International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Friday 23rd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I was Leon Brittan’s pair and I wholeheartedly endorse every word in the tributes paid by the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Tugendhat, and share with them the sadness and the willingness to be with Diana at this very sad time.

I support the Bill so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, but accept that it is largely symbolic. Since this is a consensus Bill, no party in the future would dare to move away from or fall below the 0.7% of GNI target. I support the Bill on moral grounds, not passing by on the other side, but also because I believe that it is in our national interest broadly defined. I have had the good fortune to travel widely and see at first hand the work of DfID—I join in the chorus of approval for it—but also the work of non-governmental organisations and wonderful individuals from the UK.

That said, we do no service to developing countries or to our own taxpayers if we abandon our proper scrutiny, value-for-money criteria and accountability. Those are points raised in the Select Committee’s report published in March 2012 and in Clause 5 of the Bill.

I shall make a few random observations. We must be willing in a positive spirit to ask hard questions—heart, yes, but head also. Why, for example, has South Korea pulled itself up so remarkably when so many other countries, particularly in Africa, remain dependent on aid? It is not a question of natural resources. Is it bad governance? Is it tribalism? Is it culture? Is it corruption? Is it armed conflict? Or is it failures in the education system?

We must also be prepared to challenge political correctness; for example, in confronting problems of long-term population increase. This is not only a question of women’s reproductive health; it is not only a question of education of women in family spacing, for example; but it is clear that population explosion may negate the effects of aid. For example, who dares point out that the recent turmoil in Kenya is due not just to tribalism but to competition for land from the booming population; that the population of the Philippines has doubled in the recent past; and that the population of Gaza was in 1948 250,000 and is now 1.8 million on that small territory?

My main point, however, relates to the definition of aid, the remit of DfID, the need for “Whitehallism” and market share, and co-operation with other countries and international organisations to maximise the beneficial effects of aid. Failure to include such considerations will only give ammunition to the populist press. Purists strongly oppose any proposal to weaken or dilute the definition of what should be within the 0.7% target. They may often fall into the trap of concentrating on the amount rather than on quality or effectiveness.

The budget of DfID is ring-fenced; the budgets of the FCO and MoD are not and under increasing strain. Surely we should recognise the contribution of these departments to our national aid effort. I have in mind particularly—and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, will recognise it, too—the work done by the British Council in education in South Africa in the past. Even the most “pure” aid specialists would surely agree that the MoD’s work to combat Ebola in west Africa should be reimbursed from our aid budget, as it has been. We should at least consider taking that precedent further on the grounds that there can be no development without security and possibly include our contribution to international peacekeeping, even perhaps seeking to look again at the OECD definition of official aid, which I concede is wide in part, including support for civilian nuclear energy.

The independent appraisal proposed under Clause 5 should be given adequate resources and expertise. It should look at the precedents of co-ordination in Whitehall, for example, in the Balkans in the 1990s and more recently in Afghanistan.

The NAO report has been mentioned. This only underlines the case for an independent evaluation and the need for accountability and transparency, which is overwhelming. Any evaluation should include not only the value added from co-ordination within Whitehall, but also from co-ordination with international organisations and bilaterally. There is a good precedent here over co-operation on Ebola, for example—Liberia to the USA, Guinea to France and Sierra Leone to the UK. I recall Robin Cook’s excellent initiative after 1997 in building co-operation with France in west Africa. Whatever became of that?

With these few observations, I end not in a spirit of negative criticism but by welcoming the commitment of the Bill. Once we accept that principle in legislation, as I am confident we shall do, we should be ready to ask hard questions about effectiveness and value for money. Therefore, Clause 5 is an essential element of this important Bill.