ISIL in Syria
Debate between Alan Duncan and Angus Brendan MacNeil(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Alan Duncan
No.
Thirdly, we have to see this threat in the context of even greater regional dangers. We are witnessing the collapse of nation states across potentially the whole of Arabia, along with the violent release of centuries of sectarian hatred. A crucial element of our policy should be to try to stop this spreading. That means that we must support stable rule within the six countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council. Those who just attack the conduct of our Gulf allies simply do not understand the horror that would be unleashed by further instability in the region. Even now, we face the real prospect of an arc of brutality and terrorism stretching from Syria, through Iraq to Yemen, and right across in a terrifying link with the horn of Africa.
Fourthly, we cannot turn away from this threat and subcontract our obligations. If we are to pursue the destruction of ISIS/Daesh, rebuild stable government, underpin wider stability and make all of that—
Sir Alan Duncan
No. And make all of that a serious and convincing objective of our foreign policy, we must be part of the convoy that is trying to do it. We cannot negligently—as I would see it—watch it roll by while not playing our part. Put frankly, our international reputation has suffered from the parliamentary vote in August 2013. Our allies now question—
Sir Alan Duncan
No. Our allies now question whether we can be relied upon when they call for joint assistance. If we choose today to remain on the sidelines, especially when a new and unequivocal UN resolution is in place, it will signal to the world that the UK has, indeed, chosen to withdraw. We should not be in the business of national resignation from the world stage. Perhaps the paradox of our position today is not that we are doing too much, but that we are doing too little.
If I do have a concern—again, I look directly at the Leader of the Opposition—it is that the action I hope we will vote for tonight is not the whole answer, and the Prime Minister is not pretending that it is. The hope that local, so-called moderate forces can do the job on the ground and somehow put Humpty Dumpty together again is, of course, more of an act of faith than a certain plan, but it is wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to dismiss their significance and conclude that their composition is sufficient reason to do nothing.
I think we should carry this motion tonight. We have to carry it with our eyes open, knowing that we are flying into a mess that shows no easy prospect of being quickly resolved, but we cannot leave a vile force unchallenged. These air strikes do matter. I believe they are justified, but I also think that the future judgment of the Prime Minister about what then follows will eventually become more important than the decision we will take tonight.
Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL
Debate between Alan Duncan and Angus Brendan MacNeil(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Duncan
My whole point is that we have to live with that uncertainty, because we are living in an age that lacks the clarity of the past, but that does not mean that we do nothing. We will be acting in a region the turmoil and disruption of which are more difficult to comprehend than anything we have ever seen, and that means—and this is exactly my answer to my right hon. Friend—that the path ahead is far from obvious. Personally, I have been in favour of the UK taking action only if it is part of a co-ordinated international effort. We now have that, and it is reassuring to be alongside Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and of course the United States and France. Again I say that none of this will be straightforward. Wisdom is not weakness, particularly in the middle east. In the complicated melee of today’s middle east, we would be wise to appreciate that we are confronting a new threat in a new way, and therefore we should calibrate our expectations accordingly.
In passing, I must say that I am a little uncomfortable with the language of some people—essentially outside this House—who seem to see this decision as a test of the United Kingdom’s virility. That is no way to look at this issue, and it harks back to an age and a mentality that simply do not suit the world of today. The country needs to know why we are doing this. The justification for our involvement is best expressed in terms of what it will do to improve Iraq, its people and the region itself and less well expressed by saying that it is mainly because terrorists directly threaten us here in the UK. That threat exists anyway, and it will not be eliminated even if ISIL is forced into submission.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) said, we must also be realistic about how little we really know. The rise of ISIL has taken us all by surprise, and knowing in detail and with confidence who they are and what exactly is happening on the ground will not be easy. Our well of understanding about the region has run rather dry. If I might say so, this House would do better not to be so quick to mock the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway).
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. Is he uneasy about the way in which the gates are being opened in this motion? The motion could open up the possibility of the UK bombing in Iraq for up to the next 10 years, because it is open-ended.
Sir Alan Duncan
Let me answer the hon. Gentleman this way, because it really is my main point. We are looking at not one country invading another or a national army marching across the border, but a conflict without borders and the advance of non-state actors who have no national identity, no seat in the UN and no coherent political structure. The threat is not from a rogue state or a vicious dictator, but from a poisonous, viral movement that is cutting a swathe of grisly barbarity across the region from Syria to Iraq. That enemy can morph into al-Qaeda one day, disappear into the crowd and come back again the next. We can resolve to beat it, but it is not the same as fighting a country.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) sensibly asked, what can we target? What can we hit? How can we be sure that we are bombing in the right way? Can we perhaps disable infrastructure rather than destroy it, and how will we continue to be effective from the air should ISIL forces move into a dense urban settlement? For all those reasons, we must expect to give our Prime Minister flexibility and discretion, without us descending into political recriminations. He must be allowed to adapt and amend our actions to suit the unfolding acts on the ground and in my opinion—this is a view that has been expressed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member and for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke),—that should not exclude spreading air attacks into the deserts of Syria.
In conclusion, taking on ISIL is not just about bombs. It requires comprehensive confrontation—diplomatic, social, religious, cultural, educational and financial and through the media and the use of intelligence—and ISIL must be beaten on all fronts. This may go on for years; it might not. Today, we should be prepared to start our action, but, equally, should it ever become too impractical or inappropriate to fight from the air, then we should also, without shame, stain or blame, be prepared to stop it.
Overseas Voluntary Sector
Debate between Alan Duncan and Angus Brendan MacNeil(14 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr MacNeil
Again, my remarks have been anticipated. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. It is important that money is spent properly and that, if changes are made, there is a managed transition, not a breakneck-speed shift overnight.
VSO has also helped in one of the most important government activities, without which there would no health care, no education and no spending. It has helped the Governments of Bangladesh and Sierra Leone specifically to collect taxes from their people. Perhaps Ministers’ eyes will light up at this point—perhaps not—but that is a sign that people are getting round to trusting their Governments. Perhaps some hon. Members would like VSO to go into the City of London to ensure that every penny of tax is paid. But I digress. VSO’s work in that regard shows that corruption abroad can be tackled, that the high-value components we take for granted in our civic lives can be established and that normal society can start to be built.
VSO specialises in capacity building. It takes nationals from various countries—mainly the United Kingdom—and places them mainly in less fortunate countries. The value of the professionalism of volunteers, if they were to be paid what the market paid them before they joined VSO, would be some £18 million. Hon. Members might want to think about that. Volunteers forgo £18 million in wages annually, presumably based on a 40-hour week, but on top of that they move abroad. However, it is not quite the abroad that we know or as we like to imagine it—it is the other abroad of malaria and dengue fever. I met a volunteer in Phnom Penh who was getting over a rather nasty dose of dengue fever. Of course, volunteers are often abroad in a village with no electricity and, perhaps, no running water—for not just 40 hours a week, but 168 hours a week and 24/7.
Volunteers build capacity in education and health. They build capacity wherever it is needed. They are ordinary men and women and I would argue, perhaps controversially in the current surroundings, that they have a greater sense of service than politicians, although, in fairness, most politicians get into politics to serve society. However, these people seem to get into volunteering to serve humanity.
These examples are just the tip of the iceberg and I am sure—I know—that other organisations do good work as well. However, this is threatened by what could happen to just 1% of the DFID budget. My colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), raised the following matter in his intervention. VSO received 51% of its funding last year—less than a third of 1% of DFID’s budget in that period—from DFID. Almost a decade ago, VSO received 90% of its funding from that source, but this year it is projected to fall to 48% and in five years it will be less than 40%.
The problem stems from that rainy afternoon, where I read in point 2 of the FAQs titled, “Proposal and Logical Framework information”:
“Successful applicants cannot receive a PPA which is more than 40% of their annual income, averaged over the previous three years.”
That would be immediate from next April.
I know and hope that the Government’s heart—like that of every hon. and right hon. Member in this Chamber—is in the right place, but do they realise what a sudden swing of the axe could do? It could equate to a reduction of volunteers by 50% and reduce the number of beneficiaries—the 26 million who are affected, reached and touched by VSO programmes—to 12 million. In short, the cuts will not hurt VSO as much as they will hurt those who benefit from the help and aid.
Organisations such as One World Action and Progressio will be pushed to cut where it is administratively quickest and easiest. Cuts will be too quick and too deep; transitional arrangements will be hard to make, if indeed they can be made at all. However, DFID is receiving an increase in funding. It is one of four Whitehall Departments to receive an increase, and one of two Departments, together with the Cabinet Office, to receive a double-digit increase in funding. According to the comprehensive spending review, the Cabinet Office budget has risen by 28% and that of DFID by 37%. On the surface, that seems to bode well for all organisations that use DFID funds. However, an increase in the departmental administration budget seems not to guarantee the safety of funds that go to the overseas voluntary sector.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
Perhaps it might help to shape the rest of the debate if I were to point out that the partnership programme agreement funding is but one source of possible funding streams for voluntary organisations. If there is, as there will be, a 40% cap on a PPA, that is not necessarily a 40% cap on all the money that could go to a voluntary organisation. Such organisations could, for instance, also apply for in-country funds.
Mr MacNeil
I greatly welcome the tone of the Minister’s remarks. They seem to indicate that the door is ajar, and that he is ready to ensure that the transition happens in the managed way that all in the Chamber would hope for and expect. The threat is perhaps not so great given that opening door from the Minister, and we have heard of the value of volunteering from the Prime Minister. I hope that I am wrong, and that this is not an instance where one arm of the Government is not fully aware of what another arm might do. In reality, we have been told that the PPA will give no organisation more than 40% of what they received, although the Minister now indicates differently and I am pleased at that.
What does the Department intend to do with the increase in funds? Under current budgetary plans, DFID’s budget will rise from £7.8 billion to £11.5 billion over the next four to five years.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
I thank the hon. Member for Western Isles—[Laughter.] I have copped out—for initiating the debate, which is particularly poignant in the light of the recent death of Linda Norgrove in Afghanistan, who came from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We have people like Linda in mind when we approach this debate.
I welcome the opportunity to address the issue of international development and the important contribution that can be made by the voluntary sector. I assure hon. Members that the coalition Government are certainly not reducing the budget for the work of the voluntary sector overseas. Indeed, as will be seen, we have set out our plans for increasing support to the most effective voluntary organisations. Over the years, Britain has established a global reputation for its work on international development, as a result of the work of successive UK Governments and the contributions from civil society, the private sector and UK citizens.
Mr MacNeil
I shall not say Na h-Eileanan an Iar again. What the Minister said sounded very welcome on first hearing. Is he guaranteeing that VSO organisations that believe their funding will be cut will not suffer a sudden drop in their funding but will be able to continue on their expected path—that come this April, the axe will not be falling?
Mr Duncan
I shall come to that point more specifically in a moment. In short, the answer is that I am not going to guarantee that individual organisations will have all their funding guaranteed in perpetuity. The whole point of what the Department is doing is to establish value for money, but I shall come to those arguments later.
Mr MacNeil
Our argument is not for funding in perpetuity, but for managed funding transitions and changes. We do not want a sudden drop in April. We want organisations to be able to manage the changes that are already projected, with spending being limited to below 40% in the next three to four years. I ask the Minister to take that on board, and to ensure that the good work that we heard about from all Members is not threatened in any way. That is a really serious point.
Mr Duncan
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I shall deal with it later in more detail, but we believe that there are additional components in any organisation’s potential funding that will allow flexibility and additional funding on top of the core funding. That could—although it is not necessarily guaranteed—sustain the level of funding that they hope for.
The House will be aware that, despite the difficult economic challenges, the coalition Government have publicly stated that we will not balance the books on the backs of the world’s poor. We have protected the aid budget, and made a firm commitment to achieving the aid target of 0.7% of gross national income from 2013. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have shown tremendous courage and leadership at a time when many were calling for reductions in the UK’s aid budget.
Tackling poverty is not only a moral imperative; it is in Britain’s self-interest. Well spent UK aid is one of the best investments we can make. Not only does it enable poor people to improve their lives, but it is good for our economy, our environment, our safety and our future. Quite simply, it is tremendous value for money. Our vision is simple. It is to make life better for the poorest in the poorest countries.
There is clear evidence that aid works. Over the past 25 years, we have seen 500 million fewer people living in poverty despite the rapid growth in the world’s population. In 2007-08, UK Aid trained more than 100,000 teachers, vaccinated 3 million children against measles and supplied just short of 7 million anti-malaria bed nets. However, we should not underestimate the scale of the challenges that we face. Some 25,000 children die every day from easily preventable and treatable diseases; and 1.4 billion people still live on less than $1.25 a day, more than two thirds of them being women and girls. Those factors, as well as new challenges such as climate change, mean that we need to maintain and strengthen our efforts.
I recognise the valuable contribution made by international voluntary organisations, many of which are effective in tackling poverty and promoting growth. They deliver services to improve the lives of poor and marginalised people, often in places that official donors do not reach. They enable citizens to be more effective participants in decisions that affect their lives. They hold Governments and others to account, and they assist public engagement in development. It is for those reasons that the UK places importance on building and maintaining the capacity and space for an active civil society; it is part of our overall approach to international development.
Members will be aware that an important part of the UK voluntary sector’s work overseas includes the special contribution of international volunteering organisations. Such organisations make a valuable contribution by offering UK citizens and others a unique opportunity to make a practical difference to poor people’s lives in developing countries by sharing their skills, their knowledge and their commitment. I pay special tribute to former volunteers who have returned to the UK from their overseas assignments and are putting their knowledge, skills and learning to good use in their local communities. Some, it seems, are in the Chamber doing just that.
The House will be aware that in October the Prime Minister announced a new scheme to support international volunteering. The international citizen service will give thousands of young adults in the UK the opportunity to join the fight against poverty by volunteering in developing countries. Volunteering is a powerful way to experience other cultures, and it allows the returned volunteers to broaden the UK’s public understanding of global poverty.
The Department for International Development funds voluntary organisations in many ways. More than 50% of the support provided by DFID to civil society organisations is made through DFID’s country offices. The remainder is provided from central funds. I shall come to these shortly. In 2009-10, DFID provided £362 million to UK civil society organisations to assist in poverty reduction overseas. That was equivalent to roughly 9% of UK bilateral assistance. Additionally, DFID provides support to many local voluntary organisations in those countries where the UK has a presence. The UK also supports voluntary organisations indirectly, through contributions to the United Nations, the European Commission and other multilateral organisations.
Through those investments, we have been able to achieve significant results. With DFID support, Care UK is working with the private sector in India to provide affordable micro-insurance to 210,000 families in disaster-affected communities; the Gender Links programme in Malawi has contributed to an increase in women’s representation in its Parliament from 14% to 22% in the May 2009 national elections; and WaterAid is helping 1 million people gain access to clean water and sanitation in Asia and Africa. These are significant results, and the UK can and should take pride in them.
The coalition Government are strongly committed to supporting effective civil society organisations. The House will be aware that DFID is providing support to civil society organisations over the next three years through its PPAs, or programme partnership arrangements.
Mr MacNeil
Aid works—as the Minister said, fewer are in poverty, and he gave a list of impressive statistics. However, I have to say that I am not as heartened as I was when he intervened on me. Will he work to ensure that there is a manageable and careful transition—the £26 million being reduced to £12 million—without damaging any of the good work?
I say this with open hands: I do not want the Minister to find himself painted into a corner. I am sure he is not trying to do that. I ask for the flexibility of approach that will enable this good work to remain intact. That is really important. I know he might not feel able to give a full commitment this morning, but he might want to give himself wriggle room to make the transition manageable. It is most important, but it is above politics.
Mr Duncan
There is plenty of scope in the way the system works to give the hon. Gentleman a solid degree of reassurance and the comfort he seeks. I shall explain the components of the system; it might lead him to feel he has had that reassurance.
I start with the programme partnership arrangements, the crux of our funding debate. They provide flexible funding. That is the key. A flexible contract emerges from the PPAs for those partners that get a three-year funding deal. The PPAs provide funding for some of the best-performing organisations, and they are highly competitive. We also want to ensure that voluntary organisations do not become dependent on DFID funds. That is a key part of the argument. That is why, in the next round of PPA funding that begins in 2011, DFID will provide funding to a maximum of 40% of an organisation’s annual income. That is what we have been discussing this morning.
Our commitment to supporting voluntary organisations extends far beyond the PPAs. In October, the Government launched a new £40 million a year global poverty action fund, and projects will be selected on the basis of demonstrable impact on poverty, the clarity of their outcomes and the value for money they offer.
Let me respond to some of the contributions made this morning, which will add further detail to our discussion. We have covered—if not wholly to the satisfaction of the Member for Western Isles—the shortfall point.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet asked if the 40% threshold should apply to an organisation’s global income. We have to look at the audited accounts of any such organisation. Looking at global income compared with UK-only income, we see that UK-only income is the major component of British voluntary organisations’ income. For instance, for VSO in the year 2009-10, the UK-only income was about £50 million and the global income was about £60 million. So, yes, my hon. Friend’s suggestion would make a difference, but the difference between global income and UK-only income is not so huge that it is—let us say—a multiple of the amount of money that would otherwise emerge from a PPA.
My hon. Friend also asked if his charity, or the likes of it, could be represented on the Disasters Emergency Committee. DEC is not in the gift of DFID. It is a voluntary alliance of the UK’s biggest charities and is designed to co-ordinate urgent action in response to any large-scale disaster. So, membership of DEC is more about scale and urgent response than anything else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) asked whether we could support overseas apprenticeships. That is why we are supporting the new international citizen service, so there is scope for a very positive outcome regarding the objectives set by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) asked how we can support volunteer organisations. Let me outline again the components of our support. We offer support through PPAs; through in-country funds, which have significant scope for supplementing anything that emerges out of the capped 40% of a PPA; through challenge funds, which can do the same, and now we also have both the global poverty action fund and the international citizen service. So there are many routes through which the total picture of a volunteering organisation’s funding can be pieced together.
Mr Duncan
I will give way one more time in a moment.
The key for the coalition, at a time when we are under enhanced scrutiny of the way we spend our development money, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet rightly said, is that we must look for quality and value for money in everything we do. We also need to enhance the process by which we do that—hence, the various components I have just outlined—and not just offer a lump sum of funding through a PPA.
Mr MacNeil
One point I want to draw to his attention is that I fear that organisations that are holding PPA money are unable to apply for or access other pots of money from DFID. I am not certain whether the Minister is saying today that they will now be able to do that, or that other organisations might come in. However, the difficulty is that we have this transition phase; the organisations are planning for that change anyway, but it is just the speed of the change that is a concern. It is in April—or two or three years from next April—that the change is due, and I ask him to allow some latitude to ensure that it is a managed and not a brutal change.
Mr Duncan
I would wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman if there were to be a sudden cut with no alternative funding stream or transitional source, but that is not the picture. Yes, there will be a cap of 40% on the underlying three-year agreement, but I have just outlined three, four, even five different channels that an organisation, if it can show value for money, can readily use to supplement what he describes as a “shortfall”.
For example, if we take an organisation that might have, through its PPA, 50% of its annual income paid for by DFID, and that figure goes down to 40%, it is not beyond possibility that that 10% difference can once again be made up from the alternative funding sources I have outlined.