International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am delighted that the Bill has been introduced by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore), and I am pleased to follow the former Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell).
During my nine and a bit years in the House, I have had the huge privilege of visiting overseas projects to see at first hand the excellent work done by DFID, along with NGOs such as Results UK, Oxfam, World Vision, Farm Africa and so on. The visits have ranged from looking at health projects in Malawi, where they are tackling TB and HIV through vaccination programmes and advice on family planning, to going to the camps for internally displaced people in northern Uganda, which was the first time I had been overseas as an MP—I was with the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), who I hope will speak in a moment—and sparked in me a realisation that we can do so much for people. Those in the camps, who had been displaced from their homes for the best part of two decades, were living on one meal and their clothes were charity handouts from the UK, but we could see the work that DFID was doing. Since then, I have had the privilege of seeing many other projects on the ground.
Today I will focus on an issue that was touched on briefly by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk—that of climate change and the need for overseas development assistance to be directed towards the countries that are most at risk to help with adaptation and mitigation. As the shadow Secretary of State for International Development said on another occasion:
“The climate is the central development issue of the next century. If we fail to tackle the changes in our environment, all the gains we make elsewhere—from health and poverty to food and sanitation—will be reversed.”
I have just returned from three days in El Salvador with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), the shadow Minister for International Development, and Christian Aid. That country is the fourth most at risk from climate change. El Salvador is not currently in receipt of DFID funding, but much of what I have to say is relevant to countries that are.
Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
As a former trustee of Christian Aid and television foreign correspondent, I agree that we must support the poorest people in the world, but does the hon. Lady not agree that it is completely crazy for a deeply indebted nation to ring-fence any spending, especially when we are failing in our first duty by cutting defence spending?
Kerry McCarthy
No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. That point has been more than adequately answered by other Members in this debate.
As I said, El Salvador is not in receipt of DFID funding, but some countries that do receive it are also at risk from climate change. In Kashmir, 460 people have died in monsoon floods and 1 million people have been displaced from their homes. Countries such as Bangladesh, the Philippines, Malawi, Kenya and many small island states are also extremely vulnerable. Of the £12 billion the UK spends on ODA each year, about £500 million is officially classified as climate finance. I will make the case for continuing to fund those projects and, indeed, for strengthening them.
Changing weather patterns and extreme climatic events have left El Salvador suffering both droughts and flooding. We saw on our visit how this year’s maize harvest has suffered because of the drought. As most of the farming is subsistence farming, people are going hungry as a result. There is a growing food security crisis in El Salvador and a food aid programme has been rolled out across parts of the country.
We also saw efforts to combat flooding by building levees, replanting mangroves and undertaking reforestation programmes. As in the UK, changes in agricultural land use, deforestation, and soil erosion and degradation have exacerbated the impact of the floods and increased the likelihood of landslides.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She has made an important point about forests and replanting. Is there enough international support for reforestation, not just in El Salvador but throughout the river system of central America? The way in which the boundaries are drawn means that it has to be an international effort.
Kerry McCarthy
I know that my hon. Friend takes an interest in Mexico and Latin America as a whole. This issue affects the whole continent. Reforestation would help not only to prevent the risks that I am describing by acting as a natural barrier to flooding but to reduce carbon emissions because the forests are the lungs of the continent. I agree that more could be done not only to increase reforestation, but to halt the process of deforestation, which I will come to in a moment.
In countries such as El Salvador, which are already vulnerable to earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods and landslides, such natural threats turn into full-blown disasters because of the high levels of poverty and vulnerability, and the lack of infrastructure. We spoke to local farmers and environmental activists about the impact of the significant number of climatic events over the past decade, including Hurricane Mitch, Hurricane Stan and, most recently, tropical depression 12-E, when 1.5 metres of rain fell in 10 days, destroying crops, killing livestock and displacing people from their homes and land.
The region’s climate vulnerability is worsening. The UN report on climate change identified three challenges for central America: to resolve high levels of socio-economic and environmental vulnerability; to promote climate change adaptation; and to move towards sustainable, low carbon economics based on renewable sources.
Now is a critical time in addressing this problem. The world is looking to secure a new climate deal in Paris in December 2015. A new framework of post-2015 sustainable development goals will be agreed next year by the UN to replace the millennium development goals. It is important that climate resilience and disaster risk reduction are included in those goals. Thirdly, the Hyogo framework for action, which is the globally agreed approach to managing disaster risk reduction, will be replaced after 2015 with a new resilience framework which needs to address the challenges posed by disasters, climate change, natural resources management, conflict and poverty in an integrated way. It is not just about mitigation and adaptation—introducing climate-resilient crops, early warning systems, protection from flooding and the other things I have mentioned—but about developing a rights-based approach and about climate justice.
The countries most at risk from man-made climate change are not those responsible for causing it. They have much smaller carbon footprints than developed industrialised countries—countries in which multinational companies, particularly in the extractive and farming industries, exacerbate the problem by displacing people from their land, replacing sustainable agriculture with monocrops, deforestation on a massive scale, and the use of pesticides that infect the water supply and much more.
The UN committee on loss and damage, which is the closest thing to climate justice, will report in 2016. In El Salvador, environmental tribunals have been introduced. Judges are charged with assessing expert scientific evidence, and the burden of proof rests on the polluter to prove their innocence, thereby confronting economic powers that until now have too often had impunity on environmental violations.
Much more is to be done across the world to protect, strengthen and enforce climate rights. We heard disturbing accounts of how the central America free trade agreement has made it difficult for El Salvador to promote native seeds, which is part of the effort to reinstate organic farming, and to ban the import of pesticides. That is surely wrong. As part of the fight against climate change, we must also consider broader issues such as how we can encourage a different, more sustainable model of development in countries benefiting from ODA.
Mrs Spelman
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech about the way the world’s poorest people are those most likely to be affected by climate change. I am sure she is aware that 75% of the population of Bangladesh is at risk from rising sea levels. Does she agree that one way we can help a country such as Bangladesh become more sustainable is through development assistance to build resilience in those communities, with early flood warning systems and adaptations to the way people live, so that lives can be saved?
Kerry McCarthy
The right hon. Lady is entirely correct and I am pleased she is speaking in this debate. Bangladesh is the country most vulnerable to climate change in the world, and adaptation is an important part of the issue, particularly with things such as early flood warning systems. We saw those in practice in El Salvador—perhaps we need to look more at that for certain parts of the UK as well. Adaptation with, for example, drought resilient crops and changing agricultural methods so that people can cope with extreme weather conditions—whether that be drought or huge rainfalls—is important, and DFID has a major role to play in supporting that through some of our agricultural expertise.
I went to Kenya with the all-party group on agriculture and food for development, and we looked at some of the work that Farm Africa is doing, on a very small scale, to help farmers adapt to changing conditions. Tiny measures with little financial output can result in much more sustainable and profitable farming. Good work is being done, but although DFID has done brilliant work on issues such as education, health and microfinance, to an extent agricultural development has been neglected. That is what feeds people. We cannot just rely on food aid programmes and handing out food to people who cannot afford to feed themselves; we must find ways to make their livelihoods sustainable.
Mr Stephen O’Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an important point, and although today’s debate is about enshrining spending on overseas aid in legislation, for agricultural prioritisation in DFID we need a unity of approach that recognises that not only protecting small holders but increasing farming is the way forward. Until there is more unity of approach, it will be difficult to get settled views on what projects to select.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Thirteen Members still wish to speak, so we need brevity from everybody.
Kerry McCarthy
I agree that a united approach would be good, and I am sure there are many issues we can discuss across the House. We must consider how we can encourage a different, more sustainable model of development in countries that benefit from our aid, and think carefully about how we can protect and preserve the world’s resources, rather than assuming that they are always there to be plundered.
To conclude, the fight to tackle climate change, increase climate resilience and protect vulnerable communities from climate risk must be a central part of DFID’s work, and the importance of that work is one reason why I speak today in support of enshrining the 0.7% target in law. As a first step, we need to make progress on climate finance, on the commitments made by Heads of State at Copenhagen and the creation of the Green Climate Fund, and on mobilising $100 billion a year of climate finance by 2020. UK NGOs, led by Oxfam, are asking that the UK Government pledge $1 billion as a “fair” contribution to the Green Climate Fund, spread over three years. That should be possible because the UK has about £1.8 billion left to play with in the international climate fund, which is where the contribution would come from.
As we approach Ban Ki-moon’s summit in New York in September, it is up to the UK to show international leadership, as we have done on international development issues across the board, by being one of the first countries to state how much it is pledging to the green climate fund. We should show leadership on this issue; it is too important to leave to others.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because of the decisions we took—long-term decisions after a careful assessment—to increase spending on the health service, that has given extra money for Scotland to spend on the NHS. That gives the lie to one of Alex Salmond’s claims. His second claim that, somehow, a Westminster Government could privatise parts of the NHS in Scotland is complete and utter nonsense. The only person who could privatise parts of the NHS in Scotland is Alex Salmond. You can tell someone has lost the argument when they start having ludicrous ideas about what they would do themselves.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q4. There have been worrying reports over the past week about a rise in malnutrition, the return of rickets and children going back to school hungry after the school holidays. I know the Government are rolling out free school meals, but that alone will not solve food poverty. When I have asked the Prime Minister about this before, I have really felt that he is not taking it seriously. Will he acknowledge that it is a real problem? It is actually a national scandal and it is his job to do something about it.
The Prime Minister
First, it is welcome that all infants will have free school meals as they go to school this week. That will be welcome to many families up and down the country. The evidence is that 99% of schools are providing those free school meals, but I have to say that the best way we can help people is to get more people into work—and we are—and make sure that our economy continues to grow and that it delivers for hard-working people.
I know the Labour party wants to get this narrative about inequality up and running, but let me give some statistics to show why it is not true. There are 300,000 fewer children in poverty than when Labour was in office. Inequality in our country has gone down, not up. One of the most serious causes of poverty—long-term youth unemployment—is now lower than when this Government came to office. That is how we are changing people’s lives and their life chances.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lynne Featherstone
As I have said, DFID does not have a bilateral aid programme in Thailand, but the UK is working closely with EU and others in the international community, including our ambassador in Thailand, to secure commitment to the values of democracy and the rule of law in the interests of Thailand’s peace and stability.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As the Minister will know, much concern has been expressed about arbitrary detentions and restrictions on the media and the right to protest in Thailand. While I appreciate that DFID does not fund Thailand directly and has no aid programme in the country, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), said on 25 May that owing to the current political situation there, the Government would have to review the scope of their co-operation with it. Was DFID involved in those discussions?
Lynne Featherstone
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We are particularly concerned by the restrictions on freedom of assembly, association and expression, and by the large number of arbitrary detentions. However, this is an FCO lead, so we do not make those particular representations.
Security of Women in Afghanistan
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I want to start by joining the tributes to the soldier from 32 Engineer Regiment who died in Helmand yesterday and extending our condolences to his family.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House the opportunity to debate this very important topic. I congratulate Amnesty International, which has done so much to ensure that women’s rights in Afghanistan are on the public’s and Parliament’s agendas.
It is worth briefly recapping the history of women’s rights in Afghanistan and how the situation deteriorated from a country in which, from 1919, women could vote, had relative freedom in what they wore, and had equal political participation, to a country under the Taliban where girls were prevented from going to school and women were not allowed to work or to leave the home without a male chaperone, were barred from showing any skin in public, and could not get involved in politics or speak publicly. The discrimination against women extended to prohibiting access to health care delivered by men, which provided no viable option given that women could not work as doctors or nurses. The punishments for defying such discrimination were severe and brutal; women suffered floggings for some perceived transgressions, and were stoned to death if found guilty of adultery. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said in her powerful account of life under the Taliban, some women, despite those restrictions, continued very bravely to try to continue their education in secret schools where women worked as teachers.
Since those years, there has of course been crucial progress. The Afghan constitution gives equal status to women, and in 2009 the Afghan Government introduced the law on the elimination of violence against women. There has been a remarkable expansion in access to education, with the number of girls enrolled in schools increasing from 5,000 in the Taliban’s day to 2.4 million today. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has highlighted the wide-ranging, long-term impact of this change, not only on women’s lives but on attitudes within Afghanistan. It is particularly worth noting how parents at a school supported by the UN special envoy, Angelina Jolie, have pledged to delay their daughters’ marriages so that they may first finish school. That provides an indication not only of how far Afghanistan has come but of the scope for further progress on women’s rights and freedoms.
As we have heard, there is real concern not only that progress will stall but that the gains could be reversed once the international troops withdraw. Constitutional equality is still not reflected in the reality of life for many women in Afghanistan, and the law on ending violence against women, while a landmark achievement, is still, in many cases, not effectively implemented. The Chair of the International Development Committee, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), gave the example of the woman who, despite being very articulate and well educated, almost seemed to accept that she would be subjected to violence in her marriage and would have to tolerate it, saying that she was used to doing that. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) mentioned similar points.
Between March and October 2012, the Afghan independent human rights commission documented 4,000 cases of violence against women—a 28% increase on the year before. Some of those cases were cited by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). Amnesty International reports that in the past six months alone, nine high-profile women have been attacked in Afghanistan, including senior police officers who have been murdered, a parliamentarian who survived an attack that killed her eight-year old daughter, the author who wrote about her life under the Taliban and who was dragged from her home and shot, and the senior Government official who was murdered. Most of these attacks have been made with complete impunity. Those tragic cases have received considerable attention due to the women’s prominence, but there have been many other equally shocking attacks on less high-profile women. Amnesty gives the example of the gynaecologist helping the victims of abuse who was targeted because of her work. Her brother was killed and her 11-year-old son was wounded in a grenade attack. A head teacher was targeted because she runs a girls’ school. Her son was abducted and killed, while she continues to receive serious threats.
Clearly, the progress that has been made on girls’ access to education in Afghanistan is no insignificant achievement, but it risks being undermined. In her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham spoke about the Taliban conducting a reign of terror against schools. We have heard about several girls’ schools being victims of poisoning and gas attacks last year, and female teachers coming under threat. The 2014 report by Human Rights Watch warned that the perceived “rapidly waning” international interest in Afghanistan is providing opponents of women’s rights with opportunities to roll back advancements. The Afghan independent human rights commission has argued for repeal of the law on ending violence against women. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) mentioned that, as did the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who also spoke of women suffering continued human rights abuses. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian highlighted the plight of young women and girls in jail for so-called moral crimes—a horrible example of how much progress is still to be made.
Only this year, the Afghan Parliament passed a draft criminal procedure code that would prohibit relatives from giving evidence as witnesses and therefore risked obstructing justice for the victims of domestic violence and forced marriage. That was a subject of international concern and it received a welcome veto from President Karzai. It is critical that the UK plays a leading role in maintaining international attention on and support for Afghanistan, including, specifically and explicitly, advocacy of women’s rights, peace and security.
The Government have rightly said—I welcome this—that stability and security is their priority for Afghanistan, but the security situation of women cannot be seen as secondary to that. It is very much part of it—it is an integral part of security in Afghanistan. Indeed, UN Security Council resolution 1325 and the motion under discussion make clear that women’s participation and security are intrinsic to sustainable peace and security.
The UK Government have in the past emphasised the need for a multilateral approach, particularly with regard to working with our European Union partners, which was picked up by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. I hope the Secretary of State will agree that, despite the need to work at an EU level, the UK also needs to show particular leadership through our bilateral strategy, in the hope that other countries will follow suit if we take a lead on the issue.
The Foreign Secretary has rightly been commended for his efforts to secure global action on sexual violence, as has been said by the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), whom I congratulate on his work as a Foreign Office Minister for two years. The Government definitely have our support for the preventing sexual violence initiative. Although Afghanistan is not a priority country for the initiative, it nevertheless seems that the PSVI’s principles could make a valuable contribution in Afghanistan, not least the emphasis it places on working with human rights defenders and helping survivors. I hope the Secretary of State agrees with that.
Amnesty International is also calling on the Government to develop a country-specific plan for the protection of human rights defenders in Afghanistan, as recommended by the EU guidelines on human rights defenders and, indeed, the FCO’s best practice guidance. My understanding, though, is that the Government have so far been reluctant to develop a country-specific plan and have claimed it would add little additional value. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could tell us what discussions she has had with EU counterparts about developing country-specific plans, how the UK is pushing for full implementation of the UK guidelines, and why the Government do not think that a UK country- specific plan could help activists in Afghanistan and send a strong message to our international partners.
It would also be helpful if the Secretary of State could provide more details on the work that DFID, the FCO and the MOD are currently doing with women human rights defenders. In particular, what steps are the UK Government taking to ensure that Afghan human rights defenders are aware of the EU guidelines and the options they have should they be in need of protection? In what way are the Government consulting the human rights defenders themselves, who are best placed to advise on the assistance they need?
Foreign Governments who work with human rights defenders can raise their profile in Afghanistan, and in many cases women are prepared to take such a risk, but we must be mindful that the most visible women are often the most vulnerable, particularly if the security situation deteriorates further. I would, therefore, like to hear more from the Secretary of State about what measures the FCO has in place to protect those women.
Members have mentioned political participation and the need for women to be engaged in the future elections, and I hope the Government have taken that on board. Given the international troop withdrawal later this year, I am also keen to hear from the Minister about what training and advice has been provided to the Afghan national security forces and their capacity to protect the status of women and women human rights defenders.
In conclusion, I congratulate everyone who has taken part in what has been a brief, truncated, but very important debate.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks about this matter with great commitment because of his chairmanship of the Education Committee. The point that he and I have discussed, which is very important, is that we need to ensure that we are giving the clearest possible information to our young people in schools about the choices they can make. The academic path of A-levels, UCAS and universities has been well set out and well understood, including by Britain’s teachers. We need the opportunities for vocational education and apprenticeships to be at least as well understood, not least because a person does not have to choose long term between the two; people can carry out an apprenticeship and a degree, earning and learning at the same time.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This is the EU year of tackling food waste. Given the absolute scandal of up to 40% of our food being wasted in this country and the huge numbers of people who have to go to food banks because they cannot afford to feed themselves and their families, will the Prime Minister throw his weight behind this initiative and support efforts to reduce food waste in this country?
The Prime Minister
It is important to tackle the issue of food waste. A number of important debates on the issue have been held in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall. When it comes to helping people with weekly budgets, the most important thing is to make sure that we keep growing the economy, getting people back to work and creating jobs. Also, if we keep people’s taxes down, they will have more of their own money to spend as they choose.
UK’s Development Work (Girls and Women)
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
When I asked about the arms trade treaty at Foreign Office questions on Tuesday, I was assured that although no DFID Minister was going to the talks later this month, they were very much taking an interest in it, working the phones and so on. I was therefore concerned by the Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), which implied that the issue is simply not on her radar at all, when it is so important to the matters addressed by her Department, such as poverty among women and gender-based violence. Can I urge her to give it real priority?
Justine Greening
I can assure the hon. Lady that I do give the issue priority. I am making a statement today precisely because I think that the issue of women and girls is so important in all aspects. I hope she can welcome that. To reiterate, I take her point on board. I regularly meet the Foreign Secretary to discuss the work our two Departments do together and I can assure her that this is precisely the sort of issue I discuss with him.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in central America; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)
First, on behalf all right hon. and hon. Members, may I express our sympathy, concern and deep condolences to the people of central America who are affected by the floods, especially those who have lost loved ones and their homes? The hon. Lady will have noted the statements made on 14 and 20 October by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne). We have made an assessment of need, and currently we judge that the Governments and national relief agencies of those countries, supported by neighbouring countries such as the United States, and agencies such as the United Nations and International Committee of the Red Cross, are responding well and providing sufficient essential humanitarian aid.
Kerry McCarthy
I appreciate that the Department for International Development is not involved in central America, but it is the best agency in the world for delivering disaster relief, as has been shown in places such as Pakistan. May I therefore urge the Minister to keep a close eye on the situation? Will he be ready to respond if our services—not just funding, but expertise—are called on?
Food Security and Famine Prevention (Africa)
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Harman
Absolutely. Everyone should be proud of the work that our Government, through DFID, are doing, and that is why I support so strongly their promise to maintain our commitment to increase aid to 0.7% of gross national income by 2013. I know that they will do everything they can to step up their efforts to get other countries to do the same. We are doing our bit; so must other countries.
The drought has hit a wide area of the horn of Africa, but its impact on people is dramatically different in different areas. For example, in Ethiopia—and I underline the points that the Secretary of State made—for a number of years our aid and the work of our aid agencies with the Government of Ethiopia has put in place measures to protect against the impact of drought. They have prepared systems of what they call cash transfers—systems to give money to people whose crops have failed and cannot feed themselves; they have stockpiled food ready for such people; and they have built roads so that remote areas can be reached even when there is drought. Although those people are suffering hardship, they are not starving. They are able to stay on their land and in their villages, and they are not forced to abandon them and flee, but work will have to go on, and, as the Secretary of State said, the danger is not over when the rains come, because they can bring with them cholera and malaria.
Ethiopia shows that aid works, but it is a tragically different story for Somalia, which shows that, because of conflict, when people do not have access to aid and there is no preparation for drought, people are left totally at the mercy of drought. The best that they can hope for is to flee their lands and become refugees; the worst is to see their children die of starvation. With preparation and with humanitarian aid, people can cope with drought, but they cannot cope with drought and conflict, and that has caused hundreds of thousands of people to flee Somalia for the Dadaab camp in north-east Kenya. The numbers are absolutely overwhelming. A camp that was built for no more than 90,000 people now has more than 430,000 and is growing by 30,000 a month. Every single day, there are more and more people: between 1,000 and 1,300 arrive every day, and each day those who come are more dehydrated, more undernourished, more exhausted and more traumatised.
Some people, in order to avoid the effect of the searing heat on their children as they walk from the Somali border, travel at night through a no-man’s land, but that makes them even more vulnerable to attack. Aid agencies are organising buses from the Somali border, but although they are putting on more and more buses, they cannot keep pace with the flood of refugees. The accommodation in the camp cannot keep pace, either. When people arrive, they have to stay under makeshift cover outside the site. They wait in makeshift shelters until they are registered, and then they join the other—soon to be half a million—people in this camp in the middle of nowhere.
It is hard to describe how bleak the camp is. When we came into land on the small landing strip, we flew over terrain that looks like the surface of the moon. It is so barren, there is just nothing, and then suddenly we saw hundreds of thousands of tents in the middle of nowhere. It is just desperate. For all the work of the camp staff and of the aid agencies, it is not a safe place, either. Of the group of women whom I met in the camp, which is 80% women and children, all said that they wanted to go back to their homes in Somalia—that, if only there was peace, they would go back to their land there. They said that they had fled not the drought, but the conflict.
The camp director said that he wanted me to take back to this country just one message: “Whatever you do, please do what you can to sort out the situation in Somalia.” Of course there have to be high-level meetings at the UN and the EU to ensure that the wider international community plays its part, but the deep and long-standing conflict in Somalia will not be solved just by summits in Brussels and New York. We need to support the work of organisations such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Governments of Muslim states, who can help, and the African Union. We need to draw not only on the diaspora in Canada, America and continental Europe, but on the Somali diaspora in this country—on their advice, support and wisdom.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In Bristol, there is a very large Somali community, many of whom are my constituents, and their work to send remittances and to support development in Somalia and, indeed, in Somaliland is fantastic, but it is done individually. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that we could do more to encourage them to come together so that big projects might be funded along with commercial operations, particularly in Somaliland, where ports could be opened up and infrastructure built? Can we do more on that front?
Ms Harman
Yes, I absolutely agree. We need to do a great deal more to recognise remittances. People sometimes think that such activity is undertaken only by Government Departments or by people giving to organisations such as Oxfam, but many individuals give their own money. The cost of sending money is also quite high, and we could do more, such as by creating diaspora bonds to enable people to invest. There are many ways in which we can support remittances, and we should do so.
We have no embassy in Somalia, but aid agencies such as Islamic Relief are working on the ground there, and the Government should draw on their expertise in order not to get them involved in politics, but to use their connections with the civil society, which must be built up.
In the immediate term, our Government must continue to give aid to Somalia. They have rightly prioritised aid for conflict-affected states, and Somalia is certainly conflict-affected. They have rightly emphasised, as we did, value for money, auditing and monitoring, but in reality, on aid spent in Somalia, that level of scrutiny will not be possible. We must still give the aid, however, otherwise the Somali people will suffer terribly as they flee and then just become aid-dependent miles from their home, in a camp where there is no future for them. We must continue, and the Opposition will support the Government in continuing, to give aid to Somalia.
The Government must also redouble their efforts to work internationally to tackle climate change and to protect people who are affected by it. Our aid is making a huge difference, but we will prevent suffering in future if, as Oxfam has so clearly demonstrated, we bring about a major change in the way food is produced and distributed. The world produces more food than it needs, yet here in the 21st century 1 billion people go hungry. What is needed is support for greater long-term investment in agriculture, an end to exploitation by international land speculators and action to stop speculation on food commodities which causes prices to soar and means that hungry people cannot afford them.
Our Government will be at the G20 summit in November. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that the issues that have been raised by hon. Members in all parts of the House will be high on the agenda, with all the G20 countries not only keeping their promises on aid—Britain has, but others have not—but tackling the inequality and exploitation that sees global wealth accumulate while the poor starve.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing this debate. I went out to Kenya with my hon. Friend about a year ago and I shall touch on some of the things we saw during that visit, which had a profound impact on both of us, not just negatively as we saw the problems faced by people out there, but positively as we saw what incredible things could be done for a very small outlay.
Let me start by talking about Somalia. As I said in my intervention, there is a Somali community of significant size in Bristol—some say that it is about 20,000 strong. Many arrived as refugees but others arrived from the former British colony of Somaliland. It is obviously no coincidence that Somalia has coped a lot worse with the drought situation than neighbouring countries, such as Ethiopia. Ethiopia has in place a food safety net to deal with such situations and when I went out there with the all-party group for Somaliland, we stayed in Addis Ababa and had lots of conversations with individuals from the Department for International Development and from the embassy. We then went out to Hargeisa to see the situation in Somaliland.
I was struck by the efforts that have been made on the aid front in Ethiopia, including the food safety net and public service agreements, which, despite political instability, problems and issues caused by the climate, were there as, indeed, a safety net. There is a complete lack of that in Somalia. There is also an effective early warning system in Ethiopia, which is not possible in a country as unstable as Somalia.
Constituents have time and again expressed their concern that Somalia has never had the political attention it deserves, and questions are always asked about why Sudan is seen as a political imperative as opposed to any other country that is riven by tribal conflicts or that has problems. I suspect that it is partly because Somalia is seen as such an intransigent and difficult-to-solve problem. One thing that could be done, however, is to give recognition to Somaliland. I was one of the founder members of the all-party group for Somaliland and it has been politically stable since the civil war of 1991, it has fair and free elections and there is huge potential to build the infrastructure and work with the diaspora to set up commercial organisations and use the ports at places such as Berbera for exports, making the country a lot more profitable and cementing its stability.
On food security, according to the World Bank, investment in agriculture in the developing world is between two and four times more effective in reducing poverty than investment in any other sector. As my hon. Friend said quite compellingly, agriculture has not been at the forefront of aid efforts; often the sector does not appear in country plans. It is important, and I hope that today’s debate helps to put down a marker that it should be given more priority.
When I was in Kenya last year with the all-party group I saw the work of the UK organisation Send a Cow, which has been working for over 20 years in Africa, and subsequently went to visit its offices near Bath. The organisation tells me that it takes an average of three to five years for an extremely poor community to become self-sufficient through one of its programmes. It would argue, and I agree, that that is a much better investment than having to provide food aid every time the rains fail. Self-sufficiency is key. The organisation achieves that by creating a network of peer farmers, so that the people who benefit from its initial work then train others in the community. Each family that the organisation works with passes on livestock, seed and skills to an average of 10 others in their community.
We saw in Kenya what a difference is made by small changes to farming methods—such as planting fertiliser pellets a certain distance from seeds so that they do not burn the seedlings as they come up—and investment in barns to improve grain storage. We saw the work of FIPS-Africa—Farm Input Promotions Africa—and FARM-Africa in developing disease-resistant strands of crops and we learned more than we ever needed to know about the insemination of goats. Those are small changes, and sometimes they are surprising because we think that they are things that people should have learned through farming the land over years.
When I went to India I spoke to a farmer who had just moved back to organic farming. He had come under huge pressure from companies selling pesticides to adopt what we in the western world would call modern farming methods, but when he switched back to organic methods his crops were far better and he was able to sell his food at market and make more money as a result. Some of these things have to be relearned, and we have to be careful that we do not try to impose our way of doing things.
Alison McGovern
Does my hon. Friend agree that that highlights the point made earlier about the question of DFID’s focus on agriculture and whether there needs to be a shifting of emphasis to some of the points that she is making?
Kerry McCarthy
That is true. In Bangladesh I went to a village where free-range chickens were running around. We went down the road and saw a structure made of twigs which was basically a battery cage for hens. The person I was with said, “This is progress. We are doing things the way that you do them.” In the western world we are trying to move away from battery cages and towards free-range farming. I worry—if I can end on a political note that has not yet been struck in this debate—that in this country the farming agenda has moved very much more towards speaking up for the farmers, for the vested interests and for the producers of food, and it is not about welfare methods or the consumers. There is an increasing emphasis on intensification, as we saw with the farming Minister’s support for the intensive dairy farm at Nocton. We need to set the standard in this country and abroad, and say that there is a sustainable way of feeding the world which does not involve locking animals up in battery cages and putting cows in the equivalent of multi-storey car parks.
Sarah Newton
I am very sad that the hon. Lady has chosen to introduce a degree of party politics to this debate. I cannot let her comments stand. This country, quite rightly, should be very proud that it has some of the highest, if not the highest, standards of animal welfare, some of the best farmers and some of the best farming practices in the whole world. Of course we can always do more, and we should aim to do so, but that is the position.
Kerry McCarthy
That is the position because over the past 20 years or so there has been significant progress on animal welfare. That is not a matter for today’s debate, but I have real concerns that the tide is turning in the wrong direction and that is a problem.
I want to end with a quote from Oxfam’s Grow campaign, which states:
“The vast imbalance in public investment in agriculture must be righted, redirecting the billions now being ploughed into unsustainable industrial farming in rich countries towards meeting the needs of small-scale food producers in developing countries. For that is where the major gains in productivity, sustainable intensification, poverty reduction, and resilience can be achieved.”
That is the way forward, and I hope that we can play a major role in helping the developing countries—particularly those stricken by the famine that we are debating today—to adapt and secure their future livelihoods in that way.