Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Douglas Alexander and Tobias Ellwood

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend in this area. He was in Lebanon this summer. I had the chance to visit the Bekaa valley and see the work that the British are doing in training the Lebanese armed forces and in creating the watchtowers, which will help to enable the Lebanese to monitor and provide security themselves. But the situation is very intense indeed, and there is a threat of ISIL punching into Lebanon.

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

The Minister is absolutely right to pay tribute to the neighbouring countries of the Syrian conflict, Jordan and the Lebanon, for the extraordinary work that they have done in receiving a huge population of refugees as a consequence of the conflict. On the point about the UN food vouchers, given the reports last week of the value of those food vouchers having been cut as well as the importance of ensuring the availability of vouchers, what further steps are the British Government taking to encourage international partners to provide a level of resource needed by the United Nations to meet the humanitarian crisis?

[Mr Ellwood]

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s previous job, I know that this is a matter that is close to him as well. As I have said, I raised that issue in meetings with the United Nations representatives both in Lebanon and in Jordan. I was assured that, for the moment, the funding streams are in place. It might be helpful if I get a colleague from DFID to write to him with an update.

[Mr Alexander]

In these exchanges, we have already heard of the importance of the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Jordan. Beyond the very welcome humanitarian support that is being provided to refugees in Jordan and the Lebanon, what specific additional support is being provided to Jordan to maintain stability within that country given that a significant number of refugees are not in camps such as Zaatari, but with host populations?

[Mr Ellwood]

We are adopting a number of initiatives to support a country that has already been described as being very, very close to Britain. The Secretary of State has met his counterpart to look at improvements to the security situation, and I have visited Zaatari, the biggest refugee camp. We are not simply pouring money into the area, but funding support for the local towns that feel the burden of having large numbers of Syrians coming into their area. We are providing support to the Jordanian towns in the area as well so that they do no feel so burdened with what is happening in the north part of Jordan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Douglas Alexander and Tobias Ellwood

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The use of white phosphorus and indeed of cluster munitions was raised in the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday. We have seen no evidence to date that they have been used during recent events in Gaza. However, the defence section in Tel Aviv will approach the Israeli defence forces to inquire whether they are being used in this current campaign.

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

May I welcome the Minister to his post and say that I fully appreciate the reasons for the new Foreign Secretary being in Brussels today. As we have heard, Operation Protective Edge has already cost more than 580 Palestinian lives, most of whom are civilians and many of whom are innocent children. Last week, I warned that an Israeli ground operation in Gaza would bring more suffering for the Palestinians and would be a strategic error for Israel. The Opposition are clear that we oppose this escalation. Do the Government?

[Mr Ellwood]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; I hope that I get the same warm welcome at every Foreign Office questions. He is right to remind the House of the heavy death toll that is being endured in the region, with almost 600 dead, 3,600 injured and 83,000 displaced so far. These matters are being raised in Brussels as we speak, and I think the Foreign Secretary intends to put out a statement on his return.

[Mr Alexander]

That was a troubling answer, even from a colleague whom I welcome to his position on the Front Bench. I welcome the fact that the US Secretary of State John Kerry has travelled to Cairo seeking an urgent ceasefire, but the pattern of rocket attacks, periodic invasion and permanent occupation does not bring security for Israel and brings further humiliation and suffering for the Palestinians. As in the past, this incursion will end with an agreement. The question is how many more children and civilians need to die before such an agreement is reached. Does the Minister accept that the absence of such an agreement will recruit more terrorists at exactly the point at which Hamas had been weakened by events in Tehran, Syria and Egypt?

[Mr Ellwood]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman misses the point. The work that has been going on is trying to achieve a ceasefire, which is why the Foreign Secretary, who is in Brussels at the moment, will be flying to the region very shortly. John Kerry is there and so is Ban Ki-moon. We also must not forget that Hamas is firing an average of 147 rockets every single day. Were that to stop, the situation in Gaza would change significantly.

Global Poverty

Debate between Douglas Alexander and Tobias Ellwood

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.