International Development: Budget

Lord Empey Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Empey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to transfer a portion of the international development budget to the budget of the Ministry of Defence.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, because the noble Lord’s Question for Short Debate will be taken as last business, the time limit for it will become 90 minutes rather than 60. Therefore, speeches should be limited to seven minutes, except for those of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the Minister, for which the limits will remain 10 and 12 minutes respectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, it is often said of politicians that they should not ask a question until they know the answer. However, I can truly say that I do not know the answer to the question that I will ask this evening, and that my motive in securing this debate is to seek answers and clarification.

There is no doubt that large numbers of our fellow human beings live in terrible conditions that we can barely imagine, and which our community finds appalling. Whether it is hunger, slavery, exploitation and trafficking, disease, war or natural disasters, there is virtually no end to the misery suffered by millions of people, with the young and old as the principal victims.

There is a long tradition in this country of being willing to help others, both financially and in other ways. One has only to look at the money that is raised annually by appeals such as Children in Need, and at the response to international disasters, when the British people give generously. There is a well established tradition of volunteering, with many young people, in particular, willing and anxious to spend some of their lives in the service of others. Sadly, on a number of occasions this has put those young people in personal jeopardy, and some have lost their lives. My own region of Northern Ireland always punches above its weight in such enterprises, and this creates a great sense of pride in our fellow citizens.

In recent years, there has been growth in the amount of taxpayers’ money that has gone to international development. In the Budget 2013 document of March this year, the figures were stark. Resource DEL for the Department for International Development will rise from £6.1 billion in 2012-2013 to £8.8 billion in 2013-14. When capital DEL is added, the total figure will increase from £7.8 billion in 2012-13 to £10.7 billion in 2013-14—an increase of 37%. No other department of state enjoys such largesse in this time of austerity. By comparison, the Ministry of Defence’s total resource and capital DEL figures show a more modest increase of 5% due to increased capital spending.

This Government have set out on a number of occasions their ambition to spend 0.7% of GDP on international aid. In recent days, the Prime Minister has, in his capacity as chairman of the G8, chaired a conference designed to raise money for many starving people. However, earlier this year, in February, David Cameron alluded to the possibility that funds currently allocated to the Department for International Development could be reallocated to the defence budget in order to provide security and stability in regions where this was necessary to distribute aid safely.

There is already co-operation between the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is essential to ensure that UK policy is properly co-ordinated. Military campaigns are often accompanied by humanitarian projects, and the foreign policy objectives of Her Majesty’s Government can often be advanced by such spending, as the briefing pack for the debate demonstrates. The flurry of parliamentary Questions, both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, suggests that I am not alone in seeking clarification of what is proposed.

The OECD and the International Development Act 2002 define what is regarded as legitimate aid spending. This could be in conflict with the MoD’s understandable concern about recovering costs and relieving pressure on its overstretched budget. I do not have a problem with that. The work of the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be part of a seamless process designed to help those in greatest need. Without a proper framework of security, this is often neither safe nor possible. I regret, for instance, the trite and sarcastic statement by Max Lawson, Oxfam’s head of policy, that what is needed is spending,

“on hospitals and not helicopter gunships”.

This makes no positive contribution to the very difficult balances that Ministers have to strike.

Given all this, what exactly was the import of the Prime Minister’s intervention in February? If nothing has changed, why was his speech necessary? If something is changing—and maybe it needs to—why are Ministers being coy about it? Given our current financial circumstances, and considering that many people in the country simply do not believe that all their hard-earned taxes always get to the people who need them, but instead, in a minority of cases, go to corrupt officials, gangsters and despotic regimes, it is necessary for the Minister to tell the House exactly why such an intervention was necessary, and explain what exactly is happening to the very large international development budget.

I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and other Ministers take great pride in the fact that the United Kingdom is taking the lead in a number of important projects throughout the world. Undoubtedly it is something in which all people in this country take pride. It is also true that our defence forces are under great strain and pressure. However, there is in some cases an inextricable link between having support from defence forces on the one hand and allowing them to be co-ordinated with staff from the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I seek clarification on why the Prime Minister said what he said if there was no change taking place—and, if there was a change, perhaps the House may have an adequate explanation so that a judgment can be made.