Overseas Aid: GDP Target
Lord Bates Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they had at the G8 summit on members’ individual progress towards the 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product target for spending on overseas aid.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, individual progress towards the 0.7% of gross national income target for spending on overseas aid was discussed by the G8 as part of the production of the Loch Erne G8 Accountability Report, which was endorsed by leaders at the G8 summit.
Lord Bates
I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. While we can take immense pride in being the first Government of a major G8 country actually to deliver on the pledge made 23 years ago to provide 0.7% of our gross national income to the poorest, Germany is still at 0.38%, Canada at 0.32%, the US at 0.19% and Japan at 0.17%. Does my noble friend accept that the entire point of us increasing our responsibility and taking our responsibility to the world’s poor seriously was never meant to enable other countries, which are now cutting their aid budgets, to shirk their responsibility to the poorest?
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his tribute to our leadership on this. By meeting our commitments, we are better able to seek to influence others, and that is what we are indeed seeking to do. I note his example and pay tribute to him because, as I understand it, on Saturday he will be starting a 500-mile walk on behalf of Save the Children’s work in Syria.
International Development: Budget
Lord Bates Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I pay tribute to him for securing this timely debate. Noble Lords on all sides of the House, irrespective of their point of view, will look forward to hearing the answers to the questions he posed, which should be in the public domain.
Essentially, he reminded us that there is a choice about how we spend our budget, and whether we devote it to overseas development assistance or whether we spend it on military interventions. On that subject, I will underline some important facts that are sometimes overlooked in the current debate—understandably, because these are incredibly tough fiscal times for the country and times of great hardship at home. Therefore, people are asking questions about how we are spending our money overseas. For every £1 we pay in taxes, just over 1p is spent on aid. For every £1 we spend on aid, we spend £6 on defence. Clearly we need to look at that situation and keep it constantly under review. I was impressed by some figures that came out of the weekend summit to which the noble Lord referred—and it is wonderful to see Northern Ireland in the spotlight this week, in the lead-up to the G8 summit in Lough Erne, Enniskillen. Therefore it is timely that we should focus on that in particular.
Save the Children sent me some figures which pointed out that, in 1990, 12 million children under the age of five died from preventable diseases. They then showed that, in 2011, that figure had fallen dramatically to 6.9 million. Aid has played a crucial part in that; so has trade. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, was a distinguished Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland and knows the importance of trade in lifting people out of poverty. None the less, 5.1 million fewer deaths of under-fives per year is an incredible return that the British people and others are getting on their investment in the poorest in the world.
It is always very difficult when these things happen because, when we see need around the world, a hue and cry goes up that “something must be done”. We are finding this at the moment in Syria. There is no doubt that, if you are in a ministerial office—at the Foreign Office, in the Ministry of Defence or in No. 10—the pressure to show immediate responses is immense, and military action is an immediate response. It has impact, it is visual and it shows a degree of leadership. To invest in aid, training people in how to develop crops, drilling wells, improving sanitation and educating the child takes longer. In a sense, they are less immediate, but the long-term return is vastly more.
We need to look at this very carefully and I read the Prime Minister’s speech about it with care. It could have been interpreted as leading to some potential change in the way that we allocate aid. Yet, the Prime Minister has nailed his colours to the mast on this to a greater extent than probably any leader in recent times. He has been inextricably associated with arguing the case for aid, not least last weekend. Within the Conservative Party, which is part of the coalition, he vigorously makes the point about the value of our aid spend in the world. That is very significant. We are just reaching the point of achieving our goal of 0.7%. We are seeing the returns: 5.1 million fewer lives lost. We are being told by the UN that the eradication of poverty for under-fives by 2030 is a real possibility, and that a further 1.7 million lives per year could therefore be saved. When we are on the brink of that incredible breakthrough, it would be unthinkable to look at blurring the edges between two very distinct types of spend. They are two very necessary types of spend in their correct context but we must not blur the edges. There are international agreements as to what overseas development assistance means and they come together in the Conflict Pool, the work of which I applaud. It has been a great innovation in bringing together the Ministry of Defence, DfID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, getting them to work together in control of a single budget to tackle prevention, rather than by intervention.
When the Prime Minister launched this, he said, in another place, that,
“we must get better at treating the causes of instability, not just dealing with the consequences. When we fail to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention, the costs are always far higher”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/10; col. 798.]
We know the impact of that through our intervention in Iraq and our continued presence in Afghanistan. That intervention is critically important. We know that more than 1.5 billion people live in fragile or conflict-affected states and it is no surprise that none of these has achieved a single millennium development goal. There is a link there.
I understand the argument that you need the military solution to create the security on the ground to allow trade, education and assistance with governance to develop, but I profoundly disagree with it. When people are without income, without hope, they have nothing to lose or to live for and that is then a catalyst for violence, rather than something which abates it. We need to remember that as we consider all the options open to us.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Bates Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
My Lords, many noble Lords have highlighted the essential work being done by our courageous servicemen and servicewomen around the world in protecting us at home from the global terrorist threat. I join in paying tribute to their service and what they are doing for us. But there is another global war—the war against poverty. Many British NGOs and people who work for them are putting themselves in harm’s way in very difficult countries and situations to provide healthcare, sanitation and education to the world’s poorest—organisations such as Save the Children, Christian Aid, Oxfam, CAFOD and the British Red Cross. We can be equally proud of their work in the name of this country and what they do to represent our interests.
According to the most recent global terrorism index, there were 4,564 terrorist incidents, resulting in 7,473 deaths, in the past year. Most of those incidents have been clustered in Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. In the global war against poverty, we live in a world in which 11 million children die each year from preventable diseases. In the six hours so far of this debate, more children have died from preventable diseases around the world than have died in the entire previous year through terrorist attacks. That is not to minimise one and emphasise the other, but it is very important that we remember that.
When I say that those diseases are preventable, research shows that 6 million of those 11 million children who die each year could be saved by low-tech, evidence-based and cost-effective measures, such as vaccines, antibiotics, micronutrient supplementation, insecticides and bed nets. They could make a profound difference to people’s lives. Supplements of vitamin A taken every four to six months can reduce child mortality from all causes by as much as 23%, measles deaths by 50% and deaths from diarrhoea by 33%.
Bill and Melinda Gates have done so much in this area. In fact, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has already dispensed £21 billion, which is three times the level of the entire British aid budget, as existed last year. It has given that money to seek to eradicate certain diseases. Bill Gates said:
“All you need is over 90% of children to have the vaccine drop three times and the disease stops spreading. The number of cases eventually goes to zero. The great thing about finishing polio is that we’ll have resources to get going on malaria and measles”.
There is a realistic possibility, presented by Bill and Melinda Gates, of the eradication of those diseases that kill so many children in our world. That is not surprising, given that I regard this Government’s commitment to achieving 0.7% of GNI and their realisation of that as perhaps their most significant political decision, and one of the most courageous political decisions that I have ever witnessed. To raise it to that level, to increase over the past year, at a time of acute economic hardship, the budget for overseas aid by almost £3 billion, is something that required real leadership. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to capitulate on that and pander to some of the populist press, which would prefer that the money was spent elsewhere. But David Cameron has shown immense leadership and courage in standing firm on that, which is something for which he deserves credit and in which we can all take great pride. While Britain is increasing its aid budget in the current year, other countries in Europe such as Germany and France are cutting their aid budgets. Even Sweden is cutting its aid budget this year by 3.3%. It is a tragedy that this should be the situation when the war on poverty was beginning to be won and victory was getting closer. However, we wish the Prime Minister well in trying to bring people to the table.
Some people have made the point that what we actually needed in the gracious Speech was a piece of legislation to tell us to do what was morally right. Personally, I do not think that we need a piece of legislation. We have had endless promises from the UN. The 0.7% commitment goes back to the Pearson commission in 1969. It has come up through the OECD, it was raised at the UN Security Council and at the Gleneagles summit and still has not been honoured. However, today, it is being honoured. There ought to be an annual debate about the world’s poor. We ought to see that as a conscious moral choice and an obligation. I would not want to see a piece of legislation take that away and be almost like a direct debit. I would like it to be seen as a constant ongoing debate in which we remember the world’s poorest.
In conclusion, there is a wonderful campaign at present called the “If” campaign. Sometimes charities and NGOs can compete with each other for resources and projects. However, they have all come together around the simple concept that there is enough food for everyone and yet 2.3 million children die each year because of malnutrition. The Prime Minister, who organised a hunger summit during the Olympic Games on 12 August last year, made a pledge to reach 25 million children under the age of five by the time of the Rio Olympics in 2016. There will be a follow-up hunger summit on 8 June in advance of the G8 summit. It is critical that the Prime Minister uses all his considerable diplomatic skills to encourage other members of the G8 to step up to the plate this time. Things are extraordinarily tough for us economically but nowhere near as tough as they are for the bottom billion and the poorest in our world.
World Food Supplies
Lord Bates Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
Is it not part of the evidence that could be considered the vast increase in local food prices in the poorest parts of this world? Is it not basically immoral to take food from countries in the developing world that cannot feed their own populations to feed biofuel incinerators here in the UK? We should be fuelling those biofuels from the massive food waste in developed countries, rather than have food scarcity in the poorest.
Baroness Northover
I was listening to the point on the “Today” programme about food wastage and it is extremely dramatic. Within DfID, we are working with other government departments to look at the impact of biofuels. It seems, although the evidence is disputed, that they have played a part in some of the food price spikes that we have seen. We are into the third one at the moment, which is largely because of the drought in the United States. However, the effect of using maize for biofuels is potentially significant and we are looking at this very closely.
Foreign Affairs: Global Role, Emerging Powers and New Markets
Lord Bates Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate and I join many others in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Howell for securing it. Many years ago, I had to complete an essay question which was to explain the difference between a politician and a statesman, and to give examples. I often think that had I known the noble Lord at that point, my answer would have been so much better illustrated. Undoubtedly, he is one of our great statesmen and it is a privilege to continue to hear him dispense his wisdom from the Back Benches.
Another thing I learnt from essays was that you are supposed to look at the question before answering it. I note that the noble Lord has been very careful in choosing the title for this debate. He has used the word “new” twice and the word “emerging” once, thereby suggesting that there is a passage from an old order, an old world view, to something new. I very much share the view of my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that in going into that new world we should have great self-confidence and self-belief.
We are very much in a global race, as the Prime Minister illustrated and set out in his speech to the CBI last month. I would contend that we are not so much in a single global race but that we are in a number of global races for key markets and that we are engaging with key powers. In my time today, I shall focus on one of those new markets—China—and will make the argument that we need to engage in some fresh, new thinking and to shift from an old paradigm view of Chinese conduct in the world to a new view. I do so with some trepidation, knowing that one of the foremost authorities on these matters, my noble friend Lord Green, will respond to the debate. I look forward to hearing his response.
The scale of the Chinese miracle has been well rehearsed but it bears repeating for a few moments. First, China has not gone through a period of boom and bust, as some countries have. In fact, it has delivered 30 years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 10% per annum. When people talk about the Chinese miracle perhaps beginning to slow, they are talking about it slowing to 7.5% per annum for the next decade. It is the second largest economy in the world. By the end of this decade, it will be the largest economy in the world.
What is more interesting is what China has used that new wealth for. It has invested in infrastructure. Before 1988, it had no motorways whatever. By 2010, it had 74,000 kilometres of motorway. China has more kilometres of high-speed rail lines than the rest of the world put together. In the three years that it has taken us to debate whether we should have another 200 kilometres of HS2 in this country to be completed by 2026, China has added 8,000 kilometres of high-speed rail lines. Sometimes, we need to have a little sense of humility as to what people are doing and how they are going about it.
Secondly, we should look at what China has done for its people. It has lifted more people out of poverty than any country in history. According to the World Bank, 600 million were lifted out of poverty between 1981 and 2005. A new self-confident middle class is emerging, the numbers of which are open to some debate but roughly settle around the figure of 200 million people. There are 400 million internet users and 700 million mobile phone users in China. The Chinese savings rate is one of the highest in the world at 38%, compared to 7% in this country.
China’s foreign currency reserves dwarf anything in the world at $3 trillion. They are the largest in the world and amount to three times those held by Japan. In that sense, China is keeping the global ship afloat. China has 20% of the world’s population but only 7% of the land mass. Therefore, it is heavily dependent on importing commodities from around the world. That has led it to have a—some would say paranoid but others would say very natural—national interest in developments around the energy-rich waters of the South China Sea. Its defence budget is growing dramatically. It is already the second largest in the world and will overtake the United States in another 20 years.
However, our approach to China has often been characterised by a degree of suspicion and perhaps even a little distrust. When we look at some of the agreements that we have had, such as the transfer of powers over Hong Kong, most people would recognise that those undertakings given in 1997 have largely been honoured and adhered to. Hong Kong retains a distinctive and vibrant economy and a large degree of autonomy. Of course it is right to raise human rights concerns but I would argue that that should be done in proportion.
How do we respond to China? We need to respond by recognising that there is a great market out there. When Wen Jiabao visited this country last year a target was set to increase bilateral trade to $100 billion by 2015. When Wen Jiabao went on to visit Germany, he and Chancellor Merkel announced that they were going to increase their trade to $284 billion. If we are engaged in a global race, let us start racing with our friends in Germany to tap into that market in China. Yes, we are in a global race, but it is one not only with China but also for China, so we need to engage in some fresh thinking.
The current policy document which underlies the UK’s approach to China was published in January 2009 under the previous Government. Perhaps it is time that we looked at that again. When we approach China and try to encourage it to take a new and constructive role as a major global superpower, let us recognise that we need to engage with it not only with a new policy but with a new mindset and, more importantly, with a new relationship.
Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012
Lord Bates Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, who introduced this debate. We thank her for securing this time and pay tribute to the business managers for securing additional time for the debate. I am acutely conscious than many Members, including myself, have eagerly awaited the contributions of those who were directly involved in building the legacy which we now celebrate. I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, the noble Lord, Lord Hall, chairman of the Cultural Olympiad, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and, of course, my noble friend Lord Deighton, who is to make his maiden speech. I know that my noble friend Lord Coe, to whom tribute has rightly been paid, would dearly have wanted to be here for this debate as well.
I will focus on one particular area and pose a question. We have all accepted that the Olympic and Paralympic Games were an unparalleled success. They are something of which this nation can rightly be proud. We need to cherish the legacy. My question concerns one part of that legacy, the Olympic Truce. It too ought to be nurtured, cherished and built upon in the future. In the past, the Olympic Truce has been a rather symbolic occasion. It is a United Nations resolution of the General Assembly, but from the outset, it was made clear that we wanted the UN resolution to be taken seriously at London 2012. The Prime Minister, my right honourable friend David Cameron, made that abundantly clear when he said in the House of Commons on 29 June 2011 that he regarded the Olympic Truce as a “historic opportunity” for this nation. When it was proposed at the United Nations General Assembly on 17 October 2011, it was an incredible achievement. Normally, it is difficult to get a great number of countries to sign up, but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the UK mission to the United Nations in New York secured an incredible result, worthy of a gold medal and certainly a world record, in getting every single one of 193 member states of the United Nations not only to sign the resolution but to co-sponsor it.
What a platform, and it was something which the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon regarded as a historic moment. No wonder my noble friend Lord Coe, when he was proposing the resolution to the UN General Assembly on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, said:
“It has never been more important to support this General Assembly resolution by actions, not just through words”.
Those actions came. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office established a cross-departmental steering group for the Olympic Truce, which engaged our embassies, missions and consulates overseas and a wide range of NGOs and charities in the UK in promoting it. The UK Government led by example by establishing and promoting International Inspiration, a wonderful programme developed in partnership with UNICEF and the IOC, which has reached more than 12 million young people around the world in 20 different countries. LOCOG launched the Get Set Global education resource, which was sent out to tens of thousands of schools in this country and was made available on the internet abroad. Giving Is Winning, the partnership which LOCOG and the IOC organised with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, ensured that sports equipment and sports medical supplies from London were not wasted, but went to refugee camps around the world, to give people some of the benefit of the Games which we had enjoyed here.
Through the FCO, 50 events were hosted by diplomatic missions around the world on the theme of the Olympic Truce, including an event at Lancaster House, hosted by the Foreign Office Minister Henry Bellingham and attended by 130 diplomats from around the world. The peace wall, which was erected outside the athletes’ village at the Olympic park, was signed by every single athlete and official to declare their support for bringing the Olympic Truce into reality. So successful was that Olympic peace wall initiative that it ran out of space and I think other replacements had to be brought in. A Facebook group on the London 2012 Olympic Truce attracted 10,000 members in the first few days, showing the appetite to bring to reality that desire for the Olympic Truce.
During the Olympic Games, the Prime Minister hosted a hunger summit in Downing Street jointly with Vice-President Michel Tener of Brazil, declaring that millions of children in the world’s poorest countries must benefit from the legacy of the London Olympics. A specific pledge was made by the Prime Minister to reduce hunger and malnutrition for 20 million children before the Rio Games in 2016. This was endorsed in a joint declaration with the Russian Foreign Minister by our Foreign Secretary, William Hague, on 28 May, when they declared a joint commitment to work together to implement the Olympic Truce ahead of the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi.
On the opening day of the Games, 27 July, the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations held a joint press conference at which they urged the world to adhere to what they had committed to in the Olympic Truce resolution of the United Nations. Who can forget that incredible opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, which was launched with a video message from the Secretary-General of the United Nations? He said:
“The United Nations and the Olympic Movement bring countries together. We believe in peace. That is why we proclaim an Olympic Truce. I call on warring parties everywhere to lay down their weapons during the Games. One day of peace can lead to a week of peace, a month of peace, and eventually an end to war”.
The Olympic Truce was not just part of the ancient Olympic Games, it was the entire point of the ancient Olympic Games. I believe that the Olympic Truce can again be a catalyst for peace around the world. I believe that the bar has been raised significantly in London 2012, and that is something of which we can be proud, but it behoves all of us who treasure that dream to work tirelessly to ensure that its legacy is not diminished, to ensure that we hand to future hosts a legacy measured not only in medals won and records broken but in lives saved and hope restored: a legacy which is truly more than gold.
EAC Report: Development Aid
Lord Bates Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stern. I found that as the noble Lord was talking, I was striking out great sections of my speech, which I no longer need to trouble the House with because the points have been expressed far more eloquently and with such authority and expertise by the noble Lord. My only regret about his evidence was that it was not made available by him as a witness to the committee. I pay tribute to the work of the committee, and to the way in which this debate has been introduced by my noble friend Lord MacGregor.
The report has 28 recommendations. In their response, the Government agreed on 20, partially agreed on four and disagreed on four. I found myself going a bit further towards the committee. Out of the recommendations, I found myself in partial disagreement on only one and in total disagreement on one more. However, the one more that I found myself in total disagreement with goes to the absolute core of this discussion—the 0.7% commitment. I believe, as a Conservative, that our resolute commitment, led by Andrew Mitchell, to 0.7% at such times as these—to which rightful tributes have been made—is one of the most humane and courageous political acts that I have seen in my generation. I am proud to be associated with it. I would not want to see us budge from that commitment at all. If anything, the only flexibility I would seek is that we need not in the future be limited to 0.7% but that it could be increased. When you look at what is happening around this world with the money that is being spent, you see 55 million children vaccinated against preventable diseases, 50 million provided with the means to work their way out of poverty, 9 million people having access to primary education and 15 million with access to clean drinking water. You do not need many statistics like that to realise that this is among the best spend that we make as a Government.
Sometimes the foreign policy world and the debate on it is controlled by an elite. There are people who have enormous expertise and knowledge, but it is not that different from what we do at home. In 2011, in this country, we spent £332 billion on health, welfare and education. If we did not do that, all the police forces and all the prisons in the world would not keep us safe and keep our society orderly and civilised. Therefore, self-interest makes us choose to spend that money in that way, to help us to become a civilised nation. I hope that we can become an international civilisation, and part of the entry cheque for that is a commitment to aid flows.
There is criticism that these commitments were entered into in 1970 but they have been repeated many times since. They were repeated in 2002 at Monterrey for the millennium development goals so that is very recent indeed. They were central to the success of the Gleneagles agreement in 2005 when there was a commitment to 0.7%. The criticism should not be about whether it was 40 years ago but about the fact that 40 years on we are still debating whether we should meet our obligations. Whatever happened to our belief to commit to our international pledges? This pledge was clearly made and freely entered into by successive Governments but we have failed to deliver on it; thankfully, we are about to enter into a commitment by 2014. I welcome that wholeheartedly.
Perhaps I may make a general point about our friend on the other Bench. Would it not have been wonderful if we had hit this 0.7% target when the sun was shining, when we were not in the midst of a recession, as we are now, but during those years when we had abundant budgets and receipts, when we could perhaps have stretched to it? That was a missed opportunity. That point needs to be made. In many ways, the previous Government sidelined us. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, mentioned the good intentions of these initiatives, but we were sidelined by engagements in conflict, particularly in Iraq, which cost in excess of $1 trillion, almost eight times the amount we are talking about in aid. That is a point of regret.
Let me finish with this reflection. I was persuaded about the need to focus our aid on those who need it most. I thought about how 74% of the UK bilateral aid went to those with the lowest incomes, whereas in the EU it was 56% and I think in the US it was 54%. Clearly, we need to look at that. Of course, we should say that 100% should go to the poorest and those who are in need; we ought to focus our attention on that.
In regard to the evidence, I found myself drawn to support the view of India. I found out the latest figure for the foreign currency reserves of India and found that they were currently hovering around £240 billion, which I am sure our Chancellor would be quite pleased to have. The notion that our modest contribution of £276 million would not make a profound difference to that country—the Indians are more than capable of making it themselves—but could be transferred to make a profound difference to other countries is something of which we ought to take note.
My final point is to endorse the view about the importance of trade as a way of getting people out of poverty. The example of China is inspirational. It comes in for a lot of criticism, but I think I am right in saying—I am looking in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Stern, who will correct me if I am wrong—that China has lifted more people out of poverty than any other nation in history. It has done so on the back of its economic growth. India and Brazil are also doing it on the back of economic growth. These are welcome steps in the right direction, but the commitment to 0.7% should stay.
Economy: Growth
Lord Bates Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Kramer on securing this debate and on the way in which she introduced it. Like her, I find it quite difficult to come back to work after that inspiring speech in Westminster Hall. I feel as though I have been walked up to the mountain top and then need to come back and start inspecting the sewers. However, the sewers in this case are pretty important, because they have to do with jobs, growth and matters of that nature.
I am pleased to be able to follow my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who put his finger on something—in fact, Aung San Suu Kyi also mentioned this; namely, how we are perceived internationally. When we berate ourselves for queues at Heathrow, let us remember that they are queues of people wanting to come in, not wanting to get out. Sometimes, we underestimate the attractiveness of this country around the world. When people of the eminence and experience of Sebastian Wood, the UK ambassador to Beijing, call the current strategy on visas self-defeating, we should all take a bit of notice.
When people come to this country to study, they are coming here not to rip us off or to claim benefits but to invest the thick end of £100,000 in the British economy and probably a lot more besides. Including students, who are effectively investors in Britain, in immigration numbers needs to be looked at very carefully, otherwise we will see pressure put on to reduce their number in the face of massive growth. UK universities have supplied some information and research showing that the number of international students will double in the next seven years from 3.7 million to 7 million. That is a huge market and we need to be at the table for it. The UK is home to four of the world’s top 10 universities. As the Government’s advertising campaign tells us, Britain is great, but we cannot say that we are open for business if, when people try to get here, they find that the door is shut.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, mentioned innovation. Let us consider that most of the people who come to this country and to our universities are often very highly skilled graduates, often in science and technology. That same information from UK universities suggested that 40% of teaching in science and technology in UK universities is undertaken by people who come here from overseas. Instead of allowing people two years’ postgraduate work experience to contribute to the UK economy, to set up businesses, to teach, to train and to innovate—which we desperately need—we have ended up changing the law so that we kick them out after three months. It seems crazy. We kick them out and probably send them to the United States, Germany or France, who of course welcome them with open arms. This is a high-class problem, because Britain is attractive. We recognise that there needs to be a public discourse on this. There is no doubt that in the country, and in the heat of battle during elections, immigration is an issue. However, people need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between those people who are coming to this country perhaps not with the best of intentions and those coming to invest and help create wealth and jobs. I very much endorse the remarks made there.
In many ways, that leads into the general comments that I will make. I had a conversation yesterday with an entrepreneur in the north-east called Graham Robb, who has a small business. He said, in a slightly flippant way, that he had taken on four new people over the past month. When I asked him to what he attributed this rapid growth in his business, he said that what was fantastic was that because of the jubilee and the Euro championships, suddenly debt, gloom and doom were off the TV and out of the newspapers, and people were starting to feel good about themselves. The minute that happens, they start to invest and trade. One of the most telling tables in the excellent briefing paper prepared by the House of Lords Library for this debate is the one on business confidence. When asked if they expected business to improve in the next year, 18% said yes, 29% said it would stay the same and 50% said it would get worse. When that is the perception of the people you are relying on to invest and go forward, you realise that you have a problem.
On the other hand, let us look at what engineering and manufacturing are doing. We are seeing some extraordinary performance there, with exports growing quite rapidly—in manufacturing as well, they are up 8%. I know from the north-east of England that we have record exports for the third quarter in a row and there is no sign of that trend abating. It is as if it is only going to gather pace. This is tremendous news. When EEF The Manufacturers’ Organisation was asked what it thinks the outlook is for the next 12 months, 70% of members have a positive outlook and believe they are going to invest in order to take advantage of the good future that is ahead of them. We need to seize on that, along with the other good things that are happening around the economy, and get behind them.
The UK is moving up the world competitiveness league table again. For the first time since 2007, we are now back in the top 10. That is what the world thinks of us and of British manufacturing. It is pretty popular around the world, which is important. If we want, we can tell young people coming out of school that they have no hope and no future, and that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but that is not what is happening around the world. The Institute of Directors’ latest economic research predicts that the world economy will triple in size during the lifetime of the person leaving school now and that the size of the middle class will expand from 1.8 billion to 5 billion in 2030. It is not all doom and gloom. There is real momentum and real opportunity out there. However, if we are so beset with focusing on our weaknesses rather than actually heralding, championing and exploiting our strengths, such as education and tourism, we cannot take full advantage of it. My conclusion on the growth strategy is that, yes, all the fundamentals are in place. Of course we need to tackle the deficit, keep taxes down, deregulate, introduce and improve skills, and make it easier to set up businesses—all those things are fundamentally important. However, we also need our sales guys to get out there and promote the UK, and make sure for the people at home that when people want to come and invest in the UK, our doors are open and there is a welcome mat there waiting for them.
South Sudan
Lord Bates Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for securing this debate. She is very much our voice for the voiceless and, along with him, provides a much needed focus and prod to Governments of all persuasions in remembering these intractable disputes. In many ways the term “curse of resources” could not more accurately describe the nature of South Sudan. It is an economy which is 99 per cent dependent on oil revenues, added to which is the little complexity that, to gain the revenue, you need to export it all across the north to Port Sudan. That is an incredible problem, and throws up all sorts of difficulties for people to focus on. Therefore the need to find an alternative route out for that oil export, perhaps through Kenya, and to diversify the economy seem absolutely essential.
In the great briefing pack which the House of Lords Library made available for this debate, I was shocked to see one particular fact: that aerial observation had suggested that only 4.5 per cent of the entire possible agricultural land is being developed at present. That may well be for the security reasons which have been mentioned, but that is a staggering waste. In that part of the world, we are used to seeing many examples where there is simply no food and people therefore need to rely on external supplies, but here is an example where there is land and cultivation available. That ought to be looked at, and it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in his place. He has immense expertise in this area and he might get an opportunity to speak on that later.
I close my remarks by focusing on what may seem a tiny thing in the context of all this. It is the Olympic Truce. If noble Lords would bear with me, there are many areas in which the north and the south do not agree. But they agree in that they are both signatories and, indeed, co-sponsors of the Olympic Truce, which calls for initiatives for peace and reconciliation from 27 July to 9 September this year. That is a small area, but it is one which my noble friend the Minister could look at, to see whether anything can be done. The opportunity for this is further heightened by the fact that South Sudan, despite being a co-sponsor of the Olympic Truce, has not been authorised by the International Olympic Committee to send a team. The team which comes to London 2012, in which there are seven athletes, will therefore be made up of northern and southern members. That provides a little window of opportunity. Okay, I know it is not the biggest thing in the world, but sometimes focusing on small opportunities can yield great returns.
Millennium Development Goals
Lord Bates Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in stressing the importance of conflict resolution in achieving the millennium development goals. At the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 22 September, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, made what some may recall as a radical observation. He pointed out that 22 of the 34 countries furthest from reaching the millennium development goals are in the midst of, or emerging from, violent conflict. He might also have pointed out that not a single country that is currently defined as fragile or conflict-affected has reached any of the millennium development goals—that point was eloquently made by my noble friend Lord Chidgey in so ably opening this debate.
The world of development professionals can often be perplexing and confusing for lay people. It is surely axiomatic that armed conflict drives hunger, displaces refugees, assails human rights, denies justice, erodes equalities, destroys crucial infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals and roads, thwarts education and disease prevention, undermines systems of governance and law, unleashes corruption and ravages the environment. It may therefore be surprising that conflict resolution or peace building is not mentioned in the eight millennium development goals. It is incomprehensible that conflict reduction should not be mentioned in the underlying 21 targets against which attainment of those goals will be assessed. It is utterly depressing that conflict reduction or peace building should not even appear among the 60 indicators underlying the 21 targets and eight goals.
That is not just my view. The G7+ group of countries that are affected by conflict now has 17 members, including many of the most fragile states such as Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Southern Sudan, Sierra Leone and Chad. When the group met in Dili in Timor-Leste, some frustration was expressed at the inadequacy of the millennium development goals, which totally ignore—to use their words—the importance of peace and security as a prerequisite for development. The group’s host, Emilia Pires said:
“Aid is given based on MDG criteria, and from our experience we have found out that before we can get the MDGs, we have to do a few things first. We have to have peace and stability … It means that you have to build peace and then you have to build a state to manage the whole thing. Peacebuilding and statebuilding must come before the MDGs and if you look at all the literature of the MDGs, it doesn’t talk about that”.
That is the point that the G7+ countries make. If people are bewildered as to why the $37 billion which is spent on the one-third of the world’s poorest who are in conflict-riven countries is not having more effect, that might be part of the answer.
Let me conclude on this point: I am a politician; I believe in politics; and I believe in democracy, in the parliamentary process and in the rule of law. I believe that each human life is sacred and I abhor violence as a means of dispute resolution, for it places human lives, hopes and aspirations at the disposal of tyrants. I simply cannot understand why the political class do not ensure that peace and security, which we take for granted in this country, have primacy in our efforts to tackle and alleviate poverty around the world.