Global Britain

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life of Dame Vera Lynn, who has died today aged 103—I can see the shock on the face of the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker at that. In the most difficult of times for this country, she symbolised enormous resilience, optimism and hope. We send our condolences to all her family, friends and fans throughout the country and across the world; she was genuinely a national icon.

Turning to the Statement, the noble Baroness will be aware of the wide distress and anger in response to the Prime Minister’s announcement that DfID is to be merged with the FCO. It is largely because of comments from Mr Johnson and others that this feels more like a hostile takeover then a genuine merger.

I want to deal with the implications but also comment on the timing of this announcement. Looking at the hugely important issues on the Prime Minister’s desk, we see the response to Covid-19, particularly the serious problems with track and trace and how our outcomes compare poorly with so many other countries; the massive rise in unemployment and increased poverty, which has led to a screeching and humiliating, if very welcome, U-turn on free school meals; and the urgency of our trade deal negotiations with the European Union. I therefore find it quite remarkable—not in a good way —that Mr Johnson considers it a priority, now of all times, to reorganise Whitehall departments. I suspect that I am not alone in thinking that this rush to announce is an attempt to distract attention from government failures.

Even when this is viewed as a stand-alone decision, it fails the test of good governance and good policy. To understand the concerns about the change, the Government need to understand why DfID was set up with the status of an independent Whitehall department with a Cabinet-ranking Minister and why, after years of political hokey-cokey, with upgrades and downgrades for the department depending on the colour of the Government, it became widely accepted and built on as the best way to address the issues by all subsequent Governments and Prime Ministers—until now.

Mr Johnson talks about value for public money. That is why DfID was set up in first place, in the wake of the Pergau Dam scandal, when the Secretary of State was found to have acted illegally in funding an excessively expensive energy project, financed by British taxpayers, to secure a major arms deal. That had a significant impact on the commitment to ensure that trade and aid should not be linked.

Yet on Monday 11 February last year, the Prime Minister said on the BBC’s “Today” programme in relation to the aid budget:

“We could make sure that 0.7% is spent more in line with Britain’s political, commercial”—


and then he added “diplomatic” interests. He even cited Japan as a model, in how it had used the aid budget to promote Japanese railways.

While I am on the issue of value, the transparency index—an independent assessment of the effectiveness of aid spending across the world—praises DfID as being “very good” and in the top three, while the FCO languishes near the bottom of the league with a poor rating. The Foreign Secretary announced in a radio interview this morning that we would get “more bang for the buck”—an embarrassing approach to aid policy. It is why we are concerned and why this proposal has been criticised, including by three former Prime Ministers.

The great benefit of DfID is that it has earned a reputation for integrity and has built up trust that it will provide help and support in the areas of greatest need. We should always confront head on the suffering in our world—whether it is poverty, disease, famine or conflict—not just for sound ethical reasons but because it is in our national, as well as the global, interest to do so. We ignore such suffering at our peril: the dire consequences and greater instability that can follow can pose threats to all across the world. For aid and development to be downgraded in this way when the world is facing a global health crisis shows a deep arrogance about how best to promote British values and interests.

The Government appear to ignore the incalculable diplomatic influence of soft power and our reputation across the world. Have they given any consideration at all to the ramifications for the UK’s diplomatic programmes, as well as our developmental work? The FCO’s core diplomatic funding is already at its lowest level in 20 years, and Professor Malcolm Chalmers of RUSI has observed that consular activity and diplomacy could become increasingly underfunded sidelines. The UK’s diplomatic influence was once the envy of the international community. At a time in history when we most need to build allies, support and credibility across the world, the Government have created uncertainty about their commitment to do so.

I have a few questions on this for the noble Baroness. First, can she give a commitment that the Government will maintain diplomatic and consulate funding at at least present levels after the takeover? Secondly, is it true that the Secretary of State for International Development was not involved in the decision-making process and was told of the announcement only on the day it was made? Thirdly, will the Cabinet retain a Minister with overall responsibility for international aid? Fourthly, what reassurance can she give the staff at DfID? Can she confirm that the Permanent Secretary has told staff that he cannot guarantee the jobs of the 200 EU nationals currently employed? Fifthly, can she guarantee that the Government will not seek to change OECD rules on what is classified as aid, nor amend the 2002 legislation in a way contrary to those rules? Finally, DfID has a well-established global network and core development expertise. The dilution of these stakeholder-focused skills within the FCO will be a cause for concern. Therefore, what guarantees can the noble Baroness give that that essential work will continue at the same high standard that we see now?

We have had many debates in this House about Britain’s place in the world. We take enormous pride in wanting the UK to take an international lead as a force for good. With this decision, and the explanation of the rationale behind it, the Prime Minister has just made achieving that ambition so much harder.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for answering questions on the Statement. To me, the Statement raises three principal questions. First, why is this change happening at all? Secondly, why is it happening now? Thirdly, is it a good idea?

On the first point, the Statement and the Prime Minister’s comments on Tuesday make it very clear why this move is being made. First, he and many in the Conservative Party believe that DfID has simply too much money, or, as the Prime Minister disparagingly put it, that it acts like a “giant cashpoint in the sky”. He also believes that it spends it badly, as the disgraceful and wilfully inaccurate anti-DfID briefings put out by the Government and faithfully repeated in some of yesterday’s newspapers made clear.

Secondly, the Prime Minister wants to use the money for something other than DfID’s core aims of extreme poverty reduction and the fight against disease. He says in the Statement:

“We give ten times as much aid to Tanzania as we do to the six countries of the Western Balkans, who are acutely vulnerable to Russian meddling”,


with the clear implication that this was the wrong set of priorities. Yet income per head in Tanzania is under $4,000 while that in Montenegro, one of the six west Balkan countries, is $22,000—over five times as much. Even the poorest western Balkan country, Kosovo, is more than three times as prosperous as Tanzania.

If you are worried about poverty, the current priorities make absolute sense, but they make no sense at all if you want the money to gain diplomatic leverage against Russia. This may well be desirable, but it is not what DfID was established for and it is not what development aid should be used for. From now on, poverty and disease are not to be the hallmarks of our development policy. The priorities are to be—I quote from the Prime Minister’s letter to parliamentarians on Tuesday—“driven by the overarching strategy set by the National Security Council.” What expertise does the National Security Council have in poverty reduction and combating disease, and will it now be strengthened to include people who do have such expertise?

Why is this move being made now? As Justine Greening pointed out, the Government should be concentrating their efforts on fighting coronavirus rather than tinkering with departmental boundaries. It is not as though the Government are making such a good fist of dealing with coronavirus that they have extra capacity on their hands and are looking for other things to do. There are other big problems as well, not least Brexit, where things are not exactly going swimmingly. Indeed, cynics have argued that the only reason the decision has been announced now is to throw some red meat to the Government’s critics on their own Back Benches regarding their handling of the coronavirus crisis. If that is not the reason, what is it? Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us.

Finally, is the abolition of DfID and the refocusing of its priorities a good thing? Outside one wing of the Tory party, the move has no supporters. Three Prime Ministers, including David Cameron, have condemned it, and so too have at least three former Conservative International Development Secretaries. The Prime Minister’s claim that the decision reflects

“a massive consultation over a long period of time”

is simply belied by the fact that of the 400-plus NGOs working with DfID, none was consulted at all.

All those with experience in this field are concerned that the focus of development aid will shift away from the reduction of extreme poverty and disease. All are concerned that the transparency and accountability of the development programme will be reduced. And all are concerned that as a result, far from enhancing the concept of global Britain, this will diminish it.

The Prime Minister makes a habit of claiming that his policies and initiatives are world class when they are anything but. However, in the case of DfID, he has done the opposite. Here, we do have a world-class institution and set of policies—and he has disparaged it. But this Prime Minister has long wanted to get his hands on DfID funds to promote other foreign policy goals. He will now indeed have his hands on the money, but he is devoid of any articulated foreign policy on which to spend it. “Global Britain” seems to mean “anywhere but Europe”, but beyond that phrase, the policy is completely vacuous. The decision is, as Andrew Mitchell has said, an “extraordinary mistake” by a Prime Minister for whom extraordinary mistakes are becoming a hallmark of his tenure. The poorest will suffer most, but the Prime Minister simply does not care.