Incident in Salisbury

Lord Trimble Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Certainly, Public Health England worked in conjunction with the police in the immediate aftermath of this event. It is clearly involved in the ongoing recovery of the individuals concerned. I will take that point back and provide an answer for the noble Baroness if I can.

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

My Lords, there appears to be a difference between the Litvinenko case and this case in that, in the former case, a substance was used that left a very clear track and it was very easy to follow through on it. In the current case, however, it appears from what has been said that the nerve agent that was used does not appear to have left a trail, or if it has done, there has been no comment about it so far. It might be that lessons were learned by the perpetrator in the current case from the Litvinenko case. I hope that we will also learn—or have learned—the lessons from our handling of the Litvinenko case, where the initial response, lasting for quite some time, was quite inadequate. Commentators have said that it very clearly left the perpetrators with the feeling that we were a soft touch. Therefore, we will have to be even more robust in our response this time than might have been the case if we had not had that not-so-good example before us.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I know that I am going to disappoint my noble friend when I say that the cause of the two individuals’ illness is currently subject to investigation. It is not appropriate at this time to comment or to link it to other cases, but what I can say to my noble friend, in concurring with him, is that there are always lessons to be learned on how we respond to emergency situations and situations of this nature.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord Trimble Excerpts

Friday 6th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

Yes; and indeed that seems a very tempting preview of the debate on the next amendment. My noble friend Lord Forsyth will no doubt make that point then.

The United Kingdom has given an undertaking to meet the 0.7% target. In 1970, that related to gross national product; now, it relates to gross national income. The target has been further developed by the OECD Development Assistance Committee, which recognises that this is indeed the international standard to meet. It is therefore a mature, settled and respected target in an undertaking which the United Kingdom has given over many decades to meet. It is with considerable pride that we have met it.

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I will give way to my noble friend in just a moment. The questions about the undertaking we have given are, first, whether it is appropriate to have an annual target; and, secondly, how we can best monitor whether the spend within that budget is being delivered appropriately. These were thoroughly rehearsed in the Second Reading debate. They have been, and continue to be, analysed by the Commons International Development Committee. They have been reviewed by the OECD Development Assistance Committee in its peer review report in 2014, which I quoted at Second Reading. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Fowler has indicated, the National Audit Office report has been thoroughly investigating this. I will come to my noble friend Lord MacGregor’s point in a moment after giving way to my noble friend Lord Trimble.

[Lord Trimble]

I am not going to quibble with 0.7%, nor with the idea of the target. However, will the noble Lord address the question about putting a statutory target down and the problems that then arise from the inflexibility of that? The target itself, if you just think of the concept of a target, contains the notion of flexibility. That is the issue that is at stake here: putting down a target that is inflexible and the consequences that follow from that.

[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.