Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Ferguson]

I agree with my hon. Friend; that kind of language does not help the people of Gaza, or the hostages. That is the message that many of the hostage families have been trying to get across. There have been massive protests all through this horrible period. Indeed, at the weekend, despite the fact that demonstrations have apparently been restricted to 2,000 people at a time, there were demonstrations where exactly that kind of point was being made and where many Israeli people were criticising those members of their own Government in a way that perhaps has not been heard before.

I was about to say that it would be helpful if the Minister could give us an indication of when sanctions against Smotrich and Ben-Gvir would be introduced.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this very important debate. In particular, she is absolutely right to set out the horrific, indeed unimaginable, humanitarian situation facing the Palestinians. She is also right to point out the role of the Security Council; indeed, there is a vote on this situation today. However, she will be aware that the Security Council has passed a number of resolutions. We have had an interim ruling from the International Criminal Court and a number of rulings from the International Court of Justice, notably the most recent one, adopted by the General Assembly, which places our Government under an obligation. The reality is that all that is falling on deaf ears. Does the hon. Lady agree that the time for talking is over and that we need real action, starting with immediate sanctions?

[Patricia Ferguson]

I think the hon. Member will accept that I have said that there should be sanctions, particularly against Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, but I also think that we have at this point—perhaps we should have done it sooner—to formally accept Palestinian statehood and argue for that.

The city of Glasgow, my home city, has for many years been twinned with Bethlehem. As we approach the season of advent, I recall the image of the Christmas crib created last year by the Evangelical Lutheran church in Bethlehem: instead of the traditional stable, images of Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus were placed among the rubble. That was the reality for most Palestinians then, and of course the situation is so much worse now. In fact, Professor Mamode, whom I mentioned earlier, described the scenes in Gaza as he travelled down from Israel as looking like descriptions he had read of Hiroshima after the explosion of the atomic bomb.

We have to hope, pray, work hard and use everything in our power to try to end this seemingly endless cycle of violence, horror and despair, but it will end only if Governments stand together and advocate for a ceasefire and the release of hostages. A two-state solution, rooted in peace and respect, must follow, and we must also commit to assisting with the rebuilding of Palestine. I thank you, Sir Roger, and all those who are going to speak in the debate. I hope that we see a resolution before too long.

Gaza and Lebanon

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

We talked about Hezbollah’s approach. The United Kingdom Government have been absolutely resolute in condemning Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel over the past 11 months, which have driven more than 60,000 people from their homes. Those unjustified attacks have brought misery to ordinary people in Lebanon and Israel. We have repeatedly urged Lebanese Hezbollah to engage with the US-led discussions to resolve their disagreements diplomatically. We have made those points to every country in the region that the hon. Gentleman would expect.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

Let us be absolutely clear in this House: the seriousness of Israel’s violations of international law, as evidenced by countless international organisations, could not be more obvious, but the total lack of accountability has led to the international rules-based order collapsing around us as we watch children starve and teenagers burn to death in Israeli airstrikes on hospital compounds. The international community must now end the empty words. We need concrete steps, Minister. Will she today immediately announce an end to the arms sales, and immediately announce applying sanctions for the war crimes and breaches of international law?

[Anneliese Dodds]

The UK Government have been absolutely clear. Israel must act in accordance with international humanitarian law and must take all possible steps to avoid civilian casualties. We continue to urge Israel to fulfil its promise to flood Gaza with aid, and we urge Israel to permit immediate and unfettered access for the International Committee of the Red Cross to detention centres. The Foreign Secretary and other Ministers will continue to raise these issues with the Israeli Government. My hon. Friend must surely be aware that, following a review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law in respect of its activity in Gaza, the Government suspended around 30 export licences to Israel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

Clearly, Gulf states, which are increasingly large parts of the economy of the world, are central to humanitarian response. There have been significant contributions from the Gulf—from Saudi, UAE and Qatar—and the Secretary of State continues to encourage those contributions, particularly those that address the famines in the horn of Africa.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

As President Trump slashes aid spending, it is more important than ever that global, outward-looking nations live up to their responsibilities, not shirk them, to fill the aid funding gaps. Will the Minister commit to working with our partners on increasing their aid spending, to show that despite Brexit the UK can still be a global leader embracing its global responsibilities?

[Rory Stewart]

We agree absolutely with that. It is central that other countries meet their targets. We are very proud to be able to stand tall in the world, particularly at a time when children are starving to death. That is why the Secretary of State is leading international coalitions to increase the international commitment to these desperate issues.

Syrian Refugee Crisis

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. May I say—this is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so in an official capacity—that I am sure all hon. Members will join me in offering our sincere condolences to the family and friends of victims of the attack yesterday afternoon? We offer our greatest thanks to PC Keith Palmer, who fell in the line of duty yesterday, and to the emergency services both in London and across the UK, who go to work every day to keep all of us safe. They are people we must remember in our thoughts and prayers. The business of the House continues as normal today. We are sitting and debating the issues that matter to us and to our constituents, which shows that we will not be beaten.

I applaud the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who has brought this important debate before us. He made some important and pertinent points in what I thought was a very passionate speech. In particular, he referred to the six years of atrocities in the region, the long siege of Aleppo, the attacking of civilians and the real shortage of food, medicine and immediate emergency medical supplies. I align myself with his praise for all the NGOs, voluntary organisations and many others that do fantastic work on the ground in some of the most difficult conditions. He also rightly made the point about the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which has received increased money to spend. The region is clearly in need of investment, and my hon. Friend is right that we should do more to support the economies there.

I am also grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who raised one or two very important points, particularly on the children’s mental health services that we provide. That is a massively important point that can be so easily overlooked in the totality of the situation. I am sure the Minister will inform us of how that particular issue is being looked at. The hon. Lady also made an important point about the protection of minority groups in the region, which is a worry. We have all seen reports showing that more needs to be done on that.

The Opposition broadly welcome DFID’s commitment to supporting refugees caught in the Syrian emergency. It is extremely commendable that it is taking more than its fair share of the responsibility for the situation, with significant levels of funding. After all, the UK has so far committed more than £2.3 billion to the emergency, the majority of which has gone to supporting countries in the region. I also express my support for the assistance that DFID is providing to in-region countries. As has been pointed out many times, it is far more economical to support refugees residing in the region, allowing us to spread more funding to those who desperately need it. That is not to say that more could not be done to refugees in Europe; I will come on to that shortly.

While we are broadly supportive of DFID’s work in the region to help Syrian refugees fleeing the brutal conflict, there are questions about that work that need answering. First, despite DFID’s exemplary funding, there is still a significant funding shortfall in the Syrian emergency, with just 3% of the needed funds raised as of February. About £4.5 billion is required for the UNHCR to properly meet its regional objectives and assist almost 5 million registered and the many unregistered refugees, so that low figure is particularly concerning. The Government must therefore redouble their commitment in negotiations, discussions and diplomacy to bring weight to bear on other nations to step up to the plate and fulfil their obligation to spend 0.7% of their GDP on development. That would ensure that the UNHCR and other emergency programmes in and around Syria are properly and adequately funded to do their job.

I also find interesting the way in which funding is distributed to refugees across the region. While not always popular, cash programming has proven to have considerable benefits for both refugees and their host countries, as has been stated. For every £1 given to refugees in Lebanon, for example, £2.13 is generated in the local economy, so there is a clear advantage in using cash programming as part of a wider development strategy while also aiding refugees. I will be grateful if the Minister can inform me whether it remains a measure used by his Department, and what the Department is doing to ensure that it is joined up with the broader development strategy in the region.

As I have said, helping refugees in the region is the most economical way of supporting them. It also creates the least upheaval for the refugees involved, because a common language is often spoken, many have either friends or family nearby and it is often in their best interests. However, as the conflict in Syria continues—it is now in its sixth year—there is a danger that countries in the region that are supporting refugees, such as Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, will become saturated, threatening refugees’ wellbeing.

A lack of legal access to work often means that refugees are forced into informal sector jobs that do little to help them out of poverty, with low pay, insecure working arrangements and poor employment conditions. It is important to help to get them legal access to work, and to foster economic growth, which will provide jobs. That is particularly pressing as the conflict has no end in sight. We must ensure that refugees are suitably relocated for the medium to long term. I will therefore be grateful if the Minister updates us on DFID’s work on economic investment in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. As I stated earlier, I believe the CDC is an appropriate vehicle to provide economic investment in the region.

As all hon. Members who have spoken have stated, we must consider the situation of unaccompanied children, who have seen far too much of the world and its tragedies at far too young an age. The UK has a duty to accept our fair share of those vulnerable children. The Government originally committed to resettle 3,000 vulnerable children and family members from the region, which I believe was widely supported by all, by accepting the Dubs amendment. However, I share the deep concerns raised today about their recent backtrack on that commitment and the capping of the number to be resettled at 350. For the many reasons that have been stated, I believe that we must overturn that and accept vulnerable children who are fleeing conflict.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while there is suffering elsewhere, the middle east is the true epicentre of suffering? Does he welcome, as I do, the effort of the British Government to take 3,000 unaccompanied children from the region—an effort that is not necessarily matched by our international counterparts?

[Imran Hussain]

Of course I welcome that, and it is a point well made. However, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are at least that many unaccompanied children in Europe who are at serious risk. Some have already been exploited and many are at serious risk of exploitation through criminally organised gangs. I believe we have an absolute duty to those children. To say we will accept a very small number is not the right way.

[Paul Scully]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to address capacity? If people and children can be abused and exploited in a developed, peaceful country such as France, things could happen over here if we do not organise ourselves in the UK. We need to ensure they have the best care, and we can only do that by addressing capacity, which is what the Dubs amendment that was actually agreed and voted on in this House was there to do.

[Imran Hussain]

I absolutely agree that capacity is important. Whether or not we have the capacity is something we could talk about further. I certainly believe we have more capacity than the cap that has been put in place. The hon. Gentleman raised the point earlier that some local authorities are coming forward to say they believe they have more capacity, but he makes a generally valid point. My strong view is that if we do not reverse the cap and address this issue, history will not forgive us.

In conclusion, we broadly support the work that DFID is doing in Syria and the region to resettle and support refugees. The Government are providing a substantial level of funding and ensuring that refugees are properly supported as a result. However, they can put more pressure on our friends and allies to do more, and they need to ensure that countries such as Lebanon are not overwhelmed. We also need to meet our obligation to provide a safe refuge for vulnerable Syrian children fleeing conflict. I hope and am sure that the Minister will address all those points and elaborate further.

DFID’s Programme in Nigeria

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing another important debate. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on making a very informative contribution. She expressed particular concerns about education and electricity. I share those concerns and will speak about them. I also thank the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for making very important contributions in their usual styles.

The International Development Committee’s report on DFID’s programme in Nigeria was stark. It offered a scrutinising insight into DFID’s work in what is one of the world’s fastest growing economies and one of its most deprived nations. The report highlighted several pieces of positive work that DFID is doing in Nigeria; the hon. Members for Stafford, and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, both mentioned that.

DFID is spending money effectively on fighting malaria in the country, and the positive lessons that health professionals have learned and applied from anti-malaria programmes has had a knock-on benefit for the health sector more widely. DFID used a range of expertise to help deliver the fairest elections in Nigeria’s history. That allowed President Buhari to stand strong on his mandate of delivering economic growth, reducing inequality and tackling corruption. DFID is rolling back the neglected tropical diseases that have taken hold in the country, enabling more children to go to school and more adults to go to work. We commend that work and believe that the Government should hold up those successes as examples of DFID’s money being put to use to benefit the people of not only Nigeria, but the UK.

Nevertheless, as has been said, the report and hon. Members have expressed concerns about areas that need improvement. First, there is the economy. I welcome the work done on that. It is absolutely clear that there has been economic growth, but has it been inclusive of the whole country? I do not believe it has. The disproportion between growth in the south and the north is massive. That needs addressing, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that. In the earlier debate, a point was made about the CDC; with its increase in funding, there is an opportunity to look seriously at investment in industry in the north of Nigeria.

The second issue that could do with improvement is healthcare. While DFID spends quite a large amount of the total funding that goes to Nigeria on healthcare, the report highlights a number of basic hygiene problems in hospitals, which is counterproductive to the efforts. I urge the Minister to liaise with the Nigerian Government on addressing those issues. On the face of it, they are not major, but they are important.

Quite a lot was said about corruption and governance by the hon. Members for Stafford, and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, and by the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby. The first point they made was that we have seen disproportionate growth—Nigeria has in a very short time become one of the countries with the fastest growing number of millionaires—but, unfortunately, that wealth has not been spread across the breadth of the country, and that needs addressing. If strange-shaped buildings could resolve corruption issues, we would all be in a much better place, but tragically, it is not that simple. I align myself with the comments made earlier on that front.

On governance, we have to accept that DFID has done some magnificent work around the 2015 election—the freest and fairest election in Nigeria. Power changed hands with very little trouble, but we cannot be complacent, and that work must continue. I know that there is a plan to continue that work until 2019, and that is clearly important. To address the corruption and governance elements—I hope that the Minister will accept and agree with this point—we must further strengthen institutions across the board. We need to strengthen the judiciary and the rule of law to allow investors and Nigerians to have confidence in the system. We are on the road to that, and I have every confidence that DFID will follow that through to 2019, when the next election will take place.

The two problematic areas where we have concerns are education and electricity, which the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire mentioned. Education is a universal right. We would all agree that everyone has the right to at least a good primary and secondary education. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Nigeria. The International Development Committee rightly pointed out that 25% of all those between 17 and 22 years old in the north of the country have fewer than two years of education. Just three out of five children will have completed grade 4. Those statistics have led to a dire literacy situation in the country; 85% of girls in the north-east cannot read, and 44% of those who have completed grade 6 are unable to read a complete sentence in English or their preferred language.

Bridge International Academies, which works with DFID, provided evidence to the Committee that stated that 90% of the communities in which it works are able to afford to send their children to school. That is good, but what happens to the other 10%? Do they send none of their children to school, or do they make a choice and send either their boys or girls to school? The stark reality is that when given that choice, the evidence shows that they are more likely to send boys to school. That further highlights the issue that Members raised about the lack of education offered to girls. Not only does that mean that DFID is supporting work that does not reach the poorest in Nigeria—the very people we should be reaching out to—but it raises further issues about the children who reside in the poorer states, which are often not reached by private education. One figure struck me: the Committee calculates that, on a conservative estimate, sending three children to school would cost $234 in annual fees, in a country where more than half the population lives on less than $2 a day. That is an easy calculation for everyone to make.

If DFID is to support an expansion of private sector education across Nigeria, what will happen to the children in poorer regions of the country, where less than 90% of people can afford schooling? We recognise that private schools are key providers of education in Nigeria, but we are steadfastly opposed to any DFID programme that sees an expansion of private, fee-paying schools in the country, particularly if it is done at the expense of public schools. There is a prevalence of private schools in Nigeria, but that does not mean that DFID has to accept that. I hope that the Minister will tell me what the Department is doing to promote an expansion of public education in Nigeria that can reach the whole population, not just the wealthiest.

Electricity production and distribution is of concern. Access to a stable, secure and reliable electricity network is of great importance, if not an absolute necessity, for promoting growth and freeing households from the burden of self-generation. Despite the immense importance of the electricity sector and Nigeria’s growth rate, the country has the highest number of Africans without access to electricity. DFID clearly recognises that that is a problem. If electricity is not supplied to millions of Nigerians, DFID will struggle to fulfil its aims and objectives in the country, so it put in place the Nigeria Infrastructure Advisory Facility.

On the face of it, allocating more than £100 million to help bring light into the homes of 96 million Nigerians seems a positive step, until we look at the details of what the money bought. It brought in Adam Smith International—an international organisation that ultimately advised the Nigerian Government to put Nigeria’s electricity production and distribution networks up for sale, with the goal of creating a commercially viable and privately owned power network. While the intentions may have been good, at best the programme proved to be ill designed; at worst, it focused not on the needs of Nigerian consumers, but on private interests. It is putting electricity even further out of reach of many Nigerians, and it is loading purchasers in the energy sector with huge amounts of debt, preventing them from making any meaningful investments in the network. Tariffs had to be raised, rather than lowered, and the situation was so bad that a prominent university, Ahmadu Bello, was forced to cut power for 12 hours a day. Privatisation of the energy sector has not helped poor Nigerians or businesses to get secure access to the electricity network. It is hard to describe the endeavour as anything other than a failure for the poorest in the country.

It has been a year since the report, so I hope that the Minister can shed some light on how the matters it raised have been addressed. DFID has made very strong progress in certain areas of Nigeria. There have been commendable efforts to tackle malaria and neglected tropical diseases, and to strengthen confidence in democratic institutions, but we must address the other issues on which further progress can be made. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Specifically, our focus right now is on emergency food and water. That is where the need is. We are talking about more than 1 million people in both countries who need urgent support. They are the focus of our attention right now. Obviously, working with our partners, we will make assessments to see what additional support we will need to continue to put in.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The Rohingya are among the most persecuted people in the world today. In recent weeks and months, they have faced new waves of violence perpetrated by the Burmese Government. How much of the £95 million budget for the Burma project will go towards much-needed assistance for the Rohingya, and what steps are the Government taking to ensure that that happens?

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)]

We absolutely agree that the situation for the Rohingya is deeply troubling. We are dealing with it in different ways. I raised it personally on my last visit to Burma with the Minister of Home Affairs and Aung San Suu Kyi. DFID staff are accessing the Rohingya areas and we continue to work with Kofi Annan and the UN system, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is vital that we get humanitarian access and support to the Rohingya population.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand the air of anticipation in the Chamber just before Prime Minister’s questions, but I remind the House that we are discussing matters that affect the poorest people on the face of the planet. They should be treated with respect.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The protection of civilians in Aleppo must remain our absolute priority, but if we are to provide food, water, shelter and humanitarian relief to civilians who, for four years, have faced the horrors of an inhumane war, we need to ensure that the ceasefire, although currently holding, remains more than a brief pause. Can the Secretary of State therefore say what efforts the Government are making to ensure that conflict does not reignite in Aleppo? What contingency plan does DFID have in place to continue providing aid to civilians should the conflict reignite? We must not see humanity in meltdown again.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the UK will do everything it possibly can to support the current ceasefire and, importantly, to safeguard humanitarian support in the region, too. That is down to our diplomatic tools and diplomatic efforts, but, importantly, we are also making sure that all agencies work together to deliver the vital humanitarian support that is required.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Programme motion: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the Minister’s comments in thanking right hon. and hon. Members of all parties who have participated in what I believe has been a very constructive debate—irrespective of whether the amendments and new clauses have been accepted. What they set out has been utilised in the best possible way, as hon. Members have used them to raise some very important points. I offer my thanks, too, to all the non-governmental organisations that supported us throughout the process, to those who came before us in Committee to present written and oral evidence and to staff in the Public Bill Office, whose assistance has been invaluable, as always.

I would like to thank my hon. Friends who have spoken with great concern and passion about the Bill, and I particularly mention my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), whose experience in the Department for International Development is widely respected and was visibly expressed in today’s debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who is no longer in her place, who also served outstandingly in Public Bill Committee. I do not want my hon. Friends’ valuable contributions to go unnoticed, and I include that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the Chair of the International Development Committee, who always makes a passionate case and has an informed stance on the matters in hand.

Let me be clear that in today’s constructive debate no Member has opposed the principle or spirit of the CDC itself, and no one has criticised its role and mission statement. All Members, particularly Opposition Members, have made the point time and again that we must not lose sight of the CDC’s sole or founding principle, which is poverty alleviation. We have all accepted that, and we have had constructive debates in Committee and on Report. The amendments and new clauses that were tabled have had some support from across the House. Some were tabled as probing amendments, but some were amendments intended to strengthen the Bill.

Throughout the Bill’s passage, we outlined a number of concerns that we held over its provisions, including on the accountability and scrutiny of the investments made by the CDC, on the need of the CDC to focus its investments on efforts to alleviate poverty and on the necessity of a business case from the CDC. These concerns have been fundamental to our position on the Bill, and they are concerns about which we have sought strong assurances from the Government.

On accountability and scrutiny, we had concerns, as illustrated in our amendments, over the fact that the CDC’s investments are not independently assessed on a frequent and regular basis. The absence of such assessments undermines the credibility of the CDC and its investments, and it weakens public confidence that taxpayers’ money, through DFID, is being spent by the CDC on efforts to alleviate poverty and help the poorest in the world. It is vital for every pound, every penny, of development to be directed towards that goal, and strong, independent scrutiny of the development impact of the investments would assure us of that.

We have heard assurances from the Minister today and in Committee that he would welcome further independent assessment by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. I feel that he has listened, and I am grateful to him for that. We have also been assured that the annual reports and accounts provided by the CDC contain ample information, and that the CDC will be held to account for any discrepancies by either the Public Accounts Committee or the International Development Committee. I am sure that they will make any such discrepancy the subject of inquiries, as they have in the past.

As I have said, it is vital for us to ensure that the CDC’s investments focus on the alleviation of poverty, which is DFID’s legal aim and purpose. Given past investments involving the construction of luxury hotels and shopping centres in well-developed areas, Labour Members were concerned about the possibility that the CDC would use its additional finance to return to such activity. However, the National Audit Office report, which was published just before the debate on Second Reading, makes it clear that that is no longer the case, following the important reforms set in motion by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not in the Chamber today.

The Minister has been kind enough to provide assurances in response to some of the concerns that have been expressed today, so we will not oppose the Bill’s Third Reading.

South Sudan

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for securing this very important debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group, he has a considerable interest in the issue. In his very passionate contribution, he rightly pointed out the serious human rights violations and, in particular, the disproportionate impact on women and girls. I also thank the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the Chair of the International Development Committee, as well as the hon. Members for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady).

It is clear that Members from all parties are alarmed by the rapidly deteriorating situation in South Sudan and have grave worries that the country could fall further still, with new reports of violence against civilians every day. Despite several ceasefires, what we are seeing unfold in South Sudan does not show the country moving towards a more peaceful period. We must work closely with our international partners and, crucially, the African community to stabilise the situation in the country. We therefore wish to seek assurances from the Government that the UK is doing all that it can to alleviate the growing humanitarian crisis in South Sudan. Time does not permit me to cover the many issues of equal importance that hon. Members have raised. I will concentrate on three areas of concern.

The first issue is the sheer scale of the refugee crisis being created by the conflict, with 1.3 million South Sudanese refugees in neighbouring countries and more than 1.7 million internally displaced. For a country with a population of between 11 and 12 million, let us be in no doubt that this is a huge figure, with more than one in five people fleeing their homes. It is very worrying because the most dramatic manifestation of a deteriorating humanitarian situation is the scale of the movement of people. The mass movement taking place in South Sudan paints not only a bleak picture of the situation, but an extremely disturbing one. It is clear that alarm bells in the international community should be ringing loudly, for this situation is only set to get worse.

The second focus of our concern is the enormous funding shortfalls experienced by UN agencies operating in the region, something that has not been talked about as much today but which is very important. For example, of the almost $650 million that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees needs for the South Sudan situation, it has only managed to secure $166 million, or 26% of its funding requirements, which leaves a $483 million funding gap. Although I welcome the UK’s $6.5 million contribution to the UNHCR South Sudan situation fund, it seems that our international partners are less than willing, with even the International Olympic Committee contributing more than Italy or Spain. That is frankly unacceptable. We need not only to up our game and contribute more to this neglected crisis, but to get on the phone, get around the table and press our allies to step up and plug the gap.

Supporting refugees, which is vital if we are to address the humanitarian situation that the South Sudanese face, can happen only with adequate funding. Without funding, it is a struggle to register new arrivals, provide shelter, relocate refugees to better, safer sites, provide access to food, increase health services, and provide water, sanitation and hygiene facilities. Not providing those things deepens the humanitarian crisis, as we are seeing. The UK and its partners urgently need to address that gap, particularly as we enter the dry season, when large offensives that will displace more people are expected. I urge the Minister to provide some clarity on that point.

The third and final issue, which has rightly been the subject of most of the focus of this important debate, is the human rights situation in that country. Numerous abuses—including, as we have heard, sexual violence, rape and the use of child soldiers—have been committed against civilians. Most worryingly, as hon. Members said, there is a real concern that the conflict could escalate into ethnic cleansing and genocide. In 2010, the US director of national intelligence warned that a new genocide is likely to occur in South Sudan. It is with deep regret that we are beginning to see his prediction come true, as the situation becomes less a conflict between Government and rebel forces, and more one between armed militia and defenceless civilians. Human Rights Watch reported that soldiers and police forces are conducting house-to-house searches for certain ethnic groups, followed by multiple killings, despite ceasefires being in place.

The chair of the three-person commission in South Sudan, acting on behalf of the UN Commission on Human Rights, stated that they are observing deepening ethnic divisions, and that the stage is being set for a repeat of the Rwandan genocide. In the 1990s, the world stood by and watched as the Tutsi people of Rwanda were not just killed but exterminated in swathes of that country. We cannot let that happen again. To prevent that, we must ensure that the failures associated with UNMISS are properly addressed and that there is accountability and a working justice system. I have substantial reservations about UNMISS’s ability to protect civilians, in the wake of an investigation that identified an ineffective response to violence and a risk-averse posture. I would be grateful if the Minister can tell me what the UK is doing to ensure, when the mission’s mandate and budget are extended, that its shortcomings are corrected and that it is able to properly protect civilians.

On the issue of justice and accountability, although I understand that DFID is funding several access-to-justice programmes in South Sudan, the criminal justice system in that country is not only still grossly under-resourced, but lacks the capacity in several important areas to see through investigations and prosecutions. What are the Government doing to support efforts to bring those guilty of atrocities to justice? What are they doing more widely to prevent genocide, particularly through arms embargoes and their enforcement?

Although the world’s attention is rightly focused on the growing refugee crisis in Syria and Iraq, we must remember that other crises are emerging around the globe, many of which are as serious. We must take the humanitarian situation and the rising spectre of genocide in South Sudan seriously, and we must not let it take hold or stand by if it does.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (First sitting)

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Q I would like to probe a little more on the specifics of the hard figures in the Bill—the £6 billion and the ultimate cap of £12 billion. Where do those numbers come from? What was the needs assessment that these are about the amounts of money that the Department feels CDC needs? Was there dialogue between the Department and CDC to reach those amounts? Why go for such hard figures, rather than some kind of proportional formula? Is there any indication of a timescale in which these amounts might eventually be reached?

Rory Stewart: It is a question of setting a ceiling. We welcome this, but it is quite unusual in the Department’s spending to have to go through primary legislation in order to make a financial allocation. I mentioned to Ms McGovern that, in a three-year period, we would allocate, say, £3.3 billion to the World Bank. We do not do that through primary legislation. This Bill attempts to give the Department the ability to do what we do with the rest of our budget, which is to make decisions on the basis of ministerial decisions, accountability to Parliament and strategic decision making. Specifically in relation to CDC, we would like the ability, should a business case emerge, to give it more money without having to come back to Parliament with primary legislation every time we wished to do so.

Where was the figure arrived at? Well, the figure was arrived at after a discussion with CDC about the maximum possible amount it could realistically require over the period, which takes into account its staff resources, the demand in the developing world and its past spend. If you look at CDC’s last round, it put about £1.2 billion through in a year, of which £735 million was a recapitalisation from the Government.

Looking forward over the next five years—2016 to 2021—this would allow them to draw down something of the order of £1 billion a year. In effect, it is only £4.5 billion because of that £6 billion they already have £1.5 billion. On the next bit of what they take in the future, if I’m honest with the Committee, my preference would have been to say, for the reasons and principles I laid out in relation to our other spend—our investment to the World Bank—that Ministers could come back through secondary legislation. A statutory instrument is how I just did a £350 million addition to the World Bank. I think you were on that Committee, Mr Grady. That would be the process we would hope to do with CDC.

My preference would have been to just give Ministers the power to go to a Statutory Instrument Committee to ask for that money, but the Clerks of the House advised us that it would be better to set a financial limit to that power, so we chose for the period 2021 to 2026 the same amount we chose for 2016 to 2021. That is how that figure is arrived at.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Q Just to build on the point made by Mr Grady in his question to the Minister, I listened to the answer, but in the absence of a business case strategy or investment policy I am finding it difficult to understand how we can arrive at those specific figures because there is nothing to suggest how that money will be spent.

Secondly, does CDC have the capacity, given the totality of its lifetime spend of £1.5 billion? Such a massive increase would be an issue. Another question, probably to the Minister, is around the point made earlier by Ms McGovern and the areas where we have availability of private sector financing. Is there any idea of where the new strategy or investment policy will go with that? I take on board the example used—India. I accept that India has pockets of poverty, but in comparison private sector financing is more readily available perhaps than for other target areas.

Rory Stewart: Those are three very good questions around the business case, capacity and private sector financing. I will take them one by one.

The idea of this proposal—the primary legislation—is to provide an indicative ceiling around which a business case can be organised. Within the Department, we would expect to produce a business case and to have some sense of what money would be available. Currently, there would be no money available so it would not be possible at the moment for anyone to write, as the Department would hope, the forward strategy for future investment or produce a business case, which we hope to do in the summer of next year because Parliament would not have given us permission to give any more money to CDC.

Bluntly, if the Committee decided not to pass this legislation, CDC would have to start reducing staff and we would have to scale down significantly the future programme of investments because there would simply be no money legally available to CDC and there would be no purpose in producing a business case in the summer for future investment because that money has already been allocated. So we believe it is important to get your permission in principle for a seemly amount that we could give CDC should a business case be produced to meet it. That brings me to the second question.

I will hand over to Graham and Diane in a second, but I am absolutely certain that the board of CDC and its chief executive will not request the money from us if they do not feel they have the capacity to spend it and if market demand does not exist for that expenditure. They are under a strong obligation to their board to make sure they take this money responsibly, so even in a case in which DFID does its business through consultation with CDC and we decided, for the sake of argument, that a reasonable sum of money going forward over a five-year period was, let us say, £3 billion—I chose £3 billion because the £4.5 billion is a ceiling and we are not saying we will take that. That is what this business case is about. So let’s say it was £3 billion. They would then effectively be able to draw down on a promissory note, effectively. The Department would be saying, “You can draw down that money over a five-year period.” CDC would then have to come up with individual proposals—“Here is a solar programme in Burundi that we think is worth investing in”—and draw down the money from us. I do not want to speak for CDC, but it would certainly not be drawing down money if it did not feel that it had the resources to spend it responsibly.

That brings me to the third question of private sector financing and to Ms McGovern’s question. We are absolutely clear that we do not want to be in the business of crowding out private sector finance. One of the really good criticisms made of CDC in the National Audit Office report, the Public Accounts Committee report and the ICDC report was that it was doing exactly that, for example by making investments in coastal China. We stopped those things from 2012 onwards. The investments that we are now talking about in India are in places such as Bihar or the poorest bits of Uttar Pradesh, where the business environment is very difficult and very little capital is going in. We are also making sure that the grid is followed absolutely with every investment, so that we are not falling into that trap.

Graham Wrigley: This very important question is about how CDC and the shareholder respond to what we think is the very clear need for long-term, patient, impact-driven and additional capital in low-income countries, and about how we do that in a responsible and thoughtful way. We fully understand that this will be a very significant step in CDC’s history, but from our perspective, having worked on this for the last five years, this is evolution, rather than revolution as it might look from the outside.

Let me explain why. If we go back to 2012, when an entirely new mandate was created, a new team was empowered to go off and explore and see what would happen. At that time, the projections showed that if things went well, more capital would be required. That is precisely what happened, and it led to the recapitalisation in 2015. As the Minister has just said, we structured that recapitalisation such that the money could be drawn down if and when there was the market demand. Indeed, it was only this week that the first promissory note for that recapitalisation was called.

Going into the next five years, the team has now been established. It was 40 people back in 2012; we are now at 220. The commitment rates have gone up. We believe that the market need in our markets is growing, and for the last year we have also been working with the Department on a series of potential new programmes focused on high risk and on unlocking new forms of development impact.

The quantum and timing of any capital given to CDC will depend on two things: first, the shareholder making its decision about how CDC stacks up against other opportunities—the opportunity cost was debated in Parliament last week; and secondly, the view from CDC. As chair of CDC, I feel deeply responsible for making sure that any capital that we call is allocated for the purpose of development impact, and that our teams can execute that responsibly. That is the context for where we are now and for the Bill. We see this as a long-term discussion about the shareholding of CDC. CDC has to perform it for the purpose of development impact, which I promise you is what drives everybody who works in CDC.

Rory Stewart: Just to confirm, Graham, am I right that you are formally saying to the Committee that you would not draw down this money if you did not feel that you could spend it responsibly and have the resources to do that?

Graham Wrigley: No, we would not do that.

[The Chair]

That well known Labour Member, James Duddridge.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Final question.

Rory Stewart: I am sorry; there was a strange comment coming from Mr Doughty who, when he is not texting, throws things from the chair. We believe very strongly that economic development and job creation are absolutely core activities in the elimination of poverty. The distinction that Mr Doughty is trying to draw between economic development, job creation and poverty alleviation is extremely unorthodox and it is not one that the chief economist of our Department, or indeed any of the officials of our Department, would accept.

[Imran Hussain]

Q I have a final question for the Minister. While the CDC has made some progress since 2011, as I have said in the Chamber, does he at least accept that there is room for improvement around a greater focus on poverty alleviation, around greater overview and scrutiny and avoiding tax havens and so on?

Rory Stewart: Yes, we need to continually improve. One reason why this debate is useful, and why the primary legislation is useful, is to shine a light on all this stuff. None of us is at all complacent. These things are very difficult. The DFI is the leader in the world, we believe, in terms of trying to measure things that are very difficult to measure—how to treat job creation and economic development in some of the toughest environments in the world. We can keep improving and you are absolutely right that those things you have mentioned are exactly the kinds of things that our new strategy will attempt to improve, including, for example, caps on the amount of investment that goes to India.

[The Chair]

Thank you for getting that all done within time. We thank our expert witnesses and the Minister.

Examination of Witnesses

Sir Paul Collier, Tom McDonald, Terry Caulfield, Saranel Benjamin and Gideon Rabinowitz gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

Q I am probing a little, if I may. You say that it is up to us how we do it, but you have just spent eight months looking at CDC day in and day out. I am seeking to glean the benefit of that detailed insight when the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and our Sub-Committee, which scrutinises it, looks at the issue. What should we be focusing on? Where should we be asking questions?

Tom McDonald: If you look at our value for money conclusion, we essentially divided it between, on one hand, the economy and efficiency with which CDC was being run and with which DFID was overseeing it, and the effectiveness of CDC. Looking at the first two e’s, we concluded that DFID’s oversight of CDC has improved considerably, and that CDC’s operating model is now pretty economic and efficient. It is a pretty good way for CDC to organise itself and spend the money that DFID has allocated to it.

On the subject of effectiveness, which we discussed at the beginning, this is clearly not an easy thing, but we still think there is more to do. There is more on which DFID could press CDC, and there is perhaps more on which Parliament could press both DFID and CDC to give a better picture of what CDC itself says is its ultimate objective: changing people’s lives, not just creating jobs.

[Imran Hussain]

Q Just a further question to Ms Benjamin from War on Want, to follow up from colleagues. I am slightly lost. Are you saying that you are principally against the development finance institution model—that would considerably weaken where I thought you were coming from—or are you concentrating on specific instances where you think the money was not spent well and most efficiently to target poverty alleviation? You gave the example of the Republic of the Congo. Can you elaborate on that and be more specific about where you are heading? I am slightly confused about where you are going with it.

Saranel Benjamin: As I said, we come from very different development backgrounds. For War on Want, a charity that works with partners in the global south, it is not about creating jobs; that is our approach. We are about supporting grassroots communities and organisations to allow them to envision the change that they want to see in their own countries. For me, when I see a private firm like CDC investing or looking for opportunities, I see it looking for an entry point for the UK to make a profit in the global south. For me, that is what it looks like. Given the use of tax havens, those countries are not really benefiting from what is being invested in those countries.

Again, look at the quality of jobs being created. Feronia in the DRC is one example. Workers are being paid less than $2 a day. Are you telling me that that is poverty reduction? Is that job creation? There is a dispute about the land on which Feronia operates; it is a 100-year-old land struggle. The largest investor in Feronia is CDC, which holds 67% of the investments owned in Feronia. The land dispute has been going on for a number of years, and communities have been displaced off that land. CDC claims that it is all legitimate, but it refuses to make the lease agreements or concessions publicly available. We have requested them from CDC, and have yet to have an acknowledgment that the email was received.

[The Chair]

Are you happy with that answer, Imran?

[Imran Hussain]

Yes.

[Rory Stewart]

Q Very quickly, for Tom McDonald and Sir Paul Collier, Saranel has just said that CDC exists for the UK to make a profit in the global south, and the countries are not really benefiting from those investments. Do you agree with that?

Tom McDonald: We did not assess the whole portfolio, in terms of the impact that it was having. We have to rely to some extent on the prospective assessment of impact that CDC is now doing on a regularised basis for all its investments. I honestly cannot give a yes or no answer as to the impact on the south.