Turkey

Debate between Mark Hendrick and Alan Duncan

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I commend my hon. Friend for what he has just said, which is both wise and practical. One of the most important ways in which Turkey can be engaged and persuaded is through the forum of NATO. We wish Turkey to remain a full and compliant member of NATO, and I hope that that meeting continuing as he suggests would provide a powerful platform for bringing about the kind of positive developments we would wish to see.

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Turkey is democratic, but successive elections have shown that it is becoming increasingly authoritarian. How concerned is the Minister that President Erdogan will use this coup as a blank cheque to go against any or all of his opponents? The UK is leaving the European Union but we should still be concerned that Turkey gets its wish and eventually becomes a member. Will the Minister make it clear to President Erdogan on his visit tomorrow that if the death penalty is introduced, that will totally negate any ambitions Turkey has in that direction?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I believe I am right in saying that if Turkey were to reintroduce the death penalty, it would be disqualifying itself from membership or future membership of the EU, so this would be a self-defeating act and against the objective the hon. Gentleman has just described of Turkey’s potentially joining the EU. I think it is fair to say I have already largely answered the other questions he asked.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Mark Hendrick and Alan Duncan

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan]

I well understand my hon. Friend’s relative affection—or lack of—for either pieces of legislation, but this is almost a one-clause Bill. The principle is clear and well understood, but we would be delighted, were the House minded to give the Bill a Second Reading, to see him in Committee to discuss his concerns in detail. And, of course, there will be Report and Third Reading.

I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Preston that Her Majesty’s Government support the Bill and have no intention of opposing it. We would like it to go into Committee, and hope that, in a few minutes, that is what will happen. Having said that, we only saw his Bill yesterday, and I saw that it fell into two distinct parts, the first of which we agree with. It is what we are setting out to do; it is in the coalition agreement and is agreed by all parties in the House—it will enshrine the 0.7% figure in law.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand, however, if we do not agree with the second part of the Bill, which would set up an independent international development office. To all intents and purposes, we have done that already by setting up the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which is working well and is inexpensive and effective. We believe that his proposal would do the same thing, with no particular added value, but at a higher cost. I hope, therefore, that, just as we welcome the introduction of his Bill, he will, in the spirit of give and take, accept our argument about removing this part of the Bill, so that we can focus on the 0.7% target and concentrate on the search for value for money and transparency in all that we do.

[Mark Hendrick]

I am sympathetic to what the Minister says. Does he not feel, however, that putting this body, whatever its name, on to a statutory footing would give it more teeth and greater powers over access to information from the Department that could be provided to the Select Committee? As a purely independent body without a statutory position, it is a weaker animal.

[Mr Duncan]

I understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but we are not persuaded by it because we believe that the body we have set up is working well and has adequate powers. Given the debate in this country about how much we spend on international development, it is essential that we are seen to spend it on those poor people who need the benefit of our spending on overseas development and assistance, rather than on this sort of body, which, under his proposal, would cost more. I think that with the current system we can achieve the same thing for less.

There is a debate in this country—we must respect it—about whether, in a time of austerity, we should be committing to spending 0.7% of our national income on official development assistance. I believe that everyone in this country can hold their heads high, both in the UK and when they travel abroad, because of what we are doing. If the Bill is passed, we will become the first seriously wealthy country to commit to spending in this way. The results we are getting across the world—in terms of saving lives, vaccinating children and ensuring that mothers and their children do not die in childbirth—are something of which we can be enormously proud.

We in the Department for International Development strive to get value for money. We have reviewed everything we do—from our bilateral relationships, where we have direct aid programmes in individual countries, to all our subventions and payments to multilateral organisations, such as the United Nations agencies and the global fund—not just with a view to ensuring value for money across our budget, but in a way that makes lots of other countries copy what we are doing, so that across the world others do what we do. Often, where DFID and the UK Government lead, others follow. By leading on 0.7%, I hope that others—who are falling way behind that figure—will follow what we do.

One of the great and most important principles of development is that we need continuity. It is no good darting into a development programme one year and abandoning it the next. Continuity and certainty of programmes over a number of years are essential to securing good development outcomes. That is why we have committed to budgets over four years—we have operational plans, so that we can follow through what we want to achieve from now to the end of 2014 and beyond—and why a Bill such as this, which commits us to spending 0.7% of our national income, is so important. There are few of us who, even if we were down to our last £100, would not give one of those hundred pounds to someone dying in the street. That, in proportion, is pretty well all that we are trying to do with this Bill. I hope that the House will give it the Second Reading it deserves today, so that the United Kingdom can be proud of being the first country to do what so many people have been campaigning for for so long.