Foreign Aid Expenditure

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

I would like to make a little more progress, and then I will accept further interventions.

The issue can be emotive and controversial for some. It is far too easy to get caught up in the attention-grabbing headlines or misled by the wildly exaggerated information out there in the public domain. People want to know how the money is spent and whether it is being spent in our interest, and rightly so. That was clearly demonstrated in the Twitter discussion held this afternoon, in which the Chair of the Select Committee on International Development, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), and I participated. We had about 3,000 contributions in just an hour. In fact, it was impossible to keep up with the number of people posting, let alone respond to them all, but it was clear from that discussion that there are strong feelings on both sides of the debate.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that there are concerns. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) set up the traffic light system that shows how our aid budget is being spent. There are far too many red and amber warnings about how well the money is being spent, and that is what the public are concerned about.

[Steve Double]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely essential that we ensure our aid budget is being spent well and wisely and is delivering value for money for the British taxpayer. I am sure that the Department for International Development is committed to achieving that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), a fellow member of the International Development Committee, and I agree with many of her points. It is important for Members to understand the reason why we are here today, which is not only the petition but the fact that it was started by The Mail on Sunday, which said when talking about our aid budget:

“Rather than helping people who desperately need it, much of this money is wasted and…fuels corruption, funds despots and corrodes democracy in developing nations.”

Quite frankly, that is lazy and wrong, and it is irresponsible for anyone who cares about our national security and global security—

[Mrs Main]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way in a moment, but let me make a few points. It is important to note that there is both a moral argument and a practical and national security argument for why we should spend 0.7% on aid. The moral argument should shame us all. As a Christian, I think it is appalling that 800 women die every day in childbirth and 20,000 children die every day from preventable diseases. We can list the statistics, which should shame us all. It is irresponsible for us to ignore those in a world where poverty, insecurity and instability have consequences for our streets and our cities.

Gross poverty has fuelled instability in Yemen. There are ungoverned spaces there where militants can train and extremism can flourish. The Mail on Sunday is quite happy to tell us about the immigrants flooding towards us—it was happy to put that on its front page instead of the massacre in Orlando—but what it does not tell us is that many of those people trying to find a better future are fleeing because of the very poverty and insecurity that our aid aims to tackle. Do we seriously think that diseases such as Ebola and other pandemics, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic, resist borders? Of course they do not. Our aid plays a crucial role in tackling such diseases.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman said that there is nothing in the corruption point. If he reads the ICAI report on anti-corruption and DFID, he will see that it is on red-amber, showing that there are serious concerns about our 0.7% budget being used corruptly in some areas.

Refugees: UK Government Policy

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Arkless]

The responsibility is with the Government and this place to decide what our moral contribution is. There should then be discussions with local authorities to see what capacity they have and to come to some sort of agreement. The responsibility rests with this place and its elected Members to decide what our moral obligation is.

Striking the right balance between helping people in the region and those who have fled is crucial and the Prime Minister should encourage further debate in Europe on how those currently displaced within the EU could be spread proportionately. Would it not be refreshing if the UK was the voice of humanity in the EU?

It is estimated that 26,000 unaccompanied children came to Europe in 2015. Last month, we were told by Europol that 10,000 of those little kids are missing. A third of the total number of refugees entering Europe are children. Article 26 of the universal declaration of human rights and the European convention on human rights remind us that we have a moral duty to ensure that these children receive an education. That is non-negotiable, yet the ever-likely scenario is that these unaccompanied minors are more likely to fall into the hands of trafficking rings than to attend a lesson that could inspire their future.

We fully back Save the Children’s call to the Government to give sanctuary to 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees. If we do not do that, what will we say to them: “Oops, sorry, we are one of the richest countries in the world, but we can take only a few hundred of you”? Will that clear our conscience and alleviate our moral obligations as elected Members? I think not. The UK must act now to take more than a fair share of these kids. They are children, for goodness sake. I cannot imagine that this place will ignore that call. Surely it will not.

There are strong economic indicators and arguments for welcoming refugees into the UK, supported recently by 120 leading economists in a letter to the Prime Minister. Even the Home Office has admitted in its own reports that migrants have offered a net contribution, which runs into billions. Time and again, migrants prove that they put in more than they take out, which prompts the question: what are the UK Government afraid of? Call me a cynic, but I think it is UKIP.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I am looking at how many Back Benchers want to speak. I will call the Front Benchers at 5.23, so I hope hon. Members will do the maths and make way for their colleagues to speak. Otherwise, I will have to impose a limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask that interventions be brief, especially as the hon. Lady is not down on the list to speak. I am mindful that other colleagues wish to speak.

[Helen Whately]

I am surprised by that account, because of what I saw when I was there. I think that it is widely accepted that the vast majority of people in the Calais area are men rather than women. Of course, that is not to say that there will not be both men and women from those professions. It is tempting to have an asylum policy whereby we welcome people who have particular skills that we need as a country, but I do not think that would necessarily be right. I think it is better to prioritise people by their need, rather than our need. Also, I would be worried about taking people from Calais, because I think that that would create a pull factor for people to come across Europe to Calais. It is so much better to take people from the region, rather than tempting them to come here.

As I said, I have been to Turkey. The conditions in the refugee camp that I saw were pretty good. I know that many people are choosing not to be in the refugee camps, because they want to work, but for most people it is at least a safe environment. I know that it is not for all people, and particularly for some from minority religions, but for many people in the region it is safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask that hon. Members divide the time among themselves—it is roughly five minutes each—as opposed to me imposing a time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Front Benchers, I remind Members that this debate will finish at 5.43 pm. It is customary to allow a minute or two for the proposer of the debate to sum up at the end. I will be calling Anne McLaughlin as the Scottish National party spokesperson, although she is sitting on the Back Bench—I am just explaining for other Members who are watching.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I will be very quick.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I was going to call the Minister in about 30 seconds.

[Bob Stewart]

I will take seconds. Unaccompanied children need to be properly processed, because if we act too fast they might never see their parents or their other relatives again. We have to get that processing right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I am sorry, but there is not time. Otherwise, I would love to give way. The vulnerability criteria are calculated and worked out in a professional, impartial way. The criteria have expanded from two to seven, so they are wide.

We are determined that those who come here do so with the consent of the people in this country, which generally there has been. I have paid tribute to Scotland, but people have been taken in all over the country. It is not right to say scathingly that some places take one or two or three families. For a small community, that can be pretty good. Other communities, such as Bradford, are very much used to taking in refugees and asylum seekers. They have done that for many years, and they have the set-up to do so.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order.

Immigration

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to immigration.

It is a privilege, an honour and a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy. Given the petition before us, the members of the Petitions Committee wanted to ensure that we addressed immigration fully, despite the fact that we have already had a number of immigration debates in the House—not least last week, on Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, which allows us to go further in tackling mass uncontrolled immigration. As a Committee, we thought it important that, although some of the petition’s wording was not quite what many Members would support, we did not just brush these issues under the carpet. We must tackle immigration in a responsible way, in a full and frank debate, to ensure that we can get the resolution and result that we all want: measured, controlled immigration.

This is a really serious issue. We wanted to ensure that we reflected the concerns of the population as a whole. I know from going around my constituency of Sutton and Cheam that immigration probably became the No. 1 issue during the election campaign—its last month in particular. That is reflected in opinion polls. It was Ipsos MORI, I believe, that recently came up with immigration as the No. 1 issue for people at the moment.

There are a number of areas in the petition, and I will take them in turn. One point is that there is a belief among the 198,000 who have signed the petition to date that many people are trying to convert the UK into a Muslim country. I do not particularly subscribe to that view. I can understand people’s fears given some of the headlines in the tabloid press and some of the comments on Twitter, Facebook and other parts of the internet, but we need to look at the situation as a whole.

Given such headlines and the reality of what is happening in places such as Syria and Iraq, and that we see people from the UK travelling to Syria to join ISIS, it is not surprising—indeed, it is very welcome—that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has come up with his statement on countering extremism. We are looking at taking tougher action against individuals. We are going to ensure that there can be extremism disruption orders on individuals who foment and preach hatred and encourage people to decide to remove themselves from their families and travel to those foreign areas to fight alongside people who, frankly, have a disgusting doctrine and no sense of respect for human life at all.

There is tougher action on premises as well: any premises that are hosting such extremism can be closed down. We are giving Ofcom more powers so that it will be able to close down TV and radio stations that are repeating those sorts of messages. We are reviewing schools and other public institutions—colleges and the like—where radicalism and extremism might be fomented. It is also important, and I welcome the fact, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is having a review of sharia law in the UK. That review is a very important cornerstone of our counter-extremism policy.

I can understand people’s views in certain parts of the country where multiculturalism may have failed and stalled somewhat, sometimes because of the fact that so many people are coming into one area. We can look at Tower Hamlets and parts of the north, for example, where extreme groups have actually built up no-go areas for white British people. It was quickly stamped down on in Tower Hamlets, which was welcome. Vigilante gangs were walking around that area picking on people just minding their own business. That sort of thing has no business in the UK at all. However, only a tiny minority of people are committing such actions. We need to do more to stamp such behaviour out, hence the counter-extremism.

I will give one quick example of where community cohesion slightly breaks down, on a small scale, in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam. In the lead-up to my election, there was a controversial planning application for a small mosque on Green Lane in Worcester Park. I objected to it, as did a number of people, purely and simply because it was in totally the wrong place. There was no parking around and it would have been on a really busy junction that was already at capacity. It was rejected by the planning committee for that reason. However, it was conflated into anti-Muslim feeling among a few people around that area; the two issues got conflated.

There is an Ahmadiyya mosque nearby, in Morden. It is the biggest mosque in Europe; about 15,000 people worship there. A lot of residents in Worcester Park who do not particularly know the ins and outs of Islam thought, “Why do you want this small mosque on the corner of Green Lane? Why can’t people go to the massive mosque round the corner?” They did not understand that Ahmadis are one group that actually unites the Sunnis and the Shi’as, who both dismiss Ahmadi Muslims as not being of the faith, as apostate. Sending Sunnis and Shi’as to that mosque would be like sending someone from the Church of England faith to a Mormon church, frankly, given the different doctrine that they perceive the Ahmadis to have, even though in many cases that is just not the reality at all.

The mosque in Morden recently suffered a fire, which destroyed a lot of its administration offices—back offices. Fortunately, the mosque itself was not damaged. It happened on the day after Eid; if it had been the day of Eid, there would have been 10,000 to 15,000 people in the building. As it happened, there were, I think, 10—there were no injuries and certainly no fatalities. However, 70 firefighters put out that fire.

The police and a number of community leaders organised a number of community events to try to calm the situation down, because it was not clear at the beginning whether it was a race hate or religious hate crime. We believe that, fortunately, it was not such a crime. It was a couple of teenagers, one of whom has been given bail and is coming back in the new year; we are hoping that it was nothing quite as sinister. None the less, the fact that people had to go round the community and set people’s minds at rest shows the unease that there is sometimes and the awkwardness when it comes to keeping a cohesive community.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

We also had an incident just before the election in my constituency, where stickers appeared on lampposts—I gather that this happened nationwide—saying “Voting is shirk”, implying that Muslim people should not vote. My religious community quickly took those down, so that was not representative. Again, it is a small group, trying to stir up trouble.

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for that example. As she rightly says, situations around the country are sometimes exacerbated by a breakdown of community cohesion but are in no way reflective of the population, whether the Muslim or the indigenous British population —the Church of England population. Actually, I will correct myself. It is really important that, in describing the Muslim population, we do not bring together religion and ethnicity or race, because Muslims are not limited to Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Arabs. There are a number of British-born Muslims. There are a number of people who have converted. There are a number of American Muslims and African Muslims. Muslims are represented in countries right across the world. It is important that we make that distinction even though, as I have demonstrated, it is easy to bring the two together by accident.

To return to my example, the final piece of the jigsaw in Worcester Park was a third group of Ismaili Muslims who bought a pub, not far from the controversial planning application site, called the Worcester Park Tavern, where they wanted to build a community centre. There were some issues surrounding the proposal—purely from a planning perspective, to do with things such as parking and traffic. However, because of the other two mosques, a lot of people in Worcester Park were whipped up—I felt that there was a bit of an undercurrent—into opposing the application because they were anti any Muslim group taking over the pub. In reality, however, Ismaili Muslims do not pray in the same way, and a number of them drink alcohol; they are a very different group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on a rather broader contribution than the wording of the petition suggests. I wanted to take part in the debate for two reasons. First, I believe that immigration should be debated and that people’s anxieties and concerns should be heard. If we are not willing to do that, we will create further problems and pressures in society. I received a fair amount of vitriolic abuse for remarks I made in the local press about this petition. I understand that it was picked up by a national newspaper. In those comments to the local press, I expressed some concern about the wording of the petition and about any automatic tendency to debate petitions simply because of numbers. I went so far as to say that I think there is a risk that we could end up legitimising bigotry. Members will not be surprised to hear that that did not go down terribly well, but I draw their attention to the wording of the petition, which begins:

“The UK government need to prevent immigrants from entering the UK immediately! We MUST close all borders, and prevent more immigrants from entering Britain. Foreign citizens are taking all our benefits, costing the government millions! Many of them are trying to change UK into a Muslim country!”

The petition goes on to make the references to graves that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman highlights the capitals, but I draw attention to the shouty exclamation marks that punctuate those sentences.

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Lady is right. I make it clear that I do not consider people who are concerned about immigration, or who object to it, to be bigots, but I have a problem with the petition. Some of the people who contacted me had a legitimate right—they were not constituents, by and large—to say that they did not like what they had read in the press, whether or not it was what I had actually said. I understand that. The vile nature of some of the other people’s comments probably justifies what I said about them—in fact, what I said about them was probably mild compared with what I read from them.

I will pick up on what a couple of people said. A Mr David Harrington, who I understand owns or works for PressLine, a marketing consultancy, extended my criticism to say that I had accused all signatories of being of a racist tendency, which is quite worrying if he runs a marketing consultancy. That may have been what Mr Harrington heard, but never did I say it. The danger of petitions that deliberately set out to pander to people’s fears is that people end up reading things that are not there and hearing things that have never been said.

Mr Harrington, a bit like the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, advised me that it was Labour that had opened the floodgates to mass migration. Members may not be surprised to hear that I do not entirely share that view, but people have legitimate concerns. We all know that there is pressure on some of our services at the moment and that people fear such pressure. There is pressure on health services and on access to school places. Certainly as far as European migration is concerned, I have more faith in the Prime Minister than it appears the hon. Gentleman has, because I do not want to plan to leave the European Union; I want the Prime Minister to succeed in his negotiations. I hope that one of the things the Prime Minister will seriously consider trying to negotiate is a migration fund so that, where we have a significant influx of people into a particular part of the country from Europe, we can draw on it if the influx is putting pressure on our services. That would be a welcome and useful proposal, as has been made clear in my extensive consultations with my constituents on immigration.

There is clearly an issue in relation to the benefits system. The vast majority of immigrants come to work, so we should not be entirely concerned when the petition says that foreigners are “taking all our benefits”, but it is reasonable to ask questions about benefits. For example, most people would recognise that it is absurd that people who do not have children resident in this country are able to claim child benefit. That is a reasonable point. I am not sure that I support the idea of transferable benefits. It is probably also legitimate to say that there should be a reasonable qualifying period for accessing benefits.

The hon. Gentleman drew on the example of curry shops. The balti business is very big in the Birmingham area. The issue is not about whether one should have to bring over a chef from the Indian subcontinent in this day and age. It would be better to put a bit more support and funding into our sixth form colleges and further education colleges so that they are not at risk of collapsing. If we cannot train people as balti chefs and curry chefs in this day and age, there is something badly wrong with our skills training in this country.

I recommend to the hon. Gentleman that, as was Labour policy at the last election—the Chancellor is now keen on some bits of Labour policy—where an employer asks for a visa to bring someone into this country because they argue that they genuinely cannot fill the skills gap, and where it is practical to create an apprenticeship, we should say, “You can have the visa, provided that there is an apprenticeship to train someone from here for the future.” That would be a useful and practical way of addressing that particular problem.

The Government’s targets need a bit of realism. I liked a lot of what the hon. Gentleman was trying to say—he was trying to be fairly balanced—but then I heard him say, “Oh, the last Labour Government let 2.5 million people into the country.” Where has that figure come from? How many of those people are permanent residents of the UK? How many of them does he know anything about? The reality is that that figure has been conjured up for propaganda purposes, just as the Government’s target to reduce immigration is now becoming a straitjacket for the Home Secretary. It would probably be better if the Government were to set out clear principles for the areas of concern on immigration so that people across the country can work together. That would be more fruitful than setting unachievable targets that lead to further disillusionment, which would be a mistake.

Of course, including refugees in the target, thereby confusing refugees with conventional economic migrants, is a dreadful mistake. I hope the Minister, who is responsible for refugees, will take advantage of this debate to tell us a bit more about what is happening with the Syrian refugees. How many orphaned and abandoned children can we reasonably expect to have been resettled in this country come Christmas? An answer to that question would be helpful, and it would also be helpful if he made it clear that he sees a clear distinction between refugees and economic migrants and that he is willing to consider not mixing the two in the numbers.

It is preposterous that this country wants to make it hard for high-value students to come to our universities. I do not know why we should discourage people who pay good money to come to our universities, and who help to subsidise our own students. Such students will not stop going to university; they will just go to Australia, Canada or the United States. The losers will be our universities and research programmes. It is a dreadful mistake to include students in our immigration targets, and the Minister will have no difficulty getting support from the Labour party, and maybe from other Opposition parties, if he were to come clean and make that distinction. Students are not coming here to settle permanently. They are people who come here for a time-limited period and who we actually want to come here.

This petition is misleading in a number of ways. It ignores the fact that the number of permanent visas being awarded is currently down by about 15%; it ignores the fact that many of our most welcome immigrants come on fixed five-year work permits; and it does not take account of what they come to do or where they come from. We are talking about doctors, nurses, scientists, social care workers, digital engineers—the very people the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam wants to come here to help, support and invigorate businesses, and to start businesses—and they are coming from places such as India, Australia, the USA, the Philippines, Canada and New Zealand. They are the main countries that we are taking immigrants from at present, which is hardly the picture conjured up by this particular petition.

Of course, the petition also ignores what the impact would be on our agriculture and hospitality sectors, for example, if we were to end immigration immediately. The effect would be to close down those sectors. I do not know whether the person responsible for originating this petition thought about the implications of that, or whether the 190,000 or so people who were so keen to sign it have considered that, but I understand that closing our borders would mean that it would be quite difficult to leave the country as well as to enter it. As I have said, I have no problem with discussing and debating immigration. There are immigration issues that we should tackle. There are some where we could find quite a bit of cross-party consensus. However, I for one have no desire to have to go around telling my constituents, “I’m sorry. You’re not going on holiday after all this year, because we have decided to support a petition that says we are going to close our borders.” I do not think that things have got quite that bad in the UK.

I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. There is a persuasive argument, I say to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, to consider whether we should issue further guidelines on the wording of petitions. That might be helpful. That is no criticism of the hon. Gentleman or his Committee but there may be times when the current e-petition situation has unintended consequences.

Is it not reasonable to ask that we be given a bit more information about the person originating the petition? It is probably fair to know who they are, where they live, whether they are a registered British voter, for example, whether they have any party political association or any history in relation to a particular subject. It would not be unreasonable to know that. The idea of the e-petition system, of course, was to give a voice to the public and to ensure that we in this place did not ignore issues that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who it is a delight to follow, that I agree with a lot of what he said; I would wear the vitriol that he has experienced with pride. I hope I will not upset him too much with some of the comments I might make about the previous Labour Government.

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on Bangladesh and as president of the Conservative Friends of Bangladesh—obviously, I have quite an interest in Bangladesh.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman read out the wording of the petition. For anyone who has not read it, I should say that it contains a lot of exclamation marks; in my view, that creates a rather shouty tone. Like many hon. Members here today, during the election period I listened to people expressing concern that we have lost control of our borders. I heard from residents who said they were exasperated that we, as British citizens, could not fully control who came into our country, partly because of the right of EU nationals to travel freely to this country; and from residents who were also angry about illegal immigration—for example, those who break into our country on the back of lorries and who slip into a murky world of criminality and the black economy.

In this uncertain world, we as a country should be able to know who is coming across our borders and for what purpose. Illegal immigration and people traffickers do a disservice to all legal migrants and help fuel sentiments such as those expressed in this petition.

I want to regain strong control over immigration and I share the sentiment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who opened this debate: I am hugely in favour of the promised referendum on our membership of the EU. It is time we had the discussion and the debate. I will be campaigning to leave the EU. We will consider that issue in the next few months.

How can we hope to control our UK immigration numbers when 42% of our immigrants can walk straight in from the EU, regardless of family ties or skill set? We will listen to the debate on that issue as the months go by. Freedom of movement and of residence for people in the EU was established by the Maastricht treaty in 1992. Now, free movement has a much broader meaning than in the original wording of the treaty of Rome, which talked more about “workers” than about “persons”. The four pillars of the EU—free movement of goods, capital, services and people—seem to be non-negotiable. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is trying to negotiate them, but the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, said in January this year that regarding

“the end of the free circulation of workers, there can be no debate, dialogue or compromise. We can fight against abuses, but the EU won’t change the treaties to satisfy the whim of certain politicians.”

There is the rub: as long as Britain is a member of the EU, the EU will not countenance meaningful change that would mean Britain has the policy freedom to control its borders as it sees fit.

This petition asserts that immigrants are taking “all our benefits”, which is a highly alarmist statement. I share the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who spoke before me, that there are areas that we need to look at. Under EU laws, there are areas we need to tighten up on, particularly the highly contentious area of child benefit. We have all talked about that issue; there are cross-party concerns about it. It is worth noting that the figures for 2013 showed that £31 million of British taxpayers’ money was sent abroad as child benefit to other European countries, and that two thirds of that money was sent to Poland.

The EU will fight to defend people’s ability to nominate the country in which they wish to claim their child benefit. However, the Prime Minister believes that it cannot be right to send benefits abroad to children who have never lived in this country and who may, for all we know, not even exist. It is no surprise that a Polish worker would prefer to nominate to receive UK child benefit when it is four times the amount that could be awarded in Poland. Yes, we are welcome to go to Poland and to make a similar claim over there, but it is highly unlikely that we would.

However, despite wanting to tackle the syphoning-off of British taxpayers’ money to Europe, I profoundly disagree with the wording of this petition. It conflates immigration pressures and personal faith. I want a sensible immigration policy that is creed and colour-blind; that welcomes workers to fill vacancies in this country that need filling; that welcomes students to enrich and support our top universities—on that I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak; that respects familial ties and, importantly, our Commonwealth connections; and that does not discriminate against an individual because of his or her personal faith, because to do otherwise would be to go down a hugely dangerous road. Surely the holocaust, which happened in the not-too-distant past, should have taught us a lesson about discrimination on the grounds of faith, which this petition seems to advocate.

In August, the latest net immigration figures were 312,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam remarked in his well-balanced comments, 50% of respondents in an Ipsos MORI poll for The Economist said that immigration was the biggest challenge this country faced. Not only was that the highest such percentage ever recorded, but it surpassed the figures for the economy and the NHS. There is no dispute, therefore, that we need to talk about immigration, but how we talk about it is important. As elected representatives we must discuss the matter, but this petition is not the answer.

The petition currently has 199,000 signatories, and I am pleased to say that only 189 of them are from St Albans—0.25% of its electorate. In contrast, more than 500 of my constituents wrote to me about banning foxhunting, so supporting the petition is not high on the St Albans agenda. My constituency has an approximately 10% ethnic minority make-up; the largest black and minority ethnic community is the Bangladeshi one, which at 2,500 represents 2.5% of the population. Christian denominations make up 57%, at 55,951 individuals, and the Muslim denomination is 4,653, which is 4.8%. When I am at our war memorial on 8 November, I will expect to see, as usual, religious leaders from my churches, synagogues and mosques all reading passages and prayers from their sacred texts.

In St Albans we welcome prayers for peace, and we recognise that Muslim soldiers too have fought alongside their brothers from all faiths in the defence of our country. When someone criticised the fact that excerpts were read by the leading imam from one of our mosques, I wrote back and said exactly that—that they should bear in mind that these people support our country regardless of, or because of, their faith, and we should not discriminate. More than 400,000 Muslims alone fought in the first world war on behalf of this country.

I do not believe that faith can be forced. I profess a Christian faith, and I have friends who share other faiths and friends who have no faith, including my husband—he has no faith at all. I do not believe, as the petition asserts, that our faith, however personal, is threatened by Muslims, nor do I accept that Muslims are trying to change the faith of this country. The fact that Muslim families have been shown to have a higher number of children and may bring them up in the faith might mean an increase in the number of people who profess that faith, but it might not. I do not think, however, that someone can rob you of your faith. If a person’s faith comes from within it will not be threatened by another person’s faith, only by another person’s intolerance or oppression of that faith.

In many countries, religious minorities face oppression and we must speak out against that. We should not be fearful or foster or import intolerance into our country. One of this country’s pillars of strength is that each man and woman has the ability freely to express their own faith, and I want nothing to do with any petition that suggests otherwise.

I do not dispute that we need a full and frank discussion about how we manage our immigration levels, but I do dispute why reasonable people would want to associate themselves with an ill-informed petition. What provokes nearly 200,000 people to agree with the aggressive, shouty and unpleasant sentiments expressed in the petition? I am sorry—this is the point where I might upset the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak—but a large part of the fault can be traced back to the previous Labour Government’s failure to see the true impact of EU migration.

In 1997, net immigration to the UK was 48,000 and a 2003 Government report projected that additional future net migration would average between 5,000 and 13,000 a year. In one year alone—between 2003 and 2004, when the accession countries joined the EU—net migration to the UK jumped from 185,000 to 268,000. Net migration has been well over 200,000 per year since, with one exception: when it dropped to 177,000 in 2012.

[Steve McCabe]

On a minor point, does the hon. Lady accept that it was the recognition of that error with the original accession countries that led to the transitional controls that the same Government imposed for the next round of countries? That error was not ignored.

[Mrs Main]

I accept that it was not ignored. The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next comments. The modelling was based on the equal access of member states to the labour market, but other states had imposed transitional controls at that time and the UK and Ireland had, unfortunately, not. We learnt that hard lesson.

A former speechwriter for Labour, Mr Nether, wrote in 2009 that

“mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.”

He went on to say that he remembered

“coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended—even if this wasn’t its main purpose—to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

That is an incredibly unhelpful statement, but if Mr Nether was correct it is no wonder petitions such as this have found favour in communities that might feel duped and that we are not facing the ongoing effects of mass uncontrolled migration.

In response to local authority and community concerns, mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, the Communities and Local Government Committee looked into the matter. I served on the Committee in 2008, and we produced a report. At the time, the Committee was Labour dominated—obviously—and it also had a Labour Chair, Phyllis Starkey. It is worth noting the report’s findings. We learned lessons, and we have to learn lessons now. The report’s summary states:

“There is significant public anxiety about migration, some of which arises from practical concerns about its effect on local communities.”

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak referred to that. It continues:

“On our visits we heard from settled residents”—

some of those settled residents were second and third generation from other countries—

“about many such concerns, including the limited English of new arrivals; the problems associated with Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs)…a perceived increase in anti-social behaviour; and pressures on public services. The practical concerns of settled residents about migration need to be addressed by central and local government for cohesion to be improved, and cannot simply be dismissed as expressions of racist or xenophobic sentiments.

Recent migration has placed pressures on local public services in areas that have experienced rapid inward migration, including pressures on schools, translation services, social care, English language teaching, policing and the NHS. These pressures are currently left unfunded by Government, because resource allocations are being made on the basis of flawed population data. Leaving local services with inadequate funding to cope with added pressures from migration is not only detrimental to the service provided to local communities; increased competition between groups for access to limited public resources can also negatively affect community cohesion.”

That happened, and I believe that the petition has come out of it. I think that the petition is wrong in its sentiments and language, but we cannot dispute those findings. We need to face into the situation—all of us. It will take a long time to turn it around.

In an effort to row back from that situation, the points-based immigration system was introduced. Our Government, elected on a mandate of trying to control immigration, say the same. We have, however, to be honest, in this Chamber and in this Parliament: we can control only outside-EU immigration. We are unable to control EU migration, so other areas must be particularly hit, including former Commonwealth countries. The bar is set extremely high, and it has an unfair and disproportionate effect on certain communities and industries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the curry industry. What he said was absolutely right, but the Chinese food industry is affected as well. The curry industry is worth £4 billion and employs 100,000 people across many of our constituencies. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned training up people. Yes, we can do that, but it seems rather perverse that a poor Polish immigrant can walk into this country and take up any vacancy they find in any industry, including the hospitality industry or a curry restaurant, even though they might not have the relevant skills, while a poor skilled Bangladeshi chef is not able to that because the bar is set so high.

My hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam, for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and I returned two weeks ago from visiting a social action project in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a very poor country and it will be enormously difficult for its people to jump the bar to get in and take up vacancies. Someone from the EU can walk in and, hopefully, get a job in any restaurant by virtue of their EU membership.

In response to public concern, we have made it our mandate to cut immigration to tens of thousands, but my own concern is that certain countries are discriminated against. People from those countries have families here and other ties to the UK. We should not just tinker with the margins of the figures by hitting only non-EU countries. We need to look at immigration as a whole and ask ourselves what we can, and cannot, realistically control.

I want to regain control of our borders so that the UK once again says welcome and gives refuge and asylum to those it wishes to come and shows the door to illegal immigrants. Yes, we need controlled immigration. Yes, we need a reasonable debate. However, we do not need nasty, small-minded xenophobia, which wording such as that in the petition encourages and feeds. The petition and its wording have got it wrong on so many levels. After we have considered it today, I suggest that we consign it to the dustbin, where it belongs.

I want a debate on immigration. I do not want a shouty, nasty, ill-informed petition that means we are then discussing whether people are trying to turn us into Muslims or grab our jobs or whether to stop this, that and the other. We need to say why we believe in controlled immigration and explain how we can control it, recognising that we have control over only small amount. That leads to the big debate, which I look forward to having over the next few months, on whether we should throw the whole thing up in the air and say, “Do we want to be able to control our borders?” If being a member of the EU means that we cannot, that is part of the robust debate we should be having. I am pleased to have had the chance to put those comments on the record. I look forward to the vitriol, which I will wear with pride.

[Andrew Percy (in the Chair)]

I am sure you will deal with it just fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I think the contradiction is between the hon. Gentleman’s comments and the fundraising mugs that his party was selling during the election with the slogan, “Controls on immigration.” As soon as one starts to play the anti-immigration line in the context of anti-immigration political parties—one such political party has been reduced to one Member in the House of Commons—we have lost the chance to have a proper debate about a serious issue that concerns a lot of people.

Belatedly, I need to declare an interest. In fact, we all need to declare an interest, because one day not that long ago, we were all immigrants. This place operates on alien immigrant principles that were introduced by a bunch of illegal immigrants called the Normans. If we all go back far enough—some of us do not have to go back far at all—we are all descended from immigrants. My great-grandparents were immigrants. My father-in-law is an immigrant. My dear departed godmother, Auntie Mary, was an immigrant. I have a brother and a sister who are immigrants—not a half-brother and half-sister or step-brother and step-sister. We have the same mum and dad. We were born a few miles apart, because a new hospital had been built by the time they came along.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the report, “Community Cohesion and Migration”—in fact, I suggest he reads it—that the Communities and Local Government Committee produced. It is the pace of immigration that concerns a lot of communities. Controlled immigration, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) was saying, is what most communities say they want. They are not anti-immigrant; they want control.

[Peter Grant]

I am sorry if I am not making the point clearly enough, but by conducting the debate on the terms of UKIP and those even more extreme than UKIP, it allows people like the gentleman who started the petition to believe that they are in the ascendancy and on the front foot. I do not know anybody—it is certainly not the policy of the SNP—who thinks there should be utterly open, uncontrolled immigration into Scotland, and I would not imagine that any UK parties would want the same for England. One of the big problems is how the controls are defined. For example, the salary control prevents qualified nurses from getting into the country. How ridiculous is that? It has been pointed out that the controls that were set up supposedly to stop bogus students coming in to go to bogus universities seriously affected the financial viability of some of our great and most ancient seats of learning.

To finish the comments I was making on my links to immigration, my Auntie Mary was born in Scotland. She was an immigrant. My wee brother and wee sister were born in Scotland, and they are immigrants, because one lives in Ireland and one lives in Germany. Why is it that, as part of the demonisation process that is so built in that we do not even recognise it, when other people come here they are immigrants, but when we go there we insist on becoming expats? Some of the biggest and most concentrated immigrant communities that can be found anywhere are of British immigrants in parts of southern Spain, Portugal and France. If we allow the debate to be carried out in the terms expressed in the petition, we are inviting the far right and other countries to demonise and discriminate against British citizens in exactly the same way as some people would want us to discriminate against the citizens of other countries.

Among the other great disservices of the past few weeks is what I can only assume is a deliberate strategy of conflating the humanitarian refugee crisis with controls or lack of controls over immigration. Those are two completely different issues. We are not required to take Syrian refugees or refugees from anywhere else because of our membership of the EU. That is not affected by our signing up or not signing up to Schengen or anything else. A fundamental requirement of international law is that we give proper succour to refugees if they come in fear for their lives. We allowed the Home Secretary to make a statement about the Syrian refugee crisis headed, “Immigration”, which was an utterly shocking piece of bad naming, misrepresenting the true situation in the Mediterranean. Where people want to come here because they are in fear for their lives, that is not immigration. I fully agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak that it is utterly and totally wrong to include hopefully short-term or temporary succour to refugees in an immigration figure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Mr Walker, and welcome the public engagement that has caused it to be held. It is right that we discuss matters on which significant numbers of constituents have expressed concerns to the House, and that we have the opportunity to allay the concerns and fears that have clearly manifested themselves in the language used in the petition.

The debate on immigration is not new to me. Of course, by the time of the 2015 general election, it was well known to us all, but in 2008 I was selected to stand in North East Derbyshire, which was regarded as a rock-solid Labour former mining seat. In 2015, I stood in Bexhill and Battle and was fortunate enough to be elected. Both constituencies displayed a lot of concern about immigration, which is interesting because both have a lower exposure to immigration in terms of numbers of constituents. Perhaps that lack of exposure in certain parts manifests itself in concern, whereas in other constituencies, where immigration numbers are higher, the constituents are more comfortable. I would say that it is because they can see the many benefits to immigration.

Although I maintain that the language of the petition is perhaps on the harsh side, I acknowledge that many of our constituents have entirely legitimate concerns about immigration, including control, security and access to infrastructure. Those need to be answered and our constituents need to be reassured. Therefore, as we debate our need for more housing and more essential public services, such as health and education, and how we transport our constituents to work and across the country, we must consider the population size of the UK, which, as matters stand, is predicted to grow 25% by 2060.

In touching on those issues, I want to talk about the concerns raised directly by the petition and some underlying issues. First, I want to address the concept that foreign citizens are taking all our benefits. Over the years, there has been much debate about whether immigrants put more into the Exchequer than they take out in welfare and benefits. Like anything, that depends on how the data are interpreted. Two academics from University College London compiled a report on immigration between 1995 and 2011. On the one hand, the report concluded that EU immigrants put £20 billion more into the country than they took out in benefits, and non-EU immigrants put in £5 billion more than they took out. However, it also concluded that immigration would cost £120 billion. The difference between those conclusions is down to the fact that we clearly do not know how much immigration will cost and how much it will benefit us.

When looking at the cost of immigration, one tends to look at a group of individuals who have come to this country without having been educated here, and therefore have not put the burden of education on the state. There may also be an expectation that they will not burden the Exchequer with other large costs, including the cost of health, as they get older, and of pensions. There is an assumption, however, that immigrants will return to the countries from whence they came, but of course we do not know that they will do that. It is right to look again at this issue and keep asking ourselves whether the costs to the economy can be maintained.

However, I do not subscribe to the suggestion that benefits are the driver for immigration. I do not buy the idea that people are willing to risk life and limb and leave a lot of their family behind in another country purely to survive in this country on what is a relatively small amount of money when housing and other provisions are taken into account. I do not believe that at all. I am more inclined to believe that the type of person who has that get up and go and determination is the type of person who will set up their own business, contribute, work incredibly hard, enrich our country and be a success. However, I agree that anyone coming to this country must do so to work, study or shelter from persecution.

Foreign citizens are sometimes portrayed as taking our jobs. First, no one is entitled to a job; jobs have to be earned. When I speak to my constituent business owners—I have a considerable number of fruit farmers, for example, in my constituency—they say that they tend to hire migrant labour because they feel that they do not get the same productivity and work ethic in our native labour market. That is not universally the case, but it seems to be the perception. We have to help local people—young people, in particular—to break that perception and get jobs. An issue is the fact that businesses tend to hire from abroad, rather than from within, which is regrettable.

However, we know that UK productivity needs to increase. Since I was elected, there have been a number of debates in Parliament on the fact that our productivity numbers are not high enough. I would contend that without immigration our productivity would be poorer.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend fought an election in 2008, so he will be only too aware that a campaign slogan was “British jobs for British workers”. It was very unhelpful, given the difficulty of getting productivity from some of our workers, which he has just described.

[Huw Merriman]

I agree. It should not be British jobs for British workers, but jobs for all workers. I was brought up on the idea that people have to compete and work hard. Somebody who is looking to employ would expect that from a worker, and they would look at it before looking at their nationality. None the less, I want to support our native employment market. I encourage those people to take a leaf out of the book of some of those who come from abroad with nothing and work incredibly hard. That is very important.

I want to touch on the benefits of migration to some of our essential public services, and our reliance on immigrant numbers as a result. It would be difficult to staff our hospitals, in which 11% of all staff and 26% of doctors are non-British. We hugely rely on those individuals to keep us healthy and well. From a local perspective, 28% of my constituents are aged over 65—that is a figure to celebrate, because the national average is nearer 17%—but it makes care home provision in my constituency an enormous challenge, and without immigration those care homes would be either incredibly expensive or understaffed.

The key is to get the balance right. There has been some talk about what occurred before 2010, but if we are to have an honest conversation about immigration we must look at the things we have done well and the things that have not worked out well. I believe that, before 2010, the Government badly underestimated the net migration from the newly acceded countries. The Labour Government thought that between 5,000 and 13,000 people would move from Poland and the newly acceded eastern European countries to the UK from 2004. The number of migrants who arrived was not their maximum figure of 13,000, but 1 million. Almost every EU nation, with the exception of Ireland and Sweden, prevented migrants from coming over for seven years. The British public have such a dismissive view of immigration policies and lack trust because we got our predictions of the numbers spectacularly wrong. It is important that we win back the trust of the British people so we can reassure them that we have the correct boundaries for immigration. I am pleased that the Government I support have required individuals from newly acceded countries to wait the full seven years before they can benefit from the same rights as EU workers.

The final issue I want to touch on is culture. It is often said that we need to preserve our culture, or that our culture is under threat. In my view, cultures evolve. Our culture has certainly been enriched over the centuries by global trade and our desire to look beyond our own window, and I would support that. Perhaps it is fair to add that the most culturally homogenous nation on earth is North Korea, which is hardly a great example of cultural enrichment. However, we must also preserve our values of freedom of speech, equality and respect for the rights of others. We must jealously guard those rights from all those who seek to erode them. That must be understood by anyone seeking to join our country—and, indeed, anybody already within our country.

Finally, on the ethics of immigration, I struggle with the fact that our health system is hugely reliant on immigrants, many of whom come from incredibly poor countries where people do not have the same access to hospital provision, drugs and care that we do. In taking people from such countries, I ask myself whether we are denying much more vulnerable people the ability to be cared for. We should continue to ask such questions. On Syria, which it is important to consider in this debate, is it right that people who have risked drowning are instantly allowed into this country? By allowing them to settle in this country, are we encouraging others to take even greater risks? That is of huge concern to me, which is why I support the Government’s stance that, rather than encouraging and incentivising people to risk their lives in perilous journeys, we seek to look after people in the camps or to take vulnerable people from those camps. In so doing—this is part of the ethical challenge—we keep as many people close to Syria as possible, so that the fittest and most able, who might otherwise never return to look after their own country and become future leaders, are nearby when they are able to return.

I welcome the benefits of immigration, but it is right that we discuss the public’s concerns openly. I certainly do not agree with the concerns as stated in this particular petition, but such concerns exist and it is right that the public keep us on our toes. We should not shy away from our responsibilities. The positives of immigration ultimately outweigh any negatives.

Humanitarian Crisis in the Mediterranean and Europe

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable about that country. I am sure that is the Government’s position. The practical problem in relation to aid to Yemen is access. Concerns have been expressed that some of the aid is being used for purposes connected with the nature of the conflict. Humanitarian aid should be given to people on the basis of need, not on the basis of which side of the conflict they happen to be on or find themselves on because of where they happen to live at any particular moment.

I say to the Government that Britain’s proud record on humanitarian aid gives us particular authority, which I know the International Development Secretary uses, to speak out and urge other countries to do their bit. We cannot run the international humanitarian system on the basis of insecure and intermittent funding. That will not work.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

My concern is that if we are to speak with authority and ensure that the support these families need is delivered, the process needs to be ongoing. We need sustainable, ongoing community support for people who are traumatised, who need language skills and who need school places. That is vital and all Members on both sides of the House need to support local authorities.

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Government will use the international development budget, as the official development assistance rules allow, in the first year to support local authorities, but she raises the question of what will happen the following year. I have no doubt that one of the first questions local authorities will ask Ministers when they meet will be, “If you’re going to help us in the first year, how are we going to sustain that support?” Every one of us knows the extraordinary pressure that local authority budgets are under.

Turning to the cause of the crisis, the Prime Minister was right to say that it will be solved only when peace and stability return to Syria. Despite considerable efforts, no progress has been made and yesterday the UN envoy, Staffan de Mistura, said there was no more time for a long political process, and he is right. He urged Saudi Arabia and Iran finally to start talking to each other, as Russia, the United States and other countries are doing. We need an urgent diplomatic effort, under the auspices of the United Nations, to work out a future for Syria. It is time that Syria’s neighbours started trying to solve the conflict instead of continuing to fuel it. They should also discuss—I understand that this is extremely difficult in Syria—whether it is possible to establish safe havens to help those who are fleeing violence, and they should talk about the humanitarian funding crisis that we have just discussed.

We also have a responsibility, as part of the international coalition, to defeat ISIL/Daesh, politically and militarily, and to confront its brutal ideology. We should be unashamed in proclaiming our values of openness and respect for others in direct opposition to its brutality and ignorance, which have forced so many people to flee for their lives. One of the best ways in which we can give expression to the best of British values is to welcome and take in those who have fled, because we have a long and honourable tradition as a nation of giving shelter to those fleeing further persecution.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill (Money)

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swayne]

The issue before us this evening is the money to be spent in achieving a Committee stage for the Bill, rather than the total amount of money spent as a result of the principle of the Bill, which is what we dealt with in the second week of September. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that it is absolutely vital that we develop programmes, schemes and methods of ensuring that every single penny is spent as it should be, and that it should not be wasted in corruption. I also draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that the principle of the Bill was agreed overwhelmingly by the House—166 votes to seven. It is the will of the House that the Bill proceeds.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am sorry if I sound unhelpful but I have gone through every report in the independent audit and there are things that will concern the public, such as the review of the trade development work in southern Africa where we have discovered a payment to the Government of Zimbabwe in contravention of UK Government policy. We do need to keep tight control over money that is spent, or the taxpayer will feel that they are being fleeced.

[Mr Swayne]

It is vital that these matters are investigated and answers are given and that proper schemes are in place and enforced to ensure that the money is spent correctly. The purpose of this money resolution, however, is to give effect to the will of the House, clearly expressed in September, that this Committee proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It has been a pleasure to watch the debate for the past few minutes. Watching Members on the Government Benches has been a bit like watching one’s mum and dad arguing.

I want to say a few words about the Bill, and about why we will be supporting the money resolution this evening. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the financial implications of the Bill. The Labour party stands for a just society not only within our own borders but across a just world. More Labour MPs than any others voted for the Bill on Second Reading. The rights and benefits that we have established for people in the UK derive not from those people’s nationality but from their humanity. We must do all that we can to establish those same rights and benefits for the rest of the world’s people.

[Mrs Main]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the words of the previous Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who said:

“it would be fruitless for us to invest in aid to relieve the plight of the poor in the short term if we did not seek to bring about lasting change.”

He went on to emphasise the importance of tackling corruption. Given that so many aid programmes are showing as either amber/red or red, it is important that we ensure that taxpayers’ money goes to the needy and not to the greedy.

[Gavin Shuker]

It is hugely important to ensure that aid gets to the right people. Indeed, the reports to which the hon. Lady referred in an earlier intervention make it clear that those who lose out the most are the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world where there is the most corruption. It is up to the Government to defend those people. I want to be generous and say that this challenge is faced by all developed nations when rolling out their aid programmes. I also agree with the hon. Lady about spending the money effectively, which is why I believe we can do much more to make the Department for International Development a real force for good in the world in relation to global institutional reform. It should not simply be the charitable arm of the UK Government. That should be our focus as we take the Bill through Parliament.

We live in a global community, yet every 10 seconds a child dies from hunger and malnutrition. A population more than three times the size of Birmingham dies each year from water-related diseases, and 1 million children die on their first and only day of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker]

Those discussions are going on between the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore) and the Government at the moment. It will ultimately be a matter for the Committee to decide, but we are certainly open to any measures that would ensure that the Bill reached the statute book in good time. This should be agreed on a cross-party basis, and I believe that we would all be in a much stronger position if we went into the next election with this legislation in place.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Africa. One of the commissioners of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, Diana Good, who oversaw its work there, said:

“We had a number of grave concerns, from the £67 million unused money and misreporting to excessive expenses, against the background of a programme which was regarded as a flagship but failed properly to take into account the impact on the poor. DFID just relied on the assumption that the poor would benefit”.

We owe it to the British taxpayer to ensure that the poor are helped, not just to assume that they are being helped.

[Gavin Shuker]

We absolutely do. The hon. Lady makes an extremely good case for additional scrutiny. The Opposition hope that we do scrutinise the Department for International Development effectively. I simply point out that as we discuss this money resolution for a Bill about the total size of the envelope, we must not lose our sense of momentum in holding the Government to account. However, I say to the hon. Lady that those are slightly separate issues, and it would be good for the House if we made progress on the resolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I will be brief because I know that there are other colleagues who wish to speak. We would be doing a disservice to the House and to members of the public if we did not point out that there are some serious concerns about the way that aid is used. We are not expecting people not to want to help the poor; we want to help the poor. I went through all the reports today, and I am sorry to say that, under the transparency of assessment of the programmes, so many of the programmes are failing to deliver aid because of problems with corruption and problems in those countries. Today, we owe it to people to scrutinise what is being spent on behalf of the British public.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

I am sorry but I will not give way, because the next speaker will be an Opposition Member and so many Government Members wish to speak.

On the work just in southern Africa, ICAI has said:

“The shortcomings that we saw in the programme and its serious deficiencies in governance; financial management; procurement; value for money; transparency of spending; delivery and impact, as well as its failure to use DFID’s body of knowledge in trade and poverty, have led to a marking of Red for the programme.”

The public expect us to be helping the poor and needy; they do not expect this. If Opposition Members have not been through the aid programmes, I would ask them to do so, because there are serious concerns about people lining their pockets and corruption. It is very difficult to get this sorted. Unfortunately, some of the reforms are not being put in place in some of the other countries. I suggest that before we start throwing more money at the problem, we help DFID by scrutinising these aid projects, and ensuring that the money we currently spend is well spent and getting to where it is supposed to go. I am pleased that DFID has dropped the innovative side of trying to find things to throw money at, because, unfortunately, “innovative” was not always in the best interests of the poor.

[Philip Davies]

Is it not worse than that, because the money resolution we are discussing is not about giving any more money to anybody in need or in any overseas development—it is about creating a whole new organisation of bureaucrats? That is what we are being asked to pass; it does not give any help to anybody in need.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The report published on 31 October says:

DFID has not…developed an approach equal to the challenge, nor has it focussed its efforts sufficiently on the poor. While some programmes show limited achievements, there is little evidence of impact on corruption levels or in meeting the particular needs of the poor.”

Surely that is what all of us are interested in, rather than just throwing money at the matter. I will bring my remarks to a close, but I caution against rushing this through before we tackle the fact that we are not delivering money to the poor.

Bangladesh

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mrs Main]

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what outcomes she expects from her Department's funding through the Manusher Jonno Foundation in Bangladesh.

[Official Report, 22 October 2012, Vol. 551, c. 718W.]

Letter of correction from Alan Duncan:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on 22 October 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Duncan]

By 2013, the Rights and Governance Challenge Fund, implemented by the Manusher Jonno Foundation, is expected to have enabled 253,000 poor and vulnerable people to benefit from social safety net programmes, 11,700 children to be withdrawn from hazardous work, and 121,000 workers in garments and shrimp industries to be paid on time and have improved working conditions. In 2011 alone, the programme supported 5,755 women to receive government land that is meant to be allocated to poor people, and 7,000 boys and girls to obtain stipends from the government to attend school.

The correct answer should have been:

Aid Reviews

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that point. Some four years ago, I went to Laos and Cambodia deliberately to look at the way in which disability impacted on development. We have not forgotten about this, and disability is clearly recognised in the work that we are taking forward.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give me an indication of how he intends to work with the Dalit community, some 65,000 of whom live in Dhaka, to ensure that they are not excluded in spite of the best efforts to deliver aid to poor people?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Dalit community represent the poorest of the poor in India, and we are looking specifically at ways of introducing a scholarship scheme to bring advantage to hundreds of thousands of Dalit girls in that country.