Global Poverty

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could reconcile the statement that he has just made with the written answer that he extended to me when I questioned the £200 million—the largest single cash announcement he has made in the past few weeks—that is now going to Afghanistan. When I urged him to clarify what that £200 million of input would deliver in output, he replied:

“We will make specific decisions on spending and focus areas in time for this event.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 349W.]

The event is the conference to be held in July in Afghanistan. Why was such an announcement made if the rigorous focus on outputs that he has upheld to the House as the new approach in the Department has been applied?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. We are working on the effectiveness of measures that are already being taken in Afghanistan—[Interruption.] Well, if he will just bear with me, I will, in the spirit of his question, give him the answer to it. We are looking carefully at a series of inputs in relation to the effectiveness that they will achieve, and we hope to be able to announce some of the findings in the run-up to the Kabul conference. When the Prime Minister gave that figure, he was referring to the amount that we have managed to find for additional expenditure in Afghanistan as a result of closing down or changing other programmes. How that money will be spent will be accounted for by me to the House as soon as those decisions have been made.

[Mr Alexander]

I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman can do a little better than that. I hear that so far the only output from the £200 million that has been announced is a press release. Can he confirm what the £200 million is actually going to purchase?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I reiterate the personal congratulations that I extended to the Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench on their ministerial appointments at this, our first debate of the new Parliament. I also welcome at this early opportunity those who will contribute today to their first debate on global poverty. Many Members in their places today, some of whom are new Members, have great expertise on the matter and a deep personal commitment to it, and I look forward to their contributions to our deliberations this afternoon.

It is now almost five years to the day since that remarkable Make Poverty History march took place in Edinburgh and the Live 8 concerts took place around the world. For those of us who were committed enough to march in Edinburgh that day, it was truly inspirational. The view of Edinburgh castle from Princes street, a view I had seen many times previously, was on that day transformed by the banner that spanned the length of the castle ramparts and declared our common mission to make poverty history. Around the world, thousands more gathered in fields and stadiums to join with millions wearing white bands to demand that the G8 leaders take action.

Five years on, we are sadly in less auspicious circumstances in the fight against global poverty. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to focus only on the negative or on the challenges confronting us today. For when promises are kept, they can make life-changing differences. Since that declaration of global solidarity in July 2005, it is fair to say that there has been significant progress, albeit not enough. I am especially proud that it was a Labour Government who led the way both on aid volumes and on aid effectiveness. Indeed, the most recent DATA report published by the ONE campaign ahead of the recent G8 meeting in Canada declared:

“The UK is the indisputable overall leader amongst the G7 countries in delivering on its ODA commitments”.

That judgment followed a previous report that stated that the UK was the “leader” in the G7 on aid effectiveness. What a contrast with the 18 years before 1997, which had seen our aid as a percentage of gross national income halve, the tying of aid to commercial interests and the shame of scandals such as the Pergau dam.

The last decade of delivery in the fight against global poverty has been regarded by some as a golden age, from the Jubilee 2000 campaign for debt relief through to Make Poverty History and Gleneagles. But we now face far more turbulent and testing times, and new challenges confront us. The world has been engulfed as never expected by the greatest financial and economic crisis for generations, thrusting millions of our fellow citizens back into poverty and creating pressure for donor Governments across Europe and the world to turn inwards and slash aid funding. At the same time, the urgency of tackling the climate crisis has become ever more evident, and yet the capacity of the international community to take the necessary action still remains elusive.

A world trade deal that could lift millions out of poverty has remained out of reach. State fragility and continuing conflict have continued to plague and stunt the progress of too many lives. The creaking international system, devised in a different time and for a different set of challenges, has itself been placed under ever greater strain. In this country, despite the words of the Secretary of State today, I still believe that there remain fundamental differences of approach to the challenge of development.

So let us start by recalling what truly progressive leadership can deliver. The agreements made at Gleneagles, made in part because of the great public expectation that was generated around the G8 and developing country Governments by the global anti-poverty movement, have contributed to real progress for many of the world's poorest people. The recent DATA report highlights the issue of malaria—about which we heard something in the last few minutes—where the world has exceeded the Gleneagles goal of delivering 100 million bed-nets, with 200 million more delivered between 2006 and 2009. On education, the report states that the savings from debt relief, development assistance and scaled-up prioritisation mean that 42 million more children have been enrolled in school.

However—despite these achievements—as Oxfam has pointed out, some 40% of the promised aid increases made at Gleneagles have not been delivered. That means that there is as much as a $20 billion hole in the promises the G8 made back in 2005—enough, as the House need not be reminded, to put every child in school or stop millions of children dying of malaria.

The 60% that we helped to deliver has made a huge difference, but the shortfall is continuing to cost lives today. That is why it was so urgent for G8 leaders to focus and take real and substantive action on maternal mortality and child health at their summit in Canada this past weekend. Every year, approximately 350,000 mothers die from complications during childbirth, and 8.8 million children die before their fifth birthday. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister made a number of statements about their commitment to this agenda in the media and in speeches over recent days. We heard those again this afternoon, and I welcome the rhetorical commitment offered by the Secretary of State today. Speaking in Washington recently, he said:

“When a jumbo jet crashes anywhere in the world it makes the headlines. If it were to crash week in week out in the same place there’s not a person alive who wouldn’t be talking about it. The international community would set up an enquiry and no money would be spared in making sure it never happened again. Yet, in Nigeria, the equivalent number of women die each and every week from pregnancy-related causes—and the world stands mute.”

Those are important and welcome words, although I have to say that they are not entirely original. Indeed, I recollect the particular official in DFID who encouraged me to use this very analogy when I too was preparing public remarks on maternal mortality. I only hope sincerely that the new Secretary of State proves as willing to accept the expert policy advice of those officials as he seems to be willing to accept their speechmaking suggestions.

The truth is that actions speak louder than words. So now the results of the summit are out, will the Minister when he winds up offer a clearer explanation to the House than we have so far heard as to why the G8 achieved so little in that crucial area?

Oxfam, which the Secretary of State praised a few minutes ago, described the initiative launched as

“lower than our lowest expectations”.

I was not surprised, but I was still outraged.

Blaming other leaders and using strong words is simply not good enough. Britain should be both leading by example and putting the hard graft into international negotiations. On the basis of Muskoka, it is questionable whether this new Government is doing enough. But that was not the only disappointment that we witnessed in Canada.

[Tony Baldry]

I had hoped that we might hear a slightly more consensual speech. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was campaign manager for the late Prime Minister, but perhaps he could now focus on the international development brief. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say both that the UK is leading by example—and the accountability report published in Canada shows that the UK is way ahead of the other G8 countries on contributions to the 0.7% target at 0.6% for 2010—

[Tony Baldry]

But the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that we should lead by example, when we are leading by example, and then whinge about how we are doing.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me try to clarify the point that I am making. I am proud of our record, and the figures for the decade of delivery that we saw under Labour bear repeating. The House need not take my word for it. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be willing to praise Oxfam if he has the opportunity to do so later, but Mark Fried of that organisation said after the summit:

“The only promise that counts is the Gleneagles one to increase aid by $50 billion by 2010 and that is the one they have abandoned today.”

It was at Gleneagles that the efforts of the former Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), buoyed by millions of campaigners around the world, achieved the historic promise to increase aid by $50 billion by 2010, with $25 billion of that going to Africa, and also agreed crucial steps on debt relief—what a disappointing contrast with Muskoka and Toronto.

The Prime Minister, writing in Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper shortly before this weekend’s summits, said:

“I come to the G8 and G20 in Muskoka and Toronto with a clear commitment to make sure these summits deliver for people. Too often, these international meetings fail to live up to the hype and the promises made”

but he seemed all too willing to let other G8 leaders sweep their failures under the carpet by dropping the historic Gleneagles agreement from the final communiqué.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

In due time and on mature reflection, the right hon. Gentleman may regret the tone that he has adopted. He quotes one particular non-governmental organisation, but why does he not quote what CAFOD or ActionAid said, when they endorsed the Prime Minister’s leading role in trying to ensure that other members of the G8 stand by the commitments that they made at Gleneagles and to which I referred in my speech?

[Mr Alexander]

Well, let us be clear about what that “leading” role involved. Why is it that Downing street admitted to The Guardian that the Prime Minister had simply

“not fought for the commitments to be included”

in the communiqué? To quote another NGO, Save the Children was moved to describe the resultant dropping of the Gleneagles communiqué as simply “shameful”. So can the Secretary of State now tell us how many phone calls and meetings he and the Prime Minister held with other Ministers about maintaining their Gleneagles promises? Did they go the extra mile, or did they merely give up? The silence is deafening.

[Mr Ellwood]

As we are exchanging quotes, let me put on the record the truth about what happened regarding Gleneagles. ActionAid said that

“David Cameron is battling hard to safeguard the Gleneagles legacy… Cameron can hold his head high as the UK is standing by its aid commitments.”

Rather than this silly exchange of quotes, we need to move the focus of the debate back on to poverty. Although these new organisations, such as the G8 and G20, are important, it is the older organisations, such as the UN, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, that have to pick up the pieces. The latter organisations are now out of date, having been created when the world was very different, but have to comply with what the G8 and G20 tell them to do. The failure lies there, rather than with the British Government.

[Mr Alexander]

It ill behoves the Conservative party to offer warm words of endorsement to the non-governmental organisation sector in the United Kingdom and then express such discomfort when their policy experts make a judgment on the conduct and performance of the Prime Minister in his first international summit.

I shall turn to the G20. I will, of course, welcome any attention that the new and larger grouping pays to international development and tackling poverty. I believe it is vital that the G20 discusses the wider global economic architecture, that the concerns of the poorest countries are at the forefront and that issues such as taxation and the regulation and taxation of the financial markets are treated as development issues, in the way we sought to do at the London G20 summit. I must express some scepticism, however, about another forum—the working group on development—being created under the auspices of the G20 at the same time as the G8 appears to be abrogating its responsibilities. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister tell the House how he envisages the new G20 group working and how it will be held to account?

Members of the G8 and G20 need to reach beyond the easy myopia that often besets publics and politics in difficult times. That is why I argued, in the White Paper that we published in 2009, that we must not turn away in fear and isolation. Although we rightly focus on tackling the global economic crisis, we must also take the longer view. We need to help fashion a world in which better regulated, greener and fairer markets operate for all, and in which growth and prosperity is generated and poverty alleviated, but not at the expense of people or the planet, on which we all depend. We need to create a world in which the skills and energies of the private sector are harnessed for the benefit of all, but in which its excesses are not treated as an acceptable by-product. We need to create a world in which we help to tackle the conflict and insecurity that blights the lives of so many ordinary people, particularly women and girls, with a broad-based concept of stabilisation, conflict prevention and peace-building that treats security and justice as basic services. We also need to create a world in which we maintain our promises to deliver the aid that helps to catalyse development and realise rights, that puts children into school, helps mothers have safer births, and ensures clean drinking water is available.

We must recognise that tackling poverty cannot be reached by spending aid alone—on that there is common ground between us—although our aid remains essential. We must take a transformative and holistic approach to development, looking at the wider global economy and issues such as tax, conflict, sustainability and gender.

[Barry Gardiner]

Was my right hon. Friend as revolted as I by photographs in the press in the past couple of days showing the beating of young boys in Bangladesh by police? Those boys were in the textile workers industry and trying to improve their own conditions—currently they earn $35 a month. Does he agree that we need to incorporate into our view and distribution of aid a clear focus on human rights abuses in the country to which we are delivering an aid programme?

[Mr Alexander]

I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend. I was similarly horrified by the pictures that appeared in Britain’s newspapers. It reinforces the importance and urgency of continuing to make the case, not just for human rights, as he describes, but for effective mechanisms of democratic accountability so that the public in countries where such difficulties are emerging can exercise constraint on those Governments and security forces.

I want to address our aid promises, which have already been the subject of some of our exchanges. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have been at pains to insist repeatedly in recent weeks that they fully intend to meet the 0.7% aid target by 2013, and I welcome the fact that the coalition agreement, on page 22, section 18, under the title “International Development”, states:

“We will honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013, and to enshrine this commitment in law.”

I was hoping that a little more clarity might have been brought to that commitment by the Secretary of State in the debate, but despite repeated questioning, we still have no timetable for the legislation he promised in the first Session of this Parliament. Indeed, I have here an explanatory note, issued by his Department on the day of the Loyal Address, entitled: “Background Note—Non Legislative Item—International Development Spending from 2013”. Why is this the case, given that a draft Bill was scrutinised by the International Development Committee in the last Parliament? That deserves a better answer than the one offered today to the Committee Chairman. Will the Minister tell us when the legislation will be introduced?

[Malcolm Bruce]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this point, but will he acknowledge that the Select Committee, in scrutinising, acknowledged that there were some difficulties with the draft legislation? There was not unanimity, and indeed his own Government acknowledged that more work needed to be done. Can we get this together? We want legislation, but it is not quite ready. I agree with him, however, that we want a timetable.

[Mr Alexander]

I am unyielding in my admiration for the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment and expertise on these matters. I recognise that an important process of pre-legislative scrutiny was undertaken by his Committee, but I do not believe that the question of how to ensure effective legislation is what currently divides us. What divides us is the prospect of a parliamentary motion taking the place of legislation. I hope that he agrees that legislation is required.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

I never said that.

[Mr Alexander]

Forgive me, but I am reading from a background note published by Ministers that describes international development spending from 2013 as a “non-legislative item”. If Department officials are not following ministerial direction, that is an issue for the Secretary of State rather than us. I hope that, in the winding-up speech, this matter can be clarified, with a clear and explicit commitment to legislation, along with a date.

[Mr Mitchell]

The former Secretary of State needs to elevate the nature of his speech. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chair of the International Development Committee, had it absolutely right. I do not know where the former Secretary of State got that piece of paper from, but I am happy to confirm that it is not accurate.

[Mr Alexander]

I am grateful for that admission from the Secretary of State, and I hope it will be followed up in the Minister’s speech later with some clarity on the timing of when we can seek to make progress.

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. He is demanding, or requesting, that we expedite our interest in moving towards 0.7%, and that is understandable. However, he was in power for 13 years. One of the first private Members’ Bills I was involved in was put forward by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), who proposed that the then—and indeed any—Government commit to this target. That was agreed and supported by Front-Bench Members at the time. Why, then, is the former Secretary of State now demanding that Conservative Members move faster, given that he had plenty of time to introduce this target into law under his own Administration?

[Mr Alexander]

As I have said, I am happy to have both main parties’ records scrutinised. We trebled aid, whereas the previous Conservative Government halved it. My right hon. Friend played an honourable and distinguished role in ensuring that, through the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, there is effective scrutiny by the House of the rising budget line we delivered year on year. [Interruption.] Forgive me, but I will continue to speak through Mr Deputy Speaker.

I can assure hon. Members that I support the legislation that the Labour party proposed and brought to the International Development Committee for scrutiny. I would welcome the opportunity for our legislation to be passed expeditiously.

There is the question of where and how our aid money is allocated across Government, and on what it is spent. We believe that the majority of our overseas development assistance should naturally be programmed and allocated by the Department for International Development. We were joined in that view by the Secretary of State’s now Cabinet colleague the Scottish Secretary, who warned during the recent general election campaign of the danger that Conservative plans could mean large sums ending up being diverted from the aid budget—for example, to count as climate finance in due course.

Let me quote to the House directly from the letter from the now Secretary of State for Scotland to the now International Development Secretary:

“Dear Andrew…I am flattered by the attention that your researchers are paying to us, but would politely suggest that their efforts would be better spent explaining to voters and the ‘development community’ how Conservative plans for DfID would work; specifically, the very real danger that under your proposals DfID departmental expenditure would leak to other departments such as the MoD and the FCO, what exactly is meant by ‘injecting business DNA into the department’ and how exactly your proposed annual monitoring could hope to work for multi annual programmes.

In other words, time better spent answering the very serious points raised by the NGOs and others about your own manifesto.

With kind regards,

Michael Moore.”

Elsewhere in that intriguing exchange of letters, the Secretary of State attacked the now Scottish Secretary and the now Business Secretary for “undermining” the consensus on international development.

However, I am glad to say that it appears that the differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals have been resolved—in the same way that a python resolves its differences with a mouse. In the coalition programme for government, we see no mention of additionality in climate finance, despite the fact that climate finance is such a crucial issue, as has been recognised across the House today. In contrast, we made it clear in government that from 2013 we would ensure that additional sources of climate finance would be provided, with no more than 10% of our aid spending being allocated to that purpose. The Liberal Democrats had also called for additional climate finance, but alas, like their promises on VAT, this now appears to have been another promise that has been conveniently forgotten. Will the Minister of State therefore tell us whether the Government intend to make any form of additional climate finance available, from what point, and from what sources? If he answers that none will be provided, perhaps he can tell us what he feels the prospects are for the climate negotiations in Cancun later this year, in the absence, as yet, of post-2013 commitments from the Government.

I would also appreciate it if the Minister could explain in more detail than we heard from the Secretary of State what is meant by the Government’s proposals for a military-led “stabilisation and reconstruction force”. We took a pragmatic but appropriate approach to stabilisation in government, recognising the complementary but distinct roles that development, diplomacy and defence should play in places such as Afghanistan. In one of the bloodiest weeks of the conflict, our thoughts must be with the families and loved ones of those British soldiers who have fallen in the service of their country in recent days. The sacrifice of our troops in Afghanistan demands that those charged with the heavy responsibility of overseeing the mission should bring strategic clarity to that onerous and important task.

The Prime Minister confirmed to the House in recent days his commitment to the counter-insurgency campaign in which NATO is engaged. That of course requires military force, but in the words of the US army’s counter-insurgency field manual, authored by the new commander, General David Petraeus, action is also required to

“uphold the rule of law, and provide a basic level of essential services and security for the populace.”

My personal conversations with General Petraeus confirmed to me the depths of his personal commitment to a comprehensive approach that requires more than just military pressure, yet since coming into government, the Secretary of State’s colleague the Defence Secretary has declared:

“We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of education policy in a broken 13th century country”.

Such ignorance of the key tenets of strategic doctrine, even from a new Defence Secretary, is as surprising as it is worrying.

For progress to be achieved through a comprehensive approach to counter-insurgency—and so that the war be ended—what is required is both strengthening of the state and its legitimacy, and striving for a political settlement, as surely as also weakening the Taliban militarily. Under such an approach, diplomatic, development and defence efforts will all play a crucial part in bringing about the conditions under which our brave forces can return home. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister explain to us in more detail how the proposed force will be funded, managed and directed?

As I have intervened to suggest, the Secretary of State has also been at pains in recent days to stress the importance of

“redesigning our aid programmes so that they build in rigorous evaluation processes from day one.”

Perhaps the Minister of State will take the opportunity—avoided by the Secretary of State—to explain the outputs of the £200 million that has been announced by the Prime Minister, most recently on his welcome trip to Afghanistan.

Let me turn to the crucial issue of basic services such as health, education and clean water. I am concerned by what I know to be the ideological approach taken by many on the Government Benches about the role of the private sector in the provision of basic services. Instead of seeing steps forward such as those that were recently taken in Sierra Leone, where health care was made free for pregnant women and babies, I fear that we could see ill-advised and ideological voucher schemes, or other forms of private subsidy that fail to catalyse wider change and are more likely to exclude the marginalised and the poorest. Does the Minister of State intend to continue promoting the removal of user fees, including through the establishment of a centre for progressive health financing? Can he also assure the House that he will make efforts, as we pledged to do, to raise the crucial issue of water and sanitation further up the international agenda?

Related to that, there is the question of our effort and engagement on those vital issues. As we have already revealed in these exchanges, when it comes to international negotiations and diplomacy, it requires real and sustained effort and personal engagement at the highest levels to make the sort of difference that is demanded by the scale of the challenges that we face. So it was, again, sad but revealing that, when questioned in the House last week, the Prime Minister could not confirm whether he had even spoken to President Zuma, other African leaders or even other donors before the crucial summit on education in South Africa in a few weeks’ time. Perhaps the Minister of State could tell us what efforts the DFID ministerial team has been making to ensure that the summit is a success.

The Secretary of State has launched a review of multilateral and bilateral funding from DFID. I do not disagree with that approach—indeed, we regularly undertook similar reviews—but he needs to be clear about whether this is a serious review or whether he is merely creating straw men before destroying them. At the announcement of the bilateral programme review, he simply got it wrong by talking about Russia, when DFID has not had a bilateral programme in Russia since 2007. Clearly he is now belatedly catching up with the facts on China, too, since as recently as 28 May he wrote to The Daily Telegraph acknowledging that

“the China aid programme will end next year.”

He also knows full well since coming into office, thanks to the reviews that I and other Ministers regularly undertook, that it was already the case that 90% of our bilateral aid was focused on just 23 countries, and the vast majority of that on the poorest people.

The Secretary of State has spoken of taking the Prime Minister’s idea about the big society to the global level, saying that his

“approach will move from doing development to people to doing development with people—and to people doing development for themselves.”

Frankly, the idea that DFID or many of Britain’s leading charities, to which the Secretary of State has paid generous tribute today, “do” development to poor people bears little relationship to reality and how much has, thankfully, changed in the development community over past years. Country-led development was a principle that a Labour Government established when DFID was created, not to mention ending the Tory policy of tying our aid.

The Secretary of State talked a lot today about change, but I believe that the new Government have found that much of what they see in DFID shows that it is working effectively. Indeed, as he was forced to concede in one of his first speeches:

“I have been struck by how much DFID contributes to Britain’s global reputation. How it has broken new ground in international development and often succeeded where others have failed.”

We are told that the Minister of State, who is sitting next to him, has also been focused on change in the Department. However, according to the newspapers, that appears to have been more about ministerial accommodation. Out went the pictures of Africa and those whom we were helping and partnering; in came a flagpole, a velvet curtain and a framed photo of the hon. Gentleman beaming his inimitable smile with the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. That is hardly inspirational to the staff of a Department that, under her Government, watched the percentage of gross national income halve after 18 years in which aid had been trebled. In all seriousness, however, what concerns me is not what is on the Government’s walls, but what is not in the statements that they have made so far.

What concerns me most about this Government’s approach to global poverty, even in these earliest weeks, are the limitations of the vision, and, indeed, of ambition, that have so far been revealed. With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I was deeply disappointed by his speech to the Carnegie Foundation in Washington last week, despite the fact that it dealt with vital topics such as gender and development. There was nothing particularly wrong with many of the assertions it contained, but it was a series of assertions in search of an argument. Indeed, I cannot recollect someone travelling so far to say so little.

I therefore ask the Secretary of State: what is the clear forward agenda, beyond the re-packaging of existing policies? With just weeks to go, where are the Government’s clear and concrete proposals and red lines for the UN millennium development goals summit in September? Where is the detailed vision about how we tackle climate change and promote development, and how those can be effectively aligned? Indeed, where are the serious commitments on issues such as climate finance?

The Secretary of State rightly talked about the importance of measures “beyond aid”, but where is the crucial strategy on issues such as taxation and development, highlighted, even in recent weeks, by the excellent work of charities such as Christian Aid and ActionAid? For example, how can we take forward steps on multilateral and automatic exchange of tax information or measures on country-by-country reporting?

Leadership in international development involves more than having a bonfire of straw men. It involves serious ideas and serious action. Benedict Brogan, writing in The Daily Telegraph last week, revealed:

“The other department that has got the mandarins talking is DfID, where there is a lot of disobliging muttering about Andrew Mitchell, the new broom. His view of what aid policy should be and how it works is going down badly and officials are muttering about abilities”—

so much so, apparently, that he is now being

“monitored closely by No 10.”

Surely the true lesson of leadership in international development can be drawn from the experience of Gleneagles five years ago. At that time, there was a dynamic, independent and vibrant global civil society campaign—connected with politics and politicians who instinctively shared the same values and ambitions—that had the ability, the tenacity and the willingness to work for that shared vision so that great things could be achieved. Sadly, at the moment, we see little sign of those dynamics at work in the most recent summit.

For the sake of those with whom we share a common bond of humanity, of those who today continue to be afflicted by needless and avoidable poverty, and of those with whom we share a common interest in a safer, more sustainable and more equal world, we on this side of this House will continue to scrutinise and challenge this Government where required, and, yes, support them, where deserved. The seriousness of the issues we debate today demands nothing less of us.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—