Sudan

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Thursday 28th April 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this extraordinarily authoritative and informative debate. I congratulate all Members who have taken part in a debate that will, I hope, allow those who read the proceedings to benefit and learn from it, too. It is a timely and important debate, given the scale of the challenge faced by the peoples of Sudan today and of north and south Sudan tomorrow. There are many opportunities for the UK, one of the many nations that can contribute to the future, to help to bring about the best benefits.

I begin in complete sincerity by thanking the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) for doing whatever was necessary to persuade the Backbench Business Committee to nominate this topic for debate, and for his interesting, thought-provoking and, above all, comprehensive introduction. It gave us the hooks on which the rest of the debate has been able to hang. He did that very ably and I am pleased to acknowledge expressly the inspiration that he has derived from his leadership of the Parliamentary Friends of CAFOD and the advantage that he has taken of the knowledge with which it has supplied him. I hope that I will be able to do justice to what has been a comprehensive debate. Many points have been raised and I will seek to address as many as I possibly can. I will attempt to address any points that I cannot address today either through further meetings with the Associate Parliamentary Group for Sudan or by letter.

It is important to recognise that, as the British Parliament, we have taken and continue to take an extremely close interest in both the interests and the future of the peoples of Sudan, which will become two separate countries—north and south Sudan—from 9 July. That interest is genuine and important, and the debate is timely and is welcomed by many interested parties. Many people will want to consider what we have had to say in today’s proceedings, so, rather than immediately address in detail some of the issues that have been raised, it would be helpful to set out some of the context that has informed how the British Government and DFID in particular have decided upon their policy towards Sudan, and how we hope to support the growth of the new nation state of south Sudan.

The UK has four key Government objectives for the people of Sudan and their constitutional manifestation. First, we are working towards a peaceful conclusion to the comprehensive peace agreement, including the transition to two countries in July. Secondly, we are committed to an inclusive peace with justice in Darfur. We have focused on many other aspects of Sudan recently, but it is vital that we do not lose sight of the paramount importance of our concerns about Darfur, because they continue to this day. Thirdly, we are working to ensure national and regional stability for Sudan. Fourthly, we will support the development of democratic and accountable Governments, delivering a more equitable distribution of Sudan’s resources—a point that has been touched on ably today—in the hope and, I would say, expectation of an improvement in the human rights situation in Sudan. Although that is not an explicit linkage, it is certainly something whereby, by working hard to get one aspect right, we would expect to have influence on the other and to see it develop.

In the context of the overall promise—which the coalition Government have been able to confirm and maintain, and which has been welcomed and supported broadly throughout the House—to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance by 2013 and to ring-fence that money, the UK has committed more than £280 million in Sudan this year. Of that, £140 million will be provided through DFID in its African context. We have offices in various countries. We have an office in Juba as well as the one that has been established for some years in Khartoum. The further £140 million will be in the assessed contributions to the two peacekeeping missions in Sudan—United Nations Mission in Sudan and United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned that he had spoken to a member of the African Union, which supplied forces to UNAMID. That shows how much that is a joint UN and African Union mission in Darfur, and it is vital that that be maintained.

The UNMIS mission has just been renewed up to 9 July, which I think was supported broadly throughout the House. The issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), whom I should like to congratulate on an outstanding and authoritative speech, which was made with great knowledge. He made the strong point that we need to look beyond UNMIS on 9 July to what will succeed it. I give him the categorical assurance that we in the UK Government are determined to do whatever possible to continue to promote influence so that there is a successor approach to that broad peacekeeping and peacebuilding opportunity. That nation state needs to find a firm footing and the ability to have the confidence that it will not be set off track.

We read last week about recent incidents of various killings—what has been called south-south violence—and those who are perpetrating them are doing so in an insurgency role and are often, allegedly, dispossessed ex-generals with various interests. Those are areas in which we have to make sure that there is an ability to resist the undermining of the important process of going forward in a positive way that meets the enormous aspirations that were articulated by many people when they queued to vote in the referendum with such unity of purpose, which was an interesting phrase used by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). If we can harness the unity of purpose that delivered the referendum result, we can have great hope for the way in which south Sudan will be able to develop its resources in order to build an economy upon which it will be able to sustain the interests of its people.

In addition to the two lots of £140 million this year—the assessed contribution and the direct bilateral aid that we have identified—a further £8.3 million will be provided for conflict prevention projects and to support the Assessment and Evaluation Commission. After this financial year, as we announced following the DFID bilateral aid review, we will provide £140 million a year for the next four years up to 2014-15, which is one year beyond the four-year envelope that we have announced for others. Sudan, therefore, has already been singled out for special treatment to achieve the greater predictability and certainty that has been called for by many Members who have spoken in today’s debate. That support will be for both countries, north and south.

Our four-year strategy will focus on transition from humanitarian programmes to support for durable and sustainable livelihoods in conflict-affected areas. It will encourage peacebuilding between the north and the south, in the east, in Darfur, and between Sudan and its neighbours. It will support increased democratic and accountable governance, operational and fiscal decentralisation, and a reduction in the incidence of corruption. That was another point that was made forcefully, and rightly so, by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds. The strategy will also focus on more equitable and sustainable development through a better use of the national budget, including a shift from military expenditure to more productive use of resources, and a focus on economic diversification and employment. I will address directly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. His comments led us to stretch our terms of debate to the issue of trade and badging what we do from the UK. I will come back to that point because it is important that we deal with it.

It is clear that poverty indicators are generally worse in south Sudan. We have come to the conclusion that, as a rule of thumb, at this stage about 65% of the funding—about £90 million out of that £140 million—will be focused on the south. The remaining 35% of our funding—around £50 million—will focus on the north of Sudan, including Darfur, the east and the three areas known as Abyei, South Kordofan and the Blue Nile.

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not wish to interrupt or pre-empt what the Minister might say about the accountability of the spending. He talks about corruption. There is an argument that, if we put no money into Africa—absolutely zero aid—it would prompt many of these corrupt organisations to become far more transparent and utilise the money they have far better. I do not agree fully with that argument. However, I am concerned. The money we are providing is part of a £44 billion package of aid that goes to the whole continent of Africa every single year. The amount of money that is generated by mineral exports is $393 billion a year. That is a huge amount. We know that that money does not reach the front line because of corrupt Governments. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how we can prevent that money from being wasted and ending up in places such as Dubai, rather than going to the front line, where we would like to see it.

[Mr O'Brien]

Let me absolutely categorically assure my hon. Friend that, as far as we are concerned, corruption is completely unacceptable. To the extent that we have knowledge of corruption and can prove it, we have a completely zero tolerance approach to it. We have a much more explicit understanding of the issue and a lot more work has been done on identifying how to stop the opportunities for corruption, given that it has become endemic in some countries during some parts of the processes.

I will come on to transparency, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take some assurance from the review on bilateral and multilateral aid that has taken place during the previous 12 months. The various multilaterals were scored according to how well they were doing, including in relation to transparency. On the receiving Governments, we have pledged an aid transparency guarantee and have said that we will put all expenditures above £500 on the net, which DFID is now doing.

We also want to help to empower civil society organisations in receiving countries, so that they can see at a grass-roots level what is meant to be coming to their country. They should then be able to make demands upwards into their systems. We need to encourage democratic institution building, so that the process is no longer something done to them as peoples. Such organisations should be able to demand that those who are politically accountable to them say what they are doing with the money that is supposed to have come their way. If we can get that transaction transparency at both ends, that is precisely where we hope to be able to improve the situation considerably.

On the example my hon. Friend gave that we should perhaps go to year zero and remove all support to Africa, the only people who would suffer would be the poorest, and the only people who would have a temporary blip would be those who might have to search hard in their Swiss bank accounts rather than suffer anything at all.

[Mr Ellwood]

Is the Minister aware of the American Dodd-Frank Act that has been passed? That obliges companies listed on the New York stock exchange to declare how much money they give to a country’s Government or individual Heads of State when they strike deals on oil and so on. Could we apply that to DFID and British companies that are operating in Sudan and elsewhere to make sure that there is that transparency?

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. Can the Minister return to the subject of Sudan?

[Mr O'Brien]

That will form part of the state building of Sudan, and it applies elsewhere. Whether or not we are dealing with Dodd-Frank as an example, the Chancellor has said that he wants to explore that idea and see what lessons it has for us at a European level because, of course, it is only worth moving if we all move as one.

We also need to recognise that many African countries are mineral rich and that that is a potential means by which the private sector will be able to develop in such a way as to benefit the greatest number of people. The evidence shows that, if we can get the right explosion of what we might glibly call the middle class, or at least rising economic prosperity among a greater number of people, that will create the biggest, best and most sustainable alleviator of poverty. In the meantime, getting good public services, relieving poverty, saving lives and improving health have to be the first responses—even beyond humanitarian emergency responses—so that we can make sure that people have the opportunity to take part in that prosperity. At the moment, people are often denied a sufficiently long life even to have an opportunity to be a part of that future.

I was in Sudan three years ago in 2008. I went as chairman of the charity, the Malaria Consortium, of which I was then the honorary trustee chairman. I went from Juba, which at that point had only 10 metres of road metalled, up to Rumbek and Wau, where I met the new President of south Sudan, Salva Kiir, who happened to be landing in his jet—I had gone by car. We met on the airport apron and went up to Northern Bahr el Ghazal at Aweil and out to the tiny village of Aroyo. I saw for myself—this is a bit of a surprise to most people; it was particularly a surprise to me when I saw the request for 300 boats on the accounts of the Malaria Consortium—that, when the rainy season comes, Sudan is awash with water. It is not very deep, but the only way to get around is by boat. Many people do not understand the logistical issues that face the people of southern Sudan and that part of the country, and the challenge of dealing with the poverty.

The other thing I remember from that visit—this is not in my brief, but I remember it well and it is relevant to our consideration of the whole of the humanitarian response—is that because there has been almost permanent war going on since the ’50s and many conflicts before then, there has been a tendency for people to scatter, disperse and effectively hide. There are no pockets of population that are easy to address in terms of disease, economic opportunity, education or health access. It is a case of finding lots of people in very remote areas. We are talking about a particularly difficult area to service.

When looking at the analysis as DFID, it was clear to us that we should divide the £140 million per annum for the next four years—there is also £280 million in the current year—by a £90 million and £50 million split. I will talk about the results we intend to deliver in a moment. Hon. Members will know that we have been absolutely determined—this is partly in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—to say that it is not what we are spending that is important; it is the results we are seeking to achieve through working with local people. DFID does not go out there with DFID people. It has offices and so on, but we procure the best people in the best possible way—most transparently and by getting the greatest value for money—to deliver, many of whom are with the non-governmental organisations.

I shall partly answer a point I was going to mention later on NGOs. It is absolutely vital for the NGOs—particularly those with experience and knowledge of the territory, connections with people and trust within communities—to have the chance to bid for such opportunities. That is why on the DFID website there is a section on the Global Poverty Action Fund. CAFOD has knowledge of that, but other organisations will see that there is a series of rounds where those with expertise and experience have an opportunity to bid. If the organisations qualify, pass the due diligence tests and can demonstrate value for money and transparency, they will be part of the way in which we are able to deliver results.

The results we want to deliver in Sudan are to help 1 million people to get enough food to eat; to enable 240,000 more children to go to primary school; to provide malaria prevention and treatment for 750,000 people; to give 800,000 people access to clean drinking water and sanitation; to provide life-saving health and nutrition for to up to 10 million people; and to give 250,000 women better access to justice. That point was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds.

[Stephen Pound]

I am so impressed with the Minister’s words, I feel extremely guilty for having tramped the streets of Eddisbury in the election to try to prevent him getting elected. It is a pleasure to hear what he is saying. His work in the field of malaria is very well known throughout the House and far wider. In view of the statistic he has just given, does he feel that we are doing sufficient to provide in-country medical advice, treatment and therapeutic support to prevent malaria re-emerging, or does he think that we will face many years when overseas aid will address the issue of malaria, particularly in southern Sudan?

[Mr O'Brien]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Southern Sudan represents one of the cradles where tropical diseases are most virulent and are most likely to sustain over our lifetimes. If one were to pick the three areas where it would be difficult to rid the world of malaria and other tropical diseases, they would be parts of the DRC, parts of Nigeria and southern Sudan. There is, therefore, an opportunity to make an appreciable difference and contribute significantly to the millennium development goals. That is why the focus on south Sudan, irrespective of the fact that it fits very well with our intention to put money behind conflict states and fragile states, will have a major multiplier and leverage effect.

Of course, NGOs and donor agencies will be instrumental in ensuring that there is sustained, predictable programme money to help local health systems, as they grow, to develop malaria control and malaria elimination opportunities. Equally, it will be important to recognise that, with a very low capacity in southern Sudan, it will be many years before the population will not be afflicted by malaria. A little like Ethiopia, southern Sudan is prone to epidemics of malaria simply because of the nature of the vector. In other parts, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, malaria is more endemic and persistent across all the seasons. It is easier to persuade people to use nets all the time, whereas it is more difficult to persuade people to use the preventative method of a net when there are epidemics, because very often they do not get the net up before the epidemic has already taken hold. Without getting too diverted on malaria, about which I have been known to be able to wax lyrical—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he is making a very useful speech. He has said what he would like to happen in Sudan. Can he confirm whether the Department for International Development is in discussions with United Nations agencies to produce a plan of precisely which country’s aid agency will do what and which NGO will do what, so that there are not any overlaps, but equally, so that there are not any underlaps in achieving the very admirable aims that he has just outlined?

[Mr O'Brien]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. I was going to come on to his list, which was a shopping list rather than a too-difficult-to-do list, a bit later. He is right. There needs to be a clear delineation of who is meant to be doing what in order to achieve a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach, so that the benefits can feed off each other. Often in aid delivery, there has been a need to think about how to put the inputs in, rather than recognising what combined results we want at the end. The reason why his point is well-made is that, at a democratic and governance level—but also at the level of delivering good developmental aid—that is what might be termed as the post-CPA framework. Where will the governance levers be? Is it going to be a question just of donor agencies, NGOs and the UN talking about south Sudan, or is it going to be a question of south Sudan talking to them about how we all helped to contribute to their initiative, to deliver it on the ground and to embed it?

It is fair to say that it is not yet clear what form the post-CPA framework will take, but the main objective is to agree as much as possible—as was identified in the debate—where all the areas of difference lie. While they sit there, whether it is Abyei or the three areas, there remains the tension that does not allow the space through which that kind of co-ordinated consensual approach can take place. We are absolutely determined to do our best to foster that resolution of the differences, because we will get effectiveness and value for money, which is part of the transparency answer, only providing we have that consensual opportunity. While there is a dispute, people will seek to gain an edge off the other and that is where we get disunity. I am glad to have the opportunity to underscore that point, which is why it is so important that we agree as much as possible before the CPA expires on 9 July. That will obviously change the dynamics dramatically.

We are working with Thabo Mbeki and his high-level panel on precisely that. It is more likely to be achieved—a point that I think was hinted at by the opening speaker—if this is not seen to be a somewhat old-style solution of the international community talking about another country, and particularly a new country, but the family of African countries coming together themselves to produce something that might be regarded as an African solution. That is much more important, which is why Thabo Mbeki and his high-level panel are important and crucial to the process. We are encouraging all those parties to maintain as much momentum as possible in advance. I shall come back briefly to some of those issues.

I was talking about the financial commitment and the results that we are hoping to achieve. That was also partly in answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who wanted to know that we were in it for a sustainable, predictable period so that people could plan with some confidence. The financial commitment to Sudan represents a large amount of British taxpayers’ money. It is a priority for us to ensure that it is spent well, represents, of course, good value for money, and brings real benefit in terms of building peace and delivering assistance to those affected by conflict and extreme poverty. We are determined to ensure that our aid reaches the people who need it most. We do not give any money directly—let us be absolutely clear—to the Governments in Khartoum or Juba. All our funds are routed through NGOs, private sector firms and multilateral agencies, which have robust financial management systems in place. That is part of the due diligence and the tendering process and the real, tough hurdles that they have to get across. We require a detailed narrative and financial reports from all our partners, as well as audited statements. DFID staff also conduct regular monitoring of progress and formal annual reviews in line with our own project management procedures.

The UK is committed to its relations with north and south Sudan. We recognise that sustainable peace in Sudan can only be delivered by addressing the root causes of conflict, and we continue to urge the north and the south to take the steps needed to resolve the outstanding issues from the comprehensive peace agreement by 9 July. Those include the issues of Abyei, border demarcation—as was discussed and raised by a number of contributors to the debate—and arrangements for the conclusion of the inclusive popular consultations in Blue Nile and South Kordofan. It was interesting to note that while Blue Nile is moving ahead at a reasonable step, South Kordofan is giving more cause for concern. Of course, we come to the issues of distribution of oil wealth and citizenship, both subjects that need to be resolved. We will continue to press for full implementation of the CPA ahead of its conclusion in July, and for agreement on wider arrangements that have to be equitable and just between the north and south.

I will come on to some of the other issues in a moment, but on the issue of Abyei, in addition to Thabo Mbeki and his high-level panel, who seek to broker these solutions, we welcome the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the way in which that may help to support the outcome. That is an important point to put on the record.

[Tony Baldry]

I entirely understand the point my hon. Friend makes about Thabo Mbeki’s high-level group and the need for that to be seen as an African solution, but is he confident that the Government of south Sudan have the necessary capacity and support to be able to actively engage with all the parties, which is necessary to bring matters to a successful conclusion?

[Mr O'Brien]

One of the central points my hon. Friend made in his excellent speech was about whether we could lend capacity to help, particularly in south Sudan. One has to recognise that this is having a disruptive effect on north Sudan as well. While I do not want to sound as though I never want to make a decision by being too even-handed, at the same time we need to recognise that this is not just south Sudan. We also have to enable, through our aid, north Sudan to be functional as well. It will lose a huge amount of its country, and that is where the citizenship issue has become so difficult to resolve. I hope that some of the suggestions that have been made in this debate will be listened to carefully, because they sounded both visionary and like possible resolutions of that difficulty.

On lending capacity such as the human resource of experts—more than just money and the expectation of the results that that will buy, which was a point reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds—we have already made certain offers, some of which have been taken up. We have moved beyond—with confidence, I hope—any sense of guilt as the former colonial power. Many years have passed, but we recognise that we still have expertise in matters such as mapping, with surveying technology as well as knowledge from the past. Some offers have been taken up, although not all of them. We must build confidence and relationships, but I assure my hon. Friend that such offers have been made. There is more to be done, but it would be nice if some of those offers were taken up with more alacrity.

Part of accepting such offers is also accepting, to a degree, the basis for a resolution of disputes such as the Abyei demarcation or allocation. Any such resolution will be on the basis of maps and surveying—what was originally marked, or the contours of the land—rather than of what at the moment is a sense of tribal identity, or pastoralists’ right to transit across certain lands without crossing a border. Those complex issues remain to be negotiated, but the main point is to get the parties into a negotiating frame with such capacity building, as my hon. Friend said.

That gives me the opportunity, tangentially, to give credit to what was mentioned in the opening of the debate: the importance of some of the Church groups, such as the Episcopal Church mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I was pleased that he referred to the Archbishop of Juba, whom I had the privilege to meet, not only to hear his generous thanks but his recognition of the deep thought on how assistance and support should be given in order to achieve that negotiating framework of trust and respect, which has enabled us to have a real role.

Without being explicit, the debate touched on the visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to Sudan shortly, as part of the troika. All three will be travelling together, which is an important and powerful signal of unity and consistency of approach that has taken many years to bring about. Their message will be to encourage the various bodies to resolve the difficult issues, rightly building on the recognition of reasons to have trust and respect, and we can have a role in that. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds for making that point.

I am conscious that I have not yet had a chance to cover some of the other points. How long does the debate go on for, Mr Walker?

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Twenty-eight more minutes.

[Mr O'Brien]

People might need to dash away, but I shall cover a few of the points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and others asked about the Lord’s Resistance Army. The LRA, having been driven out of northern Uganda, is now in pockets throughout the Central African Republic, the borders of south Sudan and the edges of parts of Uganda, even tilting into southern Darfur. We all abhor the whole essence of that abominable organisation, with its child soldiers and the mayhem it has caused over many years, but we are also concerned whether it might destabilise progress for south Sudan.

We are determined that the LRA should not represent such a factor by urging the regional Governments and peacekeeping forces—we have the two UN forces—to co-ordinate closely their efforts in combating the LRA. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds about how quickly it can regenerate was well made and is well known among the experts. One of the best things to do, as part of our response, is to engage with the demobilisation of LRA combatants. We should offer the hope of such engagement to those young people.

I visited Gulu recently, too, but I was there some four years ago in another guise, when I met some former LRA child soldiers who have been converted. Some of them have visited the DFID offices in London. It is important to recognise that we must take such positive and constructive steps as well as simply maintaining our vigilance and, where we find the LRA, rooting it out of areas in which it might destabilise neighbouring countries.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

On the LRA, I would like to mention intelligence specifically. The LRA leadership has particularly good intelligence about the location of the armies that they are combating, and how quickly they can move. It is therefore necessary to be able to outpace it, which requires those regional forces to have more helicopters. Helicopters and intelligence about the LRA’s activities are key to defeating it.

[Mr O'Brien]

I know that and, when I have travelled in some difficult conflict areas such as the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, helicopter is the only mode of transport capable of being used by the UN for any purpose, so my hon. Friend’s point is extremely well made. I shall look into access to such genuinely vigilant machinery from the sky. If it is not available, I shall ask some more questions and perhaps reassure him at a later date.

Another point, made not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, was about trade. I emphasise that as far as DFID is concerned, for the past 11 years and at least since the International Development Act 2002, by law there can be no link between our aid—our overseas development aid spend—and British trade. That is the law, and what we must conform to. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can make trade an explicit element of foreign policy, which it has now done as one of the new Foreign Secretary’s decisions. Trade, therefore, is now central to every aspect of our overseas engagement.

I confirm from discussions with my fellow Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with responsibility for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), that he has been looking explicitly for trade opportunities in both southern and northern Sudan. His visit received some publicity, but it was perfectly understood that the trade side was vital, and we have a long-standing trade relationship. Trade is an essential element in promoting the wealth-creation side of those economies. There is a clear distinction between what is done by DFID as part of programmes for ODA spend and what is done for trade by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, indeed, by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

What is important and new is the DFID policy decided on over the past year, which is to include specifically, as a complete pillar of work, private sector development and the encouragement of the private sector and of trade opportunities in a context of confidence that enables people to be entrepreneurial, to have access to finance, to be above micro-finance, to have the ability to take a risk and to have foreign direct investment more encouraged because of greater security from an independent judicial system or in repatriation of dividends. Those are all things that people around board tables who take risks with money borrowed from banks need, so that they will be prepared to engage, whether in a tractor factory, a spares supply chain, some kind of commodity or agricultural processing.

Such discussions with countries might often be an FCO matter—which countries might we invest in, and which companies might do it—but it will also be a DFID matter, for a DFID Minister to decide. Such a policy is part of the discussions that my ministerial colleagues in DFID and I have had. For instance, a country might be prepared to make adjustments to its land law, so that those who acquired land could be confident that it was not going to be confiscated from them. That element would create confidence for investors, who would then know that they had collateral to offer to a bank, so that they could invest further, develop markets and make demands about the infrastructure that ought to be put in place in order for them to get goods to market. We have clear dividing lines but, at the same time, they are part of a co-ordinated whole. We can satisfy, quite rightly, the idea of a strong recognition of what is development and what is trade.

Allied to that was the question of whether we should badge our aid more explicitly. Hon. Members will be aware that, whether in Sudan or elsewhere in Africa, DFID has generated a strong brand as a trusted deliverer of development benefit and results. DFID has a brand, and one of the issues we face in trying to change that is that we might be in danger of taking something away, because DFID is currently respected. Importantly, we are working very hard, and hon. Members here will see from the letterhead when I write to each and every one of them that it refers prominently to “UKaid”—

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister cleverly mentioned Sudan once, but once every four minutes is not good enough, and perhaps he will return to it.

[Mr O'Brien]

I will do my best to respond to the debate, Mr Walker. I accept your stricture, and perhaps we can explore the issue on another occasion.

[Mike Weatherley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr O'Brien]

I will give way if my hon. Friend does not take me down that track, because I will not be able to respond.

[Mike Weatherley]

I have no interest in the branding of our aid, and my point has nothing to do with that. The Minister mentioned two Departments having discussions about private investment contributions. Have those Departments had specific discussions about Sudan?

[Mr O'Brien]

I think I must return to that, because I am running out of time. I had not appreciated that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill needed so much time to wrap up.

The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) referred to human rights and the International Criminal Court. It is vital to urge respect for its processes, to have no compromise in our approach to human rights, even on some of the trade issues that have been mentioned, to continue our determination to focus on our efforts to engage with Darfur’s security, and to maintain this important engagement of trying to stop the destabilisation of south Sudan by violence.

I have noted the points about banking and US restrictions. I have the excellent shopping list from my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds. It is highly informative, and I will ensure that it is injected into the processes that DFID and the FCO are utilising for our engagement with Sudan. I have plenty to take from this debate to help me brief the Secretary of State for his upcoming visit with the troika, and we are of course focused totally on the prevention of conflict, and the creation of peaceful opportunities.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the Minister address the policy on sanctions? It is important to hear from the Government about that.

[Mr O'Brien]

The policy remains as it is: the sanctions are in place, and they are an important aspect of our international relations. I have nothing to report that would change the current situation.

I hope that I have at least given a flavour of the matter. I used the available time, which was a reasonable amount, but I am happy to ensure that the proposer of the debate has enough time to conclude. If any hon. Members want to drop me a line about any points that were raised but that have not been adequately covered, I will ensure that I address them in detail.

The principal issue is to recognise that the people of north and south Sudan now have an opportunity to put many of their differences behind them by having adhered to and demonstrated a strong commitment to a constitutional process that will give a new opportunity to the people of south Sudan. We want to make our respectful contribution—

[Mike Weatherley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr O'Brien]

I will not give way, because in all fairness I must give the proposer of the debate the opportunity to wind up.