Poverty Eradication and sustainable development

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 General Committees

[The Chair]

We now have 47 minutes for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that their questions should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related, supplementary questions. I will usually allow one question and one supplementary, and then move on to somebody else.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to scrutinise these important documents on the global partnership for poverty eradication and sustainable development. We broadly share the Government’s approach. I simply want to ask two questions.

These new development goals build on the original millennium development goals. We cannot go forward until we properly understand what happened previously. Will the Minister provide a full report on our delivery of the millennium goals, because I think that will provide the only sound basis for going forward to a new set of goals?

The global goals will be goals that we have to implement nationally. Some of them, in relation to broad development issues, are relatively achievable. However, do the Government have a plan specifically to take action on reducing inequalities in the UK, which is one of the new global goals?

[Grant Shapps]

The big difference with the original millennium goals was that they referred to developing countries. The global goals apply to us all, as the hon. Lady’s question implies.

We are absolutely determined to learn lessons from the original millennium goals. A huge amount of work has gone into this. When I was in New York for the UNGA and the launch of the new global goals, I attended many sessions that dealt with the extent to which the millennium goals have been implemented. I spent a lot of time looking at the relative success of DFID in the countries that we work with, particularly in Africa, and at their achievements against those goals. A large body of work was involved in that and I am very happy to write to the hon. Lady with further details on the extent to which we judged the millennium goals had been met.

The hon. Lady is right to say that the new global goals affect us all. We have signed up just as much as any of the African countries I was talking about. All the goals apply to us. It is early days, as I mentioned in my speech. The UK will be developing a framework for the way in which the goals will be judged. The Office for National Statistics will play a key role in that process and is currently working on it.

The hon. Lady specifically mentioned the issue of inequality. The Government are passionate about dealing with inequality. We believe that the best way to deal with it is to make sure that, for example, in this country, unemployment levels are kept low. We have half the unemployment level of our nearest similar economy, France—exactly half its unemployment level. Inequality is best tackled by making sure that people have work.

Inequality is certainly one of the areas that will be judged by the new global goals. Members will have more detail shortly on how that will be put into statistics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

I broadly welcome the Government’s approach to the new global goals, but it is important to make the following points. We welcome the Government’s response and willingness to accept the Europe-wide policies in relation to implementing the global goals. In particular, we are glad that the Government welcomed the communication’s remarks on climate change. Given that initially they did not support the establishment of climate change as a stand-alone global goal, that represents progress. We hope that that will mean that the UK pushes with real vigour for a global deal next month at the UN climate change conference talks in Paris.

We regret the Government’s refusal to adopt the principle of burden sharing in relation to migrants and refugees before the Commission has come to its conclusions. There are a number of ways to go about burden sharing. We are not pushing for the UK to become part of Schengen, but, in the end, the migrant crisis we face is a European crisis. Whatever particular treaty obligations we think we have, we should step up in principle as a member of the European family of nations.

We welcome the Government’s positive response to the communication and we note that the UK is already meeting the 0.7% commitment, which is commendable. The Committee will forgive me for referencing the role of past Labour Governments—and Gordon Brown in particular—in creating the political conditions for a broad acceptance that we had to step up to that 0.7% commitment. However, we have to go further to eradicate poverty and ensure sustainable development.

We also have to go even further to ensure that aid money is spent effectively. I am an absolute supporter of the 0.7%, but there is still a debate to be had about how it is spent. There are questions about aid money being spent on budgetary support and what happens to that money. There are still questions about how much of that money goes to large NGOs rather than local NGOs, which may be more effective.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to 0.7%, but it is not just a question of getting the money out of the door in the easiest and quickest fashion. The reader of the Daily Mail and the woman on the high street in Accra share the same interest in aid and development funding: they want to know where the money goes and whether it is being used effectively.

Reservations about the global goals and how many of them there are were reflected in our earlier discussion, but they are widely regarded in the international community as a triumph that represents a bottom-up rather than top-down approach to development. It is hoped that they will cement and shape how we approach development for lasting change.

I welcome the Minister’s offer to write to me about our achievements in relation to the millennium development goals, but I feel strongly that there is a job of work to be done on the Opposition side of the Committee on tracking and challenging what happened to them. It is not enough to say that moneys were spent on certain aspects or that support was given for certain international institutions. We want to know about the outcomes—how was poverty reduced and development aided? I welcome the offer of a letter, but I believe we will still have to ask for a full report and a debate on the goals on the Floor of the House. We cannot look forward until we have looked back. There needs to be honest assessment of our successes and failures.

In addition, our experience in delivering aid and development programmes is the best way to ensure effective implementation of the global goals. Unlike the millennium development goals, we need to implement the global goals nationally; the Opposition will take a keen interest in that. The existence of this Committee and the response from various Departments to this communication are signs of collaboration and responsiveness, but we are keen to see how the Department for International Development takes the lead in developing a cross-Whitehall approach to the implementation of the global goals.

On the question of climate change, the Opposition are concerned that the UK Government appear to have rolled back many major national climate change policies. The commitment to zero-carbon homes has been cancelled, the green deal appears to have been scrapped and the climate change levy exemption for zero-carbon energy has been removed, to name but a few.

The only commitments that we have made leading up to the Paris talks are as part of the European position. It is good to see that Europe-wide consensus and we welcome it, but it falls short of our own Climate Change Act 2008, brought in by the previous Labour Government. The UK is going into those climate change talks saying we will deliver less than our own legislation demands. We believe that the 2008 Act sets an international standard that we must live up to. The UK should be saying that Europe is not ambitious enough, and using our influence to ensure a global deal that will impact on the lives of thousands. The Government appear to have no concrete position or plan to push for a global deal, and we are but a month away from Paris.

On migration and the Government’s apparent refusal to adopt the principle of burden sharing for migrants, the British public have seen and read about the appalling conditions in which Syrian migrants find themselves. We commend the Government on the money they are spending on the camps in the region. We urge the Government to get the other EU Governments to step up to the example we have set on funding those camps. However, it remains the case that tens of thousands of Syrians are crossing borders through the Balkans into Greece every month. We are seeing a steep climb in those numbers as Syrian refugees seek to escape the onset of winter and Russian bombing.

It is not enough for the Government to say that we are doing well in giving money to the camps. The Government must say what it is doing for the unfolding crisis we see in the Balkans, Greece and Italy. It is extraordinary that the Greek Government, and the Greek people in particular, have done so well in relation to the migrant crisis. The fact remains that of all the EU nations, the Greeks, due to their long-standing economic issues, are not best placed to provide systematic processing and support for migration. They need more help.

As this crisis gets worse and spikes with the onset of winter, we believe it is unreasonable and irresponsible for the UK not to adopt the settled principle of burden sharing, whether or not we are members of Schengen. As the communication states, the global partnership should be based on principles of shared responsibility, mutual accountability and respective capacity. We believe we cannot pick and choose when we adhere to each of those principles.

Members from both sides have said that the proposal for taking a capped number of 20,000 refugees up to 2020 is both pitiful and unacceptable. We have yet to hear how many Syrian refugees have actually entered the country under this process. Members challenged the Secretary of State on that question yesterday and did not receive a reply. We understand that we are expecting 1,000 before Christmas, but we do not know how many Syrian refugees have come in thus far.

Other European countries have taken as many refugees in a week as we are proposing to take in a year, and they have committed to taking thousands more. Until we hear the figures on the numbers of Syrian refugees who have entered, a question mark is cast on the Government’s proposals. After all, long after the refugee crisis is off the front pages there will be a need for a sustainable, Europe-wide strategy. It cannot be right for Italy, Greece and the Balkan states to be left alone to deal with all the migrants and refugees. The Government need to look at a more sustainable strategy that is more genuine about working closely with our European neighbours, because hundreds of thousands of lives depend on it.

Members would have been saddened to hear the mayor of Lesbos, one of the Greek islands receiving thousands of migrants day by day, say that there was no more room on Lesbos to bury Syrian refugees. How can it be that in 2015 a member of the European family of nations can have that said and not be able to look to Europe-wide support?

Broadly, we support the Government’s approach on the communication. We want to work closely with them to move towards implementation of the global goals. However, we still want detail on what was done to deliver the millennium development goals, we think that more can be done on climate change and we are concerned about inadequate Government proposals to meet the challenge of the Europe-wide migration crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

I thank again my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford for bringing this matter to the Committee for debate. It is an important issue with many wide-ranging consequences, as we heard from the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, stretching to many areas that are not immediately obvious from the 17 goals and 169 targets in the agenda. Our debate could range widely, but I will restrict my closing remarks to the points that have been raised.

As I have said, the agenda is one not just for Department for International Development, but for all parts of Government. We will play our important supporting role in trying to ensure that the global goals are delivered. Climate change was mentioned, along with the extent of the United Kingdom’s commitment on that. If my memory serves me correctly, £3.89 billion was dedicated to the International Climate Fund in the previous spending round. That figure has recently been increased by 50% to £5.9 billion. Although not doubling down, 50% is a pretty big addition to a budget designed to do exactly what the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington talked about, namely to continue to work on climate change.

On the more intricate details, the hon. Lady questioned whether we were still committed to zero-carbon homes. As she will know, I was Housing Minister at one point, so can tell her that back in the 1990s homes built in the UK were emitting enormous amounts of carbon and were very energy inefficient, whereas the level of efficiency is now so close to zero-carbon that off-site allowances finish that off. I would not want Members to think that we were in any way watering down the targets; in fact, the United Kingdom will meet its national obligations, and is also putting enormous amounts of money into trying to meet international obligations.

Our wide-ranging debate strayed on to the migrant crisis and burden sharing. No country in Europe has done as much as the United Kingdom, not just during the crisis that hit everyone’s TVs this summer, but in the longer-running crisis, over three or four years, of the Syrian war. Over £1.1 billion has been invested in Syria to help people to stay in or close to home. I am not sure that the wisest approach is to encourage people to make life-endangering journeys. Britain has a proud record on this matter. It is absolutely right that we have been in there helping a lot earlier than other Governments.

[Ms Abbott]

No one is talking about encouraging people to make life-threatening journeys. The fact is that tens of thousands people have already made those journeys and are attempting to live in terrible conditions in Greece and Italy. It is not about encouraging anyone; with winter coming and people fleeing Russian bombing, the question is, what are we going to do to support the people who have already made those journeys?

[Grant Shapps]

Although this goes beyond the subject of the global goals, it is none the less important to consider whether Germany’s opening of the doors to a million people will then encourage a further million people to make that journey, thereby putting people’s lives at risk, and whether it is therefore better to tackle the problems people are experiencing at their root, in and around Syria. That is why I make the point that Britain has not suddenly joined the relief effort this summer; we have been involved for many years and have spent well over £1 billion. That is a proud record. As the hon. Lady knows and recognises, we have also launched a scheme to help 20,000 people come to this country. Of course we can debate the numbers and the rest of it, but I believe Britain stands tall in the world for having done more than any other country in Europe to prevent people from making that dangerous journey—and, by the way, in doing so, we have prevented a brain drain of the most fit, able and bright people from crisis-hit areas.

The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Glasgow North mentioned the 0.7% target and how the money is spent. We will rigorously ensure that the 0.7% is spent properly and appropriately, and I welcome their keen eye on this. The House is absolutely right to want to see in great detail how that money is spent. In fact, this is an area in which transparency improves every aspect of international development. I genuinely believe that when we can see how money is spent and when people can challenge the process, we spend the money more wisely and get better outcomes. Within the Department for International Development, we will do everything possible to ensure that the books are as open as possible. We are one of the most scrutinised Departments, and I welcome that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

Does the Minister agree that transparency is not only important to the British taxpayer? It is also important, in our relationship with the countries to which we are giving aid quite generously, that the populations of those countries have transparency about how British aid money is being spent and whether it is really being spent to their benefit, rather than only to the benefit of local elites and the aid industry.

[Grant Shapps]

I absolutely agree. What the hon. Lady describes is, of course, the golden thread, which is about ensuring money is spent wisely and for the broadest possible spread of the population. Transparency enables people to see that their institutions are serving the broad mass of people rather than the elites, as she suggests.

The hon. Lady reminds me of a point she raised in her initial intervention about direct budget support. There is now almost no direct budget support through the DFID programme. In fact, I spend much of my time meeting Governments who are pleading for direct budget support. In many cases, we do not think that is a suitable way to spend money, not least because it tends to lack the transparency that she and others have called for, as we cannot see how those systems are spending the money. I agree that it is important to ensure that money is spent transparently. That takes many different forms, and she and I are on exactly the same page in terms of the golden thread and ensuring money is spent to the benefit of the masses, not the elites.