International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill
Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Lawson of Blaby(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, I thank my noble friends for their amendment and the case that they made, which I understood clearly and which was sincerely made. However, I cannot accept the amendment and shall explain briefly why. In doing so, I hope to give satisfactory answers to the points that they made.
As I understand it, the amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament if they had not met the target because the budget was low at the start of the year, they had no ability properly to deliver the expenditure towards the end of the year and this mismanagement would persist in future years. However, not only are there other parts of the Bill that provide for independent evaluation of the impact of the aid in the widest terms, but this Bill complements the 2006 Bill, which also requires statistical reporting that addresses many of those aspects, too. Together, they provide a proper reporting mechanism on the proper delivery of the budget that DfID will have. Therefore, it is a quite distinct issue from whether there are factors that mean that it is hard for DfID to deliver its budget from year to year. That is a slightly wider aspect to which the Minister responded to very properly.
The NAO report was cited again. It is worth stating that I agree with the report and have sympathy with its finding at paragraph 12, which states:
“The requirement to hit, but not significantly exceed, aid spending equal to 0.7% of gross national income every calendar year means the Department has to hit a fairly narrow target against a background of considerable uncertainty”.
That is of course the case. Indeed, the delivery of aid has often been one of the more difficult aspects in different circumstances around the world. That is why there are a number of tools available to government for the proper delivery of it, either through multilateral organisations or from the promissory note mechanism. They are a positive means of delivering proper budget management. In responding to the previous group of amendments, the Minister indicated, for example, that towards the end of a calendar year DfID provides a £1 billion contribution to EC ODA. That is drawn down in December after approval, funnily enough, by the Treasury. Deposits on promissory notes, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria and the World Bank contributions are concentrated at the year end. What this Bill affords is the ability for the UK now to enter into a different form of discussions with its multilateral partners, because we will be moving from a situation where we are seeking to reach the target to one where we have met it and are seeking to sustain that. Not only will we be striving to have better delivery of our own aid programme, but we will have a much stronger standing internationally to deliver this for our partners around the world.
Even in the circumstances where we were meeting the target, as we were discussing in Committee, the NAO report recognised the work of DfID in delivering this. I think that the Bill addresses what my noble friends are seeking to achieve, which is that all factors with the proper delivery of aid will be reported to Parliament and will be afforded proper parliamentary scrutiny. Together with the 2006 Act, this legislation will provide for that ability. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the promoter of this Bill in this House, has said, as well as to my noble friend the Minister, who is no longer in her place. I have to say that neither of them went anywhere near addressing the points that I made.
I am glad to see that my noble friend the Minister is now back to grace us with her presence and hear what I have to say. I was surprised that she mentioned Jim O’Neill in this context. Like the noble Lord, Lord Reid, I know Jim O’Neill well, and at no time has he said —nor would he dream of saying—that the 0.7% target is necessary for human development. The 0.7% target is a great irrelevance. Look around the world at the big countries, the G7 countries. The other six have no intention of meeting that target. The ones who are nearest to it, France and Germany, contribute 0.4%. At the other end of the scale, Italy and United States contribute 0.2%. They have no intention of doing any more. Some of those countries are actually reducing the amount they give, for reasons that we have gone through before, which I shall not repeat now.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I understand the point that my noble friend makes but the purpose of the Bill, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, is to require the duty for independent evaluation to be carried out and then for the Government to state how that is carried out. It is the role of the Government then to provide that—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
Perhaps I could say that, after the Minister has spoken, only short questions of elucidation to the Minister are permitted on Report.
International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill
Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Lawson of Blaby(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lawson of Blaby
We will see about the support. I am sure my noble friend is right that there different views in different parts of the Committee, but it is significant—and I repeat this since perhaps she did not hear—that the Economic Affairs Committee of this House, which took extensive evidence on this, produced a unanimous all-party report with the conclusions that I summarised a moment ago.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I apologise for intervening on my noble friend. After five minutes he is obviously gearing up to begin his arguments. His amendment states,
“leave out first “the” and insert “a”.
That would change the wording of the Bill to:
“It is a duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the target for official development assistance”.
Does he actually mean to delete the second “the” in that sentence rather than the first “the”. Can he clarify that for the benefit of the Committee?
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I not only respect my noble friend but acknowledge the point that he makes. However, I will refer him to the Hansard of the Second Reading debate; I feel that I covered his point in detail there. I refer him not only to my speech but to that of his noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey. She said that,
“it is critical that people know from year to year how they are going to be able to finance projects. One of our great nightmares was that we never knew how much we were going to have”.—[Official Report, 23/1/15; col. 1523.]
Not only does the UK’s acceptance of the obligation mean that we have continual year planning; now that we have met the target, the question is its effective delivery, not concern about the level of support for the international aid budget in future. Because we have this international obligation and undertaking as a proportion of GNI, we have worked in recent years to ensure that our processes can be as robust as possible and that meeting the target can also be done in a sustainable way, with predictability for those who we need to provide support for, and with proper public and parliamentary scrutiny. Since my noble friend’s report in 2012, a considerable level of work has been done, not only on parliamentary scrutiny but on the functioning of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, now with over 40 reports, some of them critical of the department but many of them constructive. That is how we would expect an independent commission to carry out this role.
I do not think that anyone who supports the Bill would query at any stage that it is a complex budget in a circumstance where many areas of its delivery are the worst scenarios that you could possibly imagine for delivering a budget—war zones, areas where Governments are not functioning and so on. However, the NAO report, the OECD peer review, the Commons committee and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact all now have a serious body of work, done since 2012, that I genuinely think addresses the main considerations of my noble friends’ reports.
The question of whether it should be “a” or “the” in the first element is for the mover of the amended amendment to address. However, the substantive points made by my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord MacGregor have been addressed since the report. That is why, while of course we would value his contributions later in the debate, if we take him at his word that these assurances and the work that has been done since his report have been taken into consideration, I respectfully ask him not to press his amendments, and I ask my noble friend Lord Lawson not to press his.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate so far. I would like to reply to some of the points that have been made, not least by my noble friend Lord Purvis, who has just sat down. First, though, I thank the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees for his very helpful clarification of precisely what it is that we are debating in this amendment. The question of the amendment goes deeper, though, because what it is about—some of the later amendments are also about this—is introducing a degree of flexibility into the Bill. The reasons why that is necessary have been set out very well by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lord MacGregor.
It is quite impossible to debate this amendment without explaining why it is that, for a good Government, a degree of flexibility is necessary. The fact is that the 0.7% target is an anachronism. As my noble friend Lord Purvis mentioned, it was set in 1970, but the world has changed dramatically since then. What has changed it most is, in a word, globalisation: that is to say, the huge increase in both trade flows, which are the most important aspects for the developing world—I am strongly in favour of reducing barriers to imports from the developing world; that is what it needs and that is what we should do for it—and the huge increase in private capital flows, which my noble friend Lord Howell mentioned, and which are vital. Today, totally unlike the case in 1970, ODA is only 1/10th of the total amount of capital flows to the developing world. As the distinguished development economist Paul Collier said in evidence to us, aid is now “almost a sideshow”, although as my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others, and indeed our report, have pointed out, it has a much bigger effect on the extent of corruption in the developing world, for which the evidence is incontrovertible. One noble Lord has already mentioned the report by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on the so-called Private Infrastructure Development Group, which was produced this week in only the latest example.
There is a more fundamental problem about the 0.7% target, and it is development aid. I should respond to the very impassioned contribution from my noble friend Lord Fowler: this is not about humanitarian aid. As I said in my opening remarks, I believe that the case for increasing humanitarian aid is strong. This is about so-called development aid, aid for economic development, which is 90% of the DfID budget while humanitarian aid is a tiny part. Humanitarian aid needs the support of Governments; it is not exclusively for them, as charities and churches do good work in this area, but it is still a very strong responsibility of government, whereas capital flows, as my noble friend Lord Howell said, are now overwhelmingly private capital flows. The 0.7% target is therefore completely obsolete. That is no doubt why no other major country has the slightest intention of observing it. The G7, which consists of the major economies of the world—
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, I am very sorry for the cause of the disturbance. I hope the noble Baroness who had the slight accident is making a full recovery.
I will close by saying that I cannot accept for a moment what my noble friend the Minister said about how, if we had a five-year flexibility, that would put us at odds with the rest of the world, which accepts a one-year thing. The rest of the world is not doing 0.7%, as I pointed out. It is doing very much less. It does not want to make it legally binding. I have to say of my noble friend’s final remark—that we have to do this to influence and persuade the rest of the world to follow our example—that this is a post-imperial spasm of the worst kind. There is no way that the United States, to take one country at random, will say, “My goodness me, look at this wonderful Bill that the British Parliament has enacted. Therefore, we will do the same”. It has not the slightest intention to do that. Our leadership must be based on a number of factors—rather, our influence; alas, it is not as much leadership as it once was. But one thing our influence must not be based on is other countries saying that because we have passed this Bill they will do the same. That is nonsense. It is as well that we live in a world of reality and not the pipe dreams which evidently are the world in which DfID lives.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, I also reinforce the concern for the noble Baroness. We have had an hour on this group and even after that hour I am not any clearer as to what the movers of these amendments mean by “spread” or “average” over that five-year period. Indeed, after the very detailed explanation by the Minister, it is perfectly clear that these amendments would inhibit our ability to have better annual budgeting and programming, not only as part of the OECD DAC mechanisms but also with the relationship between DfID, the Treasury and those that, on our behalf, scrutinise their work in the NAO and publish data in the ONS.
Indeed, the long contribution on the NAO report—it seemed that this was a debate on that report rather than the amendment—fundamentally conflated two aspects of it. Paragraph 7 of the NAO report clearly indicated that the report is in two parts. One is the ODA target and the second is the large increase in its budget for us to meet our historic obligation to satisfy that. What stretched from that was a false conclusion that diluting the Bill would somehow enhance that ability.
Two points were specifically raised in the debate, so let me address them. One was: do we have an annual obligation and is that appropriate? As noble Lords who may not have been here for Second Reading but who have had the opportunity to read the debate will know, I was perfectly clear in citing the Pearson commission more than five decades ago, which analysed the benefit of both the concessional and direct flows of aid which was then replicated in an annual obligation.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I have just one very small point. I simply do not understand why my noble friend cannot grasp that a five-year target must allow more flexibility than one for one year. Does he think that if we have a six-month target, that would not mean less flexibility, or would it mean more, by his argument?
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My noble friend again conflates two aspects. One is that we are not dealing with annual programmes or annual work. Much of our work with multilateral partners is long term. Long-term programmes require long-term funding. Secondly, we operate within parliamentary budgets, so we have to have annual reporting in the Budget to Parliament to scrutinise it. Having the two together is not easy. Michael Moore and I accept that that is not easy. I cannot do any better than refer back to the speeches of my noble friend Lord Fowler and the Minister.
The final technical point made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth concerned the legal duty on Ministers. I think that the Bill is perfectly clear. It was outlined in the Commons scrutiny of the Bill. It is perfectly clear what the duties on Ministers are. It is also clear in Clause 3, entitled “Accountability to Parliament”, what are the duties on Ministers of accountability to Parliament.
International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill
Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Lawson of Blaby(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, the whole concept of seeking to add legislative exceptions to the UK meeting its international obligations, in comparison with other levels of expenditure choices that any Government of the day may make, is not consistent either with our undertaking to meet the 0.7% target or with the Bill. That alone would be sufficient reason for me not to accept the amendment, but there are two others.
The first is that the amendment does not make clear what “health spending” means. Is it health spending in England? Is it United Kingdom health spending? Is it health and social protection? Is it health and social care? Is it current health expenditure or health capital expenditure? The second proposed new paragraph of the amendment refers to education: is it education across all nations of the United Kingdom? I need not go on, other than to highlight the deficiency of the amendment.
The second reason is that the amendment is slightly confusing. I suspect that if I had accepted previous amendments for only one report over a five-year period, this amendment could not have been moved because it calls for annual reporting, which the mover of the amendment said was not an appropriate way to go forward because there should be a single five-year report.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My noble friend will have an opportunity to sum up this short debate. I am sure that, in his argument, he will do the best he can to defend what is an indefensible amendment.
Our legislation needs to be robust. Therefore, I think that the amendment is deficient in comparison with the 2006 Act and its reporting mechanisms—to which no one putting forward amendments has yet referred—and with the OECD DAC’s clear areas of reporting.
Finally, I addressed the points that my noble friend Lord Forsyth made before the break in proceedings today. Just because noble friends do not agree with my propositions, it does not necessarily mean that I have not answered the questions. Nevertheless, with what I hope is clarification regarding the deficiencies of the amendment and why I cannot accept it, in that spirit, I hope the mover will withdraw it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I referred to the very useful Library paper which shows that the UK’s contribution to development aid since the 1980s has gone up in absolute terms and, of course, as a proportion of overall expenditure. That is clear and it is something of which I, as a Liberal Democrat, am proud. It means that we have met our international obligations that were set many years ago, and we can now see a more reliable and predictable trend for that expenditure going forward. I take delight in answering my noble friend’s question because it is something that I am proud of.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, that most recent exchange between my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Purvis has been quite illuminating. I want to mention two points that came up in the discussion but, before I do so, I want to go back to the earlier remarks of my noble friend Lord Purvis. He was completely muddled and I would like to straighten him out. He said that this amendment was inconsistent with the amendment that sought to look at aid expenditure over a five-year period in connection with the target. Even if you look at it over five years, in this country, as in most countries, there is an annual Budget, an annual Autumn Statement, figures for public expenditure and figures for taxation, and they are all, and will continue to be, produced annually, even if the amendment relating to the five-year period, which was withdrawn, had been passed. So that does not change anything at all and there is no conflict whatever.
I now turn to the two matters that my noble friend Lord Forsyth and I raised, and my first point may be what lies, to some extent, behind the question put by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. At the moment, expenditure on aid is running at more than £11 billion a year. That is not far short of what we spend on the police. The police are not a protected programme and therefore, inevitably, given the overall policy to curb public expenditure, spending on the police will go down and spending on aid will go up. It will not be long before we are spending more on aid than on the police. No doubt my noble friend Lord Purvis will be, to use his own words, very proud of that, but that cannot go on for ever. You cannot have this ratchet effect year in, year out. We have the danger of terrorism in our midst and the police have all their other duties of catching and prosecuting criminals. We cannot have public expenditure on aid going up and up indefinitely, irrespective of the needs of other heads of expenditure. The technicalities of what education spending and health spending mean do not wash; they are just nitpicking. There is a fundamental point here that needs to be addressed.
However, on the other point that was raised, I am less dissatisfied because the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has admitted that if a future Government—we know where the present Government stand—take seriously the problems of spending on the police, the health service and education, and take the view that they cannot properly continue to increase aid spending, the term “legally binding” does not amount to a row of beans because all they have to do is present a statement to Parliament explaining why they are not increasing aid spending and are falling short of the 0.7% target. That is a great relief, and it will be a great relief to the people of this country. The commitment is a bit of a paper tiger. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, I wonder if I may draw this to a conclusion from my point of view before my noble friend sums up his amendments, without going down the sidetrack that some have gone down. As the Minister has indicated, Section 1(1) of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 states:
“It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament each year a report about international aid pursuant to the provisions of this Act”.
It is only Section 3 of that Act that is subsequently repealed by the measure before the House, and indeed that annual report will include a statement about how the arrangements for the independent evaluation of the extent to which ODA provided by the UK represents value for money. That is perfectly clear.
I am satisfied that the arrangements that need to be carried out to provide for independent evaluation should be carried out with the duties provided for under this legislation. It provides flexibility so that it is not constrained with regard to the body that carries that out. It is perfectly clear why that is the position of my right honourable friend Michael Moore, and I hope that that satisfies my noble friend.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
Yes. I think that we have had sufficient discussion for the day about Clause 5(2), but we have still not had a satisfactory answer about the rather important Clause 5(1), which says:
“The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the independent evaluation of the extent to which ODA provided by the United Kingdom represents value for money in relation to the purposes for which it is provided”.
What the arrangements are should be and must be in the Bill. They were originally, because there was a schedule setting up a new body to do it. The schedule was taken out, and there is now a vacuum. We are not told in the Bill what these arrangements are, which body will ensure and evaluate the extent to which the ODA provided gives value for money, and so on.
My noble friend suggested in this amendment, “Why not use the ICAI and put it on a statutory basis?”, and that can be done. That seems very sensible, and I am rather suspicious about the rejection of this amendment, because it suggests that they are trying to weasel out of any effective independent evaluation. If they are not, what are the arrangements for the evaluation? Why not the ICAI, or why not restore the other body that was there originally? That must be in the Bill. I suspect, having heard the noble Lord’s obduracy on this point, that we will have to come to this again on Report. However, it is a very real point. No satisfactory answer of any kind has been given, either by the Minister or by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, on a number of occasions today I have referred noble Lords to the Second Reading debate. In that debate I said that if this Bill passes, it will be because it is based on an entrenched and wide consensus across the three main political parties, external groups and the public, and it will become an enduring law. If a future Parliament chooses to repeal this legislation it will also be repealing that high degree of consensus. It would also have to be accountable to the electorate, and to some extent, constitutionally, that would be proper.
Therefore I end, with regret, by having to disappoint my noble friend Lord Forsyth. At the end of a long day, I record my appreciation for noble Lords whose support for the legislation Hansard will not be able to reflect—including the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, on the Opposition Benches, and my noble friend Lady Hodgson and other noble Lords on the Conservative Benches. Hansard does not always reflect the level of support or accurately reflect the opinions of Members in Committee. I hope I have corrected that. In that spirit, I hope that, after sunset, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, the hour is late so I shall be brief. My noble friend Lord Purvis made a point about this being agreed by all three political parties. That is true. That makes me worry. In my long experience, in most cases—not all, but most—when all three parties agree on something, they are wrong. There is a very good reason why that should be so. It means that the issue has not been properly examined. If there is not a proper political argument back and forth, there is not adequate examination. So I am afraid that the statement he made does not reassure me in the slightest.
As for the amendment before us, although my noble friend Lord Howell said that he disagreed with my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I think there was no conflict; I certainly agree with both of them. As far as my noble friend Lord Forsyth is concerned, I believe that we need to look at this new, greatly expanded aid programme and how it is working out. One of the problems, which has been alluded to briefly, is that the focus of aid is changing and more and more is going to fragile states and to what are often described as failed states. In those states the amount of corruption is absolutely appalling and there is nothing that DfID can do to eliminate that corruption, although it would like to. So one of the things that we will need to examine if there is a sunset clause and we want to renew this is whether we have, not deliberately, produced a machine that has significantly increased the amount of corruption, which is one of the great evils in these countries and, indeed, is one of the great reasons why they cannot lift their people out of poverty in the way that, happily, so many countries in the emerging world have done over the past few years. But there are others that have not, and that is where we are focusing our aid.
One of the most important things is the separation of economic and political power. This is fundamental to development. If people want to enrich themselves they go into the economic sphere; or they go, for different motives, into public service and the political sphere. If you do not have this separation and people go into politics in order to enrich themselves, which happens in a large number of countries, that is where it is so damaging and where aid will not help. That is why it needs to be reviewed at the end of five years.
Another valid point made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth is that the Minister said explicitly that one of the main purposes of the Bill was to set an example to the rest of the world. Fine. Actually, I do not think that is fine; it is not a proper reason for legislation. But leaving that aside, if that is the reason, after five years we can see whether the United States, Germany, France and Italy have followed suit. I am willing to have a modest wager with the Minister that in five years’ time—if I am still alive in five years’ time, which is unlikely—they will not have followed suit. Our efforts to get other countries to follow our example will prove to have failed, and that is another reason why Parliament should have positively to re-enact this legislation, if it wants to do so.
The final and important point made by my noble friend Lord Howell is that the world has changed—a point that I also made in an earlier amendment—and that there are better ways of trying to creating a better world than dishing out development aid. If that is so and we find that other countries are doing a better job by other means—we do not have time to discuss them now, but my noble friend has sketched them—that is another reason why Parliament should be required to take stock at the end of five years rather than ploughing on with this.
This is not chickenfeed: we are already spending well over £11 billion a year on aid. As a result of this Bill, this amount is scheduled to go on rising inexorably, year in, year out, if the economy is growing. We all hope that the economy will grow—even my noble friend the Minister wishes to see the economy grow—and, if it does, this will get bigger and bigger, year in, year out. However, if this is not the best way to achieve a better world in which there is less poverty and more economic development, we certainly do not want to continue with it.
If this Bill becomes an Act, its first five years will be a test bed. We want a provision that Parliament is obliged to address this issue anew at the end of five years. I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment.