Draft African Development Bank (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2015

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope.

We should be proud of Britain’s history under successive Governments of providing funding to multilateral investment organisations such as the African Development Bank that work to tackle poverty and engender sustainable economic growth. Members may not realise that we first joined the African Development Fund in 1973 and the African Development Bank when membership was extended to non-regional countries in 1983, so Britain has an important long-standing relationship with the organisation.

In Europe, we take for granted the ready availability of transport networks and public utilities such as running water, energy and telecommunications. Most of our businesses know that they can access finance in order to expand. Those are fundamental prerequisites for growth and prosperity. Without them, public services and education are held back, entrepreneurial drive and talent risk being wasted and the outlook for a country’s development is bleak. Development is dependent upon getting the essential infrastructure right. Investing in the sort of projects the Minister outlined pays dividends several times over. For that reason, we will seek to support him in taking the order forward.

Since beginning operations, the African Development Bank has mobilised financial resources for more than 4,500 projects, with contributions totalling more than $118 billion. The assistance the bank provides comes in many forms: lending for infrastructure projects; funding for programmes and studies in agriculture, education, industry and governance; and technical assistance and policy advice. Its commitment to sustainable growth is of particular relevance to our age as we come face to face with the spectre of climate change, and as the world comes together to agree the sustainable development goals. That is why it is encouraging to see the bank’s support of clean, renewable energy projects in countries across Africa and its emphasis on green growth.

The bank’s recently published African competitiveness report makes it abundantly clear that Africa is a growing continent with real potential for even further growth if the necessary conditions for prosperity are in place. Over the past 15 years, the continent’s GDP growth as a whole has averaged more than 5% a year, and the growing consumer markets in many countries herald further possibilities.

I turn briefly to the detail of the order, and I have a few questions for the Minister. Britain’s contributions to multilateral development banks are among the smartest investments in international development that we can make. The African Development Bank is a positive, African-led vehicle for development lending, and that is why we will not oppose the Government’s plans to increase their shareholding in the bank by taking advantage of newly available shares under the special capital increase and shares forfeited from the sixth general capital increase.

We agree with the Government’s wish to add to the UK capital stock by purchasing the additional shares allocated to us, with a paid-in value of £2.7 million. As well as allowing the bank to provide more development lending, that increased investment will lend greater weight to Britain’s vote on issues facing the bank. That is desirable given the UK’s historically small shareholding in the bank, as it will bring us closer to the G7 nations that have a significantly larger shareholding—our European partners in Germany, at 4.1%, and in France, at 3.8%.

We also acknowledge that, if Britain were to refuse the opportunity of subscribing to the shares or miss the deadline, the UK’s shareholding would decrease. Both for the good of the bank and to maintain Britain’s influence, we agree that that should be avoided. We note that the share purchase will give rise to a contingent liability of some £43.3 million in shares, which could be called for should the bank find itself in serious difficulty, but given the bank’s strong triple A credit rating—something that even the UK has not managed to maintain throughout the past five years—and its history of never having called in such shares, we acknowledge that the contingent liability is highly unlikely to turn into a loss. It is therefore our judgment that we should support the order.

However, as the Minister explained, in addition to calling for the approval of a further £2.8 million of investment in capital stock, the order seeks permission for further shares to be purchased, up to a total of some £8 million, should they become available. Although in principle we would support the Government making further payments to increase our capital investment and our influence on the board of the bank, the Committee ought to consider the potential for a much higher contingent liability of some £124.6 million as a consequence of purchasing those additional shares.

Increasing the UK’s shareholding by the full £7.95 million sought in the order would leave the UK’s total contingent liability with the African Development Bank at about £1.1 billion. What assessment has the Minister made of the likelihood that members that have been unable to meet the October deadline will forfeit shares reissued under the sixth GCI? I would also welcome any estimate that has been made of the number of shares that might realistically become available.

I understand from the Department’s written statement of 14 July that the sum of £7.95 million represents the total amount of reissued GCI shares available to all shareholders, as well as the UK’s special capital increase allocation. That means that the Department is giving itself a significant degree of leeway and suggests that the Minister believes that, as he said earlier, a substantial number of shares may be forfeited before the October deadline. To reassure the Committee that the Department’s request for that flexibility is justified, I would welcome any additional detail he might have, including which countries may forfeit.

Whenever we use taxpayers’ money, we must always consider whether it is being spent or invested wisely. Even when projects and organisations are working well, we must always bring our scrutiny to bear. Improving results for the world’s poorest people and ensuring value for money mean that we must monitor, evaluate and look for improvements. Will the Minister reassure me that the Department is satisfied that increasing Britain’s stake in the bank and taking on the accompanying further contingent liabilities will contribute to DFID’s influence and its strategic priorities, and represent a good use of the country’s resources? I know that, as part of the Department’s multilateral aid review, there has not been a dedicated assessment of the African Development Bank.

A review has been carried out of the UK’s funding of the African Development Fund, part of the African Development Group, and has highlighted some concerns about its progress on cross-cutting issues, namely gender, fragile contexts and climate change, as well as cost and value consciousness. I would welcome the Minister’s view on whether those concerns that relate to the African Development Fund are relevant to the bank, and any other assessment he can provide of the bank’s performance.

Although scrutiny of spending and investments is always necessary, it seems clear that the African Development Bank is a valuable force in the fight for development, and that the Government’s wish to increase Britain’s involvement in the bank is justified. It therefore gives me pleasure to support the order on behalf of the Opposition, endorsing the Government’s approach and proposals for increasing Britain’s investment in the African Development Bank, provided that the Minister can give us the reassurances that we seek.

[Mr Swayne]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and questions. He initially asked about the bank’s importance in furnishing studies. That is important, and we are grateful for its study on transport costs. We have asked them to conduct a similar study on driving down energy costs.

The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about two things. First, he asked about taking on the additional contingent liabilities. I felt that he answered his own question effectively, in that we are considering a triple A-rated institution—there has never been any call on the capital. We estimate that it is worth taking on the liability, and we have received the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s permission to do that.

I believe that buying the additional influence is some way off. Even if we got all the shares, increasing our influence is a long-term prospect. There is a key change: among the non-regional players, shareholdings determine how long they hold the directorship. That is an important means of influencing the process. In the longer term, we are therefore keen to increase our influence and to purchase the shares.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the multilateral aid review. The last review said that we were getting good value for money, and that the bank’s performance was generally very good. There was some concern at the corporate level about the lack of emphasis on women and girls, and also about climate change, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The MAR is not a one-off process. We provided, because of our determination to improve the bank’s performance, £2 million of technical assistance to enable it to improve. A special envoy on gender has been appointed and we are confident that the bank is performing well on that metric. On climate change, the bank’s 10-year plan is to make Africa transform into a clean energy continent. Increasing the focus on climate change is welcome and now meets our requirements.

I think that that accounts for all the questions that I have been asked. I have been informed that I may have made a slight slip with my figures. I very much doubt it! I referred to £4.5 million lending from 2013. I should have said that it relates to 2014 to 2016 and that it takes the form of concessional loans as well as grants.

[Mr Shuker]

You would have got that one past me.

[Mr Swayne]

The hon. Gentleman surprises me. I am certain I get nothing past him.

I hope that that satisfies the Committee and that the order will be carried.

Question put and agreed to.

Sustainable Development Goals

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to be able to speak in this timely debate and congratulate hon. Members on securing it. It is a real honour to speak among people who have shared their stories of their own experiences of development. As I reflect on the past couple of years in my role of shadowing the Government in this area and the privilege of standing at the Dispatch Box, I think of the many times I have been to places in the poorest parts of the poorest countries in the world and the effect that that leaves on one. I wish we could find better ways to communicate that to our parliamentary colleagues more widely, and to the country.

This is a timely moment for the debate because 2015 is a historic year for international development. The world will soon come together at the UN in New York to agree the sustainable development goals. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for us to define a collective approach to tackling poverty and inequality across the world.

Fifteen years ago, political leadership by the previous Labour Government garnered global efforts to tackle extreme poverty and led to the millennium development goals. I am often struck by the need for clear and consistent political leadership in bringing the world together to tackle the challenges that we face. In 1996, there was no Department for International Development; it took a change of Government to usher it in. In other words, it took political leadership. Now, consensus exists across the main parties that 0.7% is something that we should not just aspire to but deliver, and I rightly give credit to the current Government for that. The legal settlement for this was passed via a private Member’s Bill with cross-party support throughout the House. It is political leadership that gets this business done. The sustainable development goals will therefore require political leadership not just to get them over the line but throughout the next 15 to 20 years to ensure that they deliver.

What are the benefits? Over the past 15 years, despite the pictures we still see on our televisions that sometimes skew the debate, the millennium development goals have led to unprecedented changes. Every day, 17,000 fewer children die across the world. Extreme poverty has been reduced by half. Access to improved drinking water has become a reality for a third of the world’s population. Chronic under-nutrition has declined. Remarkable gains have been made in the fight against malaria, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases. These successes prove that progress is possible. We must now show similar ambition in the agreement and implementation of the sustainable development goals. Global action works.

However, as we have heard, considerable challenges remain. More than 1 billion people still live on less than $1.25 a day. Each year, millions fall into poverty as a result of expensive healthcare costs. Despite the fact that the effects of climate change will be the most destructive in the world’s poorest countries, agreements on carbon emissions remain out of reach. The new SDGs must set out to erode those problems and address poverty and growing economic inequality, and throughout the legislative process I have argued for clear political leadership in that process.

Change should be delivered in three vital areas, and they should be prioritised for us to tackle inequality: universal healthcare coverage, climate change and human rights for all. It may aid the House to reflect on the fact that this is a universal deal that will apply not just to the developing world, but to our country too. Therefore, we should be unapologetic in our calls for universal healthcare coverage, action on climate change and human rights.

Health inequality is one of the most pernicious types of inequality. Being without health means being without work. It means that people do not have the ability to look after their family or to aspire to great things for their children. Poor health provision in developing countries is a major driver of poverty. Universal health coverage would stop 100 million people each year falling into poverty. It affirms the right of every person to have the opportunity for a good standard of health and a good life without suffering financial hardship as a result.

It is not just about individuals. Nigeria coped with its Ebola outbreak thanks to a functioning health system, yet Sierra Leone struggled because of inadequate availability of treatment. Strong general health systems help to tackle specific life-threatening outbreaks of infectious diseases. That is why we have argued for a far greater shift from simply delivering vaccines and reactive measures, to empowering countries and communities to assess and address their own individual health needs. Indeed, our 2015 manifesto committed to establish a world centre for universal healthcare right here in the UK. We have also repeatedly called on the Government to commit to a stand-alone goal on universal health coverage in the SDGs over the past two years, but they have been reluctant to do so.

With the draft almost entirely finished, does the Minister agree that goal 3—

“Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”—

is insufficient for the task and that the phrase “universal health coverage” should be included in the top-line text of the goal? I have been encouraged in recent months by Ministers shifting towards that view, so would it be possible to get more movement in the final few weeks?

Climate change is development in reverse. The progress over the past 15 years in tackling poverty and improving health, food security and access to sanitation could all be eroded if global temperatures are allowed to soar. If temperatures rise by 3 °C, an additional 250 million to 500 million people, predominantly in Africa and western Asia, will be at risk of hunger, and between 1.5 billion and 2 billion more people will be at risk of dengue.

This December we hope that the United Nations framework convention on climate change will conclude with a new binding agreement on climate change, because this is our last best chance to ensure that temperatures do not rise more than 2 °C. However, for the reasons I have outlined, climate change targets should also be central to the SDG package. Although goal 13, which deals with climate change, is welcome, it contains placeholder language in place of a deal that will not be reached until December and will not start to be implemented until 2020. That is why I have been pushing for the SDGs to have a stand-alone goal on climate change. I have also called on the Government to negotiate hard to get goal 13 to commit to restricting global warming to 2 °C. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that such targets are included in the SDGs?

Human rights are sacrosanct: they must be preserved, protected and extended across the world and here in the UK. Specifically, women should have control over their own bodies and not have to live in fear of gender-based violence. Children should expect to be able to be protected from abuse, neglect and mutilation. Workers must have the right to work in safe conditions, to join a trade union, to expect the benefits of trade to affect not just some people but all communities, and to receive a wage that guarantees them a good quality of life. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities must have the freedom to live without fear of persecution because of whom they love. People of faith should be free to associate and gather to worship, and must not face discrimination in the workplace as a result of what they believe. Indigenous communities must be allowed to express their identities without fear of oppression. Disability should never be a barrier to full participation in society, be that in this country or elsewhere in the world. Our values are human rights, and those values should not stop at the water’s edge, so it is right that this deal is universal and has universal human rights running throughout it. It would be good to hear more from the Minister about the methods of implementation and measurements of such rights in the deal.

With the imminent completion of the SDGs, we have a unique opportunity to tackle the drivers of poverty and inequality across the world. As Members from both sides of the House have said, we must do more to address the threats of climate change and to avert future rises in world temperatures. We have to tackle health inequalities, ensure that wealth no longer dictates who does and who does not get treated, and ensure that who lives and who dies is not based on their income. We must be robust in defending and advancing human rights at home and abroad.

The deep and complex challenges we face in the world today will not go away unless we take firm political action. As I said, there was no Department for International Development in 1996. It took a change of Government in 1997 to establish it. Were the British people any less generous towards those overseas in 1996 than they were in 1997? No, they were not, but it takes political leadership and political will to get things done. In that context, we wish the Minister well in his work in New York later this month.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)]

It is always a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker). I pay tribute to all the speakers. We have benefited from a very mature and high-quality debate, and we have very much benefited from the experience of several Members who have a long track record of involvement in international development overseas. It has been a real pleasure to sit through the debate, and I have to say that I have made some 10 pages of notes.

I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for bringing his forensic intellectual rigour to this important subject. If I have a prejudice, it is that so much of the misery and poverty in the world arises out of an absence of the rule of law or, indeed, of law. My passion, in so far as I am still capable of passion, is for us to find more innovative and creative ways of bringing the legal experience, of which we have an abundance in this country, to countries clearly so much in want of it.

My hon. and learned Friend was right to say that from the very outset—the Prime Minister’s chairmanship of the high-level panel some three years ago—the United Kingdom has led the process of coming up with the global goals, as we must now all learn to call them. This document, “Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, is the output. It proudly points out:

“Never before have world leaders pledged common action and endeavour across such a broad and universal policy agenda.”

It was agreed by all 193 member states in August. As it has already been agreed, there will be none of the late-night sessions towards the end of the conference we had to endure at Sendai or that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to endure at Addis Ababa. All the Heads of Government will have to do is to appear in New York, bringing their quota of glamour and sprinkling their magic to promulgate the new development goals.

Before I launch into elliptical orbit with hyperbole, I have to level with the House. This is the third, fourth or perhaps even fifth debate on this subject—however it has been presented, this subject has been the essence of the debate—to which I have responded in this Chamber, in Westminster Hall or in Standing Committee upstairs. The record will show that this document was not my ambition. We set out with a rather different objective. We wanted something much more concise, something more easily communicable, something that would inspire enthusiasm, and something that would enable people, because they could remember the goals, to hold Governments to account.

I said, even earlier this year, that we were prepared to expend diplomatic and political capital to reopen the issue and get back to that original ambition, which we believed we shared with the Secretary-General. The reality, I have to tell the House, is that there was no enthusiasm for such an enterprise. We cherish our leadership role and the influence that we have. It seemed to me much more sensible to accept the consensus, rather than war against it. There was, after all, a perfectly legitimate fear on the part of our allies: namely, that by reopening the process, we might sacrifice some of the important gains that we had made, particularly on the “golden thread”, as the Prime Minister referred to it, of the importance of economic development, governance, the rule of law, driving out corruption and human rights.

On reflection, having read the document, which I commend to hon. Members, I take my hat off to our negotiating team. I think that we have the best outcome that was to be had. Just look at the document. There is the robust language of the preamble. Those of us who are concerned about communicability should look at the clever way in which the agenda is grouped under “People”, “Planet”, “Prosperity”, “Peace” and “Partnership”—it is almost poetry. I am sure that there is something for the spin doctors to work with there when communicating the agenda. There is the rallying cry that absolutely nobody will be left behind. That is the standard by which all the targets are to be judged: no target will be met while any segment of society is left behind.

There is the really strong language of goal 16 on governance, which, as I have intimated, is one of the most important achievements as far as I am concerned. That whole question was largely ignored by the millennium development goals. There is the importance that is attached to gender, to which we gave such enormous effort, with the targets on female genital mutilation and on early and forced marriage.

[Mr Shuker]

I want to put on the record the thanks of the Opposition to our excellent negotiating team in New York, who I had the privilege of meeting. While the Minister is walking us through the goals, I wonder if he might say a few words about the two goals that I mentioned, specifically the placeholder language in the climate change goal and the need for a commitment to universal healthcare within the language of goal 3. He mentioned that he had some regrets about the process. I wonder if he shares those two in particular.

[Mr Swayne]

I have every intention of addressing those issues, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.

There is the full integration of climate change into the heart of the process. At the last minute—I hope this will be of some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—we even secured the language that we wanted on anti-microbial resistance. There is the inclusion of modern-day slavery, on which there is cross-party consensus.

I just draw the attention of Members to one single quote from the document, if I may treat them to it:

“We envisage a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination; of respect for race, ethnicity and cultural diversity; and of equal opportunity permitting the full realization of human potential and contributing to shared prosperity. A world which invests in its children and in which every child grows up free from violence and exploitation. A world in which every woman and girl enjoys full gender equality and all legal, social and economic barriers to their empowerment have been removed. A just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive world in which the needs of the most vulnerable are met.”

Those are our values and we have managed to get them into the declaration in an unequivocal way. That is an enormous achievement, against all those countries who, frankly, believe that development is just about economics and, if you please, leave human rights at the door. If I may say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) I share his ideological outlook. We are from the same stable. It all just goes to prove how two like-minded people can read the same document and come to radically different conclusions, but I am happy to have that discussion with him.

We have the global goals and they must now be the starting point for everything the Department does. The foundation is the 0.7%, but there now must be a clear line of sight between the goals as set out in the document and the departmental plan we develop. The goals are, of course, universal. They apply to us. Members have referred to the fact that there must now be a cross-Whitehall approach led by the Cabinet Office to ensure we meet the global goals. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, there must be no cherry-picking—we are committed to the entire package.

As far as DFID’s work is concerned, however, we have to consider where our comparative advantage lies: what we do best, where we can make the greatest impact, where we can secure the greatest value for money and what are our strategic priorities already. They remain our strategic priorities: the reform of the international system, to make sure that all the agencies and multinationals with whom we work also bend themselves to these new global goals; and our right and proper attachment to the gender question and the rights of women and girls. That must remain one of the forefront activities by the Department. We have to, quite properly, retain the emphasis we have placed on sustainable and inclusive economic development as the only permanent way of exiting poverty. Of course, we still—hon. Members have been right to draw attention to it—have to provide the very basics of water, nutrition and health to so many of the world’s poor people.

On specific choices, however, and on the question of where our main effort lies, they will be determined by those priorities and the process, which has already begun in the Department, of the bilateral aid review. We will examine every single country in which we operate and ask the following questions: why are we operating in this country? Are there other countries that we ought to be operating in instead? What are we doing in those countries? Are there things we need to be doing more of, or things we need to be doing less of? Are there things we are not doing that we ought to be doing? That whole process is under way.

In line with that is the multilateral aid review. We have to examine all the partners through which we operate. Are they delivering value for money? Are their objectives aligned with ours? Are they efficient? Are they still a useful operating model? All that has to take place. At the same time, there will be some conditioning as a consequence of the security and defence review, which will guide policy in those areas of the world where our concern is greatest. Our spending portfolio will have to evolve. We will have to do development differently and integrate climate change into everything we do. We have to be climate smart in all our projects and all our doings. These are things we will develop over the next few years.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham quite properly drew attention to data, and was joined in that by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) and the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). We are alive to that concern, as is the document, which speaks of the need for a data revolution. That process has already begun. Our former colleague, Lynne Featherstone, when Parliamentary Under-Secretary, hosted a conference on data. We recognise the huge deficit and the need to make an enormous effort to address the matter. The question of the indicators is still open. We do not expect them to be finalised and published until next March. It might be of some comfort if I say that the national statistician, John Pullinger, is chairing the committee, and I am confident that the indicators will be focused and will enable us to make the appropriate measurements.

I had a very different take on the outcome of Addis Ababa from my hon. and learned Friend. I thought it was a triumph, particularly because it went beyond aid. I share his disappointment at the inability of other G20 and G8 nations to step up to the plate and deliver on the 0.7% target, but my understanding is that at Addis Ababa the EU made a time-bound pledge in respect of the least-developed countries. Its strength, however, lay in its going beyond aid—to questions of harnessing the private sector, of harnessing countries’ resources and of tax reform and widening the tax base. These important issues all came out of it.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, as well as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) in an intervention on him, asked about the transfer of the aid budget to dealing with the refugees. I can reassure the House that there is no change in the definition of ODA, and no cut is being made to make money available for refugees, but clearly there are always opportunity costs: money spent in one way is not available to be spent in another. That is a perfectly proper evaluation for the Government to have made.

I have already addressed the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) asked about the national interest. I do not see a disparity between our national interest and how we deploy our official development aid. I regard the way that we spend it as an investment in pursuit of our national interest. We want to live in a safer, more stable and more prosperous world. That is in our national interest, and I believe we should pursue it.

I will certainly pass on what I took to be the application by the hon. Member for Glasgow North to be included in the delegation to UNGA. I do not know how the delegation is being made up; all I can say is that I know that I am not going.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

As I said, that is a small proportion. The hon. Lady should be aware that the UN flash appeal, which is to encourage the international community to ensure the right level of support for refugees, is around 20% funded. We should not be surprised that the conditions that refugees end up living in are not good enough, and that they might want to seek a better life for themselves. We can be proud of the work that the UK is doing, but not enough other countries are joining us in that.

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

The Syrian crisis has created nearly 4 million refugees, yet fewer than 200 have settled back in the UK through the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme. Given that, and the need for safe passage for those seeking asylum in this country, will the Minister say what discussions she has had with her counterparts at the Home Office to discuss expanding the numbers and the safety of those seeking asylum in the UK?

[Justine Greening]

Alongside the vulnerable persons scheme, this country has accepted well over 4,000 Syrian asylum cases since the conflict began. We work across Government to ensure a joined-up approach to helping people who have been affected by the crisis.

Sustainable Development Goals

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to be back in Parliament for this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on an excellent opening speech that set the tone for the rest of the debate. I offer my extended congratulations for the first time to the Minister and welcome him to his role. He will already know from the short time he has been there that the Department for International Development is a fantastic Department to work in and alongside. It works on tackling many of these issues. We already share something in common, which is a very similar name. I have learned that over my five years in Parliament, because the postman here does not always deliver with 100% accuracy. I have noticed that the Minister’s invites are often printed on considerably thicker card than mine. Now that I am shadowing him in this position, I hope that we will tackle that inequality as well.

We live in a global society, yet every 10 seconds a child dies from hunger and malnutrition. Even after the millennium development goals come to an end this year, nearly 1 billion people will still be living in extreme poverty. Hundreds of thousands of women die each year during pregnancy and childbirth, and a population of more than three times the size of Birmingham dies each year purely from water-related diseases. To stand aside and allow that to continue when we may take action is to perpetuate a great injustice. Ours is the generation that could see the end to extreme poverty, reduce inequality and tackle climate change. It would be easy in the current climate to turn away from tackling some of the world’s most intractable problems.

The thread that connects the key issues we face of climate change, economic crises, disease and conflict is their global and interdependent nature. This year is a unique opportunity for the world to see a realignment and a new settlement of institutions and shared action that can tackle those threats. The agreement to be secured in September on the replacement of the millennium development goals will take place at one of the two crucial summits this year. As Members have said, we will also hopefully agree a framework in Paris in December to tackle climate change into the next generation. The Labour party stood on a manifesto that promised to prioritise those global accords, as well as twin and related ones. We are determined to hold the Government to account throughout this Parliament to ensure that Britain’s reputation as a leader in international development —a reputation hard-fought and hard-won by the previous Labour Government—endures.

There have been valuable contributions in today’s debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) went right to the heart of what our focus needs to be in the coming months in his comments about inequality. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) made a powerful contribution. Some of his most interesting comments were about the disconnect between the 17 goals and 169-odd targets currently in the zero draft, as well as the desire that I am sure we all share for those goals to be clearly explained. That probably means having fewer of them. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), in speaking about her own experiences, brought home how powerful it can be to confront the reality of extreme poverty and inequality, as well as the hope that many people hold not just for their own lives but for their whole community. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) spoke not just about co-operation at UK level, in which I believe passionately, but about the experiences that we can garner from devolved Administrations, such as the Government in Wales, which I know from my own experience has been hugely inspiring in tackling these issues at community level as well.

Some specific concerns were also raised, and I will go through them one after the other. We have discussed the fact that the sustainable development goals are there not just to eradicate extreme poverty but to tackle growing inequality. We put particular emphasis on that in our manifesto. Gender, caste, race, community, disability, religion, age and ethnicity all too often determine people’s life chances. Health, education, jobs and participation are increasingly determined at birth, so we promised to prioritise human rights, climate change and universal healthcare in a bid to tackle that growing concern.

Health inequality is one of the most debilitating inequalities that someone can experience. As the party of the NHS, we want everyone to enjoy the protections that we in this country take for granted, and we are committed to providing the global partnerships, support and encouragement needed to countries that want to provide healthcare for their own citizens. Therefore, it was welcome to hear the Secretary of State say two weeks ago at the Dispatch Box that the Government

“have advocated very strongly for universal health coverage that truly makes a difference to people and puts them in a position to be able to play a role in helping to develop their country.” —[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 575.]

That is particularly welcome because it stands in stark contrast to the previous Secretary of State—who also happens to be the current Secretary of State—who failed to provide before the election for universal health coverage in the post-2015 agenda and refused to support a stand-alone goal on universal health coverage. Most devastatingly, she cut her Department’s direct support to health systems year by year, creating the conditions in which Ebola went unchecked for too long. Can the Minister outline what steps the UK Government will take in the light of their new position on the crucial agenda of universal healthcare? Will they push for universal healthcare, in the language of the goal on healthcare, in the room in September?

Last week in the Chamber, I spoke about how climate change will be seen as development in reverse. The world’s poorest face rising sea levels, droughts and storms. When one’s very survival is under threat from natural disasters, thriving diseases and conflict over resources, economic development can often become a romantic ideal. We remain concerned that, despite those clear links, the zero draft of the outcome document is still unambitious on that agenda, allowing goal 13 to remain essentially a holding text for an agreement that has not yet happened and whose start date and implementation is five years from now.

That is why I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to ensure in September that climate change remains a stand-alone goal in the post-2015 SDGs, with a 2º global temperature rise embedded in the language of the goal. That may seem dry, but the lesson of the millennium development goals was that their language was hugely important for focusing minds and measuring progress. Will the Minister say a few words on that issue as well?

This debate is about more than just negotiating the language of the sustainable development goals; it also needs to be about their implementation. We particularly welcome the opportunity to hear what the new Government see as their priorities within that expansive agenda. As the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, it might be difficult to galvanise political will around 17 goals and 169 targets. Is it the UK Government’s position to have fewer goals and greater focus on each of them? If so, what will those goals be?

There are questions about this Government’s global leadership. When the Prime Minister was appointed co-chair of the high-level panel, we were disappointed to see that he attended only half the meetings. In that context, how does the Prime Minister mean to go about negotiating the SDGs, especially given that key issues such as climate change have fallen off the agenda in meetings that he has chaired in the past? It took Germany’s Chancellor to put climate back on the agenda in the most recent G7 discussions.

The all-embracing nature of the zero draft risks prevarication and duplicity, potentially enabling Governments to address selectively those goals and targets most aligned to their existing agenda, while failing to challenge the more complex and formidable issues that we face.

[Stephen Phillips]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also the difficulty that unless there is effective monitoring, there may be differences within regions and indeed countries? The sustainable development goals might be properly implemented in some areas, or efforts might be made to do so, but rural areas in particular in the developing world might simply be left behind because everybody is concentrating on the capital cities.

[Mr Shuker]

I agree completely with that well-put point. I add that one challenge that everyone in our generation must face following the negotiation of the first millennium development goals is increasing urbanisation, which could leave some people even more disconnected. On issues such as universal healthcare, the problem becomes obvious: how can a healthcare system reach out across all communities? Monitoring will be key, which is why we have called for the disaggregation of data in the results produced through the process.

We believe that we have been clear about our priorities, and we ask the Government to be equally clear in their negotiating position, to tackle inequality, ensure the attainment of the human rights—including the fundamental rights of women and girls—that remain at the heart of the agreements and combat climate change. Not just now but in Paris in December, I hope that the Minister is willing to match our ambitions in the field.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to see the people behind many of the statistics that we read in the paper. That is one reason why we sent HMS Bulwark and Merlin helicopters—so that this country can play our role in providing search and rescue services to help those people. They are literally putting their lives on the line to get a better life, and we should never forget the stories of the people behind those terrible numbers.

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

May I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State back to her post and welcoming the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) to his new post? We look forward to working constructively with the Secretary of State in this very important year for development.

We welcome the reintroduction of search and rescue in the Mediterranean—it was a shameful decision to withdraw it, and the Prime Minister was right to make a U-turn—but we know that the most vulnerable Syrian migrants will not make it to a boat, or get here on a plane; they will die in a camp. Given that the whole world community has come together to relocate those most vulnerable people through the UN, why does the Secretary of State insist on running her own scheme?

[Justine Greening]

We are working collaboratively with the UNHCR. In fact, we have helped just under 200 people through that scheme. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, through the asylum system, we have received 4,000 asylum applications from Syrians. Critically, what this all shows is that we need to support people where they are. Some 99% of the refugees from the Syrian crisis are still in the countries that border Syria, and the UK has put £800 million into helping them build their lives there and educating their children.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

A significant amount of infrastructure was damaged during the crisis over the summer. Part of the £20 million we committed at the reconstruction conference attended by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is to help to replace the infrastructure that has been lost. All the discussion and debate we can have today is simply palliative while a long-term political settlement is being reached, which is the only thing that can in the end improve the long-term prospects of people living in that part of the world.

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

Some 100,000 homes were destroyed or damaged in the most recent crisis in Gaza, and flooding, heavy snow and plummeting temperatures have now intensified the terrible conditions faced by Palestinian men, women and children. While I was in the Occupied Palestinian Territories last month people were literally freezing to death because they struggled to get hold of the materials they need to rebuild. Will the Secretary of State explain why her Government pledged £20 million to help such efforts, but have so far disbursed only a quarter of that figure?

[Justine Greening]

It is important that the hon. Gentleman reflects on the broader assistance that we provide. As he will be aware, over the summer we provided £17 million of emergency assistance. I have talked about the £20 million that we have pledged to the Gaza reconstruction mechanism, which we are in the process of delivering. He will be aware that from 2011 to 2014, we pledged significant resources of about £350 million. We are one of the leading supporters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides key day-to-day services. He is right to draw attention to the conditions in which people are living. That is why we provide so much support, of which I am sure he is supportive.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Friday 5th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will not go into all the detail, but other countries have realised this point. If the suggestion of 0.35% were adopted and the Government decided on it—I do not think for one second that they will—it would put us in the pack rather than being second in the list, as we are at the moment. We would not be behind the rest of the world. It is worth looking at the detail of the figures. Anyone who does so will see that, rather bizarrely, for most of the last two or three decades we have spent around 0.35% and that it is only in the past three or four or probably five or six years—and incredibly since the financial crash—that there has been a huge increase at a time when the country can arguably least afford it.

I am conscious of the fact that there are many amendments, so I shall move on quickly to deal with the final two groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has tabled three amendments, one of which is amendment 2. It sets out one of the criteria for evaluation of the policy and provides that it should be

“relevant, sustainable and capable of having a measurable impact.”

I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s explanation of the definition of “sustainable”. Perhaps he will convince me that that can be easily assessed. Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11 and 37 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. I should mention in passing that any Member who looked at the Notices of Amendments in the Table Office yesterday should bear it in mind that at that stage amendment 37 appeared as amendment 10. The second “amendment 10” should have been “amendment 37”. I am sure that my hon. Friend will set out in convincing detail his reasons for believing that the amendments should be accepted.

It is right and proper for the Bill to be scrutinised this morning. Millions of people outside the House support this country’s aim and ambition to do all that it can to help those around the world who are starving and need help—no one denies that—but I do not think that giving special status to our aid programme has universal support in this country, and I think it important in a democracy for all sides of the argument to be put.

As I have attempted to say during the last few minutes, the amendments would not wreck the Bill. In fact, they would make it more understandable. If they were implemented, more rather than less money would be available for international development. They would make the Bill more straightforward and transparent, and would increase the funding available for international aid.

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

I hope that we shall make good progress today, and respond to the concerns of those who have tabled amendments, new clauses and new schedules. Given the number that have been tabled, I shall not speak to each one; instead, I shall address the broad themes into which they can intuitively be grouped.

The first of the themes that I can discern is independent evaluation—the independent oversight of the duties for which the Bill provides. This group includes proposals for the evaluation to be overseen by, variously, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the Office for Budget Responsibility, and a newly created independent international development office—as well as, confusingly, a proposal that there should be no independent evaluation at all.

The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has called for the creation of an independent international development office. The hon. Gentleman’s late conversion to the quangocracy is a surprising development, which is somewhat at odds with his own preference for

“Parliament regulating things rather than handing them out to random bodies.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 720.]

I look forward to hearing his views.

I can reassure Members that

“the independent evaluation of the extent to which ODA provided by the United Kingdom represents value for money”

was debated extensively in Committee—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Shuker]

Just one second.

It was agreed, on a cross-party basis, to amend the Bill to provide for an independent evaluation while giving the Secretary of State flexibility in respect of the precise organisation that would be responsible for overseeing that scrutiny.

As for the 0.7%, several creative alternatives—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has misspoken in attributing an amendment to me. It is not my amendment, but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like an opportunity to correct the record.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) has heard the point of order, to which he may wish to respond.

[Gavin Shuker]

I am delighted to correct the record, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely true that the hon. Member for North East Somerset attached his name to the amendment rather than moving it himself.

Several creative alternatives to the 0.7% figure were advanced in the 54 or so amendments tabled, including 0.35%—try as I might, I simply could not establish the correlation of this to 0.7%—and 0.67%. It is a bold move to try to renegotiate the terms of a 40-year international agreement to which we are signatories, which states that all developed countries should devote 0.7% of GNI to meet official development assistance commitments. Perhaps most entertainingly given the hon. Members’ apparent hostility towards the 0.7% figure, they advocate that all Ministers should be liable to a £1,000 drop in salary if it is not met, which presumably has made the Minister rather grumpy, as well as putting in place a rather perverse incentive indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is rattling through these amendments at a rate of knots, and we can barely keep up with his arguments. He glossed over the subject of the international development body to scrutinise this. He voted for that on Second Reading, and he voted for a money resolution to put that into being, so could he give us some detail as to why he seems now not to support something that he voted for previously?

[Gavin Shuker]

Forgive me for teaching the hon. Member how this place works, but we vote for the principle of the Bill on Second Reading and then we go into Committee and vote for amendments that allow for the Bill to enact that principle. We viewed, on a cross-party basis, that this was the best way to go forward, and so I will move on.

On the calculation of ODA and GNI, the amendments deal with the time frame of calculation, opportunities to synchronise aid reporting with financial accounting, and the detail of which payments should be included within the calculation of ODA. Given hon. Members’ widely acknowledged preference for turning back the clock, I suppose we should not be surprised by the amendment changing the calculation for ODA to be based on the UK’s GNI from 1975—when, I am assured, a packet of Spangles cost just 2p. I was more perplexed by the move from the internationally accepted calendar year as the calculating period to the financial year of April to March, and of course in their amendment 19, their redefinition of “financial year” to a period of little over 100 days. I am sure the House will be relieved to hear that, again, the terms of this calculation form part of the same internationally agreed covenant.

That concern led to arguments on which payments should be included in the calculation of ODA, and specifically hon. Members’ contention that this 0.7% figure should include payments to the EU, welfare benefits paid to foreign nationals and welfare benefits to UK nationals living abroad, among others. I am afraid ODA is officially defined and therefore this amendment would clearly frustrate the will of the Bill and the principle moved on Second Reading.

Finally, I come to the applicability and expiry of the Act and other technicalities, and the amendments concerning a public referendum, implementation once we have achieved budget surplus, and a sunset clause that limits this Bill to a period of just five years. I do not know whether hon. Members are experiencing a personal crisis of confidence in their own representative capabilities, but they might be interested to know that 29.5 million of the British public give charitably each month, and that on average the British public believe we should give not 0.7%, but around 1.5% of our nation’s wealth to help development. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in particular, who worries this Bill enjoys the support of only

“a few middle-class, Guardian-reading, sandal-wearing, lentil-eating do-gooders with a misguided guilt complex”

and helps them to

“feel better about themselves”.—[Official Report, 12 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 1232.]

I can also reassure him I have never voluntarily eaten a lentil.

Moving to the five-year time limit, the hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that I, too, want to reach a time where we are able to repeal this Act, not because I aspire to living in a UK that is less generous, but because I aspire to living in a world which is more equal, and where each country has the resources, institutions and industry that it needs to be independent of foreign aid. With the greatest respect, when this moment arrives it will be dictated by the humanitarian need that remains, not the diktat of a few Members of Parliament determined to frustrate the passage of this Bill.

We reject these amendments. It is time to pass this Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)]

The Bill places a simple duty on a Minister to report to this House. The amendments fall into four categories. The first is those that seek to negate or reduce that reporting duty, or indeed place the burden of that reporting duty on somebody else—a new body or the OBR, or, indeed, make it subject to judicial review. I, however, prefer the simplicity and the authority of reporting to this House.

The amendments in the second category seek to change the means of calculation on which the report is based, either by changing from a calendar year to a financial year, by adopting a figure of 0.35%, by using the preceding year’s gross national income or by including other payments, such as those made to the EU. I, as a Minister, would find a couple of those amendments quite convenient, but I do not believe that it is the purpose of this House to make Ministers’ lives more convenient. As the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) has said, these matters are defined internationally. The purpose of the Bill is to meet an international commitment, and to mess about with the calculation would be to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill.

The amendments in the third category are those that are mischievous—namely, those that would seek to reduce the salaries of Ministers if we were to fail to meet the commitment. We know, however, that those who have tabled those amendments would be glad that Ministers had not met the commitment—indeed, they would probably wish to pay them more for not having met it. The amendments in this category also seek to provide for a referendum, a sunset clause or some other such impediment to implementing the Bill.

The amendments in the fourth category are those that are, frankly, trivial. Those who have tabled them would have us argue today about the meaning of commonly understood terms such as “value for money” and “reasonably practical”. It is my estimate that none of the new clauses or amendments would improve the Bill. Indeed, they all seek to undermine it. I call on those hon. Members to withdraw them and, if they do not do so, I call on the House to reject them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

We support the actions of this Government on Ebola, but the sluggishness of the international response raises alarming questions about the functioning of the World Health Organisation. There were warnings in April that the epidemic was unprecedented and in June that it was out of control but, amid reports of political leveraging and deliberate delay, the WHO waited until August to declare Ebola an international public health emergency. Will the Secretary of State tell me what exactly her Department has done to enact reform of the WHO since she came to office?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the principal measures that we introduced was the multilateral aid review, which looks systematically across multilateral bodies to understand whether they give the taxpayer good value for money. We will continue to do that. As he says, a key element of the Ebola crisis has been the lack of a co-ordinated response at the beginning, and we need to learn from that.

[Gavin Shuker]

It was the fundamental lack of basic health coverage in pockets of west Africa that allowed this outbreak to go unchecked for so long. That was one element in the so-called perfect storm of Ebola. At present, the next worldwide deal on development calls merely for healthy lives and well-being, so will the Secretary of State now go further in strengthening the language of the stand-alone goal on health? Will she match the Labour party’s commitment to universal, guaranteed health care for all?

[Justine Greening]

This Government have finally honoured the UK’s commitment to spending 0.7% of our gross national income on aid, and we have significantly increased our spend in relation to providing critical health care. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are also playing a leading role in ensuring that the post-2015 development framework does indeed get great health outcomes for people in developing countries.

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

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman just mentioned the charitable arm of the Government. Will he explain how that is different from the charitable feelings that we have as individuals?

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman has set me up nicely to explain the dualism involved. There is a belief among those who have latterly signed up to the cause that we have a responsibility to spend a significant proportion of our GDP on aid, but that that action represents the end of the process. They believe, for example, that we are getting value for money by buying a certain number of mosquito nets or toilets, or by digging a certain number of wells. In fact, we have to tackle the institutions that reinforce inequality in the first place. We should not therefore view DFID as the charitable arm of the UK Government; quite the opposite—it needs to be a force for transformation.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely strong point. The British people are donating extraordinarily generously at the moment through the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal to tackle the spread of Ebola in west Africa, yet Conservative Members are chuntering in their seats and attempting to frustrate the Bill at this crucial time. The House has expressed its will to support countries such as Sierra Leone in developing strong health systems that would prevent outbreaks of diseases like Ebola in the first place.

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I commend the Government for the work they are doing in Africa to tackle Ebola. We should be proud that this country is stepping up to the plate while other nations could do much more. However, it is institutional issues such as a lack of universal health care coverage—which we might have an opportunity to do something about in the post-2015 discussions—that will decide the fate of people in future outbreaks. We should not lose sight of that fact.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we should not be judged solely on how much we are spending, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, this Bill is precisely about being judged on how much we spend. It does not do any of the other things that he thinks worth while. Does he therefore agree that we should ensure that the money we are already spending is spent properly before we consider increasing it, rather than doing what the Bill seeks to do, which is to increase it first then come back later to see whether it has been spent properly?

[Gavin Shuker]

It is clear that we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. I do not view it as inconsistent to raise our budget over the coming years in line with a set figure that we have been signed up to for a long time, at the same time as tackling corruption. That policy will form a safeguard for future generations, which is why it has cross-party support.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes his case with his customary passion and commitment to the cause. The Minister explained that we needed to agree to the motion in order to put the Bill into Committee so that we can then take out clause 5, which makes the motion necessary. If that is the case, what will the Opposition do in relation to clause 5?

[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.

[Mr Bone]

The shadow Minister is being very generous in giving way, and I have a high regard for him. He has talked a lot about the issues in the Bill, but we are discussing the money resolution. Does he agree that the tradition in this House is that if a private Member gets a Second Reading, which is difficult to do, a money resolution ought to be forthcoming so that the Bill can be discussed in Committee?

[Gavin Shuker]

I note that the hon. Gentleman has had considerably more time in the House than my good self—I believe he first sat on the green Benches in 2005, making quite an impact ever since—so I shall leave it to him to follow up that point with Ministers. It is true that we are committed to the Bill, and it is clear that we support the money resolution tonight.

The resolution focuses on money, not just integrity. It is therefore appropriate for us to reflect on the benefits that stem from our being a world leader in international development. Globally, we can see the true impact of poverty and the lack of opportunities, and how inequality and poor governance fuel extremism and hate. If we want the situation to change permanently, the only long-term solution is to invest in development.

[Philip Davies]

The money resolution states that it will

“authorise any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown or government department.”

How much money is the hon. Gentleman prepared to throw at it? The resolution says “any”, so how much money is he prepared to hand over?

[Gavin Shuker]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know, from his preparations for what I hope will be an entertaining speech, that the wording is fairly standard for a money resolution.

Our total spend is currently about 0.7% of GDP, and that will obviously be enforced by the Bill. Forgive me for saying that the general public may be misled—though certainly not by Members of this House—to believe that the amount we are spending is much greater. When asked, they said that on average 19% of our GDP is sent overseas, and when asked how much they thought should be sent overseas, they aimed for about 1.5%, so I am perfectly content with 0.7% to protect the poorest in the world’s community.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker]

I will, but I do so for the last time.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

To get back to the money resolution and the very important constitutional point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), does the Labour party think it is right and proper for the Government to expedite a money resolution for one private Member’s Bill—this Bill—but not for the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which many of us view as equally important?

[Gavin Shuker]

The vagaries of coalition politics are new to us all, including Opposition Members.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that we are debating a money resolution for the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, is it in order to expand the debate to deal with matters European?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have already told the House, that this is not a general debate on the policy of money resolutions; it is specific to the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill. Members have referred to others in passing, but they are not the subject of this debate. We are using up time in a time-limited debate. I am therefore sure that Members will stay in order, and I will certainly keep them in order by not allowing them to expand the debate to any other Bill.

[Gavin Shuker]

The Bill will be truly memorable, given the recent interventions.

The challenges we face are often global, and they require global leadership. It is clear that if we want to achieve a post-aid world, the 0.7% target must be met. That will require consistent leadership by developed nations; and passing the Bill, for which tonight’s money resolution is obviously needed, can only enhance the opportunity to encourage other developed nations that have made commitments to step up to the mark.

Money is only a small part of the story, because global leadership is also needed. That is why we will guard against DFID becoming the charitable arm of the UK Government when it can be an instrument for global development and change. It is true that the 0.7% target is enough to provide the most effective anti-malarial vaccine to every child in need, send 50 million children to school and provide sanitation for nearly everyone who needs it, but development is about much more than a single vaccine, sending one child to school or punching a hole in the ground. It is about providing a platform for empowerment and self-sustainability that will end the need for aid in our lifetime. I think that I speak for Members from across the House when I say that that should be our aim. We may disagree on the route to achieving it, but Opposition Members believe that passing the money resolution is a serious step forward, and we are backing it and the Bill.

Global Health (Research and Development)

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful, Mr Streeter, for your chairmanship and for your maths, which has allowed a good period of time in which to express the Opposition’s support for the work of the all-party group, and for the Minister’s response.

The debate has been well informed and well attended, and there were welcome speeches by people who are hugely knowledgeable about the field. I want to refer to the disease that is predominant among those we have been discussing, and some of the recommendations in the report. I also want to consider structural and systemic issues about the delivery of effective care.

It is crucial in such debates to avoid becoming too fixated on high-level statistics and market processes, or too absorbed in the clinical mechanics of disease prevention and control. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) pointed out, in his hugely passionate speech, that absorption can cause us to forget the lived reality for the many people who have those terrible diseases. Death from tuberculosis, and life with it, is horrible. Cavities form in the lungs, causing bleeding, or resulting in pus-filled infection, blocking vital airways and causing difficulty in breathing. Each breath becomes a battle, because tuberculosis weakens the body and causes weight loss so extreme that, to the outsider, it can appear as if the body is literally consuming itself. When it affects children, it can mean that a child of six weighs 8 kg, which is barely the weight of a newborn baby. Long-term pulmonary damage, collapsed vertebrae, brain damage, lesions so severe that they change the structure of the body: that is the reality. Those are just some of the complications that survivors of the disease face, in addition to the stigma that besieges this disease of poverty and proximity.

As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, tuberculosis continues to ravage the lives of millions of people worldwide. There were 8.6 million new infections in 2012 alone. There are regions of the world

“teetering on the brink of a tuberculosis epidemic”.

If it is left unchecked over the next 20 years almost 1 billion people will be newly infected with TB; 200 million will develop the disease; and 35 million people will die of it. Given that it is curable, that is an unforgivable tragedy. That situation—alongside malaria, HIV, dengue, yellow fever, rabies, sleeping sickness, river blindness, leprosy and many others on the World Health Organisation’s list of neglected diseases—is a spur for our timely, if not overdue, debate.

As Members have pointed out, fundamental market failures have meant that the development of affordable and accessible treatments has simply not been prioritised in the way it should have been. In the past 40 years, just one Food and Drug Administration-approved TB drug has been introduced to market, compared with 15 FDA-approved products introduced for hay fever. Yes, hay fever is debilitating and it is certainly an uncomfortable irritation for many people, but it is not a global killer.

The inquiry and report that sparked today’s debate offer a number of pragmatic solutions that could underpin the currently failing commercial model or support the development of alternative structures and models for product development. It is crucial that these recommendations receive the attention they deserve.

The Department for International Development is already a world leader in research and development for global health, which this Government have prioritised in their parliamentary term, just as the previous Labour Government did in their last parliamentary term. It is vital that DFID’s reputation is maintained and further enhanced if the threats of pandemic proportions posed by these neglected diseases are to be abated.

The Prime Minister’s welcome recent announcement on antibiotic resistance and the £1 billion UK commitment to the Global Health Fund must also be celebrated, but such leadership must be shown across the board. A focus on research and development must not crowd out other important health care considerations. For example, the World Health Organisation’s recommended approach to tuberculosis—commonly known as directly observed treatment, short-course, or DOTS—requires daily supervision by a qualified health professional. That is an impossibility for the 2 million Somalians who have no access to health care services, or even for the 8 million Somalians who have access to such services but for whom it takes an average of four hours’ travel to reach them.

Moreover, research and development alone will not address the issue of those people who might never be diagnosed. They are prevented from accessing basic medical assistance because of poverty, stigma or discrimination. They are also isolated from the respite that decent health care can offer and, in the case of communicable diseases, they are unknowingly or helplessly infecting those around them. For these people, the urgent need for universal health care coverage is clear.

The UK death rate for TB is admittedly high in some areas. As many Members have highlighted in today’s debate, TB is a disease that shows no respect for national boundaries. Nevertheless, the reason the UK death rate for TB is low in comparison to other nations is down to the progress made by our NHS, which is undoubtedly my party’s greatest legacy. The NHS is a world-leading health care system built on the principles of fairness, providing high-quality and accessible health care that is free at the point of use.

In addition to responding to the specific recommendations of the report, I invite the Minister to set out how the UK will ensure that the laudable goal of universal health care coverage, which this Government have signed up to, will remain on the post-2015 development agenda, because it is only when we achieve universal health care coverage that the links between disease, poverty and inequality can begin to be broken.

If the main earner in a family becomes ill, the family can be driven even deeper into poverty; disease destroys their ability to earn money, or even their ability to subsist through work. That problem is compounded by the direct medical costs that patients face—such as consultation fees, drugs, diagnosis or hospitalisation—or by the indirect costs associated with ill health, such as travel to the nearest health centre, or increased nutritional or heating needs. Children miss out on school because of illness, or have to earn money to compensate family incomes that have fallen when parents or siblings become sick. So, in considering what support to give, it is essential that we not only look at the specific diseases that have been mentioned but at the mechanisms for delivering treatment.

The gendered impacts of ill health must not be ignored either. Women and girls are not only less likely to seek help, but are often saddled with caring responsibilities on top of their existing work loads. Frequently, they are even expected to give up their own work or education, undermining their chance to reach their potential, which traps the most vulnerable in cycles of poverty, disease and poverty again.

The ability to enjoy free access to health care services as envisaged by universal health care coverage would not only ensure access to treatment but would increase medical visits, which would raise the rates of diagnosis that the report makes clear are crucial in the fight against communicable diseases.

A holistic approach to health requires going beyond even universal health care coverage to include consideration of water and sanitation, inequality, housing and education, so it is clear that the challenges faced by the world in responding to the needs identified in the report are massive. However, it is only in adopting such an approach that we can be clear about the true impact of the neglected diseases that we have been discussing today, and about how we can address them.

We face some of the gravest global health care challenges of our time. Addressing them will require a co-ordinated international effort, and I am sure that the efforts of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who I congratulate on securing this debate, will go a long way towards holding our feet to the fire and ensuring that we do address them.