Integrated Review: Development Aid
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is customary in these debates that there is a gap on the speakers’ list before the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench speaker. Today, the gap is that Lord Judd is not with us. We on the Liberal Benches pass on our commiserations. Many noble Lords, and those on the Labour Benches in particular, have lost a friend—a very noble one at that—who would have made a major contribution to this debate. He is missed. A colleague who is not missed is the noble Lord, Lord Alton—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I think noble Lords have not interpreted that as I intended. The noble Lord will not be missed for a very long time to come. He is to be commended on bringing this debate to the Grand Committee and on the very powerful way in which he introduced it. It is a commendation to him and to his work in this House.
The whole House was united yesterday in support of the Government providing additional medical equipment and support to India. The Government chose not to deny extra support because of the fiscal situation here at home and instead provided it because of a medical emergency abroad. So, when it is in the Government’s choosing, additional humanitarian assistance is provided. But it is also in the Government’s choosing to halve support for children and mothers in conflict-afflicted Yemen, which is suffering the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. It is in the Government’s choosing to halve health centre and medical provision in South Sudan, which is literally a lifeline for millions. It is in the Government’s choosing, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to cut by 40% UK funding for girls’ education after saying that it is a priority, but then to refuse, as the Foreign Secretary did to the International Relations and Defence Committee yesterday, to be transparent in so doing because it would embarrass the Government during discussions with the Kenyan Government on us jointly hosting an international conference on the subject in the summer. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who will reply to this debate, told the House on 16 March:
“We will use our G7 presidency this year to rally the international community to step up and support girls’ education”.—[Official Report, 16/3/21; col. 179.]
How grotesquely hollow this sounds one month on.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, told the House last week that the economy has seen a shrinkage of 11% owing to the pandemic. The law allows for such a reduction in ODA to reflect this, painful as it would be, but it is the Government’s political choice, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, indicated, to cut bilateral aid by 50%. They believe that it is popular, but no one seems—or rather very few seem—to be speaking up for it with confidence. It is a political choice of the FCDO and its Ministers, as the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Alton, indicated, to cut by 80% bilateral water, sanitation and hygiene projects in the height of the pandemic, when the Government themselves paid for advice on handwashing and clean water to be the first line of defence on Covid. These are political choices, because we knew what the extent of the impact on the economy was likely to be by the end of October last year.
Some called for the Conservatives to cut ODA at that stage. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said in response to one of those calls on 23 October—I quote directly from his tweet—
“You couldn’t have got this more wrong. It was the Conservatives under @David_Cameron who put the 0.7% aid commitment into law. And of all the countries who made the same commitment, just 5 (including the UK) have honoured it.”
The Government are dishonouring this commitment, and their 2015, 2017 and 2019 manifesto commitments likewise.
I care less about the Conservatives’ manifesto commitments than I do about the law. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, told the House on 17 March that
“we have had to make some hard choices, including temporarily reducing the ODA target from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI”.—[Official Report, 17/3/21; col. 302.]
This addresses the exact point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, mentioned in his very effective contribution to this debate. It is a breach of the law to set a new target. This is prohibited by the 2015 Act and the duty remains to meet 0.7%. If, however, in the course of honouring that duty, because of unplanned internal or external circumstances, during the reporting year 0.7% had not been met, Section 2 requires a statement to be laid before Parliament. Section 2 does not permit a proactive missing of the target in a forthcoming year, as the Government have announced.
Critically, the element of the law that the Minister chose to ignore when he answered questions on 16 March, and that Ministers have deliberately ignored since November, is that Section 2(4) requires:
“A statement under subsection (1) must also describe any steps that the Secretary of State has taken to ensure that the 0.7% target will be met by the United Kingdom in the calendar year following the report year.”
This Government have announced proactive and deliberate moves to renege on the duty to meet 0.7%. That is not provided for by the second provision and they have not stated how it will return.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we will now resume and continue with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the second major part of this debate refers to the Government’s assertion that we will return to this duty, which they are reneging on, when the fiscal situation allows. This is what the Minister told the House on 16 March. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, three times in the Chamber what those fiscal criteria are and I have not received an answer. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, specifically asked the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the same question today and I hope that there will be a reply. As I said in our debate on the integrated review, the Government either know what the criteria are, and are actively and deliberately withholding them from Parliament, or they are simply using disingenuous language. The Minister must tell us which it is today; he has 20 minutes and there is no reason not to spell this out in his response to the debate, because he has been asked that specific question.
There are, then, two areas of unlawfulness. One is the setting of the new 0.5% target that the Minister has referred to. Can he also state where in legislation it allows the Government to set a target at 0.5%?
One of the themes of this debate, which has been heartbreaking, is that the Government have not carried out humanitarian impact assessments for the extent of the cuts that they are making. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, also refused to answer a question from me about whether the cuts for Yemen came after an impact assessment. Chris Bold, the development director for Yemen, admitted to a House of Commons committee:
“We have not done an impact assessment.”
If the Government believe that the cuts are popular—though not based on evidence and without having carried out an impact assessment—why are they not simply being honest and straightforward in telling us what the criteria are, and what the impact is likely to be?
I said at the outset that I would not cite the broken Conservative manifesto commitments, but I will cite another manifesto, if the Committee will allow me:
“we wish to see the breaking down of barriers to international trade. Greater freedom in international trade will assist the underdeveloped countries who need markets for their products. We support the principle that in accordance with the Pearson Report Britain and other countries should contribute 1 per cent of Gross National Product of official aid to developing countries as soon as possible. We are totally opposed to all forms of racial and religious discrimination.”
That was the Liberal manifesto for the June 1970 election, which predates the UN resolution of October 1970. I cite it not because I am proud that my party has stood the test of time with this commitment but because it was a global consensus on which, after many years, there was a political consensus in the UK between the parties and beyond parties, with Gordon Brown as Chancellor and Tony Blair as Prime Minister, and later under David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Theresa May, which has now been dashed by this Government.
A journalist reported in 2019:
“Penny Mordaunt gave a presentation on foreign aid in which she said 0.7% in the current form is ‘unsustainable’.”
On 29 January 2019, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, replied:
“I hope this is incorrect. The 0.7 per cent commitment isn’t simply about charity. Spent properly, foreign aid makes the world safer, more sustainable and more stable. It benefits us all.”
Our contribution to making the world safer, more sustainable and more stable is being reduced, by an unlawful cut, by one-third this year and next, and there is no transparent commitment for the year after. As was said recently in a meeting chaired by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, which I attended, we are not cutting aid, we are cutting co-operation. We are not a lesser donor, we are a more unreliable partner—but not in my name or that of my party.
Overseas Development Assistance: Budget
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, our country teams are discussing programme plans with host Governments and suppliers. We will publish the 2021-22 country allocations later in 2021 as part of our annual report and accounts. I point the noble Lord to the fact that the programme-by-programme information will be published on DevTracker throughout the year.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I know that the Minister respects the breadth and depth of experience in this House on international affairs and development. Over 60 Peers have now joined the Peers for Development liaison group that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and I have established. Will the Minister facilitate a meeting between the Peers for Development group and the Foreign Secretary and himself to discuss the implications of the cuts that have been announced and the issue of timeliness, as has been raised, in the need for transparency around country allocations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I can certainly confirm that I would be happy to meet the group, and I will take the request back to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I stand by the noble Lord’s assessment; this House is full of wisdom, not just on ODA but across many areas.
Overseas Development Assistance: Budgets and Awards
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I know Sir Mark Lowcock well. I do not share his opinion. As the noble Lord himself has said, we remain very much committed to Yemen, both in terms of political settlement and the support we are providing through the UK aid pledge of £87 million for 2021-22.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
What are the fiscal conditions that would allow a return to 0.7%? The Minister said the economy has shrunk by 11%. Why are the Government cutting bilateral aid by 50%?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord would acknowledge the contributions the Government have made to various challenges that we face domestically. That has called for hard decisions, including looking at ODA. As I said earlier, we will look to restore 0.7% at the earliest opportunity.
Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the telling phrase is in part V of the review. On page 97, paragraph 2, it says:
“‘Integration’ is not a new theme in the UK’s approach to national security, although the language used to describe it has varied over time.”
Language is important. On development co-operation, the language of a United Kingdom Prime Minister, at the start of this, described UK development assistance as
“a great cashpoint in the sky”.
That was the message from this Government to the world. On page 5, the language on aid is
“we will return to our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development when the fiscal situation allows.”
I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, three times, including today, what these fiscal criteria are, and there has been no answer. The Government either know and are refusing to tell Parliament—which is an undemocratic outrage—or this is just more disingenuous language that warrants no trust.
Only one part of the integrated review has been underpinned by law, and the Government are acting unlawfully in contradiction to it, by halving UK bilateral aid assistance. How integrated is it, when the Government say it will be a soft power—as my noble friend Lady Northover indicated—but, in the preceding three years, the Government said the soft power strategy was imminent, only for it ditched as Brexit made it inconvenient?
The Africa strategy that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to was imminent but was never published. Theresa May promised that the UK would be the largest investor in Africa. China took note because of its strategic debt policy. China noticed even more when Boris Johnson ditched that approach. What is our approach to investment in Africa? What guides us on this? Annex B, on evidence and engagement, says in paragraph 2 that
“we undertook a systematic programme of engagement, analysis and challenge.”
On the breaking of the law and cutting UK bilateral aid by the greatest amount ever, the statement is not true—especially on Yemen. On 3 March, I asked the Minister what impact assessment had been carried out on halving support for Yemen. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, refused to answer. On Tuesday, Chris Bold, the development director for Yemen at the FCDO, told the Commons committee:
“We haven’t done an impact assessment.”
Halving support for the poorest people in the world, during the worst humanitarian crisis on earth, is a moral stain on this Government. Nothing in this integrated review means anything if we can do this without an assessment of the impact on them, our global reputation, and our partners, by the resignation of leadership. If one of the richest countries in the world can halve support to the poorest people in the world, there is no moral compass to guide anything else in this review. We are not just cutting aid; we are cutting co-operation. We are not just cutting by half our position as a donor; we are a less reliable partner to all those we have worked with to this point.
Human Rights Update
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—on a lighter note, I am always conscious that, when in an opening line “great respect” is expressed for the Minister, what will follow thereafter is a reflection of a challenge, and that has been proven correct today. Of course, I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has said. The Trade Bill will be up for discussion in your Lordships’ House today and I look forward to that. On the issue of complacency, I will challenge the noble Lord; I am afraid, on this occasion, I cannot agree with him. We have seen a structured approach to the new regime being introduced; we have close to 76 people, I believe, who have been sanctioned as part of this, and it is right and important that we acted once we had the evidence. But it is also right, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, acknowledged, that we act in conjunction with our key partners, because acting together shows the strength of the international community in the face of the continued human rights abuses we are seeing in Xinjiang.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the joint UK-China communiqué on the occasion of President Xi addressing both Houses of Parliament in 2015 highlighted seven co-operation agreements, strategic partnership agreements and joint alliances covering preferential trading terms and UK market access—not available to many other countries. Given the horrors we now know of, how many of these preferential trading agreements have been suspended?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—in respect of what the noble Lord asks, I will write to him. I also acknowledge that, while these agreements were signed in 2015, the international community was alerted to the situation that we see emerging in Xinjiang only in 2016. But on the specifics, I will write to the noble Lord.
Anti-slavery Projects: Commonwealth
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Chidgey for bringing this debate to the Grand Committee and commend the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK. I declare an interest in that I supported the CPA’s anti-forced labour project here in the Westminster Parliament and in Ghana. I also declare that I support a project in Sudan and the Horn of Africa, linking in with the Gulf, on human trafficking and forced labour.
Because time is so constrained, I make two points and ask two questions of the Minister. First, the inevitable consequences of Covid mean that the scope for forced labour and trafficking is greatly increased, with the increase in the number of vulnerable women and children, especially those working in markets or domestic labour. Therefore, the unlawful cuts to the UK’s ODA are very regrettable. Secondly, there have been attempts in the Trade Bill to persuade the Government to move on supply chains—in fact, I raised this in our most recent deliberations on that Bill—and I hope that the Government think again.
I have two quick questions, building on one of the points that my noble friend Lord Chidgey asked. Will the Government use their convening power for all Commonwealth countries to work so there is a consistency of definition and application of forced labour legislation? Secondly, will the UK use its chair-in-office transition to Rwanda to make sure that this continues to be a priority area, including for Governments and traditional forms of government and traditional leaders? The convening power of the Commonwealth is to its credit and something that we can ensure goes forward with the new presidency, so there is no gap in any programme that we have discussed today.
Yemen: Aid Funding
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, let me assure the noble Lord that we remain very much committed to resolving the continuing conflict in Yemen. In terms of specific aid, our recent announcement is in addition to the £214 million we will spend in the current tax year on humanitarian aid and support for Yemen. Our additional aid for 2021-22 will feed an additional 240,000 of the most vulnerable Yemenis every month, support 400 health clinics and provide clean water for 1.6 million people. We are extending support to the special envoy in Yemen, Martin Griffiths, to bring peace and get all parties to the table.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, there has been a 49% reduction in our contribution of support to the world’s poorest country, which has been afflicted with the worst cholera outbreak in global history. Will the Government now rethink the unlawful cut from 0.7% to 0.5%? If the Government were correct, and the focus of overseas aid was to be on the world’s poorest, there must have been a humanitarian impact assessment for this cut. Was one carried out? Will the Government publish it if it was?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, in terms of announcements, the final settlement on ODA is still being finalised within the department. I will be able to answer with more detail once that has been agreed. As I have already alluded to, we stand by our commitments to Yemen from previous years, and famine alleviation remains a key priority. But it is a challenging announcement in terms of the reduction and the challenges that the country is facing at the moment. Notwithstanding that, we remain committed to supporting the people of Yemen in not just humanitarian aid but resolving the conflict.
Covid-19: Surplus Vaccine Doses
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
First, and foremost, I am surprised that the noble Lord expresses disappointment. If anyone has led on this, particularly with the World Health Organization, within Gavi and on COVAX, it is the United Kingdom, and that is resulting in other countries stepping up. The reason I did not answer specifically is that we are having discussions in that respect. On the noble Lord’s general point, I assure him that we are very much committed to ensuring the success of the rollout and equitable access. As the COVAX facility makes further announcements in the coming few weeks, that will become all the more clear.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, one of the core elements of the COVAX approach is to strengthen health systems in developing countries. Key to that is the bilateral support that countries such as the UK will provide them. Given that the Government’s intention is to breach the law and the undertaking to meet 0.7% support, there could now be cuts of up to 50% to the UK’s bilateral support for these countries. Instead of moving ahead with this, could the Government consider a moratorium on the cuts and guarantee that UK support to strengthen health systems in developing countries to distribute the vaccine will not be cut?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first point, I have already made the Government’s position clear. On the noble Lord’s second point, of course supporting countries’ health systems bilaterally remains a key priority, but there are challenges ahead with the reduced spending on ODA. They are currently under review at the FCDO.
The UK’s Relationship with the Pacific Alliance (International Relations Committee Report)
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to serve on the committee so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. When introducing the debate this afternoon, which has been so well attended, he gave an indication of the work of other members of the committee. It was a pleasure serving alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Grocott. I too pay tribute, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, just did, to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. In many respects, it was because of her persistence and insistence that we took on looking at an area which a parliamentary committee report had not considered: our relationship with the Pacific Alliance. Her eloquent contribution to this debate, which I will touch on in a moment, is also testimony to her work on the committee.
There has rightly been reference to the delay in our debating this report; indeed, there is somewhat of a backlog on the reports of what is now our International Relations and Defence Committee. Now that I am no longer on the committee, after serving on it for three years, I look forward to our debating—soon, I hope—sub-Saharan Africa and some of our other reports. I know that the Minister will want us to debate them because the Government respond substantially to our recommendations.
Next year will be the 10th year of the Pacific Alliance, which we viewed in three ways. One was our long historical relationship and whether we are utilising that well—as the noble Lord, Lord Hague, indicated to us, and as other noble Lords referred to. The second was the potential of a closer relationship to build on trading and cultural relations, and the third how the UK can interact with a consensus and co-operation alliance, such as the Pacific Alliance. In this last regard, we noted that while we had observer status Canada, and now others—Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, which are, interestingly, Commonwealth countries, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, said—are seeking and will develop closer ties still with associate membership. What does the UK intend regarding our ambition for associate membership?
Returning first to our historical depth, this is an area little recognised across the UK but important in global relations. I had the pleasure of visiting Peru as part of an IPU delegation in 2017. As proof of the UK’s historical links, the very British Airways plane on which we landed was being prepared and turned around to return the Princess Royal from her third visit to Peru. As part of that, she visited the International Potato Center, which has close connections with Scotland’s significant seed potato industry—so harmed recently by the TCA with the EU. We cannot compete with the more than 3,000 types of potato that Peru has; it is one area where, unfortunately, Peru may have a competitive advantage in trade with the European Union over what we now have as a result of the TCA.
Also during her visit, the Princess Royal unveiled a statue of Martin Guise, born in Gloucestershire, a veteran of the Battle of Trafalgar and then commander of the Peruvian fleet. My noble friend Lord Wallace referred to Lord Cochrane, a remarkable and equally colourful character, from Lanarkshire, who was significant in the Peruvian and the Chilean navies. In 2018, the Princess Royal visited Chile during the bicentennial of its navy to unveil a statue of him, too. It is worth telling the Committee what the chief admiral of its navy said at the unveiling of the statue. Significantly, Admiral Leiva said:
“when we are celebrating the Bicentennial of the Navy, we render a deserved and necessary recognition to the figure of Admiral Cochrane. It is not enough that one of our most important ships bears his name. Today it becomes necessary for all citizens to know and appreciate the scope they had in the process of consolidating our republic and the formation of our naval power, which is so relevant today for our country”
and its development. I hope the Minister will respond to my noble friend Lord Wallace’s question on the strategic links in today’s defence environment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, we have current areas of interest and opportunity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we had a round table with all the ambassadors—the first time, I think, that they came together as a group for a Lords committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, also referred to that and I pay tribute, as have others, to her work within the region. She was on the IPU visit that I attended. We did not have royalty on our visit, but by having her join us in the region we had the next best thing.
Because the Pacific Alliance is a consensus and co-operation alliance, as I said, our discussions with the ambassadors looked at ways of joint working to address the deep-seated challenges of the region: on the economy, transport links, cross-border crime and astonishingly high levels of displaced people—increasingly so, with the Venezuelan crisis—and peacebuilding, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Alderdice and others today. The scope for the UK to offer technical assistance through UK business, as well as government relations, is significant. Although the total sum of trade is limited compared to our near neighbours in the European trading environment, I support moves towards an economic partnership agreement with the wider alliance, building on the bilateral relationship that we have with the rollover agreements, on the EU-Mercosur agreement and on the CPTPP.
However, we have barriers to trading with the region, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and others said—she mentioned her work on visas, in particular. The UK has an insulting position on visas for Colombia and, in particular, Peru. She and I welcomed a senior Peruvian MP to Westminster, who told us of the great difficulties he had had in securing a visa for the United Kingdom to visit its Parliament. If we are to have deepening and further trading relationships, visa-free access for business travel should be obvious. I hope the Minister can finally indicate how the Government will move on this area. I should be grateful if he can also say how our transport links might improve. The only direct air link from the UK to Peru flew between April and October. on a dedicated Boeing 747 from Gatwick. As the planes have been decommissioned and BA closes flights from Gatwick, how will our national flag carrier represent us on that route? As all noble Lords have said in the debate, if we are to benefit from this relationship when out of the Covid crisis, we need these global air links to be significant. At the moment, there are significant question marks over them.
Our report recommended trade facilitation and language skills. I regret, as others have indicated, the declines in those areas. In going forward on trade, which has remained broadly stable over the past decade—with the exception of growth in exports to Mexico—we may have the rolled-over agreements, but the EU recently modernised its Mexico agreement and the Chile agreement is being renegotiated. We need to move fast, as our trading arrangements are already out of date, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said the press promotion of the application for CPTPP seems to be of greater importance to the Government. It is of greater importance that we make sure that the agreements we have are updated and facilitated, rather than applying for new and, in many ways, weaker agreements.
Finally, I return to the extraordinarily long time it has taken to debate this report, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others. It is perhaps somewhat telling that the central theme we sought to address in it—that the Pacific Alliance should move to the front of our minds—has taken 18 months to be debated within the House. This may give us an opportunity, however, to do some post-scrutiny review. Have the Government met the indications they gave us in their response to our report? We bemoaned the fact that there had been few ministerial visits and that, as has been referred to, officials attended PA summits. How many ministerial visits have there been, is there a growth trend in them and will the Government commit to Ministers attending Pacific Alliance summits, rather than officials? Given that next year is the 10th anniversary, a good way to mark it would be for the UK to seek associate membership. If the Minister for reassuring replies can reassure me on this point, I will be most obliged.
Official Development Assistance
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that as we look at our priorities for spend in 2020 those will become much clearer. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is looking quite specifically at the issue of ODA spend for next year. The noble Baroness is right to raise the important gains that we have seen on key priorities that the UK has supported. I assure her that we will look at each programme to ensure that we can sustain not only the leadership that we have shown but the gains that we have made. Again, I have to say to her that I cannot give her details about specific programmes and projects at this time.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, when asked about the domestic economic situation, the Minister for Africa, James Duddridge, told the House of Commons:
“We are bound by law to spend 0.7%, so it is not a choice; it is in the law, and we will obey the law.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/20; col.147.]
We now know that the Government believe it is a choice and they will break the law. As the Minister said, they will in fact bring forward legislation to repeal that law, which does not sit with what the Government said about it being a temporary measure. So will the Minister give me this commitment: will the Government publish the fiscal criteria that will have to be met in order for the 0.7% commitment to be re-met before any legislative proposals to repeal the 2015 Act? If they do not, how can we believe the Government in the same way that we believed James Duddridge in June?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, again, asked quite specific questions and understandably, I cannot share with him information on the nature and detail of the legislation at this point. I assure him that, as I have said before, the Government fully recognise their obligations to Parliament. As I said earlier in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, this is important and we are looking at legislation to ensure that we fulfil those obligations to Parliament.