Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

That is an important point. Back in 2009, the CDC’s then chief executive was criticised quite extensively for the level of their salary and other pay, which stood at £970,000. The current chief exec’s total remuneration is now limited to a maximum of £300,000, and that is because the remuneration policies have changed dramatically since 2012. It is also important to reflect on the fact not only that pay across the organisation has been reduced by over 40%, but that compensation is no longer benchmarked, as it was prior to the changes in 2012, against the private equity industry. This is not a private equity firm at all. The CDC is now benchmarked against other development finance institutions, and any bonuses are based on the CDC’s development performance and returns, whereas, previously, they were based solely on financial performance. That has now changed.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

It is important to acknowledge the City of London and the great expertise that exists there when it comes to not only investment in some of the most challenging parts of the world but transparency. Through the work the Government have done on tax and transparency, the City of London has moved incredibly far. My Department is working across the City of London on a range of issues, such as insurance. We are also looking at how we can do more on transparency and accountability, and that is absolutely right.

We will shortly be setting out a new investment policy for the CDC, covering the next five years. That will include a new reporting framework to better capture the broader impact of investments on development, beyond job creation and the tax revenue generated. We will ensure there is maximum transparency, so that CDC investments can be scrutinised and, importantly, so that their impact on combatting poverty is made clear. As I stated, the CDC has a strong and transparent track record on which to build. With our support and oversight, we want the CDC to do more, and that is why we need the Bill.

The Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999 set a £1.5 billion limit on the overall amount of Government financial assistance that can be provided to the CDC. That limit was reached in 2015. The need to raise the CDC’s capital limit was clearly signalled in the UK aid strategy back in 2015. The Bill builds on the economic development objectives of Clare Short’s 1999 Act and should be seen not as a new political direction, but as a logical continuation of the cross-party approach that has been in place for decades.

Any money given to CDC will meet the internationally agreed rules about which spending counts as aid. Raising the limit by £4.5 billion to £6 billion and introducing a delegated power to raise the limit further via statutory instrument to £12 billion over time will enable the UK to accelerate the CDC’s growth, so that the UK can deliver on its international development objectives. Let me stress that this £6 billion is not an annual spend; it is a cumulative figure and a limit placed on the total amount of financial assistance that a Government could provide to the CDC over a period of time before coming back to the House to seek a further increase via statutory instrument.

[James Duddridge]

I fully support what my right hon. Friend is saying. This is a progressive, cross-party movement, and this is not a radical piece of legislation. Decisions have not been made to spend the full £6 billion straight away, but if the Department did commit to spend right up to that limit and fund it each year up to 2020, it would still represent only 8% of the Secretary of State’s budget, so 92% of aid would be spent in a more traditional way. This is a progressive move, not a radical change.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right about the 8% figure. It is also worth pointing out, putting this into context, that total aid spending over the course of this Parliament is likely to be £60 billion.

Some inaccurate reports have suggested that this Bill somehow paves the way for the entire aid budget to be given to the CDC in perpetuity. That is clearly not the case. Increasing the capital limit does not guarantee that we will use our resources in this manner, or commit us to any increases in capital. My priority is to ensure that we achieve maximum value for money with UK aid. The provision of any new capital to the CDC will require a full and detailed business case that will show how further investment will continue to achieve value for money, have a clear development impact for the poorest, and deliver in the UK’s national interests. Furthermore, it is worth noting that because CDC investments generate a return, any additional money we give to the CDC is not spent once and then lost; it contributes to the CDC’s capital, which is continually reinvested now and in future years. Importantly, therefore, it remains an asset that ultimately belongs to the UK taxpayer.

This Bill is fundamentally about people: improving life prospects by helping individuals to find work and earn money, so that they can feed their families, send their children to school and put clothes on their backs; empowering girls and women to determine their own future; and giving people in the poorest and most marginalised places hope, so that they do not feel the pressures to migrate or turn to some of the extreme causes that we see around the world. The CDC is just one part—a relatively small part in the context of overall development spending—of our crucial investment in developing countries. We will continue to invest in our life-saving, life-changing health, education and sanitation programmes, meeting our manifesto commitments. Ultimately, though, this is about jobs, growth and enterprise that will defeat poverty for good. It is right that Britain leads the world to tackle poverty across the world given that we still have more than 1 billion people living on less than a dollar a day. The UK Government are playing a leading role in building a more prosperous world. This Bill is the right thing to do for the poorest people in the world and for British taxpayers, and I commend it to the House.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The vast majority of Members of this House support the UK’s guarantee to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international development. This view is supported by the people of this country, who understand that our aid programme makes a significant contribution to creating peace and economic sustainability around the world and to building a more secure and stable international community. Our aid budget makes a huge difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands of the world’s poorest people. Underpinning the faith that the British people have in our aid programme is the knowledge that the money that is spent in developing countries—taxpayers’ money—is transparent; that the funds are provided for projects that have clear objectives and tangible outcomes; and that the money goes directly to source, with no middlemen, no creaming off the top, and no profiteering from people’s poverty.

We will always welcome any measures that aim to improve the quality of life of those less fortunate than ourselves. This Bill, with the right safeguards, could achieve that. The job of Opposition Members, and of the whole House, is to ensure that some of the previous excesses and failures of the Commonwealth Development Corporation are not repeated. I say that as a friend of the CDC. It was the post-war Labour Government of Clement Attlee who created the forerunner of the CDC. Much of the work of the CDC is vital, and we should of course work to strengthen its ability to support businesses and create jobs around the world.

However, we have a number of serious reservations about this Bill. Since the Government are proposing up to an eightfold increase in the amount it can contribute to the CDC, it is right that we ask questions. Let me begin with executive pay at the CDC. While we would all acknowledge the steps that have been taken to curtail the excesses of the past, what guarantees have the Government received that we will see no repetition of the eye-watering salary hikes that people awarded themselves in the past? It would be fundamentally wrong for the extra money proposed in this Bill to be used to fill the bank accounts of the executives of the CDC instead of going to those who need it the most.

[James Duddridge]

Does the hon. Lady accept that no one is considering going back to those bad old days? While I do not want this to be a partisan issue, because I think there is a wide degree of consensus, the original deal with the chief executive was signed off by Clare Short, and the new deal, which reduced the salary by a third and placed a cap on the maximum, was signed off by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) when he was Secretary of State. There is no going back to those bad old days; this is about working together on the new framework.

[Kate Osamor]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am concerned that we learn from the past. I am not here to pull punches: this is about learning from the past and ensuring that we move forward in the correct, transparent way.

The second question the Government must answer is on the priorities of the CDC. Recent history is not kind to the CDC and the decisions it has made on the allocation of its funds—UK taxpayers’ money. In recent years, the CDC has become a more commercial organisation. In 2004, the CDC created the private equity arm, Actis. In a deal that raised serious concerns on the governance of the corporation, 60% of the equity firm was sold to managers at the CDC at a bargain basement price. In the space of a few years, they had turned the CDC from an aid agency into a cash machine. With the focus turned to maximising profits, mainly for those who worked at the CDC, the traditional areas of financial support that the CDC had focused on for nearly 60 years were being abandoned. Food security through agriculture programmes went, safe and clean water projects were cancelled, and transport and infrastructure projects were abandoned. Poverty reduction—surely key to any development objectives—withered on the vine of self-interest and, I am afraid to say, earning a fast buck.

It is worth comparing the principles and values on which the CDC was founded to achieve its aims with the realities of its present-day operation. In 1998, the CDC spent 50% of its budget on agribusiness in Africa. That investment had two virtues: first, it helped to feed people in those countries, where starvation and hunger were rife; and, secondly, it enabled communities to become more self-sufficient, created jobs, and was a step on the ladder out of poverty. Today, funding for agribusiness has dropped to just 5%.

We see similar patterns in the CDC’s infrastructure programme. For people to live healthy lives, and to enable communities to thrive, not simply survive, we need to help create a solid infrastructure as part of our development priorities. Dirty water and poor sanitation robs the lives of over 300,000 people each year. Infants and young children are especially susceptible to diseases because of their immature immune systems. Their young bodies simply do not have the right immune system to cope with waterborne diseases. According to UNICEF, over 40% of medical facilities in Africa do not have access to clean water. Dirty water and a lack of good sanitation do not just rob people of their lives; they make a country less productive. A recent study estimated that there was a $150 million shortfall for water and sanitation projects in sub-Saharan countries, while the World Health Organisation estimates that we need £535 billion in investment to achieve universal access. I accept that those are huge sums of money, but look at the benefits. It is estimated that every dollar spent on improving water quality and sanitation delivers $4 in increased productivity. With such overwhelming evidence for the health and economic benefits, the case for investing in infrastructure programmes should be beyond doubt.

[Kate Osamor]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We need not only to look at the health of poorer people but to make sure that they can access water and sanitation.

It is surprising, if not shocking, that the CDC reduced infrastructure support for water, sanitation and roads from 35% of its budget in 1999 to just 8% a decade later. If the money is no longer going to support agribusiness or infrastructure, where is the CDC spending it? Let us begin by looking at some of its recent investments, such as Xiabu. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am partial to a takeaway on a Friday night—so, it seems, is the CDC, because it has provided thousands of dollars to the Chinese fast food chain Xiabu. That may be a good commercial investment, but is it the best use of the CDC’s resources? Can the Secretary of State set out what guarantees she has obtained that the UK’s increased contribution to the CDC will not go towards such projects?

While the Secretary of State is here, I would like to hear from her that the Government will seek assurances that in Africa the CDC will put more emphasis on food security than it puts into funding the building of new shopping malls at present. I have no doubt that the people of Accra are grateful for their brand new shopping mall, but what strategic role it plays in increasing life expectancy in Ghana is a mystery to me.

[James Duddridge]

The people who were employed in the construction of those shopping malls in Accra—I have seen them recently—would disagree with the suggestion that that has not helped families in Accra and in nearby villages. Less than 1% of the CDC budget has gone on shopping and infrastructure, which provide a lot of jobs. Agriculture, which the hon. Lady talked about earlier, is incredibly important, but it is less important than it used to be in the modern economy in Africa, where there is a greater degree of diversification and urbanisation.

[Kate Osamor]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that he went around Africa in his previous role as a Minister, so he knows a lot about Africa, but there are parts of Ghana where there is no electricity and parts of Ghana where there is no water. Yes, middle-income families may enjoy going to malls, but while many people are living in poverty I do not think that a mall is the best use of CDC resources and money.

The examples that I have given lead me to my third and fourth questions for the Secretary of State. The Government propose to increase funding from £1.5 billion to £6 billion, with the option for the Secretary of State to raise it to £12 billion at a future date. But it seems she is putting the cart before the horse. As yet, the CDC has not published its investment strategy for 2017 to 2021. In the absence of an investment strategy outlining how the additional resources would be spent by the CDC, the Government are essentially proposing that we provide the CDC with a multibillion-pound blank cheque. In 2015, the coalition Government gave the CDC a cash injection of £735 million, and the Secretary of State published the business case for that increased funding at the time. Will the Secretary of State place in the House of Commons Library the full business case for the increase to £6 billion of funding to the CDC? Will she assure the House that if the Government wish to extend that to £12 billion, a business case will be brought to the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

As I shall come on to explain more fully, there has been a significant change and there has been a narrowing, but there is still a significant difference. If we look at the bulk of the spending still being in India, we see a significant divergence from DFID’s priorities, as I shall come on to show. We were told that aid to India had ended, but apparently it has not.

This is also significant when coupled with an answer I received to a parliamentary question. I discovered that the amount of aid—ODA—to be spent by Departments other than DFID is set to increase from 18% this year to 26% in 2019. That is over a quarter of our aid spending going through Departments other than DFID. Even if we focus on the lower end of the implied proposal to spend billions extra via the CDC by the end of the spending review—let alone the £12 billion—we could be looking at anywhere from 35% to 45% of the DFID budget being spent, but not by DFID in the traditional sense. If the Secretary of State used her full power and more quickly than expected, it could be even higher. It is particularly ironic that the Secretary of State who promised us greater effectiveness, transparency and accountability in our aid spending appears to be willing to hand over billions of our aid funding to less transparent and less accountable parts of government.

[James Duddridge]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that aid spent through other Departments is a bad thing. He is shaking his head, which is good, because far from being a bad thing, I would view it as a good thing. If we are helping education institutions in developing countries, we should use the expertise in our Department for Education. If we are looking at tackling local government, it should not be looked at through the DFID lens, but should involve our expertise. The key thing is having the same standards across those Departments and meeting the high quality that DFID deploys.

[Stephen Doughty]

I was shaking my head because I agreed with much of what the hon. Gentleman was saying, but my question is about the volume—the amount—and the fact that it is increasing so rapidly. It is well known that many other Departments have looked enviously at DFID’s budget and have attempted to take parts of its cash for many years. My questions are these. Is the aid being spent effectively; is it being used in accordance with the correct principles; and is it coherent across Government policy? As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are some fantastic examples of joint units involving the Foreign Office and DFID, but over a quarter of our aid budget is being spent on a massive increase, and that is a big issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed. I apologise for not being present at that meeting, but, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had other commitments at the time. Obviously, the hon. Lady cannot attend all the meetings of all the groups in the House at any time either; she and I are both busy people. I hope that the Committees will investigate those matters, not least because of the volumes that we are talking about, but also because of the lack of transparency when it comes to documentation and the ability to scrutinise CDC’s spending, not least through its use of tax havens.

These dramatic shifts—under the cover of a “minor technical change” that we should all rush through in the House—must always set the alarm bells ringing for those of us who seek to scrutinise the Government and their decisions. I do not want to spend long on this, but we must feel additional alarm when we look at the agenda of the Secretary of State and consider what she has said about the Department being scrapped and about money being “stolen” and squandered. She does not like some of the headlines that have appeared in the Daily Mail. Obviously, she does not like the headlines that have appeared in newspapers such as the Financial Times. However, we are now seeing wild claims and accusations in the right-wing press which are clearly coming from her Department. Indeed, her special adviser has previously called for the 0.7% target to be abandoned, and in 2013 in The Sun described aid as an

“unaccountable, bureaucratic and wasteful industry”.

Why does all this matter to the Bill? I believe that, faced with the legislative and political constraints of the cross-party support for the 0.7% aid target, the Secretary of State has opted for a stealthier route and has chosen to undermine the Department by diverting and reclassifying aid. I appreciate that others may not share my sense of scepticism, so let me now deal with three practical objections to the Bill. The Secretary of State said that she wanted facts, so let us have some.

I should make it clear at the outset that I am not opposed to the existence of a development finance institution of the CDC’s nature, or to its playing its part in our portfolio of international development efforts. Nor, obviously, do I oppose the funding of private sector projects. The development of a vibrant private sector, key infrastructure and the support of new and emerging businesses in the world’s poorest countries should be a key part of any balanced portfolio of development assistance, alongside investments in basic public services such as health, education, water, and support for agricultural improvement to tackle hunger and nutritional challenges.

The Secretary of State likes to give us the impression that she is the only person ever to have realised the importance of private sector development and trade to tackling poverty and promoting economic development, but the fact is that both have been at the heart of DFID’s work since it came into being, under Governments of all political persuasions. Supporting trade is crucial to international development.

[James Duddridge]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point that economic development has been important to DFID, but does he agree with me that successive Governments have been wholly unresponsive to co-ordinated work on economic development, whether we call it prosperity or trade? Successive Governments have not pulled that together and grabbed the opportunity, which could really help to grow continents such as Africa out of poverty. Much more should be done, and this House should be holding the Government and future Governments to account on this, and ask them to do more, not less, with the private sector.

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a mixed record. We had a joint DFID-DTI—as I think the Department was called then—Trade Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who did a lot of good work in trying to bring those things together, ensuring investment went to key infrastructure projects, different corridors in Africa and elsewhere, but it is a mixed record and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

There are many CDC investments that I and others welcome, which are well run and have delivered poverty-reducing outcomes in the poorest countries. We have heard about some of them today, such as those in Sierra Leone and Uganda. Indeed we were with the National Audit Office earlier today talking about some of the projects it had visited which clearly do justify our investment.

But where is the robust business case for such a large increase of billions of pounds of taxpayer spending? Why has this Bill been published before a CDC investment strategy? In the explanatory notes, the Secretary of State describes forecast market demand as the justification for the Bill. However, she has not explained this at all there; neither has she done so today, and nor did she in answer to a parliamentary question I put to her. I asked her to explain this concept of forecast market demand, but instead of an assessment that might justify this spending of up to £12 billion of taxpayers’ money, I was given some classic development waffle, such as:

“As set out in the UN’s Global Goals, urgent action is needed to mobilise”.

The answer did not go into any level of detail that we would expect on the spending of such a considerable sum of money.

Let me also be clear that, as Members may have gathered earlier, I am also critical of a whole series of actions and policies at the CDC that I am sorry to say occurred under the previous Labour Government; the sell-off of Actis was mentioned, and there was also excessive remuneration, and massive investments made in markets that already attracted foreign investors—which incidentally is still going on. These are just some of the issues that should have inspired tougher intervention. To give credit where it is due, many of the actions that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) took in agreeing that new strategy took us away from some of the mistakes made in the past, but my question is whether they have gone far enough in justifying such a huge increase in the funding.

We should look at what the NAO said. Yesterday’s report noted:

“Our previous scrutiny of the Department’s oversight of CDC led to important, positive changes.”

It points to improvements in financial performance, organisation and prospective—let us return to that issue in a moment—development impact, as well as the clamping down on executive remuneration. The NAO also agrees that the strategy set by the Department in 2012 has been met.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) pointed out, the question for the House today is not merely whether the CDC has made improvements on a previous record deeply mired in controversy, or whether it is now adhering to the strategy set for it—which we can argue was right or wrong—in 2012; the question before us is whether a good enough case has been made that the CDC is performing so well and so effectively that it should receive that volume of increase in funding versus other potential outlets for that development spending.

It is common sense that asking any institution, let alone one with a history of recent problems, to take on a significant increase in its funding over a short space of time may lead to less optimal outcomes and, at worst, failure. Were we proposing an additional £12 billion for those dangerous campaigning NGOs or the dastardly World Bank, or worse still the EU development funds, I have no doubt that the Government Benches would be crewed by the anti-aid brigade warning of the risk of our aid being “stolen” or squandered. But because it is for a more obscure part of our development finance architecture and has the words “private equity” and “private sector” associated with it, we seem to be willing to accept a lower level of assuredness.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I suspect I am going to have the privilege of serving on the Committee with the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I will not go into this at the same length as he did, but he should beware: we are both supporters of DFID and of the 0.7% budget, but our enemies out there will use his comments and his narrative to criticise the fundamentals we believe in. I do not want to stand in the way of proper scrutiny, but hon. Members on both sides of the House should be very careful about the tone of the language we use, because we do now have consensus going forward.

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and say from the outset that I am incredibly proud of our 0.7% commitment and of the work that the CDC does. I would find it strange to find any Conservative MP standing to support the work of Clement Attlee and Clare Short in one sentence, let alone one debate, but we do stand united in this work, despite the blips over the years, many of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) has resolved or has at least been able to point in the right direction.

My experience of the CDC has been substantive over time. I was a young banker in a small place called Nhlangano, one of the poorest places in Swaziland. It was CDC investment in the Shiselweni Forestry Company, my main client, that really generated wealth for that area. It put food on the table for the thousands of citizens and the hundreds of other clients that I had as a banker in that country. Over the years, Swaziland has been helped by 16 different CDC projects. The one for which I was the banker has now moved on—it is profitable and continuing, but not under a CDC auspice—but the CDC is still in the forestry sector in Pigg’s Peak, Swaziland.

In the Ivory Coast, I was interested in delving into a francophone country, looking beyond the Commonwealth, to see what we were doing in developing middle-income countries that can provide inspiration and trade throughout the geography of west Africa. Although I did not have any clients from the the CDC, I used to work for Banque Atlantique Côte d’Ivoire, now part of the Atlantic Bank Group, in which the CDC has invested. The small bank I was a member of had only about 30 employees. I am not sure exactly what has happened subsequently, but during that investment period that small bank has become much larger, with banks in Benin, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Togo, Senegal and Cameroon. Those countries—a real mix of countries—are hard for British development aid to reach, but are a really good example of where the CDC can assist.

I wish to mention, as other colleagues have, the great work of Diana Noble, who took on the job at a difficult time and who has transformed the organisation and led a very strong team. I wish her well in her future beyond the CDC.

To those who work at the CDC, I say thank you, because in many ways they are between a rock and a hard place. People involved in African private equity feel that those at the CDC are putting development before profit and are not earning lots of money. The non-governmental organisations think that they are putting profit before development. In truth, they are in a sweet spot in the middle, and they do exactly what Clement Attlee wanted: to do good without losing money. In many ways, this is the gift that keeps on giving. Comparison has been made between a pound that goes into traditional aid and a pound that goes into the CDC. The main difference is that the pound that goes into aid is spent immediately, which is very positive, but the pound that goes into the CDC is retained—it is an investment that grows, whether that is by the 7.8% that we have seen over the past five years, or by a slightly more modest investment target of 3%, which focuses more on the development aspect.

As a former banker, I am perhaps the only Member in the House who can get thoroughly excited about compound interest, but, over time, this is a growing pool of money. There are those who will wonder why we are talking about £1.5 billion, when the assets of the CDC are nearly £3.9 billion. That shows the power of investment—of retaining the money. It is the gift that keeps on giving.

I, too, have looked at the investment in palm oil in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where 9,000 workers are employed. I have dealt with places such as the DRC and Burundi—other colleagues have interacted with them—and they are horrendously difficult places in which to work. They are also politically difficult for the UK Government, but the CDC, through its intermediaries, provides inspiration in those places.

The CDC also actively targets countries that are low on the World Bank’s ease of doing business index, of which I am a great advocate, as a way of proving that business can be conducted more effectively if one can speed up the ease of doing business.

Celtel has been mentioned. Indorama in Nigeria is fantastic. Like Sir Paul Collier, I very much believe that the real benefits and advantages of economic development in Nigeria will come through Port Harcourt and not through the oil industry.

This is, to reiterate a point I made in an intervention, a progressive Bill. I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth that it is a Machiavellian way of diverting money. A business case will come. I do not believe that the Secretary of State will bring forward a business case to spend the full £6 billion over the course of this Parliament. Even if she does, it will still only be 8% of the overall DFID budget for those years. Obviously, the £12 billion of investment is compounded over time. It should not be compared with the slightly larger figure, which is our annual investment in the budget. We need to be careful that our enemies do not take advantage of our criticisms and use the similarity of the figures to make it look like there has been a sea-change on this Bill. If this Bill was about taking money from the poor and making money for the sake of it in India and South Africa, I would not support it.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

[James Duddridge]

I will not take the intervention, because I want to conclude.

I strongly support the CDC. It is the right move and it is a progressive move. I hope that Members from both sides of the House will agree to have a proper debate in Committee and to support the Bill on Third Reading to start to grow Africa in particular but also Asia out of poverty.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (First sitting)

James Duddridge Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

That well known Labour Member, James Duddridge.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Mr Streeter. I should have taken the opportunity to draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; my apologies that I did not do so earlier.

I have two questions, Minister. First, going back to the cap, I wonder whether the Bill is future-proof. I think that we will pass the Bill—it will become an Act—there will be successful drawdown up to 2020 and 2025, and quite possibly at that point you will have to come back to the House to ask for more money. Can you go into a little more detail as to why the Clerks did not advise that? Recently, we have had the multilateral and bilateral review, and that does not get anywhere near the same scrutiny as this relatively, proportionately, smaller amount of money.

Rory Stewart: I think the argument from the Clerks is that Parliament does not like the idea of granting blank cheques, and I can completely understand why you would want to bring us back. Again, this was simply an attempt to get an in-principle agreement that in changing the way in which the CDC was funded, we would move to secondary legislation, but I can completely understand why you would want to put a cap on that, and we have accepted that; we are happy to take that.

[James Duddridge]

Q This is my second question. As I said, I think that the Bill will be passed, but if it is not and we accept as a Committee the need to put more money into economic development and jobs, what capacity would DFID have to spend the same volume of money? Is there an alternative? During Second Reading, there was a lot of talk about the opportunity cost of giving this money to the CDC. What else could DFID do with the money?

Rory Stewart: The key thing is that this is within our economic development portfolio, which is less than 20% of our spend, so it is about moving money from, essentially, David Kennedy’s part of the Department—within different programmes in his part of the Department. The intention is not to move large sums of money from our humanitarian activity, health activity or education activity. It is a different modality for economic development.

What alternatives might we have were you as a Committee to decide not to approve this legislation? We could, for example, give more money, through the World Bank, to the IFC. We could use a different form of DFI, which was not the CDC, and the World Bank could theoretically spend that money. That would not require primary legislation; it would require my going to you with a statutory instrument in the normal way we give money. Alternatively, we could spend the money, as we have done in the past, on technical assistance. That is a normal part of economic development activity. There are also various forms of livelihood programming that we have done in parts of the world. However, we believe that the CDC is a really good institution; we think that it is in many ways better than the other development finance institutions that we could look at as alternatives if you did not wish to go with the CDC. That is why we strongly suggest that we put the money into the CDC.

[James Duddridge]

That makes an awful lot of sense.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Q Over the years since the inception of the Commonwealth Development Corporation in 1948, the Government’s approach to it has fluctuated considerably. In the 1980s it was doing, on a smaller scale, broadly what Graham and Diana are now doing—direct investment—but then there was pressure to separate out and effectively privatise the private equity or venture capital element of it. With 0.7% of GNI going to DFID, you can take a longer, more strategic approach to the CDC, but the effective tensions, potential tensions, between ODA objectives, taxpayer return on equity and pursuing aid goals but not investing in things that might be done by the private sector otherwise, remain and arguably will be more in the public eye as the CDC expands. How will you balance those, and what is the longer-term strategy, in your view, for the future of the CDC?

Rory Stewart: It is a very good question. You are absolutely right: since 1948, the CDC has been through changes. I think that is because it was a very bold and imaginative move by the Attlee Government. It was a very unusual thing at the time; indeed, it was the first DFI. And from the moment that they were invented, DFIs have had to tread a thin line between two quite different things: a private sector modality—a desire to generate a commercial return—and a public developmental objective. A lot of the shifts you mention are about the pendulum swinging back and forth between these two types of objective.

Looking at the history of CDC, there have been times, in the 1980s for example, when CDC made a lot of very bold, risky investments in high development impact and lost money. It did not succeed in making money. There have been other times, under other leaderships—and this was true in the period criticised by the NAO, in the 2000s—when they went to the other extreme. We had a situation in which, during that period, CDC managed to generate £1.5 billion of profit—profit for the UK taxpayer, profit that is put back into the CDC and reinvested, but they were very high rates of return, largely achieved through the fund of funds strategy.

Now, we are using this piece of primary legislation, this discussion of the Committee and also the UK aid strategy and the CDC strategy being undertaken at the end of this year, to provide a much tighter definition of the key characteristics that take us forward. That is, philosophically, that the DFIs work when you get that balance right. The balance is right where the private sector element gives you the commercial discipline to make sure the investments you are making are genuinely sustainable, that they are going to keep those jobs and deliver revenue to the Government and value for money for the taxpayer. However, that has to be balanced with the public objective, which is the ability to make very patient long-term investment, to take a certain degree of risk and to pursue developmental impact. That is why we have put out this grid where, on the X axis and Y axis, we measure with every single investment how much capital is available, how hard the business environment is, how low the GDP capture is on both axes and whether the sector is likely to create jobs. That is also why we brought in Harvard University last year to review this and why we are now going through a 15-year longitudinal study to try and establish this.

I think we are getting better at this, but your warning, Mr Graham, is a good one and everything we are doing in our strategy, our metrics and our measurement is to ensure that we are not back in a world where this pendulum is swinging back and forwards all the while.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Q You make a big point about the issue of prospective development impact and whether CDC can prove its impact. Were you concerned when you heard the earlier panel talking about investments in richer places that theoretically will lead to jobs for poorer people, as people perhaps move to cities and take advantage? Do you think that is a bit too hazy? Can you explain a bit more about where you felt the CDC could be doing better to demonstrate impact?

Tom McDonald: One of the things that struck me from the projects that I visited in Uganda and Kenya was the need for a portfolio approach. Some of the projects clearly will have more of a development impact, and some will clearly do better financially. Some of them are harder to measure than others, particularly if the investment is through a fund or an intermediary.

In the report we say that, despite Parliament having expressed some concerns in 2008 and 2009 about how CDC measures impact, CDC has still been a little slow to put together a comprehensive picture of the approach it would expect to take, together with DFID, to provide Parliament and the taxpayer with a good view of what impact looks like. I should say that we are not suggesting that there is some simple way of doing that. Measuring all the different indirect and direct effects of the investments is complicated. For example, to answer your question directly, there was a commitment in 2012 to put together a measure of what quality of employment would look like. It has not made much progress on that. It has plans in place to try to evaluate some of its major investments and to improve the impact reporting, but for us, it is about the pace and comprehensiveness of that reporting.

[James Duddridge]

Q May I ask Sir Paul Collier a question in relation to the amount of capital that CDC has? There seems to be a view that CDC can absorb about £1 billion a year. Given your work on urbanisation and the vast amount of infrastructure investment that is needed, do you think that CDC could be challenged to spend much more on an annual basis or to ramp up to that point? That relates in particular to funding the urbanisation that Africa needs to attract the companies that you referred to earlier.

Sir Paul Collier: Africa is going through a rapid and very necessary urbanisation. Africa’s future is urban, but not all cities are environments in which ordinary people can be productive. You can have a mega-slum. At the moment in Dar es Salaam, the modal enterprise has one worker: scale zero, productivity zero, specialisation zero—doomed. Cities need to become platforms where proper firms can function. They need energy supplies and decent connectivity. That is what the infrastructure is there to do, basically: energy and connectivity. That is expensive.

[Stephen Doughty]

Q CDC could spend £1 billion just in Dar es Salaam.

Sir Paul Collier: CDC needs to scale up and scale up fast. I am hesitant about tying it in knots trying to get precise measures for this and precautionary measures for that, when the reality is that there are no techniques out there. Everyone is trying to build better measures. The International Finance Corporation has just hired for the first time a chief economist at vice-president level, designed to do that. People are trying to develop techniques, but it is difficult. To my mind, CDC’s priority, now that it has got sound, motivated management, needs to be to scale up. The task ahead for Africa is to get both the infrastructure and the private firms in before it is too late.

[James Duddridge]

Q Should not we be encouraging it to give more than £1 billion a year?

Sir Paul Collier: Yes, of course. The future of aid is to get decent firms to go to places where they will not make much money until there are lots more of them.

[Alison McGovern]

Q Very briefly, obviously there is a massive need for capital in Africa, and the question is how we should spend UK taxpayers’ money. I would like to come back to you, Tom. As we heard in the previous session, we are asking CDC to take increased risks with quite a lot of increased capital, but we do not yet have its strategy. Do you think that that approach is probably the wrong way round?

Tom McDonald: There is a cart-and-horse problem here, is there not? One of the things that we saw in the 2015 recapitalisation business case was that the Department did go through a thorough process of assessing, in collaboration with CDC, the art of the possible. There are good foundations on which the Department can build.

One of our worries, which we set out in the report, is that CDC has to be comfortable that it can absorb this money in two ways. One is internally: does it have the capacity to grow, still be agile and make decisions in the way it has done in the past? That is its internal operating model, if you like. The other is whether it has access to all the opportunities for investment. Now that it is again in the business of direct investment, that requires a lot more effort from the teams that are putting together these deals. There needs to be a discussion between the two bodies over the remainder of the spending review period, or the Parliament, about whether DFID is clear about what it wants from CDC, where it wants CDC to operate, and the principles on which it wants it to work. From CDC’s perspective, can it cope with the volume of money and can it, in good faith, invest all that in a portfolio of deals that will still allow it to meet its targets?

Gideon Rabinowitz: I have a very quick point to follow up on that. As well as our mission to tackle the injustice of poverty around the world, we are very keen in our work and our engagement with the development community to push for adequate public scrutiny and trust in the work that the British Government and institutions such as CDC do. We think that needs to be central to this debate, so these are really good issues that we are discussing. The absence of this investment strategy is making it a little difficult to get a fuller perspective. There is clearly a dynamic situation around CDC. I have looked at the business case for the last capitalisation last year, which said,

“CDC has previously determined that given investment needs, it could productively deploy up to £1bn of additional capital.”

We heard from this morning’s witnesses that that situation seems to have changed. An additional point was made in the business case that, of the £735 million that DFID allocated to CDC last year, it would need to go beyond that only in 2019. It is a very fluid situation, and the lack of clarity over that investment strategy and how the situation on the ground with CDC is changing poses challenges. It is important to get that clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Q I just want to ask any panel member who might want to reflect on the levels of transparency in CDC and the opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. I particularly want to ask the reps from War on Want and Oxfam how their transparency in reporting requirements from DFID have changed in recent years and whether they have any views on how they should apply to CDC.

Gideon Rabinowitz: Oxfam is a signatory to the international aid transparency initiative, which is the comprehensive aid transparency framework that is applied across the development community. The initiative was started and promoted by the UK Government, who have obviously played an important leveraging role in promoting transparency across the world.

We are ambitious implementers of IRT and in our dialogue with DFID right now, we are being encouraged to look at how we can apply those standards and the standards introduced by the initiative further down our supply chain with our local partners. It will be a challenge, but one that we shall pursue head on. Throughout the chain of delivery partners we work with, we will look at ways we can address those standards.

One of the questions we think it would be really useful for the Committee to think about is, how—whatever is agreed through the legislation—can we help to ratchet up the level of transparency of CDC? It has made progress, but the last time it was assessed against IRT standards, it scored “poor”. We have not seen a fundamental change in the level of information that is currently reporting, so it has some catching up to do. We hope this legislation can help.

Saranel Benjamin: That is a really good question, because while listening to everybody talking, I was thinking that when we have to apply to DFID for funding, there is absolutely no way we would get funding if we just went and said, “Can I have £500,000 and I will give you the strategy later?” That would never happen for the development sector.

[James Duddridge]

Q You are not owned by DFID. It is not like for like at all, is it?

Saranel Benjamin: No, but it is still the use of taxpayers’ money, which DFID—

[James Duddridge]

It is a ridiculous comment.

Saranel Benjamin: No, DFID subjects the development sector to a number of processes involving deep scrutiny of all our work. It does not do that with CDC. The fact is that a case study such as Feronia, for example, can exist. Either CDC can say that it did not know that it was happening or DFID can say that it did not know that it was happening. It seems to me that there is a lack of oversight.

[Fiona Bruce]

Q Can I ask Terry and Tom about value for money? How should CDC be scrutinised by the various bodies that will scrutinise it, assuming it gets this increased money—DFID, Parliament, the International Development Select Committee, ICAI and the Sub-Committee on the Select Committee, which I chair, which scrutinises ICAI? In view of the increased funding, how can we ensure that we scrutinise value for money effectively? What measurements should we be using?

Tom McDonald: That is a very good question. The first duty is with DFID as the shareholder. What we have seen of the reforms that have been put in place since 2012 is an increased volume of reporting from CDC back to the Department, characterised by a no-surprises policy. CDC is very clear that if it is thinking of undertaking something new or innovative it will consult with DFID first. Similarly, it will have quarterly shareholder meetings and with the shareholder produces a significant volume of information. These are all improvements from the previous regime that Members have talked about before and they help to mitigate the risk that CDC at some point in the future might engage in some of the poor behaviour that we saw previously.

That is the first line of defence in terms of scrutiny. Who else might do that? We will clearly continue to have an interest. We have been writing reports on CDC for at least 20 years. Obviously, it is up to Parliament how else it wishes to do that. The difficulty, as with other aspects of DFID’s spending, is following the money. We have this problem with multilateral expenditure. When DFID makes a payment to a CDC or a multilateral body, it is quite for us as the auditors to track that money through to the eventual point of impact. We have to be creative about it and find ways of doing that. It is not straightforward.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (Second sitting)

James Duddridge Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

It is actually £1 million, but my amendment is probing, as the hon. Gentleman’s is. What the hon. Gentleman is getting wrong—I do not think wilfully—is that the Minister does not need to present a business case and, indeed, he should not present a business case now. This is a figure that might be reached on the basis of drawdown and a request of the CDC with a business case which he will then analyse.

[Stephen Doughty]

But the CDC has not made such a request and, as the NAO said this morning, it is the cart before horse. That is the problem. I do not expect the Minister to provide a detailed analysis of every single project that we will invest in over the next 10 years, but a paragraph in the explanatory notes and some vague assurances about market demand are simply not good enough. We are talking about spending, potentially, billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Would we suggest the same amount went to a non-governmental organisation such as Oxfam or indeed the World Bank?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I have only two groups of points. The first is on process. I am a great fan of the “Daily Politics” show and was very disappointed when the hon. Member for Cardiff and Penarth resigned from the Front Bench. This is the first time I have sat on a Bill Committee where a Back Bencher has led the amendments in this way. The Labour Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Edmonton and for Bradford East, have added their names to the amendments, but have not tabled any in their own names. I will not do so in this debate, but I am thinking about leading a debate on the good use of Short money, because the Labour Front Bench is paid to do the job that is being done by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth on its behalf.

[The Chair]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman stick to the issues in front of us? A discussion of Short money is not relevant here.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[James Duddridge]

I give way.

[Stephen Doughty]

I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will confirm that they are in full support. In fact, we have discussed the amendments at great length. It is simply a procedural point. I was not aware until I was informed by the Clerk earlier about the ordering of names, despite having been on many Bill Committees. I was informed by the Chair at the start that I would be called first because my name came first in the list. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the amendments have been fully discussed with the Front Benchers and have their full support. No doubt the Front Benchers will speak to the amendments in due course.

[James Duddridge]

Fantastic. My Front Bench also seems to be aware of that situation. I look forward to listening to the SNP’s contribution on amendments 3 and 4 and to seeing how its Front Bench is taking things forward.

Amendments 1 and 2, which I tabled, are probing amendments. I had taken myself off to table amendments that increased, not decreased, the amount and was told that while it would be permissible to table them, it would not be permissible for them to be selected, because of the money resolution. I therefore want to enter into a debate about whether it is the right amount. I have tabled an amendment that would make it lower, rather than higher, although I believe that there is capacity to invest more money in CDC, and faster. I do not share the scepticism of others around the table. I hope to see the £6 billion target reached earlier, rather than later.

This morning’s evidence session was incredibly useful and covered a lot of the points and queries that I would have wanted the Minister to address in his remarks. With that in mind, I will not detain the Committee any further.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I will speak to amendments 3 and 4, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill.

I agree with pretty much everything the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth had to say. The Minister has been asked repeatedly how the figures of £6 billion and £12 billion were arrived at. It increasingly sounds as if they were arbitrary figures based on a best-guess discussion with the CDC about what it might manage to spend over a particular period in the coming years.

Amendments 3 and 4 try to relate the amount of investment in the CDC more clearly to the overall amount of official development assistance the Government are likely to have at their disposal over a spending review period of the lifetime of a Parliament. Of course, the amount of ODA can go up or down in any given year, because it is, by definition, a proportionate target: it is a percentage of gross national income. Indeed, in the autumn statement a couple of weeks ago, the ODA forecasts were revised down because the economy as a whole is contracting, not least because of the Brexit result.

Using those forecasts, the Library estimates that amendment 4 would mean that £3.77 billion of additional investment could be made on top of the £1.5 billion already invested, making a total investment of £5.02 billion. The effect of amendment 5, which I appreciate we are not discussing immediately, would be to bring the upper cap to £9.77 billion. As the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East just said, the money resolution means that those numbers cannot go above £6 billion or £12 billion in any event. It is worth noting that introducing such a formula would mean that in the event of a significant decline in GNI—some sort of catastrophic economic collapse, which I am sure will not happen under this Government—the cap on investment could reduce, meaning that the Government would have to divest.

[James Duddridge]

The first time the hon. Gentleman mentioned a contraction in the economy I let it go, but I thought the economy was growing at about 2.2%. It is the fastest growing economy in either the G7 or the G8—forgive me for not knowing which. Does he have the wrong numbers, or is he drawing a distinction between GNI and GDP and being selective?

[Patrick Grady]

As I said, the autumn statement demonstrated that GNI will go down and therefore the ODA forecasts are being revised down as well. The point I am trying to make is that if we are going to find a way of varying the cap on investment in the CDC, finding a way to make it proportionate to overall aid spending would seem to be the more sensible way of doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Yes; I do not disagree with that.

[James Duddridge]

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth is wrong. It is not an investment in the same way, in that it is not so easily controlled. An investment in a girl’s education is, indeed, an investment, but we are discussing an investment that has an actual return, which we can reinvest and have some degree of control over, as the aid budget is targeted in different ways. It is a different type of investment. As I said on Second Reading, it is a gift that keeps giving.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I will conclude by saying that I feel a little like I am in the middle of a great argument, but I probably agree in some way with both Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I am conscious of your admonishment not to repeat the arguments I made when I moved amendment 6, Chair. I will discuss a few other issues, specifically around the use of a statutory instrument in this way, the value of it and the way in which other replenishments and funding rounds are agreed for development finance institutions.

Many of the arguments that we have already discussed also apply to amendment 7, although I will come to one that we did not cover, but the fundamental issue is whether the Government should be given this level of power. There is a debate to be had about how much we give CDC, over what time period and with what caveats, but giving the Secretary of State the power to come back at the time of their choosing, which could be next week or in 10 years’ time, and not just increase the amount by another couple of billion but double it, is very significant. I am always extremely reluctant to grant Ministers such powers, whether they are financial powers or Executive powers.

We all know that despite the procedures of this House and the fact that many Members take an active interest in Delegated Legislation Committees and statutory instruments, secondary legislation often does not receive the same scrutiny as primary legislation. It often goes through on the nod or is scheduled on funny days when Members are not available. Obviously it is the responsibility of all Members to turn up and hold the Government to scrutiny, but given the debate we have had on the matter in this Committee and in the legislative process, it seems odd not to ask the Government to come back later with another Bill.

Let us not forget that a Bill was not required from 1999 to today, when only £1.5 billion was used. Even if there was an expansion, not to require another Bill for quite a significant period and just to put through another uptick, perhaps by a mischievous future Secretary of State or the current one, seems very odd.

I must come back to the Minister’s point about other development finance institutions and the processes they are subject to. Most development finance institutions, including the global health fund, the World Bank’s International Development Association, individual development banks and UN agencies, tend to go through replenishment rounds. They agree a set period, put out strategies and requests to donors for funding and come back on a three or four-year cycle. Those requests have to be justified so that we can scrutinise them and say whether we agree. Indeed, that is the very purpose of the multilateral aid review: to look into whether we are giving money in all the right areas and where we think some development finance institutions are underperforming.

I am concerned that, although CDC may be doing better in line with its 2012 plan, making improvements and shifting its focuses, as we have heard from the Minister, without any ability to come back and have a full, thorough debate about the nature of the organisation, the caveats that are placed on it and the overall cap of funding that it should receive, we are giving Ministers a completely open-ended power to increase that funding very significantly. Let us not forget that £12 billion is equivalent, roughly, to the annual aid budget—I know the Minister has made it clear that it will not be used in one year, but it is a very significant sum of money. We ought to be acting with real caution when giving Ministers such powers.

It would help if the Minister could be clear about the time periods he is looking at. If he is talking about 20 years, let us hear him say that. I would still be nervous even so, because a future Secretary of State or Minister might change their mind, but it would help to smooth the debate if we heard that statement from the Minister.

The other issue that the Committee did not discuss in our consideration of the previous amendment was the focus on sectors. I mentioned the problem of multiplying potential shifts into certain countries or regions, away from stated objectives; that argument applies equally to sectors. If we increased the limit to £12 billion, it would be magnified even further. I was concerned to receive an answer from the Minister today about certain sectors in which he stated that the CDC continues to disburse into some really questionable areas. One is private, fee-paying education—the CDC’s portfolio value in 2015 was £56.9 million. Another is private healthcare providers and services, in which the CDC had a total portfolio value in 2015 of £117.9 million. Its portfolio value in extractive industries—metals and mining—was £9.3 million; the portfolio value in palm oil, which we have discussed in relation to the Feronia case and other matters, was £20.4 million; the value of the investment in real estate is £147.7 million; and in fossil fuels, the current value of CDC’s portfolio is £250 million. That seems to me to be at complete odds with DFID’s wider development objectives for Government coherence.

To come back to the nature of the amendment—I can see Ms Ryan looking anxiously at me—those sorts of issue will be magnified even further by rapid increases in the budget without caveats being placed on it. Ms Ryan, you have rightly said that were we to vote on the amendment, and were it to pass, we would not get a chance to discuss some of those other matters, but the power being given here without assurances is simply not acceptable and I have great concerns about giving that power to Ministers.

[James Duddridge]

I shall raise only two points. I made all the comments I could possibly make on amendment 2 in the previous debate, so I will not detain the Committee further. I am sure it is terribly bad form, but I hope, Ms Ryan, that you will not mind, if we are still sitting when the business in the Chamber gets to the Adjournment debate, which is on rail services in my constituency, Southend, that I rush off before any possible vote.

[Patrick Grady]

I share many of the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. Amendment 5, tabled in my name, would apply the same formula to the upper cap as my previous amendment, and I have obviously heard the Committee’s view on that. I heard the Minister’s view as well and I appreciate the fact that he has given it some consideration. Even if that particular formula would not meet the standards that DFID would like it to meet, it would be interesting to see whether there was a way of coming up with a proportionate formula. That would answer a number of points that have been made today.

We have heard from a number of witnesses and in other evidence to the Bill, as well as from other hon. Members on Second Reading and since, that the £12 billion figure is particularly high, especially as it might theoretically be some years down the line before that maximum is reached or a need for it is felt. In that case, the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth about the use of a statutory instrument are correct; it would perhaps be better if the Government were to come back with primary legislation in due course. We may come on to some of these issues in the debates on the new clauses, but the hon. Gentleman made a point earlier about the number of other arm’s length bodies that have the potential to receive an 800% increase in their funding from the Government with so little scrutiny. We should bear that in mind.