International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill
(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The world is in a state of continual change, with economies being reshaped and new Governments being formed, but the one constant is the stain on the conscience of the developed world: poverty. Having succeeded in the private Members’ ballot, I decided to introduce a Bill to ensure that the Government’s commitment to enshrine in law development assistance spending of 0.7% of gross national income was honoured. That pledge was made in the election manifestos of all three main political parties, and after the election it was included in the coalition agreement. The Bill would also toughen the remit of the independent body established to monitor the effect of aid spending.
The Secretary of State for International Development has stated that the Government Bill to implement this pledge is drafted and ready to go, and that the delay is due only to limited parliamentary time.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Would it not be a good idea for this measure to come forward as a Government Bill in the time in September that would have been allocated to Lords reform, but will not now be spent on Lords reform?
Mark Hendrick
All Governments, including the last Labour Government, have tremendous pressures on their time. However, this pledge was made by all three main political parties before the election, so there should not be a great deal of controversy. The Minister will speak for himself, but I know that the Government are keen for legislation to be passed on this matter, like all other mainstream political parties. I am sure that the Government would not want to be seen to be using the lack of parliamentary time as an excuse for not getting the Bill on to the statute book before the next election. We certainly do not want that to happen.
This Bill gives the Government the opportunity to legislate on this matter. The draft of the Government Bill was not forthcoming, so I put my Bill together based on a similar draft Bill that was published before the last general election by the previous Secretary of State for International Development. I have added other measures which, having spoken to the Minister earlier today, seem to be acceptable to the Government. Obviously, minor amendments may be needed if the Bill makes it through to Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I hope that he and his colleagues will give the Bill a safe passage today.
The Bill would not only reaffirm Britain’s commitment to the world’s poorest people, but take party politics out of the debate about aid spending for the long term. That is important because the measure of any society—we are talking about the human race as a whole—is the degree to which it helps and works with its disadvantaged people. The fact that all three parties agree with that makes me optimistic that the Bill will make progress. I genuinely want an all-party approach. This issue must not be kicked into the long grass because of ideology or electioneering. Politicians from all parts of the House must realise that by supporting the Bill, they would be fulfilling the hope and trust that millions of the world’s poorest people have put in Britain to make their lives better.
With the current economic hardship in Europe and the world’s wealthiest nations, it would be easy to dismiss a commitment on international aid spending, but those problems pale into insignificance compared with the fight for basic survival of people in the developing world.
For the Opposition, putting an international aid commitment into law would fulfil our values and our belief in helping those who need it most. Our history is built on battles against injustice, and until we make commitments backed by action, we will continue to let down those most in need of our assistance.
Let us imagine being unable to pay for the drugs necessary to help a sick child, or medicines not being available at all. Let us imagine not knowing where our next meal will come from, or living in a war-torn country with no basic infrastructure to support communities. Those problems are vast. The solution is not easy, but we can neither shirk our responsibilities nor shrink from the monumental task before us. The people snared in poverty’s trap cannot afford inaction.
In 1970, United Nations General Assembly resolution 2626 committed all economically advanced countries to providing 0.7% of their gross national income as official development assistance. The coalition agreement states:
“The Government believes that even in these difficult economic times, the UK has a moral responsibility to help the poorest people in the world. We will honour our aid commitments, but at the same time will ensure much greater transparency and scrutiny of aid spending to deliver value for money for British taxpayers and to maximise the impact of our aid budget.”
It continues:
“We will honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013, and to enshrine this commitment in law.”
As I have said, there is concern that given the parliamentary agenda, there may be difficulty in getting time to secure that legislation. The Bill presents an opportunity to do that.
The UK remains committed to meeting the 0.7% target, but as we know, it has not yet done so. The Bill would therefore impose a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the UK meets the 0.7% target in 2013 and each subsequent calendar year. It provides that whether the target has been achieved will be determined by reference to the overseas development assistance and gross national income figures reported to Parliament annually in accordance with the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.
The Bill would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament in the event that the UK failed to meet the 0.7% target in any calendar year from 2013. That would mean that the Secretary of State’s accountability for his duty to meet that target would be to Parliament alone.
Clause 1 covers the duty on the Secretary of State to meet the 0.7% United Nations target from 2013. Clause 2 sets out his duty to lay a statement before Parliament if that target is not met. It states that he must do so if his annual report laid before Parliament in 2014 or any subsequent year shows that the UK has not reached the target in the year to which the report relates. It also provides for the possibility that figures in an annual report may be revised. Subsection (2) states that if a revision is made to any year’s figure meaning that it no longer meets the 0.7% target, the Secretary of State must then lay a statement.
Clause 2(3) provides that a statement must explain why the 0.7% target has not been met, and that it may refer to economic or fiscal circumstances that have had an impact. It may also refer to the impact of
“circumstances arising outside the United Kingdom”,
for example the failure of a foreign Government to achieve the targets necessary to trigger debt relief. On the requirement for the Secretary of State to lay the statement before Parliament, he or she must describe in it any steps that have been taken to ensure that the 0.7% target will be met in the following calendar year.
Mark Hendrick
Yes, it does. We are talking about percentages. If we have growth, the overall budget will increase in real terms, but the percentage will stay the same. If GNI contracts because we are in recession, the real amount will fall, but the percentage will stay the same. The Bill maintains a percentage commitment, not an absolute commitment in real terms.
Clause 4 provides for the repeal of the Secretary of State’s duty in section 3 of the 2006 Act to forecast when the 0.7% target will be met. That repeal takes account of the Secretary of State’s new duty—in clause 1 —to ensure that the UK meets the 0.7% target from 2013 onwards.
Finally, clause 5 sets up a new body, which for the purposes of convenience I have called the independent international development office. The new body would bear a great deal of relation to the current Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which the Secretary of State rightly set up just over a year ago to answer to the Select Committee on International Development so that it can oversee the effectiveness and efficiency of aid administered throughout the world. The new body would keep a much closer eye on the Department and its performance, and it would have a statutory footing—it would be established in law.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I support a lot of what the hon. Gentleman tries to do in the Bill, but I am concerned about clause 4. I wonder why we are duplicating functions, but the Bill also mentions
“a pre-appointment hearing by, and with the consent of, the International Development Committee”.
To almost resurrect a discussion on other Bills, why does he believe that this extra obligation of monitoring the Department is not the job of the Select Committee and Parliament as a whole? Why do we need that external body?
Mark Hendrick
If the Government’s commitment is written into law—the intention is that Governments of whichever party must keep to it—the body needs a statutory footing, which the current Independent Commission for Aid Impact does not have. The new body will also mean much tighter scrutiny: it will be able to oversee the work of the Department in a way that the current ICAI cannot because it does not have a statutory basis. I accept the hon. Lady’s point on procedures arising from the Bill, but we can iron those out in Committee should the Bill make progress.
It is right, during a time of hardship, that we continue to fight against poverty. I urge the House to grasp the opportunity and to support my Bill. That will fulfil not only a pre-election promise but, more importantly, a promise to fight, and one day to fulfil, that dream of eradicating poverty.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
Today stands to be one of the most important days in the history of international development. The United Nations and other organisations have been campaigning for more than 30 years to put a fixed figure on what wealthier countries should spend in the aid they give to those who are less fortunate. Today, the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has moved a Bill that would establish just that. We bear him no grudge for pipping the Government to the post by moving the Second Reading of a Bill that would enshrine in law our having to spend 0.7% of our national income on official development assistance. He has beaten our Bill for reasons the House well understands, but I assure him that our Bill is ready and that we have—or had—every intention of putting it to the House. To a large extent, the first half of his Bill is almost identical to what we would have tabled.
Mr Bone
The Minister makes a powerful point in welcoming the Bill and saying that it should be for Government time. Does he agree that this is such an important Bill—by any standards, it is a major shift in policy—that it should have priority over Lords reform so that we can get it properly debated in the House?
Mr Duncan
I well understand my hon. Friend’s relative affection—or lack of—for either pieces of legislation, but this is almost a one-clause Bill. The principle is clear and well understood, but we would be delighted, were the House minded to give the Bill a Second Reading, to see him in Committee to discuss his concerns in detail. And, of course, there will be Report and Third Reading.
I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Preston that Her Majesty’s Government support the Bill and have no intention of opposing it. We would like it to go into Committee, and hope that, in a few minutes, that is what will happen. Having said that, we only saw his Bill yesterday, and I saw that it fell into two distinct parts, the first of which we agree with. It is what we are setting out to do; it is in the coalition agreement and is agreed by all parties in the House—it will enshrine the 0.7% figure in law.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand, however, if we do not agree with the second part of the Bill, which would set up an independent international development office. To all intents and purposes, we have done that already by setting up the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which is working well and is inexpensive and effective. We believe that his proposal would do the same thing, with no particular added value, but at a higher cost. I hope, therefore, that, just as we welcome the introduction of his Bill, he will, in the spirit of give and take, accept our argument about removing this part of the Bill, so that we can focus on the 0.7% target and concentrate on the search for value for money and transparency in all that we do.
Mark Hendrick
I am sympathetic to what the Minister says. Does he not feel, however, that putting this body, whatever its name, on to a statutory footing would give it more teeth and greater powers over access to information from the Department that could be provided to the Select Committee? As a purely independent body without a statutory position, it is a weaker animal.
Mr Duncan
I understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but we are not persuaded by it because we believe that the body we have set up is working well and has adequate powers. Given the debate in this country about how much we spend on international development, it is essential that we are seen to spend it on those poor people who need the benefit of our spending on overseas development and assistance, rather than on this sort of body, which, under his proposal, would cost more. I think that with the current system we can achieve the same thing for less.
There is a debate in this country—we must respect it—about whether, in a time of austerity, we should be committing to spending 0.7% of our national income on official development assistance. I believe that everyone in this country can hold their heads high, both in the UK and when they travel abroad, because of what we are doing. If the Bill is passed, we will become the first seriously wealthy country to commit to spending in this way. The results we are getting across the world—in terms of saving lives, vaccinating children and ensuring that mothers and their children do not die in childbirth—are something of which we can be enormously proud.
We in the Department for International Development strive to get value for money. We have reviewed everything we do—from our bilateral relationships, where we have direct aid programmes in individual countries, to all our subventions and payments to multilateral organisations, such as the United Nations agencies and the global fund—not just with a view to ensuring value for money across our budget, but in a way that makes lots of other countries copy what we are doing, so that across the world others do what we do. Often, where DFID and the UK Government lead, others follow. By leading on 0.7%, I hope that others—who are falling way behind that figure—will follow what we do.
One of the great and most important principles of development is that we need continuity. It is no good darting into a development programme one year and abandoning it the next. Continuity and certainty of programmes over a number of years are essential to securing good development outcomes. That is why we have committed to budgets over four years—we have operational plans, so that we can follow through what we want to achieve from now to the end of 2014 and beyond—and why a Bill such as this, which commits us to spending 0.7% of our national income, is so important. There are few of us who, even if we were down to our last £100, would not give one of those hundred pounds to someone dying in the street. That, in proportion, is pretty well all that we are trying to do with this Bill. I hope that the House will give it the Second Reading it deserves today, so that the United Kingdom can be proud of being the first country to do what so many people have been campaigning for for so long.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
I do not intend to speak for long, because I want to ensure, if possible, that the Bill gets its Second Reading today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick), not only on coming so high in the ballot, but on choosing a topic that I can only describe as—to repeat, to some extent, what the Minister said—one of the great issues of our time. Let me also say how pleased I am that the Government are supportive—even if for only half of the Bill—and determined, as I and many others are, that it gets on the statute book. However, there are some forgotten people as well. We should not forget the millions of people outside this Chamber who have campaigned on the issue—people from non-governmental organisations and all sorts of other organisations—and for whom, if the Bill goes through, it will be a dream come true.
People talk about the effectiveness of aid, but let me give the House just one statistic that comes to mind when people ask whether it does any good. As a result of aid involving malaria nets and all the work done with medicines and so on, over the last 10 years a third of the African children who would have died from malaria have not done so. There are many justifications for the Bill. We hear about how it can help deal with migration and terrorism, and about how it is good for business and trade, but at the end of day, we are doing this because it is the right thing to do. Recently I was in Zambia. We went from Lusaka down to Choma, and then out into the bush country—not even on roads, but through long grass and so on—to a little village. We saw mothers there who were pulling clean water from a well that had been provided by overseas aid. The look on their faces! When the words of one of those mothers were translated into English, we heard that she was simply saying how pleased she was that her children were not sick—that they had clean water and were disease-free.
This Bill is the right thing to do morally, but—to pick up the point the Minister made—it also puts the UK on the moral high ground where it deserves to be. That will enable us to say, in bilateral or multilateral negotiations with other countries, that we are the first country in the world to do this.
The Bill is important for us as a Parliament, for the Government and for the Opposition. It is important for the United Kingdom, but far more than that, it is important for millions of people in some of the poorest countries of the world. It is for them that we are doing this, and I hope that the House will support the Bill.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Workington (Sir Tony Cunningham), and to welcome the Bill that has been introduced by the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick). He made a powerful speech, but I am afraid that he did not have as much time as he might have liked. That is what is wrong today. We have half an hour for a Second Reading debate on a major piece of legislation that represents a huge step change in the way in which Governments have looked at overseas aid over the years. We have spent several hours talking about scrap metal dealers, which I am sure is an important issue, but it is not as important as what we are discussing now.
This should be a Government Bill. The Government should have introduced it and made the arguments for it, so that we could have had proper discussions on it and heard all the views. The Chamber is not packed today because people did not realise that this Bill would be reached. I have reservations about the Bill, but I believe that it needs to have a proper airing and a chance to get on to the statute book. I am not convinced that the private Member’s Bill route is the way to do that, but the hon. Member for Preston was right to introduce it and to put pressure on the Government in this way.
I heard what the Minister said earlier. He is undoubtedly one of the most talented Ministers in the Government, and, as an aside, I would say that if we were not in a coalition, I believe that he would be a Secretary of State in his own right. However, on what is probably a wet Friday afternoon—I am not sure whether it is raining outside—this Bill is not the best way to deal with this issue.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
If my hon. Friend takes the view that this is an admirable Bill, and if all sides agree on it, would it not be better just to get on with it and allow it a Second Reading? In that way, the Bill could be introduced, with a full debate later. It is better to do that than to delay it in any way at all.
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend makes a powerful intervention, but she is absolutely wrong. The whole point of Parliament is that we discuss these matters in detail and hear every point of view. I am not saying that this is an admirable Bill; the Minister has said that it has serious flaws.
Mark Hendrick
Is the hon. Gentleman not making the best the enemy of the good by insisting that the Bill should be introduced as a Government Bill?
Mr Bone
I am taking a purely parliamentary view of the matter at this stage. I do not think that major changes in policy should go through in half an hour on Second Reading. There are Government hand-out Bills that can, of course, go through in half an hour on Second Reading, but we should not do that with a measure that seeks to change policies that Governments have dealt with for years and years.—
Mr Duncan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words a moment ago, but the clock is ticking. I can assure him that I believe the Bill will, in effect, be cut in half. It will go down to one clause, which will provide for the 0.7% to which all parties have committed in their manifestos. May I appeal to his good nature and implore him to let the Bill go through on Second Reading today? I really implore him to do that, for the good of the many people in the world who need our help.
Mr Bone
I hear the Minister’s pleas. If he is serious—no, of course he is seriously committed to this. So is the Prime Minister and so is the coalition, so it has to be a Government Bill, done properly through this House.
In a Second Reading debate, we have to discuss the principles involved, so let us start with one of them. This is not intended to be a party political point. Overseas aid as a proportion of gross national income was at its lowest point in 1999, under the Labour Government, when it stood at 0.24%. [Interruption.] The Labour Government had 13 years when, if they had wanted to, they could, in those boom years, have increased the overseas—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) want to intervene, or does he want to chunter from the Front Bench? This Bill can come back on another day and be debated properly.