Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Tony Baldry

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to emphasise the importance of this. I referred earlier to the Government’s commitment on water and sanitation, and it is because of the importance of the agenda he has identified that I will be attending the conference myself.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the whole of the DFID budget is effectively allocated and that, if non-governmental organisations or others exhort him to spend more money on one aspect of international development, however worthwhile, it behoves them to explain where in the departmental budget other savings need to be made?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole of the international development budget now focuses on outputs and outcomes, buying results, with the added extra that we now have an independent watchdog that can assure taxpayers that the money is really well spent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Tony Baldry

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

8. What development support he is providing to Burma.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

The coalition Government have doubled British aid to Burma. If progress on political reform continues, we will be able to do much more.

[Tony Baldry]

Does my right hon. Friend consider that there is sufficient substance to the reforms in Burma? Is he confident that money provided by DFID for humanitarian relief is getting to the areas where it is needed, such as the Chin state?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend poses the key question of whether these reforms are real. The fact that the regime in Burma has now released nearly all its political prisoners—particularly Min Ko Naing whom many Members campaigned to see released—is an enormously encouraging sign. The real test will come with the 48 by-elections due to take place before April. We will see how those elections are conducted and whether they are free and fair. If they are, that will be the most eloquent possible answer to my hon. Friend’s question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Tony Baldry

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us have a bit of order for the former Chairman of the International Development Select Committee, Mr Tony Baldry.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is the first UK Minister to have visited Burma for a very long time. Will he please take this opportunity to update the House on the outcome of that visit, particularly on his discussions with Aung San Suu Kyi?

[Mr Mitchell]

It does appear that the political tectonic plates are moving in Burma. The Government of Burma have made it clear that they are committed to releasing the political prisoners—in particular, Min Ko Naing, one of the leaders of the students of 1988—and also committed to the 48 by-elections proceeding. Aung San Suu Kyi and her party have said that they will stand in those elections. We await credible elections with fair and open results.

Aid Reviews

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Tony Baldry

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The Under-Secretary of State for International Development will be visiting Wales shortly. I reciprocate the comments of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) about St David’s day. In regard to Lesotho, we think that there are better ways of supporting that country than through a bilateral programme, for the reasons that I set out earlier. When my hon. Friend goes to Wales and meets Members of the Welsh Assembly, I am sure that this is one of the matters that can be discussed.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend make two things clear to the NGOs? The first is that they have a shared responsibility with us to make it clear that international development is a moral obligation as well as being in our national interest? The second is that, given that international development aid is now at 0.6% of GDP and will soon be at 0.7%, if people want more aid spent on a specific topic or area, it behoves them to explain which part of my right hon. Friend’s programme they want money to be taken away from, because the Department has now reached the maximum amount of funds that it is going to have during the course of this Parliament.

[Mr Mitchell]

I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend’s message to the NGOs. They also have a strong agenda of accountability and transparency, and we encourage them strongly in that. The workings of the Global Poverty Action Fund will greatly simplify the way in which NGOs access taxpayer support, and will also be very effective in driving forward that agenda.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Tony Baldry

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

9. What plans he has to provide support for the new UN Women agency; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

The coalition Government strongly support the new UN Women agency, which has the chance to make a hugely positive impact on the lives of millions of girls and women in the developing world. I look forward to receiving its strategic results plan, which will allow us to decide on funding by the British taxpayer for future years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

We expect to see a strategic plan from UN Women probably in June this year, and as soon as we see it, we will be able to make decisions about British support for the agency. I am sure the hon. Lady and other Members will understand that I want to see the plan first, before committing hard-earned British taxpayers’ money to it.

[Tony Baldry]

From the experience of the many visits my right hon. Friend has made across the world, does he agree that very often it is women who are the agents for change in development? Just as UNICEF has helped to support the focus on children, so it is to be hoped that UN Women can help support women as agents for change and development.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot even begin to address development without realising the centrality of girls and women in every aspect of what we do, and we share his aspirations for the role of UN Women within the international structures.

Global Poverty

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Tony Baldry

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and not unreasonable point. However, the balance of judgment that has to be made is whether this money should come out of the ring-fenced development budget. As I said, we intend, in very difficult economic circumstances, to seek to carry the country with us as regards the validity of this budget. I have explained in some detail why that is so important on moral grounds, as well as on national self-interest grounds. I feared that the budget was in danger of being discredited by some of the existing schemes that I have decided to stop, and that is why I made that decision.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

There is a simple test for all the Department’s spending—does it fall within the definition of international development set by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee? Clearly, none of these schemes did. If we are going to have ring-fenced spending, we will need to ensure that it falls within the DAC definition.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about value for money.

I suggest to the House that we will not be able to maintain public support for Britain’s vital development budget unless we can demonstrate to the public’s satisfaction that this money is really well spent. The lights have been burning late in DFID as we embark on our ambitious programme of reform. In the seven weeks since the election, we have wasted no time in laying the foundations for a fundamentally new approach to development—an approach rooted in rigorous, independent evaluation, full transparency, value for money, and an unremitting focus on results. Our Government will place the same premium on the quality of aid that the previous Government placed on the quantity of aid. We will judge performance against outputs and outcomes rather than inputs.

Hard-pressed taxpayers need to know that the expenditure of their money is being scrutinised fully and is really delivering results. We are therefore working to develop an independent aid watchdog, as we consistently promised throughout the past four years, to evaluate the effectiveness of DFID’s spending. We will also modify the way that aid programmes are designed so that gathering rigorous evidence of impact is built in from the day they start. This will allow us to take decisions about how we spend and allocate aid on the basis of solid evidence. I expect to report to the House shortly on both of those initiatives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Tony Baldry

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I am afraid that I cannot comment on leaked documents that the shadow Secretary of State has got. On his first point about the Secretary of State for Defence, perhaps I could draw his attention to the press conference that was given in Kabul by me and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the text of that press conference, he will see that one could not get a cigarette paper between my views and those of the Secretary of State for Defence.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May I just say how delighted we all are to see my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench? They are a fantastic team: he did brilliant work in opposition, and I am sure that he will do brilliant work in government.

However much value for money my right hon. Friend manages to get out of his Department, our colleagues in the G8 must also do their bit. The UK has met the targets that we set ourselves at Gleneagles, but does he not find it a matter of concern that France, Germany and Italy are so substantially lagging behind what they promised at Gleneagles that they would do to meet those targets?