Afghanistan: FCDO Responses to Members

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Female Afghan MPs are particularly at risk. Many have decided, very sadly, to leave their own country. As a public service announcement, I want to say that the Inter-Parliamentary Union is working with other Parliaments to put together the complete list of those individuals. I thank the Minister’s noble Friend for offering me a meeting. I know that many colleagues will have heard from female Afghan MPs. If they could ensure that they reach out to me, as chair of the British group, to make sure we have sight of all the names, we will work with other Parliaments to ensure that when they are able to get out of the country there will be a range of different countries that will give them refuge.

[James Cleverly]

We have worked extensively with countries in the region. I pay particular thanks to the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, which have worked very hard on some specific cases that I have raised with them. I am very grateful for the point that my hon. Friend has made. We do very much prioritise women, who, as we have always known but are now reminded, are in particular danger under the new regime in Afghanistan.

Official Development Assistance and the British Council

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this afternoon’s debate.

Let me start by anticipating some of the things that my hon. Friend the Minister may choose to say at the end of the debate. I have no doubt that, as my excellent successor, he is extremely well briefed on some of the points that he will choose to make in response to the points that have been raised by so many colleagues this afternoon.

I first want to say, in my most understanding mode, that I understand that when we have the sharpest economic contraction for 300 years, it is necessary to review aid spending that is linked to the size of the economy. The £2.9 billion that had to be removed from the budget as a result of that economic contraction is something that I can understand. It is unfortunate, but I can understand it.

I can also understand the defence, which the Minister will no doubt put up, that there is a clause in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 that says that, under extreme circumstances, the Government can come to Parliament and outline an explanation for why they did not meet 0.7% in a particular year.

I anticipate that the Minister will also point to the fact that the UK continues to spend £10 billion this year in overseas development assistance. Any one of us would accept that that is a very large amount of money, and when we are spending a large amount of money, it is always important to review it and see whether we are spending it wisely. A zero-based budget exercise, looking at every line item of expenditure, which is effectively what the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has just gone through, is something that any prudent Government should do from time to time.

However, where I begin to depart from agreeing with what my hon. Friend is likely to say at the conclusion of the debate is around the change to 0.5%—going into a financial year and deliberately changing that percentage—without testing the will of Parliament to agree to it. That is where I think we are getting on to rather difficult legal and constitutional ground, because we all went into the last general election with a pledge to meet 0.7%. It was something that 100% of MPs were elected on. The law does state that 0.7% is what we should be aiming to achieve, apart from when there is an inadvertent inability to meet that due to economic circumstances.

I feel very passionately that those of us who are expressing concerns this afternoon are really expressing the concerns of those who are most affected, who are unable to voice their opposition. Of course, when a party breaks a manifesto pledge, it is usually voters at the next general election who are affected by it who will vote them out, but in this case, those who are most affected will, according to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), very likely be dead by the time of the next election and not able to lobby a UK Member of Parliament.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) was saying about polling—no doubt the Minister may also allude to this—the fact is that this policy does not poll badly in the United Kingdom, because those affected are not themselves being polled and those being polled are not themselves affected.

[Mr David Davis]

There has been lots of backwards and forwards on this, but the simple truth is that the polling depends very much on the question asked. One of the effects of these cuts falls on starvation relief, drought relief and on medical support. If it is put to the public, “Do you want to give emergency aid to people starving to death?”, we get 92% in favour.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Indeed, that is an excellent point. People are very strongly in favour of vaccinating the world, and that is why I very much welcome the pledge made at the G7, which I understand will be in addition to the 0.5%. No doubt the Minister will confirm that.

[Dr Murrison]

Just on the subject of polling, the British Foreign Policy Group, which is hardly a right- wing organisation, polled this issue earlier this year. Some 72% of people would like to see a cessation or reduction in aid until the financial situation is resolved. We are in danger of batting these figures backwards and forwards. We must rely on what we hear on the doorstep. I do not know what my hon. Friend’s doorsteps are like, but mine are quite unequivocal on this matter.

[Harriett Baldwin]

What I would say is that there is one poll I would like to take—it is the one that Mr Speaker has asked us to take in this House—and that is a vote on whether the 0.7% should be changed to 0.5% on a forward-planning basis. That is the poll I would like to take. Last week in Prime Minister’s questions, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the Prime Minister indicated that today’s debate on the estimates was that vote.

I have looked into the matter, and I understand that if we voted down today’s estimates, not only would all diplomats stop being paid immediately, but a vote against estimates can only be done to reduce a budget, rather than to increase a budget. That is why I am perfectly happy to support today’s estimates, but I would like to see a separate, stand-alone vote on whether we should go from 0.7% to 0.5%. If this House agrees that, I do not have any problems with the constitutional situation. I think that would override what is in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. We need to see a test through a poll of the Members of this House.

I am delighted to see that the economy is recovering very fast at the moment here in the UK, which I hope will mean that next year’s budget for overseas development assistance can start to increase once again. I am also delighted that the UK and Kenya are jointly co-hosting the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education at the end of July. I very much welcome the £430 million that the Prime Minister announced at the recent G7 towards global education. It is the single best investment we can make in the future of our planet in terms of making sure that every child gets 12 years of quality education. We all know how much that unlocks in terms of economic prosperity, a better climate and a healthier society, so that is an incredibly important thing to be doing.

Can I suggest to the Minister that, in encouraging a successful replenishment of the $5 billion that the Global Partnership for Education is seeking, we offer, as our economy grows, to match fund contributions from other donor countries around the world? I think that would be a really positive way of saying, “If you’ll put in more money, we’ll put in more money here in the UK.”

I would like to see a reversal of the 85% reduction to the United Nations Population Fund for family planning. I want every girl in the world to be able to access the same choices in family planning as we were all able to access in our lives. Of the countries around the world, one of the most alarming anecdotes I have heard about the impact of this reduction in aid spending is that in South Sudan the World Food Programme is saying it is now having to choose between feeding hungry children and feeding starving children. I would urge the Minister to put that very much at the top of his shopping list for his budget increase next year.

In conclusion, let us not argue about which poll says what. Let us have a poll in this place on this issue. Tonight’s vote is not the vote on that. Let us have a separate one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I have had long conversations with the families of Anoosheh Ashoori and all the other dual nationals who have been detained. Nothing is more moving or heartbreaking in this job than seeing the situation of dual nationals in Iran and, indeed, of nationals and dual nationals around the world, and I have been intensively engaged in trying to resolve this. With other issues, it was something I discussed with our US friends at Carbis Bay. I am doing absolutely everything I can to secure the release and return home of all our detained dual nationals in Iran and, indeed, around the world.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and his whole team on delivering such a successful G7 summit in Carbis Bay. I welcome the generous contribution to the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education. May I ask for an assurance that as our economy recovers, we will revert to 0.7% of GNP for overseas development assistance, and that our contribution represents merely the foundation of our ambition to ensure that every child in the world gets 12 years of quality education?

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I can assure her that in all the conversations we have about our commitment to Africa and to the broader world, ensuring 12 years of quality education for girls remains the top priority. We recognise that, as the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, it is the Swiss Army knife for global problems, and it will remain a high priority for us, both in this part of the world and more broadly.

Ethiopia

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He is absolutely right that this requires a political solution; without a political solution, all the other actions that take place will not work. That is not to say that we should not do other things, but we need to look at the backbone of the long-term political situation. This conflict has been going on too long—over eight months. During that period, we have called for “unfettered”—in the right hon. Gentleman’s words—humanitarian access. I would not describe the access we have now as unfettered; I would describe it as better than when we started early on in the conflict. We are working very closely with the UN in this regard.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the issues around arms embargoes, which I will consider carefully. As he will appreciate, though, arms come in over many borders—porous borders—and the situation is quite complex, with regional influence well beyond just the African continent. The African Union should be, will be and is part of the solution, and we will work with it. I have spoken a number of times to my opposite number, Commissioner Bankole, and I even spoke a few weeks ago with the President of Ethiopia and briefly with the head of the African Union, Moussa Faki, about the African Union. The African Union will be part of the solution. In the 54 states of Africa, there is a diminishing conflict, but there are significant problems, and the African Union is well placed to solve them, rather than their being solved from London or New York.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on securing this urgent question, and thank Mr Speaker for granting it, shining a spotlight on this absolutely appalling humanitarian situation. It is particularly tragic, given how much progress Ethiopia had been making on development. The Minister said that quite clearly it is a man-made crisis. In that light, would he consider writing to the Nobel peace prize awarding committee to ask it to revoke the peace prize it awarded to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed?

[James Duddridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for her service as my predecessor in this role. She will appreciate that the awarding of a Nobel peace prize is not for the United Kingdom to determine. At the moment, our relationship with Prime Minister Abiy is one of trying to have a strong dialogue. The Foreign Secretary has a very good, honest relationship with Prime Minister Abiy. At the moment, we are better having a continued and quiet dialogue and diplomacy, rather than leaping to some of the solutions that my hon. Friend is pointing to—legitimate solutions elsewhere that might be right at a different time, but I do not think they would be constructive at this juncture.

UN International Day of Education

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UN International Day of Education.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important debate so close to the United Nations International Day of Education. After today’s moving debate on Holocaust Memorial Day, I add my tributes to the Holocaust Educational Trust for its crucial work in taking sixth formers to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau. The visit I undertook with students from Hanley Castle High School will remain forever etched in my memory and, importantly, in their young memories. It is vital that such work continues.

I never thought that we would be marking UN International Day of Education at a time when our schools in the UK are closed to so many children. I share the Government’s aspiration to reopen our schools as soon as possible, and would welcome an even earlier date than 8 March, by reopening classes in a staged way, even for part of the day, with reception to year 2 back first, and gradually adding additional classes. Let us also make the most of fresh air and exercise, like the wonderful Forest Schools that so many of the West Worcestershire primary schools enjoy. I welcome the important investment that the Government are making in extra support and catch-up tuition, to help each child make the most of their potential.

Around the world, even before the pandemic, some 258 million children and adolescents were out of school. The majority of them were girls. More than half of 10-year-olds in low and middle-income countries were not learning even to read a simple text. As a result of the pandemic, 1.3 billion children around the world have seen their schools close at some point in the past 12 months. Let me quote:

“Twelve years of full-time education is not the only answer to the world’s problems. It is not a panacea, but it is not far short.”

Those are not my words; those are the words of our Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary. He knows that in many of the poorest, most conflict-torn countries, it is mainly girls who drop out of school early, who lag behind boys in literacy levels, and who have children when they too are still children. The Prime Minister continued:

“Female education is the universal spanner,”.

He said it is the “Swiss army knife” that helps tackle so many of the world’s problems, and that

“the best and biggest thing that we can do for the world, is to make sure that every girl gets 12 years of full-time education.”

It is wonderful as we begin 2021 and the UK presides over the G7 that girls’ education has made it on to the agenda. My wonderful colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), has been appointed the Prime Minister’s envoy. The UK’s G7 goal was to secure a commitment to getting 40 million more girls into education and 20 million more girls reading by the age of 10. Here in the UK we are rightly concerned about the importance of laptops for remote education, but we should also not forget the importance of low-tech and simple things, such as exercise books, pencils, chalk, and text books, as well as older technology such as radio, for children around the world who are also having to undergo remote education.

It is wonderful that later in 2021, the UK and Kenya have agreed to co-host the replenishment of the global partnership for education, which is the only multilateral organisation that crowds in funding from richer countries to help education budgets in very poor countries. I wholly endorse the leadership that the Prime Minister and the Government are showing on education globally. A better educated world will be a healthier, more peaceful and more prosperous one, and that surely benefits us all. But that leadership will need bolstering with money from the UK aid budget.

The Minister will know that I oppose the temporary reduction of the overseas development assistance target, as it not only breaks our manifesto commitment, but will mean that there is less money available to tackle hunger, deliver vaccines, educate children in poor countries and make sure they have clean water. I welcome the commitment that the UK has made to the Vaccine Alliance, and the commitment that we have made to doubling international climate finance, but can the Minister reassure the House today that the cut to the aid budget is not going to affect the money spent on education for the world’s poorest children? Will our contribution to the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education be at least as generous and ambitious as before? Will as many girls as before be helped to remain in school through projects such as the Girls’ Education Challenge? Will she consider launching more UK Aid Match projects so that we can all donate more and have it matched by UK aid? What progress is she making as Minister for the European Neighbourhood and the Americas in encouraging our friends in the US to step up and spend more on global education under the new Biden Administration?

With new vaccines coming on line, we are starting the process of building back better after this awful pandemic, and of levelling up our own country as we recover. We also have a key role to play in building back and levelling up the world by ensuring that every child—both in our country and around the world—gets a quality education, no matter how poor the country into which they are born. That will be the most important way in which we can build a stronger, more resilient and healthier world for our children.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Members will be aware that there is to be a time limit of three minutes per speech for Back Benchers. I know that that is very short, but I must explain that if everybody takes three minutes, not everyone who is on the list will get in. If Members were able to take just a little bit less than three minutes and share out the time equally, everybody would have the chance to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

It has been an excellent debate. I want to thank all 14 colleagues who were able to get in on the debate, but especially the eight colleagues who had wanted to speak from the Back Benches but were unable to do so on this occasion.

We travelled from the north of the UK in Orkney and Shetland, down to the south and Meon Valley, off to the west in Ceredigion and Maidstone in the east. We heard a consistent message about the importance of education, with some particular themes coming through: girls’ education, inclusive education, the importance of sanitation in schools and the importance of quality teaching.

From every speaker today, whether Opposition or Government Members, we heard about the importance of the UK’s leadership around the world in this issue. The UK Parliament has dedicated time to this subject today. Through the International Parliamentary Network for Education, which I co-founded with Kenya in the last year, we are arranging for many Parliaments around the world to speak this week about the UN International Day of Education and the importance of education.

We went all around the world in the speeches. We heard about Bangladesh. We heard about Syrian refugees in Lebanon. We heard about Mozambique. All Members who have spoken today agree on the importance of education. We want to see and follow the money in this Parliament, because we want to see the Government’s rhetoric matched by the appropriate level of funding for the various replenishments, so that we are not only encouraging others to contribute but making our own contributions. This has been a wonderful, female-dominated debate, for a change, and I thank everyone who took part.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered UN International Day of Education.

Draft Conflict Minerals (Compliance) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 General Committees

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Conflict Minerals (Compliance) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

Mr Hollobone, it is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. The regulations, laid on 15 October, are necessary for the application “to and in the UK in respect of Northern Ireland” of the EU conflict minerals regulation, which is listed in annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol. The EU regulation establishes the due diligence obligations of the largest importers of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold— collectively and, as far as I am concerned permanently, referred to as 3TG. Supply chain due diligence for these so-called conflict minerals is absolutely crucial, as a large proportion originate from conflict-affected high-risk areas.

The EU regulation requires importers to apply relevant Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidance that would otherwise be voluntary. It aims to break the link between armed conflict and exploitation of 3TG and to put an end to abuses of miners and local communities which, sadly, are often linked to violations of human rights.

Parts of the conflict minerals regulation have applied in the UK since 2017. However, its key operative provisions do not apply until 1 January, after the transition period has ended. These include the relevant obligations on businesses and member states’ competent authorities to ensure its effective implementation throughout the EU. Those key provisions will not, therefore, form a part of retained EU law and will not take effect in Great Britain. The regulations that we have laid before Parliament implement the EU regulations in Northern Ireland, as required under the protocol, and they establish an enforcement framework for non-compliance. This means that from 1 January 2021 the largest importers in Northern Ireland of tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold will need to conduct and demonstrate due diligence to ensure that their imports have been mined and processed responsibly. They will have to demonstrate that they are managing the risk that their supply chains could fuel conflict or be linked to human rights violations.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very interesting speech. Will he elaborate on other minerals such as diamonds, which are also often mined in conflict zones? Is there separate legislation that covers those in Northern Ireland?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. There are of course other high-value items—diamonds being the most obvious—that are subject to provisions in other legislation, to ensure that they do not originate in conflict-affected states and that their mining is not linked to human rights violations.

To enable enforcement in Northern Ireland, we are proposing powers for the Secretary of State to require businesses to produce information about their due diligence activities. The regulations also make provisions for inspectors to enter business premises to inspect documents, data and records. The regime follows a civil sanctions route and provides for the power to issue civil compliance notices and financial penalties where businesses do not comply. The decision to impose a financial penalty may be appealed to the first tier tribunal. The regime does not impose penalties for substantive breaches of the due diligence obligations, as this is considered outside the scope of the EU conflict minerals regulation. As required by the regulations, we will publish guidance at the earliest opportunity on how the civil sanctions will be used.

We accept the comments of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on regulation 8. In particular, it said that regulation 8 enables the Secretary of State to serve a notice requiring a person to produce information, but is enforceable only against Union importers—importers into Northern Ireland. The regulations do not make provisions for enforcing a requirement under regulation 8 that is imposed on a person who is not a Union importer. We also accept as a point of principle that the imposition of obligations in statutory instruments should be accompanied by enforcement measures with equivalent scope.

It is necessary for these regulations to be made before the end of the transition period, to meet the UK’s obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. We are proceeding with the regulations as currently drafted, but we will bring forward legislation as soon as possible to amend regulation 8. This amendment will make it explicit that the power to require the production of information can be exercised only in relation to a Union importer—an importer into Northern Ireland. In the meantime, the Secretary of State undertakes not to exercise the power to require production of information under regulation 8 against persons other than Union importers. When the amending regulations are laid, they will also implement some minor administrative and clarifying corrections.

Our intention through these regulations is to allow businesses to operate responsibly in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, because 3TG minerals are key components of much of our technology, and it is our view that, in the right conditions, they can be mined in a way that builds prosperity and security for local communities. Conducting due diligence, in accordance with the OECD guidance, is key to managing the risks and to ensuring that businesses along the supply chain behave responsibly. Our proposed regime for Northern Ireland is in line with the spirit of the OECD guidance, incentivising business to continually improve their due diligence processes. The approach taken in the regulations, including the financial penalties for failure to co-operate with procedural requirements, corresponds with the European Commission’s stance on the scope of the EU regulation.

To conclude, we consider that this approach to implementation of the EU conflict minerals regulation in Northern Ireland will meet our obligations under the protocol. I welcome this opportunity to hear the views of Members on the regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.

Official Development Assistance

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

Amid all the hyperbole, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but the truth is that the full scale of the economic situation was not clear—[Interruption.] It was not clear, because we were coming through—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering. Let me answer the question; I am trying to take him seriously on this and he should listen to the answer. The fact is that if he looks at June, we were coming through the first wave. We had not got ourselves into a position of having to go into a second lockdown and, frankly, the full financial effects were not clear. He is right to make that point, but there is a very clear reason why we have had to take the measures that we have, which we take as a matter of regret. We wanted to avoid that, but it is because of the nature of the virus and the prolonged financial impact that it has had on businesses and, as a result of that, on the public finances.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Our economy has taken a terrible shock this year and that is why 0.7% means that we have already had to cut aid by £2.9 billion this year. Yesterday, I heard an update from the World Food Programme in South Sudan. It has had an even worse economic shock not just from covid, but from the ongoing conflict and the fact they have had locusts and biblical floods. Now, more than half the population is facing famine. The Foreign Secretary recently sent his special envoy for famine prevention and humanitarian affairs to South Sudan. Can he reassure the House that he will make no further cuts to the programming in South Sudan?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to South Sudan. I could give a list of countries that risk the compound effect of conflict, covid and famine. We could add Yemen, Burkina Faso and north-east Nigeria, which is why I launched the first UK special envoy for famine prevention and humanitarian affairs, Nick Dyer, and why, as we go through the allocation process that I have described to the House, these are precisely the things—conflict, humanitarian and covid—that we will look very carefully to safeguard for all the reasons that she described.

Sudan

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the June massacres in Sudan and the UK’s support for Sudan’s democratic transition.

Thank you, Mr McCabe—I shall try to observe that departure time. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this as one of the first debates in Westminster Hall since it reopened. In a world full of bad news, Sudan’s transition to civilian rule is a beacon of good news. We must make every effort to ensure that this transition to democracy is peaceful and successful. We all remember the years of brutal conflict in Darfur, and that underlines how important it is that Sudan makes a successful transition to freedom, peace and justice.

Last year the people of Sudan rose up and ousted former President Omar al-Bashir, who was in power for 30 years, and who was the first sitting President to be indicted by the International Criminal Court, for allegedly directing a campaign of mass killings, rape and pillage against civilians in Darfur. After he was deposed by the Sudanese people last year, he was imprisoned, tried and convicted on multiple corruption charges.

However, on 3 June 2019, after the Sudanese had forcibly removed President Omar al-Bashir in April 2019, but still during the uprising calling for freedom, peace and justice, some military units stormed the protestors sit-in site, leading to the death of perhaps as many as 100 protestors. So my first question to the Minister this afternoon is, what can our ambassador to Khartoum, the excellent Irfan Siddiq, tell us about the progress of the inquiry into this massacre? It has been over 15 months, and the inquiry is under we are, but the world will not forget the victims and wishes to see justice. Is there more that the UK Government could do to help the inquiry and the search for justice?

The transition to democracy, with a Transitional Legislative Council led by Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, is civilian-led. The all-party parliamentary group for Sudan and South Sudan, which I chair, gives the Prime Minister and the process of transition its full backing. Some of the legislative changes brought in so far to end the oppressive legislation of the Bashir era are world class in their scope. I particularly welcome the fact that female genital mutilation has been criminalised. I remember seeing in Khartoum how the UK was funding programmes to help women speak out against this practice on behalf of their daughters. I seek reassurance from the Minister that that type of work continues. What else can the UK do to support the Transitional Legislative Council build democratic institutions and prepare for the elections in 2022? We are funding a range of programmes aimed at building democratic institutions, and I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on his thinking on that.

The all-party group also welcomes the recent historic peace deal. Comprehensive and inclusive security sector reform is vital, but it will be challenging. The key test of a civilian democracy is that the armed forces are under civilian control, and can intervene in domestic matters only at the request of civilian authorities that are accountable to the people. With the joint African Union and UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur ending, pending an update provided to the Security Council this month, I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on how he will reassure himself that the new joint force is trained and able to protect civilians peacefully. What is the UK doing to assure itself that the peace deal is effectively implemented on the ground, and how can we encourage non-signatory groups to sign the peace agreement?

Every country in the world is having a tough time economically at the moment, but poor people in Sudan are having a particularly tough time. Unlike most places in the world, which often attract global investment when there is regime change of this nature, Sudan is hampered by being on the United States state sponsor of terrorism list. The former regime was, of course, a state sponsor of terrorism, so that was appropriate. However, the transitional Government have taken steps to agree reparations.

I welcome the announcement at the Berlin partnership conference in June of the UK’s pledge of £150 million to help the economy, including £75 million of bilateral support and £80 million for the World Bank and IMF’s work on economic reforms. The bilateral support covers not only vital humanitarian assistance but vital funding for health, clean water and media freedom. The UK has also helped the UN Sudan Humanitarian Fund to help the victims of this year’s exceptional floods. In addition, through our funding of the Global Partnership for Education, the UK is helping to educate children in Darfur and elsewhere.

However, no economy can truly recover without being able to attract global inward investment. That is why I believe that now is the time for the US to lift Sudan’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. I understand that it is a bilateral issue between the United States and Sudan. I also understand that President Trump had the paperwork near his desk this summer, but that, at the last minute, the US Secretary of State made an additional request to Sudan that it normalise relations with Israel. No one would be more delighted than I if Sudan’s transitional Government chose to take that step, but it is a big ask of a transitional Government that has not been installed in any democratic exercise.

If the Prime Minister of Sudan feels that now is the right time, and that this is the right move for Sudan, I am sure such a move would have the UK Government’s whole-hearted support. It would certainly have the support of the all-party group. We have warmly welcomed normalisation between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, and between Israel and Bahrain, and it would be historic progress. However, I would understand if that step were thought too great a leap for the transitional Government right now. I certainly do not think the United States should make it a prerequisite for lifting the state sponsor of terrorism designation.

I ask the Minister to reach out to his US counterpart—and to ask his boss, the Foreign Secretary, to reach out to his US counterpart—to urge the Administration to act within the next few weeks. Whatever the outcome of the US elections, now would be a good time to celebrate one of the foreign policy achievements of President Trump’s Administration, reward the historic progress made in Sudan and enable the economic benefits of inward investment to flow into the country. My final question is, if that happens, will the Minister recommend that the Prime Minister appoint a UK trade envoy to Sudan, so that our two countries can increase their economic links?

Thank you again, Mr McCabe, and thanks again to the Backbench Business Committee for timetabling this important debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

Thank you very much, Dr Huq. It is wonderful to see you in the Chair.

This has been a well-informed and wide-ranging debate, and we have covered most of the salient issues. On the Minister’s assertion about the increased engagement that he and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are putting in place, as parliamentarians who are interested in Sudan, we always welcome being kept updated on the detail of those programmes. We also want to understand how much work the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are able to do without having the “state sponsors of terrorism” designation lifted, and how much depends on that designation being lifted.

We have a window in the next two to three weeks to reiterate these points, which colleagues around the Chamber echoed, to President Trump’s Administration and emphasise that the time is now right. From an economic point of view, this could not be more important to the development of the welfare opportunities of the Sudanese people and their ability to grow their economy and help themselves out of the terrible legacy that they have been left with as a result of that designation. I want to put that point on the record. I thank the Minister and colleagues who participated in the debate for highlighting what an important time this is for UK-Sudan relations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the June massacres in Sudan and the UK’s support for Sudan’s democratic transition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I share the hon. Lady’s view about the importance of scrutiny. We have made clear our commitment to not just maintain but strengthen the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. Select Committees of the House are ultimately a matter for the usual channels and for the House, but we will make sure that the FCDO is willing to be scrutinised however the House decides.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the announcement yesterday that the UK and Kenya will jointly host next year’s replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education. May I urge the Foreign Secretary, when we hold the G7 presidency next year, to put the campaign for 12 years of quality education as a top priority?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her work in government; I know her commitment on this issue. She will know that since 2015, the UK has supported 8 million girls to gain a decent education. What is important is not just the number, but the quality of education. Our global objective is to help 40 million girls into a decent education. That is a key focus of our use of ODA—this touches on the point about merging DFID and the Foreign Office—and it is also one of our top priorities for 2021, both with the summit that she mentioned and our G7 presidency.

Official Development Assistance

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate. I want to speak from the perspective of someone who had the privilege of being a joint Minister: Minister for Africa in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a Minister within DFID. I could not have done either job as well without the other. It was incredibly valuable to have the overall perspective.

I am old enough to know that it is not organisational structures here in Whitehall that matter, but the purpose of what we are doing on the ground. We have a very good framework, with the sustainable development goals, which we are working towards in this decade of action up to 2030, and we should focus, as many posts do across the world, on what they are seeking to achieve. When I held those joint roles, I was able to achieve a lot of the things that we will want to be doing, such as stepping up the money being spent on anti-corruption and governance, including good governance in Ukraine and the western Balkans. These things we all feasible because I had that joint role, and I am willing to believe that, provided we continue to focus on the true purpose, this can work well.

On the issue at hand, I want the Minister to give three reassurances when he responds to the debate. First, will he reassure the House that there will still be a strong voice at Cabinet for the very poorest in the world? We will leave a better world to our children if we can have a healthier, more educated, a more peaceful, freer, more democratic and more climate-resilient world.

Secondly, as the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) just said, we need to make sure that the vast majority of the 0.7% continues to be spent in the very poorest and most conflict-affected parts of the world.

Thirdly, as colleagues will know, I am passionate about the importance of girls’ education and the 12 years of quality education. It is wonderful that the Prime Minister has been such an effective advocate for that cause. It will increase the size of the economy, increase health, reduce poverty, make the world more secure and help our climate, as it reduces population pressures. As the Prime Minister himself has put it, it is the Swiss army knife of development; will the Minister assure me that the Government will continue to emphasise it in their funding as much as they have previously?

In conclusion, I can be open-minded on the structures, as long as the purpose is there. However, in respect of scrutiny in this place, it would be right to have a separate Committee to look at international development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on the merger of DFID with the Foreign Office. It is an estimates debate, but the decision as to whether International Development and the Foreign Office should be one Department or two is not about money. Even if it were, to expect it to happen now, at the height of the pandemic when civil servants should be focusing on the UK and world recovery, is an appalling waste of already overstretched resources. No, it is not about money: it is fundamentally about how the UK views its role in the world. It is about values and whether we pursue our obligations as a relatively wealthy country to do right by the poor and most marginalised of the world, while also pursuing our foreign policy, but as distinct objectives. I fear we will subsume those obligations to the poor of the world into the Foreign Office, whose priorities are not about development.

The Prime Minister indicated recently that there is now likely to be a reprioritisation of aid spending. He said

“We give as much aid to Zambia as we do to Ukraine, although the latter is vital for European security”.

He added that the UK must use its

“aid budget and expertise, to safeguard British interests and values overseas.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 667-8.]

What are those values? To me, development is not about national security interests. I believe it is about how we demonstrate our moral compass in the world—

[Harriett Baldwin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I am not going to give way, because many others want to speak.

The Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 created DFID, following the Pergau dam scandal. It demonstrated our Labour values in its record subsequently on international development and poverty reduction, improving sanitation for over 1.5 million and lifting 40 million children out of poverty. But in the past 10 years DFID’s role in overseas development aid has gradually been reduced. Now DFID spends only 73% of ODA, the rest being spent by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, BEIS and so on. To be fair, DFID has been a shining light and demonstration of the UK’s moral values around the world. DFID has also been rated as the most effective and transparent of Government Departments, delivering real value for money and spending only 2%, of its spend on administration. Meanwhile almost half of the FCO’s spend on ODA goes on administration.

So many key people have criticised this move, including three former Prime Ministers and all the NGOs, bar one, in the field. DFID was created by the incoming Labour Government in 1997 to create a distinct policy line. I am proud of our experience, which has provided life-changing and life-saving support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on calling this debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I will try to make three or four points as briefly as possible.

The idea that foreign policy is separate from aid has been well and truly kicked into touch by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). Whether we like it or not, there is a link between them, and it is better to recognise that, to understand that foreign policy should be moral as well as aid and to understand their combination.

I would ask the Minister three things. First, can we look at strategy as part of global Britain? We have the National Security Council. However, I feel that since the end of the cold war we have been a little complacent in preparing for future problems.

We need a national strategy council to permanently look five and 10 years ahead, whether that is into pandemics, the behaviour of nation states such as China and Russia, or climate change. We are not forward-thinking enough, and that is one of the contributions I would like us to make to understand how we can bring strategy more into our forward-looking policy.

Secondly, when it comes to overseas spending, when I was writing the “Global Britain” document last year that the Prime Minister very kindly wrote the foreword for, we tried to understand where our overseas money was going. Some of it was being spent by the Department for International Development, some by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, some by the Home Office and some by the Foreign Office—quite badly, often. I can congratulate DFID on the quality of its spending, no doubt about it. We do not have an audit of our overseas spending, and I believe that we badly need one. There is no doubt in this House that poverty alleviation is critical—it is moral; it is right; it is good. Grassroots development is critical—it is moral, right and good.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) talked about gender-based violence. I was involved in the campaign against ISIS when we were trying to liberate Mosul and it haunts me still, and makes me deeply upset still, that we knew that we were trying to liberate a city where not only were people being tortured, but women were being raped until their internal organs were collapsing and dying. These things are deeply worrying, and we need strategy. We need DFID and the Foreign Office to be working together on this, but there is a lot of DFID spending that is not on priority areas and spending that is justifiably questionable, so can we please have an audit of overseas spending?

In the 30 seconds I have left, I say that we do need to look again at ODA. We are permanently trying to revise the rules on ODA and we should not be ashamed to do so. For example, we can fund a coal-fired power station but we cannot fund the BBC to develop civil society. I believe that the BBC World Service should be funded from ODA.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Seely]

I would love to, but Madam Deputy Speaker, you are indicating that I should not—I have 10 seconds left. Peacekeeping—MOD peacekeeping—and the BBC should also be funded more than they are from ODA.