International Development Committee Report (Afghanistan)

Debate between Hugh Bayley and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Contrary to what Members might think, our visit was truly inspirational in terms of what it told us about amputees’ recovery and recuperation. The Red Cross runs seven such centres throughout Afghanistan, and its valuable work is supported very effectively by DFID, but it could indeed benefit from further support.

Our main concern is that we cannot predetermine where Afghanistan will go after 2014. There will be elections, but we do not know who will be elected. There will also be security challenges. Threats to security and development potential will vary and may fluctuate across the country. We recommend that DFID’s engagement should be flexible according to the prevailing circumstances at any given time. That may mean acknowledging that delivering development assistance may be more achievable in some provinces than in others. There are provinces in which virtually no violence has occurred, but not all of them are receiving the aid and support that they need.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Given the current security situation, especially in Helmand province, it is much harder for DFID officials to get out and about and supervise and quality-control DFID projects than it was during the Committee’s earlier visits. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for us to maintain the ability to carry out development work in that province—particularly given the loss of so many British lives in Helmand—and that it might be sensible to appoint more Afghan staff to manage DFID projects in the more conflicted areas of the country, given that they have less difficulty in getting out and about for security reasons?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a very important point. We acknowledge that Helmand will present difficulties, and we accept that DFID has decided that it will not be able to maintain an office there once the troops have been withdrawn. However, I agree with him that, given that the British forces’ engagement in Afghanistan has focused on Helmand, it would be a total negation of that if we could not deliver projects in that province. As he says, we need to find local partners who can probably operate much more effectively than armed foreigners.

Zimbabwe

Debate between Hugh Bayley and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Bayley]

I think that there will be an election next year, and the international community needs to prepare for an election next year. I believe that other countries need to put observers in place now, rather than a month or two before the election, to report on what is happening on the ground, and that those observers need to come from Africa. [Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) protesting, but I still think that they need to come from Africa. [Interruption.] No doubt my hon. Friend will have more to say when she makes her own speech.

Those who delivered the damning reports on the intimidation and violence that took place during the last election were, by and large, African observers, because they could get into the country to observe and others could not. If it is possible to obtain a wider range of observers, that is fine: I would strongly support such a development. However, there is clearly more traction politically when Africans from the region blow the whistle than there is for Europeans who do not live in the region year in, year out—notably those in this country—and who have colonial baggage. It is important to ensure that resources are available to enable observers from non-governmental organisations and other bodies in the region to get into the country, get there early, and start giving us their reports.

The global political agreement was a fragile compromise. It was the best that could be delivered after the last election. However, it has provided a window of opportunity. Zimbabwe is not well governed under the unity Government, but it is governed a great deal better than it was under a ZANU-PF Government. The Ministries that are led by MDC Ministers are much better managed than those that are still led by ZANU-PF Ministers. I hope that the people of Zimbabwe will support the parties whose Ministers are delivering palpable improvements, and that they will be allowed to show that support in an election.

[Malcolm Bruce]

Does the hon. Gentleman, who is my colleague on the Select Committee, not recall that Zimbabwe’s Minister for Health and his permanent secretary were from different parties—the MDC and ZANU-PF—but they were working very effectively together as they had gone to the same school? People from the two parties are delivering results in some areas, therefore; it is just unfortunate that that is not apparent in many quarters.

[Hugh Bayley]

I am glad to be reminded of that; yes, it is true. In order to create a good future for Zimbabwe, every opportunity must be capitalised on, and some people from the ZANU-PF political tradition have a great deal to contribute to the future of Zimbabwe.

The UK has always been a large donor. In 2003, we gave some $59 million to Zimbabwe, and by 2008 that had risen to $89 million, an increase of 50%. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chairman of the Select Committee, told the House that the figure has now risen to $100 million. When we were in Zimbabwe, we saw that aid being used to good purpose, such as in health care as both I and the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich have mentioned, and in humanitarian relief. A very small amount of aid goes to the Government to support two or three advisers in the office of the Prime Minister, but almost all the aid is channelled through the United Nations or non-governmental organisations as there is still not sufficient confidence to channel it through the Government of Zimbabwe. DFID ought now to be planning for that to change, so as to be ready to provide aid through the Government when conditions allow.

The global political agreement following the last, flawed, election set a timetable for the approval of the new constitution and stated that a fresh set of elections should be held after the constitution had been agreed. The process is behind time; consultation on the new constitution ended behind schedule, in October. The consultation process was flawed—the security forces were intimidating people—yet it provides a platform for elections to take place.

Robert Mugabe is threatening to end the global political agreement in February next year, prior to an election, because that is when it formally comes to an end. Our country, and other countries in the region, should be saying that the unity Government must continue until there has been a referendum on the new constitution, and if the referendum approves the new constitution, until there is an election. Any manoeuvring to force MDC Ministers out of the Government before an election would hinder a process through which a freer and fairer election could take place.

I do not know whether the UK should be optimistic or pessimistic, but DFID and the Foreign Office must act on the assumption that there is an opportunity to make political progress. If we were to do otherwise, it would become a self-fulfilling prophesy and make a setback more likely. To have got to a position, after decades of single-party rule and catastrophically bad governance, where there is a power-sharing arrangement within the Government, provides an opportunity.

We should be using aid to support a process of reform and change. I do not know whether it will work, but we certainly should not pull the plug. I was pleased that the new Government responded to the report that the Select Committee wrote before the general election, and I am glad that they understand and support it very well. We should be planning to expand our programmes of assistance, so that if there are opportunities, following an election, for a different kind of governance in Zimbabwe, we will be in a position to move quickly and show that a different style of government delivers tangible benefits for the people.

One thing that we should be addressing is the question of land reform. A report by the all-party group on Africa last year went through some of the history and, I hope, challenged some of the myths, which are widely believed in Africa. One such myth is that Britain failed to deliver on promises to pay billions of pounds for land purchases. Such promises were not made, although Britain has put in official development assistance money for land reform. The programmes of land reform that we funded, before the farm invasions made it an impossible thing to do, were relatively effective. Funding land reform cannot be left to Britain alone. We should be talking with other donors, in particular the World Bank. We should encourage it to set up a trust fund especially for this purpose, and we should seek to win support for it from others in the EU and from the donor community more widely. We should do all that we can to remain a good friend of Zimbabwe during its troubled times and to prepare to expand our programmes of assistance as soon as we get signals from the country that the money will be well spent.

Global Poverty

Debate between Hugh Bayley and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Bayley]

I would like our Government to contribute to IDA16 at least the same proportion of their development finance during the three-year period in question as the UK contributed to IDA15. In other words, it would be more money in real terms but the same proportion of UK aid overall. That would be a good starting point. If the UK were to make such a commitment, implying an increase in our contribution to IDA for the crucial three-year period leading up to 2015, we would be in a strong position to seek commitments from other development partners. I know that, in reality, some G7 countries—Italy, for instance—have made very negative decisions on development spending. There are others, however—including France, which was broadly on track, although it might have slipped back a bit now—that we ought to be able to persuade to make a firm commitment in relation to IDA.

I can make an offer to the Secretary of State. Through the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank, I have been one of the architects of a campaign among parliamentarians in countries north and south to raise the question of the IDA16 replenishment in their Parliaments, and to seek commitments from donor country Governments to debate the financial commitment they will make to IDA16. We are also seeking a serious debate in the Parliaments of developing and developed countries on what can be done to improve the aid effectiveness of the World Bank’s IDA programmes, building on the Paris declaration, the Accra programme of action and the findings of the World Bank’s own mid-term review of IDA15. That review contained some good proposals about how the World Bank could achieve more with the money that it already has.

I would also like to see the introduction of a peer review mechanism, so that one World Bank office can review the performance of another, in order to drive up aid effectiveness. I would like parliamentarians in each country to have a role in these processes. In Ghana, for example, one would expect the country office of the World Bank to report to parliamentarians in Ghana. That is not to say that the constitutional relationship should change. The World Bank is owned by its shareholders, and they are Governments. In relation to achieving greater aid effectiveness, however, we want to see more openness and transparency.

We are going to run the campaign as well as we can and in as many Parliaments as possible, in the north and the south, during the period of discussion on the IDA replenishment. I hope that the UK Government will support us. I have already written to the Secretary of State to ask him to come to the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank’s annual conference in December as a keynote speaker. We are also about to launch a call to action to publicise what we are doing. If he were able to provide some sponsorship and support for that in July, or some time soon, we would welcome that.

[Malcolm Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is a valued member of the Committee, and his work with the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank is also valuable. Does he agree that the effectiveness of such a campaign will be dependent on the amount of information that is published and made available to Members of Parliament, especially in the developing countries? Does he welcome in principle the Secretary of State’s commitment to publishing the detail of the funding on the website? Will he reinforce my request to the Secretary of State for as much detail as possible, in order to illuminate what is going on and enable parliamentarians to be more effective?

[Hugh Bayley]

Yes, I do welcome that commitment, and I very much endorse what the Chairman of the Select Committee says. I should perhaps acknowledge that one of the reasons that the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank is able to launch its campaign is that the Department for International Development has supported the core cost of running our Paris-based secretariat, which is developing the campaign.

A second opportunity for the UK to re-engage with our G7 and EU partners and win commitments from them in the next few months will be in the work leading up to the September UN summit on achieving the millennium development goals. Again, it would be helpful if the UK Government were to set out their plans for any bilateral conversations with other EU and G7 Heads of Government and to seek to influence the statements those Governments will make at the UN summit on the level of their aid funding. There will certainly be an anticipation in the developing world that donors will come up with the resources to back up the conclusions of the summit on achieving the millennium development goals.

The Secretary of State said that the Government intended to legislate to commit the United Kingdom to providing 0.7 % of its gross national income for development aid. The Chairman of the Select Committee reminded the House that the Committee had examined the draft Bill and made a number of recommendations. The first of those was that the millennium development goals summit is an important opportunity to renew commitments to aid allocations. The Committee’s report also identified the real danger that, as aid levels increase to meet the 0.7 % target already agreed, more official development assistance will be spent through other Government Departments that are not subject to the UK’s International Development Act 2002. I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee that we need greater clarity from our Government if a proportion of the increased aid to which they are committed is going to be spent by Departments other than DFID. We need reassurance that the goals of that spending will remain similar to those of DFID, and that poverty alleviation remains the key goal, whether the money is spent in DFID or any other Department. There has been a great deal of interest in this point among the NGO community.

We live in a globalising world. I do not need to remind hon. Members how much the world economy, environmental challenges and migration bind us all together; that is well understood. The centre of gravity of global politics is moving from west to east. In that context, “east” does not just mean Japan, China, Korea and India; it also means the Pacific basin as a whole, including California and British Columbia. Were there more time, I could say a lot about the UK and Europe’s need to recast their foreign and defence policy—to some extent, the UK Government will be doing that in their strategic defence review—but I shall just say a few words before I sit down about EU policy.

The European Union as a whole still has the world’s largest GDP—some $16.5 trillion a year, compared with $15 trillion for the United States, $5.5 trillion for China and $5 trillion for Japan. The UK’s share of that is some $2.5 trillion. The EU remains economically a big player on the world stage, but the UK on its own is rather less so. I believe that the EU punches below its weight. I am not in any sense a federalist, but I want the new European External Action Service, under Baroness Ashton, to deliver a great deal more for people living in Europe than the old directorate-general for external relations. I want to see a comprehensive approach whereby the European Union’s common foreign and security policy and common security and defence policy, as well as its development policy, EU aid policy and trade policy, all pull in the same direction to ensure that long-term development, state building, peace building, trade, foreign relations and reform of international institutions such as the UN also all pull in the same direction better to co-ordinate the development policies of the European Union and member states and to strengthen the poverty focus.

We have a strong poverty focus in this country, whereas the EU has a much less stronger one. Only half of EU aid goes to the least developed countries compared with about two thirds among donors as a whole. We need to minimise duplication and wasteful competition between individual bilateral donors, reduce red tape and increase the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of our aid. Now, 60% of all the world’s aid—some €50 billion out of a total €80 billion—comes from Europe, both from EU member states bilaterally and from the EU acting on behalf of the Union as a whole. If the world is to succeed in achieving the millennium development goals by 2015, the EU and its member states must deliver more with the resources that are already committed to development as well as increase their spending to meet the commitments given at Gleneagles.

The Government are in a position to use the EU to multiply the value and effectiveness of aid from member states. It would be wrong, in my view, to back away from the EU or to reduce the UK’s contribution to EU development programmes. Our aid alone, however well spent, will not be enough to ensure that the least developed countries achieve the millennium development goals. Glorious isolation would make us less influential and less effective than concerted action to get the new European External Action Service to improve the EU’s performance.