Tax (Developing Countries)

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Pauline Latham

Thursday 17th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger.

I am pleased to speak in this debate on the report on tax in developing countries published by the Select Committee on International Development. It is difficult for us to lecture other countries when we do not have our own house in order. I am pleased that the Chancellor is considering how he might tax companies that are not paying their fair share of tax here because, like developing countries, we need tax to address our deficit if we are to continue—and we will continue—to fund international development and many other things. I will be pleased when the Chancellor of the Exchequer returns to tell the House of Commons exactly how he will do that, because it is important. I completely support my two colleagues who spoke before me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden).

I will focus on the part of the report on the role of the extractive industries transparency initiative, which was mentioned by both my colleagues. I am particularly interested in that topic, on which I have tabled written parliamentary questions, and next month I will be visiting a coal mine in South Africa with the Industry and Parliament Trust. I was going to go to a diamond mine, but I have been downgraded, although there will be no problem with free gifts at the end of the visit.

I currently chair the extractive industries transparency initiative group, which is currently an informal body, but I am hoping for it to become an all-party group very shortly as I have just found a final member. At a meeting of the group before Christmas, our guest speaker was the chair of the EITI, the former Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Clare Short, who provided a valuable insight into the EITI’s worthwhile work.

The establishment of the EITI was a massive step forward, and I pay tribute to the previous Labour Government for taking the lead in founding the initiative. The underlying principle of the EITI is that Governments disclose the amounts they receive from corporations in the extractive sectors, including payments of taxes, signature bonuses and royalties, and corporations operating in participating countries make a corresponding disclosure of the payments they make to the respective Governments. An EITI report for the relevant country is then published, reconciling the amounts paid by corporations with the amounts received by the Government. Any discrepancy between the two amounts may indicate that revenues are falling into the hands of corrupt officials, which is not unusual in many of the countries we talk about in the international development sector. The methods used are an extremely effective way of identifying possible corruption, and ensuring that the two figures correspond is one way in which people in participating countries are able to call their Governments to account.

There are two stages of EITI accreditation: EITI candidate status and EITI-compliant status. There are 14 countries with compliant status, although one of those, Yemen, is currently suspended, and 21 countries with candidate status.

The EITI has a robust yet flexible methodology—the EITI standard—that ensures a global standard is maintained throughout the implementing countries. The EITI board and international secretariat are the guardians of that methodology. Implementation, however, is the responsibility of individual countries. The EITI standard, in a nutshell, is a globally developed standard that promotes revenue transparency at local level. The EITI rules establish the methodology that countries must follow to become fully compliant with the EITI.

As much as I am a big supporter of the EITI, however, I believe that more than a decade since its establishment—and a productive first decade it has been—the EITI needs to go further in its transparency work. As the report advocates in its recommendations, the time has come for the EITI to publish contracts between mining companies and Governments. The “Publish What You Pay” campaign suggests that such publication would help to expose any contracts that are patently disadvantageous to the country concerned. We only have to look at many countries in Africa to realise that they are mineral-rich, but money is not going back into those countries for Governments to invest for the benefit of their people, not just the higher echelons in society. It is important that such publication goes ahead.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

My hon. Friend is making a valuable contribution with her important speech, but does she acknowledge that, prior to the emergence of the EITI, we had situations, such as in Angola, where BP, to its credit, wanted to publish information on the taxes it paid and was basically told by the corrupt Minister who was pocketing those taxes that if BP did so, it would be thrown out of the country and not be allowed to continue its activities? The EITI has done an awful lot to prevent such things, thereby exposing those countries and Governments who will not sign up.

International Development Committee Report (Afghanistan)

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Pauline Latham

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the publication of the Sixth Report from the International Development Committee, on Afghanistan: Development progress and prospects after 2014, HC 403.

I am happy to accept interventions, while taking Mr Speaker’s restrictions into account.

It is worth recording that, since 2001, approximately $30 billion has been spent on development and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and $243 billion on security. Our own Department for International Development has spent over £1 billion since 2001 and currently spends £178 million a year in Afghanistan.

Sadly, the report has been published on a day on which two more British service personnel have been killed. A total of 435 men and women from our forces have lost their lives in Afghanistan—along with thousands of Afghan people—to enable the country to reach its current position, and the main thrust of our report is that we must not abandon it now.

The Committee visited Afghanistan in June. We thank our adviser, Ashley Jackson—who is a research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute—and we commend the dedication of DFID’s staff, including those recruited locally, on their commitment in difficult and challenging circumstances.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will recall our visit to the hospital of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which was doing incredible, innovative work with amputees who had been injured in land mine and other accidents. He will also recall the workshop next to the hospital, where false limbs were being manufactured. All the people working there were amputees, demonstrating very effectively the possibility of returning to work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that was a really good example of part-funding by DFID and that we should encourage the Department to increase its funding to ensure that more people are helped?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Contrary to what Members might think, our visit was truly inspirational in terms of what it told us about amputees’ recovery and recuperation. The Red Cross runs seven such centres throughout Afghanistan, and its valuable work is supported very effectively by DFID, but it could indeed benefit from further support.

Our main concern is that we cannot predetermine where Afghanistan will go after 2014. There will be elections, but we do not know who will be elected. There will also be security challenges. Threats to security and development potential will vary and may fluctuate across the country. We recommend that DFID’s engagement should be flexible according to the prevailing circumstances at any given time. That may mean acknowledging that delivering development assistance may be more achievable in some provinces than in others. There are provinces in which virtually no violence has occurred, but not all of them are receiving the aid and support that they need.

Future of CDC

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Pauline Latham

Thursday 14th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Is it not true that CDC could help not only with productivity and increasing yield, but by working with farmers with very small plots of land to enable them to join together as a co-operative, because that would give them a greater income overall? When the Committee went to India, we saw a diversity of products compared with the sorts of crops grown in Burundi, Rwanda and, indeed, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It would be better if people could diversify and have larger plots so that they can make more money, which would come back to CDC and benefit all those incredibly poor people we saw when we stayed in Burundi.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I certainly agree that we want a partnership that looks at the best way of optimising and maximising production from which the community can benefit. I know that the Government have said that they are unwilling to direct CDC into particular sectors, but I hope that the Secretary of State will indicate that he will also not be telling it not to go into particular sectors. I hope that the Government will listen to the Committee’s view that CDC should try to explore such an area because that approach would give it an expertise that would be beneficial and could be replicated elsewhere.

Although today might not be the appropriate time for the Secretary of State to comment on this, he will be aware of the engagement that we have all had in our development programme in India. He has set a target of 50% for the level of Indian overseas development assistance going into private sector development by the end of 2014-15. For absolute clarity, I should say that the Committee did not dissent from that as a principle, but we were concerned about whether the mechanisms existed, or would exist, to achieve that figure. It will be interesting to see the role of CDC and equivalent partners in relation to that, particularly because the Government of India have made it clear that they are not keen on the UK Government’s aid programme being used to subsidise private sector investment.

To return to the example I cited with regard to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, there were projects in the states that we went to—Bihar and Andhra Pradesh—that probably would yield a return, but are unable to attract investment because they are off the sexy horizon of where people want to invest in India. It is possible for the Secretary of State’s objectives to be achieved, but the revamped CDC and the equivalent model may have to be worked up to a point where that can deliver. That is not possible at present and, to be fair, the Secretary of State has not said that it should happen as of today. However, a lot needs to be done in the next three or four years if that is to be delivered.

I can summarise things with a slightly personal view. I have been Chair of the Committee for six years, including throughout the previous Parliament. As I have said before, the creation of DFID was a considerable achievement of which the previous Labour Government had every justification to be proud. I have no hesitation in saying that. However, after that length of time and with a new Government in office, it is also right and proper to review, reprioritise and reassess.

Until recently, DFID was not comfortable with the role of interacting with the private sector. What people in DFID do in development terms is brilliant and world class. Indeed, I am not criticising the people involved because they did what they were asked to do. However, whenever there was a discussion about private sector co-operation and partnership, there was a tendency to say, “Well, that’s what CDC does. We’ll park that and get on with our development job.” In future, there needs to be more of a mingling of the two. When one role is more risky, complicated and difficult, there is always a worry that it could compromise the other. I understand those concerns, but the relationship between the Department and CDC as it changes needs to be slightly more hands on. There needs to be more parallel working between CDC in country and DFID programmes in country, and a greater understanding about them between the two.

My final example about that comes from a briefing the Committee enjoyed—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) was there in Aberdeen—from the Wood Family Trust, which I hope will give evidence to us in the autumn on a different inquiry. The trust was engaged in a project in east Africa on making markets work for the poor. It is a private family foundation, and it started off by saying, “We’re going to give the money we’ve made”—predominately out of the oil and gas industry—“and put it into development in Africa, because that’s about putting something back. We’re business people and we’ll do the business thing.” Indeed, that was precisely what it was doing. However, it rapidly realised that it could not do what it wanted without being in partnership with the public sector. It is interesting to note that the public sector needs to partner the private sector and the reverse is also true. It is the working together that delivers the best results.

I commend to the Secretary of State the fact that, when the Committee is visiting any bilateral partner in the future, we are likely to get a briefing about what is happening between the development programme and CDC in that country. We have not had that in the past—CDC has almost been a different organisation.

I commend our report to hon. Members. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for attending the debate and, indeed, for his constructive response to the report. I look forward to him updating us because I am aware that since our report was published, things have moved on a bit with regard to initiatives to revamp and reinvigorate CDC. The Committee is very much looking forward to hearing about that.