the CDC development strategy and where this Bill fits into that, which was focused on by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, along with the noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Judd, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce; and, finally, the question of parliamentary scrutiny that should rightly be afforded to such an important area of public expenditure and investment, which was the focus of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Flather and Lady Sheehan. I shall take that as my rough template to draw some strands out of the initial remarks.
The first point to make, however, is that, obviously, I echo the comments made by a number of Members during the debate recognising the significant level of expertise resident in this House that can be brought to bear in scrutinising and helping to shape strategies in future.
On the strategy, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was absolutely right to take us back to the sustainable development goals and Agenda 2030. When we look at a Bill, we look at a particular strategy in isolation, and I want to try to place this Bill in the wider context, which is that of the sustainable development goals. Goal 8 has been mentioned, but essentially it is goal 1 that we are after, the eradication of poverty, which is the mission of DfID. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to that. We have made good progress on that goal. In 1990, those living in extreme poverty numbered some 2 billion; as of 2015, that number had reduced down to 705 million—almost to one-third, at a time when global population had gone up. In many ways, that heartened and strengthened the view—because a significant proportion was drawn from the commitment to the millennium goals—that global concerted action and focus could deliver significant change, if it was co-ordinated. That was why the UN Secretary-General set up the high-level panel of which the former Prime Minister David Cameron was a co-chair, which then led to the sustainable development goals.
The sustainable development goals, which have as their target eradicating extreme poverty by 2030, with a number of successor goals to that, are very much at the heart of what we do. Because we now view development activity through the lens of the UN sustainable development goals and have our commitment—which continues to be reiterated, as perhaps it needs to be—to the 0.7%, which has been secured through legislation and our manifesto commitment, we seek to match the 0.7% with the goals. Our strategy across government for implementing the goals will be set out in a new Agenda 2030 strategy document, which will be published in the next couple of months.
I am providing a protracted introduction because my opening remarks perhaps did not quite cover the context that this Bill fits into. We have the sustainable development goals as a focus, we have a plan which is coming and we have a UK aid strategy, which sets out the importance of economic development and of jobs, which are sustainable goal 8, as well as the eradication of poverty, which, rightly, was number one. It talks about partnerships and working together. The UK aid strategy then fits into and drives the single departmental plan of the Department for International Development as the prime lever for doing this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather raised a point on data, and one of the most important elements in the sustainable development goals is, to the delight of mathematicians and statisticians, the incredibly complex data that will be required to track progress towards those goals. That is set by the United Nations Statistical Commission, and the Office for National Statistics will have responsibility for collating data from across government—including the Government Statistical Service and many other sources—and uploading those so that we can better track our progress. That rests in the single departmental plan, which is published.
Off the back of that, last week we published our economic development plan, which recognises the importance of private sector investment in infrastructure. Gradually, this has all been built together. All of that is then scrutinised and overseen by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, ICAI, by the Select Committee on International Development, by the NAO, whose report has been referred to, and by the Public Accounts Committee—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to attending the PAC meeting yesterday, where the Permanent Secretary gave evidence.
So that is the context in which this Bill needs to be set. We are arguing that it is not all about economic development; economic development is part of what DfID does—in the current year, economic development sits in an envelope of roughly £1.8 billion out of a £12 billion spend. So we are talking about funding within that envelope on economic development.
Then we come to the question of the CDC Bill itself. The argument was that, because several years had elapsed since the Act had been passed and the cap had not been moved during that time, it was right that, given that economic development was going to play a more significant role in addressing the sustainable development goals, we look at raising that cap.
Of course, the UK Government are the shareholder, so when we talk about hiving off funds, as my noble friend Lord Flight said, we are hiving off funds to ourselves. It is taxpayers—it is ourselves—who are the owner and shareholder, and we have the ultimate power as the shareholder, without wishing to worry current holders of posts, to appoint the board and appoint the chief executive. We can have a quite significant impact. I want to reassure noble Lords on that, because there was some concern in that regard.
On the CDC and its strategy, I took on board the point that was made. We are now drilling down: we have gone through the sustainable development goals and the cross-government approach to delivering on aid; we are now into economic development and we have the economic development strategy; and now we are saying that it is right that there should be an investment strategy for CDC, which should be published and discussed initially with the shareholder—namely, Her Majesty's Government.
When that was being discussed, we felt there were two alternatives: to publish the strategy alongside the Bill, or to allow the Bill to make its progress through the House and do the House the courtesy of listening to its scrutiny of the Bill. Some comments, such as the ones mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, have made a profound difference, and others, such as those brought to our attention by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, perhaps less so. We chose to let it go through the House and for the wisdom and expertise that exists in this House to be incorporated into the final strategy that is published.
At the same time, when agreeing our process on this, we had a couple of choices regarding parliamentary scrutiny, and I want to address this quite directly. There was a debate about whether we put in £12 billion, which was what we assessed looking forward. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to the estimated $2.5 trillion funding gap, so this is significant but, in terms of the need, it is not vast. It is also fair to say that the amount we allocate, as a percentage of overseas development assistance, to capital in financial institutions is significantly less than countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, France and the USA. We asked whether we should go straight to £12 billion or have an interim stage. I suppose the conclusion was that we could take this in cycles, so the initial plan will be for the next four years and then there will be a successor plan for the following five years, which will be published and discussed. Off the back of that, there will then have to be an affirmative resolution, before your Lordships’ House and the other place, to give permission for that investment to occur. We considered that point very carefully and came to the conclusion to do it in two steps. That was the rationale behind that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about the CDC Bill being certified as a money Bill. I would like to say it was part of a strategy, but of course we have no control over that. The certification of a money Bill is the preserve of Mr Speaker in the other place, and I do not think he would take any advice from Her Majesty’s Government on this or probably any other matter. He certifies it and it is what it is, and we must work within that.
I was struck by the points made and the quality of the debate. Noble Lords suggested it would be useful to have a debate on the strategy when it is published. There will be a number of other strategies around at a similar time on a sustainable development goals—sorry, let me just clarify that there will be an affirmative resolution before the House of Commons only, which will have the opportunity to comment on this second step. On whether there should there be an opportunity for your Lordships’ House to discuss this, that would be for the usual channels to agree, but I will be very sympathetic to it on the basis of the discussion we have had this morning.
I have set out the broad headings, so let me turn in the time that remains to some brief responses to specific questions that I have not covered in my general remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked whether there would be full disclosure of the CDC’s investments on its website. I can reassure him that a full list of investments, including the legacy investments, can be viewed on the website.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, raised the point about measuring the CDC’s contribution to poverty reduction. The contribution is clear, as it is made through jobs, local taxes and infrastructure.
However, this economic development and investment have to be seen alongside the work we are doing with our multilateral partners in the development banks. The World Bank operates in a lot of these countries and international finance institutions in some regions have been mentioned, such as the Caribbean Development Bank. We also have a UK Caribbean Infrastructure Fund partnership. We use many different vehicles and direct investment is just one.
We also have a huge commitment, rightly so, in education—which the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, oversaw as well during her time as Minister. It is true that no one has ever got out of poverty by aid alone and therefore trade is required, but it is equally true that, as well as economic development, you need education. Without the skills and the workforce, then I am afraid it is not going to happen. We have a major programme in education, which then feeds into economic development and our work with our international partners in respect of that.
In terms of independent evaluations, there was an evaluation commissioned in 2015 by a team from Harvard. It reviewed the CDC’s investment for the period 2008 to 2012 and concluded that the CDC’s investments had been transformational—a point made by my noble friends Lord Flight and Lord Eccles and the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Boateng—such as in the work of the Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund particularly with small and medium-size enterprises.
My noble Friend, Lord Eccles, asked about the proportion of the CDC portfolio that is now direct. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to the report on this from when he chaired the Select Committee. The CDC has built up its capacity and moved significantly from operating as a fund of funds to operating more directly where it could exert greater control and measure the results. In 2015, 67% of new commitments by value were direct investments, and we expect this ratio of about two-thirds direct to one-third through funds to continue.
The CDC was set a great challenge, and many noble Lords rightly paid tribute to the work of the current chair and current—and outgoing—chief executive, Diana Noble. I certainly echo that. The CDC’s staff are immensely high-quality and combine private sector expertise with a compassion for the world and a determination to ensure that we improve our performance in relation to the poor.
There was a criticism that the CDC has gone for easy wins. Perhaps that applies to a bygone era, as the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, referred to, when it was perhaps being “fattened up” for privatisation. When we decided during the coalition Government, when Andrew Mitchell was Secretary of State, that we wanted this to be a long-term public vehicle as part of our economic development strategy, we narrowed the focus. We said, “Where are the poor people?”. The answer is that 80% of that 700 million-plus that I mentioned still living in extreme poverty are in Africa and south Asia. Therefore, that should be the focus of our attention.
What is the greatest need in those areas? Is it for financial sector instruments? That may be part of it, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that the greatest need is for jobs and better jobs in those areas. So we said that the focus should be on the areas of greatest poverty and on job creation as being the objective. That is a fair area to head for.
Baroness Flather
I was trying to say, with some of the examples that I gave, that they do not need money: they are already very wealthy and they have jobs that they are giving to people. There has to be something focused on the areas where there is not enough money.
Lord Bates
That is right. The noble Baroness refers specifically to India, which is of course itself a signatory to the sustainable development goals and the eradication of poverty by 2030. That will have to be its focus.
A number of other questions and particular points were raised. I will review the record, particularly with reference to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, at the beginning, and where there are gaps or I can add anything, if it will be convenient for the House, I will write to noble Lords. I reiterate my commitment to continue to engage with the House as the CDC progresses with its strategy and we finalise the new business case.
Lord Judd
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and the fact that he will write to me, although it is a pity that, because this is a money Bill, we do not have the opportunity to go into these things in Committee. However, will he agree with what has been said by quite a number of noble Lords in this debate, that the CDC, which of course has a lot of admiration, must remember that job creation and the eradication of poverty are not synonymous? Job creation can play an important part, but the eradication of poverty is a greater issue. We must not let one become a substitute for the other.
Lord Bates
I defer to the noble Lord’s great experience in this area. He is right. He is also right to say that it must not be perceived as an imposition. This must be something that comes from the ground up. It must be about strengthening capacity within the countries. That is why education, healthcare and all the other things that we are doing in terms of infrastructure are so critical to the overall success. I accept that.
The CDC is the oldest development finance institution in the world. It is a great British institution that reflects the values of the British public, who consistently demonstrate their concern for and generosity towards the poorest. We will make sure that we can all continue to be proud of the life-changing, pioneering work that this institution does. With that, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.
Royal Assent
Thursday 23rd February 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 93(b) Amendment for Third Reading (PDF, 97KB) - (30 Jan 2017)