Population Growth

Lord Brett Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in being grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for bringing this debate before us. It seems to me that there are two truths that arise from it: the truth that the noble Lord started with—that this should not be a taboo subject—and that it requires full debate. This debate is too short, and four minutes too short a time for anyone to develop any part of the argument.

In the developed world, education, contraceptive use, maternal and baby health, increased development and subsequent income improvement have all played a major part. That is probably why I am the eldest of six children, the father of four children and the grandfather of two children. In the developing world, we see the same needs, and they see the same needs for the things that we have enjoyed, which is why the ODA remains important and why I join others in congratulating this Government on continuing the endeavour and ensuring that we get to 0.7 per cent of gross national income.

Noble Lords have referred to the added burdens that now exist in a way they did not exist in the past: the impact of climate change on developing countries, the HIV/AIDS pandemic and conflict between states and within states. Part of the flow that comes is international migration. That provides challenges and opportunities and guarantees that the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is worthy of a much longer debate.

Although the official ODA is important, so are the efforts of those in the diaspora from the developing world who are now part of the developed world who seek to assist their own countries, communities and families. I will resist adding to the plethora of statistics that are inevitably an essential part of these debates, but I will emphasise one point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, about the importance of remittances. They are a vital form of financial support. They provide better health and education for the family and are an aspect of the development of small businesses in so many countries. They are three times the size of official ODA aid. They amounted to some $325 billion in 2010 and were 1.9 per cent of GDP for all developing countries taken as a whole in 2009. In the small and lower-income countries, they form 5.4 per cent of GDP.

In a world in which billions of dollars can travel across the world in a microsecond, we should be able to produce a system that will reduce the cost and difficulty of people transferring small amounts of money. If you are living on a dollar a day or less, £10 in the United Kingdom is a week’s wages or more once it is transferred to the recipient. At the moment, it is difficult and costly to do that, and we should be able to make an impact on that as we are part of the most developed world of banking, even if bankers are not very popular at the moment. A fall in the cost of transfers of some 5 per cent would free an extra $15 billion a year for increased development.

I could go on, but time will not allow me to do so. I will also not pepper the Minister with a series of questions, which is what normally happens at this time. I do not think that anyone disagrees with the aim, although we probably have different ideas about how we go forward. My questions to the Minister are simply these. What is the Government’s long-term thinking in this area? Post the MDG period and 2015, where will we go and how will we take this forward? Finally, does she support my view and that of many others that we need a full debate on all aspects of this? The great expertise around this House could assist the Government in a joint endeavour that I believe we all support.

Pakistan: Child Welfare

Lord Brett Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

I thank my noble friend for that question. All humanitarian aid is given through NGOs, but DfID government programmes go through a number of organisations, and some go through the Pakistan Government.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, in pursuance of the previous question, while appreciating the efforts that have been made internationally, UNICEF and a number of NGOs have been very critical about the efficiency and speed with which aid is getting through to those most in need. Given the Government’s previous assurances, how in their present endeavours are they ensuring that that is improved in the coming months, particularly in the light of the flooding disaster?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am sure that the House agrees that it has been a disaster on a huge scale. We are looking to ensure that our response is in line with that of other agencies. It is a really big disaster. All that I can say to reassure the noble Lord is that we will play our part at the forefront; we in DfID will do our very best to help all other agencies.

Millennium Development Goals

Lord Brett Excerpts

Thursday 7th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, I join others in expressing appreciation for the endeavours of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, in getting this debate. I share the frustration of other noble Lords at the time limit: four minutes is not sufficient to develop the argument. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, on that, but I do not agree that the previous Administration did not put women at the centre. I say that not as a former spokesperson for that Government in this Chamber but as someone who worked for a half a decade when the millennium development goals were set as vice-chairman and then chairman of a specialised United Nations agency—the International Labour Organisation—where time and again I saw the British Government in the vanguard of pressing the issue of women.

I also join the appreciation of others that the Government—the Conservatives, with their Liberal Democrat allies—have enshrined a commitment to the 0.7 per cent. We should not lose that as an important fact, but I must admit to asking when we will see that enshrined in legislation. I can think of no reason why the draft legislation prepared by the previous Administration, which had all-party support, could not have been put swiftly into legislative form. That would have been a powerful signal at the special summit which we had last month.

There have been MDG successes. We may not shout about them about too much, but the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, mentioned malaria. HIV/AIDS is down by 25 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa. Child survival rates are up and 42 million more children are in education. The poorest part of the world—that is, living on $1.25 a day—is down from 58 per cent to 51 per cent. Yet that does not beg the question, which a number of noble Lords have raised, that many of the MDGs are seriously off-track.

Clearly, the world economic crisis has exacerbated that situation, with over 50 million of the poorest now being denied their escape from poverty by that very financial crisis—that was a point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made. Another reason is that our colleagues in the developed world have not met the commitments that they made in the 10 years of millennium development generation that we have gone through, and if they do not meet those then the task will of course be very difficult. Add to that the whole question about areas of conflict, which was eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and others, and MDG achievements remain quite formidable.

Much hope was placed on the special summit where, despite the pledging of $40 billion to a global strategy for women’s and children’s health—as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, reported—and for agriculture, in the eyes of many the summit remained a failure. It brought no serious commitment to put the MDGs back on track. Turning to our own Government, despite my appreciation of their endeavours to maintain the 0.7 per cent in very difficult times, many fear that the temptation to raid the DfID funding for other commitments will be irresistible. That view was confirmed rather than confounded by the leaks from DfID about many key international commitments being dropped—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—and that the budget is to be put under the control of the national security council.

Time certainly does not allow for the development of those arguments, so I restrict myself to asking the Minister a number of questions. I recognise that he may not be able to answer them in the 10 minutes available, so perhaps he could answer them in writing. They are as follows: do the pledges that the Government made at the millennium development goals summit on maternal health represent new funding from the UK Government? How do the Government intend to meet the commitment to spend £500 million per year on malaria? Does DfID intend to reduce funding on any other health-related expenditure from the department’s budget in order that the pledge to spend £500 million per year is met—in other words, is that new money? Do the Government intend to launch the “My Aid” fund, and when? Will the Government fund the BBC World Service from the DfID budget?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords—

[Lord Brett]

I have three other questions. I will happily put them in writing to the Minister; that guarantees that I will get a reply.

Afghanistan

Lord Brett Excerpts

Wednesday 28th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, using the UK aid budget to secure progress in Afghanistan is the number one priority for the Secretary of State. The additional £200 million will be focused on creating jobs, providing vocational training, improving policing and strengthening the capacity of the Afghan Government. As with all funds to Afghanistan, these extra funds will go through the World Bank, where we reimburse after we have received receipts.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to £200 million. Which of the items listed for additional funding by the Secretary of State were budgeted for previously by other departments, and to which departmental budgets was that money previously allocated? The fear is that rather than putting the money solely into aid and development, the budgets are being transferred.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I refer back to my original Answer. The aid money used will go through the stringent, rigorous regulations of the OECD, and it is there to be used for the development of Afghanistan and the elimination of poverty.

UNESCO: Equatorial Guinea

Lord Brett Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, my noble friend raises some important issues. A large proportion of DfID’s funding goes on programmes and initiatives to fight violence against women and on challenging it through civil society and women’s organisations. As my noble friend will realise, we support the MDGs; indeed, we are one of the countries that will meet the commitment on 0.7 per cent of GNI by 2013. Clean water is one of our major priorities in this respect.

[Lord Brett]

On the MDGs, there is an important conference in South Africa next week on Education for All. Who will represent the United Kingdom Government? Will that representative continue to support strong and free public education systems in poor countries, as opposed to the ill advised voucher schemes and private subsidies proposed in the Conservative Party’s recent Green Paper? I ask because Oxfam has condemned that approach as one that is unlikely to build success, while the director of UNESCO has called it “an absurdity” that would set back progress. He said:

“The idea that you can trot around slums and dish out vouchers is so far-fetched that it shouldn’t be taken seriously”.

Will the Minister comment on that?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of issues. We are keen to ensure that the MDGs for education are reached. We are not ideological about the way in which education is delivered and we want to ensure that what works for individual countries is fully supported. British aid pays for 5 million children in developing countries to go to primary school every day. That is roughly the same as the number of children going to primary school in Great Britain, yet at only 2.5 per cent of the cost.

We have offered President Zuma of South Africa assistance if he requires it for the South African summit on 11 July, but so far we have had no representations. However, DfID has given the Education for All 1GOAL campaign £804,800 and will give another £195,000 this financial year.

International Development: Universal Primary Education

Lord Brett Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, I begin by joining noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, on her appointment. She is already an impressive Dispatch Box performer. She has great commitment to international development and I am sure that she will bring great distinction to her role. I also compliment the coalition Government on retaining the 0.7 per cent aid target, and will compound that by congratulating them on ring-fencing the DfID budget. Of course, three compliments in a row in your Lordships' House are usually followed by a “but” or a “however”, and I will provide both.

This is the wrong debate at the right time. It is wrong only because it is far too narrow. The case for primary education is powerful; I know that because I sought to widen the agenda and was told that it was set because primary education feeds into other areas. However, there are eight millennium development goals. We could have had a debate on health that would have included child mortality, improved maternal health and combating AIDS. Each year, two million people die on the day they are born, 500,000 women die in childbirth and 72 million children miss out on education as a result. Those facts are connected to international aid, but these are powerful health issues in their own right.

We could have discussed the new threats to development from the global downturn, including the recession, which is forcing 90 million people back into poverty, and perhaps the fact that investment in developing countries is predicted to fall by 80 per cent over the next few years. I am quoting from a fascinating document that has already been complimented in this Chamber—namely, One World Conservatism. I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, in his argument that it is not a party document, given that it lends two pages to what it calls “Labour’s mistakes”. That, to me, suggests that it may well be just a party document. It says:

“Internationally, Labour’s failure to focus on outputs and outcomes means that our aid has not achieved all it could”.

I am more than happy to accept that we can always do better, that aid can be better spent and that we have to learn the necessary lessons, but essentially I believe that we should have had a debate today not on a single millennium development goal but on the task of achieving the MDGs by 2015.

I note that every speaker in the debate other than the Minister has gone beyond the subject of primary education. I do not disagree with a word that the Minister said, or indeed with what others have said, but the matter that I have to deal with goes beyond primary education. Although we have heard about the funding, my question is: what are the Government’s intentions on the broader front?

We also heard—I think that it was in the Conservative manifesto—that there would be a legally binding commitment on the figure of 0.7 per cent within the first Session of Parliament. A draft Bill was certainly produced by the previous Government, and the Prime Minister said yesterday:

“As for making it legally binding, we agree with that, and will produce plans to make it happen”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/10; col. 39.]

The coalition document talks about a parliamentary resolution. I therefore ask the Minister—I did not give her notice of this question, for which I apologise, although I gave her notice of a whole raft of questions to come—how and when the Government intend to make that legally binding declaration, through an Act of Parliament or whatever.

The subject of education will be coming up very soon, on 7 July, at an education summit in South Africa. Another question that I wish to ask the Minister is: who will represent the UK Government at that meeting? Will it be someone at Secretary of State level—the Secretary of State for International Development or the Secretary of State for Education?

I also want to refer to the two major reviews that are taking place. Again, that tells me that this is the wrong debate at the right time. This would have been a great opportunity to have some input into those reviews. We have a whole day for an international development debate—a luxury that we have rarely had before. There are six speakers and we will have finished by five o’clock. That does not do justice to a question on the MDGs. However, it is not the fault of the Minister or of noble Lords; it is simply that we had a very narrow agenda and a very short period of notice. Because we are not discussing the broader church of the MDGs, it is a bit like Hamlet without the prince, or perhaps I should say that it is a debate on international development without the earl—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who brings major expertise to our debates. I think also of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and, on my Benches, my noble friend Lord Judd. In addition, from the Bishops’ Benches several right reverend Prelates have given us very wise counsel. All those people could have taken part in a debate leading into, and assisting the Government in, the two reviews that they are seeking.

One of those reviews—on bilateral aid—was always going to take place; the previous Government had planned that. A more recent element is looking at the money that we invest in the international community via the United Nations and the EU. Here I take some issue with the development matters set out in One World Conservatism, which I quoted earlier, and I declare an interest. For four years, I was director of the London office of the International Labour Organization, which covered the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Before that, I was vice-chairman of the governing body for nine years, and latterly I was chair of the ILO.

During that decade it was very clear that the Government who put the greatest pressure on reforming United Nations agencies’ efficiency was the UK Government. DfID was very helpful in that; it developed the partnership arrangement. That was not just signing cheques and nothing more; it was a very interrogative process, where, over the lifetime of the project, you would have to show not only that it fits in with the core mandate of the UN agency and that there is no overlap but that you can achieve milestones. Money is not paid up front or at the end but on the basis of achievement. In that sense, one of the weaknesses in the document that concerns me is the idea that you will pay at the end for the number of people put into a school, so you pay a Government a fee if they have 20,000 more children in school. That gives rise to three questions. Where do the schools come from in the first place? Who is training the teachers? Where do the teachers come from? An investment is required up front, and it is not simply a payment-by-results system. I think that the DfID partnership arrangements, which were anything but a signing-of-cheques-without-questions system, was a very good approach and one that I hope will not be abandoned. Clearly, it is right that the Secretary of State, in saying that we are ring-fencing the money, can also say that we have to examine the value. I am sure that greater clarity and perhaps greater purpose will come out of that.

I have declared my interest but I should also regale the House with what it is like to be a director of a United Nations agency’s office. I was tasked by my director-general with reducing the budget of the office in London, which had about eight staff. I finished up recommending that we should close the office as I believed that, in relation to Europe, the money could be better spent in eastern and central Europe or, in relation to the rest of the world, in sub-Saharan Africa than in London. In that task, I was aided by the fact that the partnership arrangements that we had with DfID meant that we could pair DfID’s technical departments in Scotland with our technical departments in Geneva, and that could be done more efficiently than going through the conduit of what you might call an embassy in London. That would not necessarily apply in other parts of the world, but it shows that within the UN system we are not wedded to simply maintaining offices for reasons of prestige or for anything else.

This interesting document—One World Conservatism —fails the test of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for not being totally independent. Mario Cuomo, the governor of New York said:

“You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose”.

Parts of this document relating to DfID lead me to think that we should change that to, “You campaign in fiction but govern in fact”. I hope that the reviews will be evidence-based and not based on prejudice or the ideology of authors of any political party’s campaign propaganda before an election.

I have given the Minister notice of a few questions. I do not expect that she will be able to answer them all today, but perhaps we may have answers in writing. They touch on some points made by other speakers in the debate. Looking at the review of DfID spend in international organisations, what consultation will take place with EU partner Governments? The EU is an important component; sometimes it is criticised and sometimes applauded. What about the non-governmental actors—a question that was asked by the right reverend Prelate? Some non-governmental actors hold formal governance positions. The ILO, the CBI and the TUC have elected members of the governing council. What plans do the Government have to ensure interaction with other government departments that deal with the UN agencies, the FCO, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and so on? What about consultation within the wider NGO community? The faith groups are very important, as are the agencies, many of whom are based in this country, from Oxfam to War on Want and Feed the Children? They can all tell you what it is like dealing with UN agencies on the ground. Furthermore, what consultation is there on the bilateral spend within Whitehall and with the wider NGO community comprising faith groups, trade unions and charities?

I have been privately somewhat critical of DfID because I do not think that it has understood or taken on board sufficiently the role of the private sector in development. Not all the multinationals in Africa lack a sense of conscience. In many cases, and if given an opportunity that makes economic and social sense, they are prepared to assist. Therefore, what consultations are we going to have with those groups?

I suggest that it might be useful for the Government to consider a consultative conference with those NGOs to get their input while the review is taking place and to get an interactive response. If I give your Lordships my view on the situation in Tanzania, I may give it from the Facebook point of view, the trade union point of view or a charity point of view, but if we are in the same room we can interact, and that can be very helpful indeed.

I also seek a couple of assurances in relation to fears that have been raised with me, some of which I share. Will the Minister reassure us that the Government remain committed to ring-fencing 0.7 per cent of gross national income and that that money will be spent on poverty alleviation? Will she assure us that it will not be transferred to other budget heads required for dealing with other important issues such as climate change? There were proposals to increase spending on that, but I hope that it will not be at the expense of poverty eradication. I do not expect all those questions to be answered today.

Finally, I draw the Minister’s attention to a point made by the right reverend Prelate. There are five years in which to seek to move towards meeting the millennium development goals and I echo the question: who will represent us at the major summit in September? I, too, believe that it should be the Prime Minister. On 17 June, the UNDP produced a report, having taken evidence from 50 countries, that makes several proposals. It looks at what has in their view been successful and what needs to be done. This is therefore an important document, but I do not expect that the Minister has yet read it or that DfID officials have yet given it all their forensic examination. However, what is the Government’s intention in taking that report on board, and how will they prepare for and deliver a view at the summit in September?

[Baroness Verma]

I thank noble Lords for all their thoughtful and helpful contributions to the debate, and for their warm welcome and kind words. As I set out in my opening remarks, the new coalition Government recognise their responsibility to ensure that every aspect of our UK aid budget both delivers and demonstrates value for money. Programmes supporting access to education, among other key services in developing countries, will be prioritised in aid spending. We will do so in ways that are appropriate to the country context and in ways that will deliver results, whether it is through state or non-state providers, or, indeed, through a combination of both. Our approach to supporting education will be based on what is best for the children in developing countries and one which ensures that the British taxpayers’ money is well spent.

Before responding to points raised in the debate, I want to make some additional points about access and quality. A good school is one that is accessible to every child in the locality; distance and cost should not prevent children from attending regularly year on year. Classrooms should be well equipped places, safe and free from harassment or discrimination.

Girls and boys should have equal rights. The same goes for those children living with disability or HIV/AIDS. Each classroom should have a well trained and committed teacher. Learning materials should be made available. The school should be well led, managed and governed, supported by an efficient education system that strives for education excellence at all levels, assures standards and is responsive and accountable to the public. Children should be supported to reach their full potential. We expect this for our children here in the UK. We should expect no less for children everywhere.

The National Audit Office’s report on DfID’s bilateral support to primary education, published on 18 June 2010, showed that in DfID’s 22 priority countries for education, there has been significant progress on enrolment, improving the balance between boys and girls. The same report also acknowledged that DfID policy advice and financial support has been instrumental in helping partner Governments to boost enrolment. The report states that 14 of those 22 priority countries are on track to achieve the enrolment goal by 2015. It also records that progress on gender parity has been good, with eight of the 22 having already achieved the goal.

Although such progress is not exclusively due to DfID, the report recognised the importance of the role that the Government have played in facilitating change. It has done that by giving prominent advisory support to Governments, by linking its budget support to those aims and by soliciting further support from other donors, typically leveraging funding at levels of two to three times that of the department’s investment.

Governments have also responded with increased national funding. It is this partnership with developing country Governments, together with other donors, civil society, faith groups, the private sector and foundations, that will meet the challenge of delivering universal primary education. The NAO report shows that progress is being made, but it also shows why the Government are right to focus on results: concentrating on outputs and outcomes, not just inputs.

The high cost of education is the biggest deterrent to poor families educating their children, particularly girls. Support to poor and marginalised children to have access to basic services needs to be part of a comprehensive programme, combining system reform and quality improvement. However, we must recognise that in some countries, managing and sustaining increased enrolment can be difficult. That is particularly true where schools have been ill prepared for sudden class size rises and have found themselves without enough teachers, infrastructure or learning materials. There is also an issue of affordability of expanding access to secondary education. The response may involve partnerships with the private sector and targeted subsidies for girls and poor families.

Poor health and nutrition can also seriously undermine school attendance and achievement. Evidence from India and Vietnam indicates that children who are stunted at the age of one will have a lower cognitive ability at the age of five than that of their peers, regardless of their socio-economic background or their parents’ levels of education. While education outcomes support other development outcomes, investments in nutrition and health likewise improve education outcomes. The work that DfID is doing in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nigeria and Zimbabwe to improve the nutrition of at least 12 million children over the next five years amounts to 10 per cent of all undernourished children around the world. That is vital. It will help to ensure that when they start their primary education, their cognitive ability is not already impaired.

The millennium development goals cannot be reached without adequate investment in higher education and skills. Good quality universities and further education colleges are needed to train skilled professionals, the public sector managers, business leaders, and health and education workers of tomorrow. Investment in higher education also drives the science and innovation necessary for economic growth. In sub-Saharan Africa, a student who spends one extra year in higher education has been found on average to increase average annual growth by 0.39 per cent. Through the Development Partnerships in Higher Education programme, we are working with the British Council to support up to 200 partnerships between higher education institutions, and we are supporting education research through three consortia looking at education access, quality and outcomes.

The new Government are reviewing the aid programme to ensure that we target UK aid where it is needed most and where it will make the most significant impact on poverty reduction. We are determined to ensure that the aid budget is used effectively and delivers value for money for the world’s poorest people.

I now turn to questions raised by noble Lords. I will endeavour to answer as many of them as I can, and where I cannot I will provide a written answer. My noble friend Lady Falkner talked about gender inequality. While we all agree with her desire to see the disparity in access to education between boys and girls removed, it is crucial that we work in ways that encourage states to engage with achieving the MDGs. That is why we are carrying out these reviews to see what works and what does not. We owe it to the poorest and to those who give funds that we can guarantee the best value and best outcomes for all those whom we try to reach. The noble Baroness asked about the impact of food prices on education. DfID has provision for contingency funds to meet unexpected needs and has specific provision for humanitarian support.

I agreed with almost everything that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool said. The empowerment of women is key. That is why maternal and child health will be one of our key priorities and why we want to ensure that we look not just at the outcomes for those who are enrolled in the programmes for education but at the quality of the education. I completely agree that the big society should not be constrained to these shores and that we should see ourselves as part of a global big society. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State spoke eloquently in a speech to Oxfam on 3 June when he said that we are part of a much bigger picture. That is why I agree that our duty is not just to young children here but to all children across the globe.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, raised a number of important points about China. In developing global partnerships with China, we can make progress in achieving positive outcomes. Noble Lords all agree that we need to have better audit trails, so that is why we are carrying out reviews of all programmes funded or supported by DfID. We will bring the China aid programme to a conclusion as soon as practicable, but in the mean time we will look at other ways in which we can work more closely with China in the work that China is doing in Africa.

I thank my noble friend Lord Freeman for his kind, warm words. The coalition programme states that we will use the aid budget to support the development of local democratic institutions, civil society groups, the media and enterprise. We must support efforts to tackle corruption. My noble friend highlighted the document to which the noble Lord, Lord Brett, referred. I agree with my noble friend—I do not think that it is a political document. It highlights some of the excellent work being done, and some of the work that needs to be looked at again and, perhaps, be done better. Where there have been problems, we sometimes need to be big enough to say that mistakes were made so that we can reconcile that with improvements and better outcomes.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brett, for his kind welcoming words. However, I was waiting for the but, and I got it. I know he agrees that this debate unites the House. I do not agree with him that the narrowness of the debate is the reason why there are so few speakers today. As he will be fully aware, the reason for the number speaking in this debate is the short notice for it rather than the narrowness of its focus.

[Lord Brett]

I recognise the short notice of the debate. One of my sub-questions was whether we will have an opportunity for that wider debate at a later stage.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, I do not schedule debates. That will be for the usual channels and I am sure that the noble Lord will have his influences there.

As regards the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, we routinely meet EU partner Governments in a variety of fora to discuss development issues and we use these discussions to raise the multilateral aid review. We are committed to being open and transparent about how British taxpayers’ money is spent in the developing world. DfID is considering how best to most effectively engage the public in this process.

On interacting with the UN and other agencies, we have already informed our counterparts in other government departments of the purpose of the review. When we make our assessments of the relevant agencies we will do so in close co-operation with those departments with which we are working on funding and policy. We will of course consult widely with other government departments as we take the bilateral aid review forward.

The Government want to engage and involve the whole country in the difficult decisions ahead. The spending review framework published by the Treasury sets out how we will do this across government. This includes a series of events over the summer where a range of groups will discuss various aspects of public spending. DfID is considering how to most effectively engage the public in this process.

The Government are committed to honouring the 0.7 per cent commitment on overseas aid from 2013. We will enshrine this commitment in law. We are committed to keeping both Houses informed and to consulting fully with both Houses. The views of your Lordships’ House are of great interest to the consultation and it is crucial that noble Lords take the opportunity to be part of the consultation process.

The UK’s £1.5 billion commitment to fast-start funding for climate change between 2010 and 2012 is drawn from the UK’s aid budget. We have reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to giving 0.7 per cent of GNI as ODA and are on track to get to 0.7 per cent by 2013. I will have to write to the noble Lord on a number of his questions because I do not have the answers at hand.

I should like to return to what children learn. Improving the quality of education is complex and multidimensional, but we have a good idea of what works. Key strategies associated with success include more and better trained teachers; increasing time on tasks for teachers and children in school; effective leadership in schools; establishing and measuring standards; having structures that empower people and hold them to account; challenging inequity in access; and rigorously monitoring outcomes.

To achieve the goal of universal primary education, the international community needs to address equity, put teaching and learning at the heart of policy and practice, invest in good quality education, and inspire collective action. The United Nations millennium development goals summit in September is the moment for the international community to show that universal primary education by 2015 is a challenge that it will not abandon and to make clear that to achieve that goal we need even greater collective action.

I can assure the House that this Government will give their support to more concentrated action by developed and developing countries, so that those children who are missing out on education—both today’s generation and tomorrow’s—finally get the education that is their right.

I conclude by repeating the five key points made in a speech at the Royal Society on 3 June by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development: first, that global poverty both affronts our moral conscience and is a direct threat to Britain’s vital national interests; secondly, that well spent UK aid is among the most effective of the instruments we can use, but that radical steps must be taken to ensure that our aid achieves all it can; thirdly, that transparency, accountability, responsibility, fairness and empowerment will be our watchwords; fourthly, that two new concrete steps have been announced to achieve this—the creation of the independent aid watchdog and our commitment to a UK aid transparency guarantee; and, fifthly and finally, although aid is important for development, we must use the whole of the British Government’s policy spectrum to tackle global poverty.