Civil Society Space

Debate between Patrick Grady and Fiona Bruce

Thursday 26th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, as I do in the all-party group on the Chagos islands. If there was ever a community that deserved the support of a strong civil society movement it is the Chagossians, but we shall perhaps not trouble the Minister too much on that issue, as he responded to it in Westminster Hall recently.

I congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate, and want to clear up a point: I was happy to support their bid for a debate at the Backbench Business Committee, but because I would be summing up for the Scottish National party on the Front Bench, my name had to come off the motion. We in the SNP exist in a kind of gloaming—a word people can look up if they need to—depending on whether we are speaking from the Front or Back Bench, and on the topic and who is replying. The concept of the debate has my full support, and we have heard some considered speeches and interventions.

I thank, as other hon. Members have, the large number of non-governmental, civil society organisations that provided briefings for today’s debate, including Bond, CAFOD, Amnesty International, the Charities Aid Foundation, and ABColombia. The fact that so many briefings were submitted is a cause for both celebration and perhaps a little concern: celebration because this country has a vibrant NGO sector that feels empowered to speak out; but concern at the content of the briefings and the many instances of the closing of civil society space around the world. Indeed, Amnesty’s report says that the situation is unprecedented.

I want to reflect on three themes: the intrinsic value of civil society and its contribution; areas of specific concern—countries that we have heard about and specific individual cases; and some domestic considerations and the role of the UK Government. I no longer need to declare a formal interest, but I should say that my professional background was in the NGO sector as a civil society lobbyist and campaigner on international development issues. I sometimes feel a little like poacher turned gamekeeper, but it has been an interesting 18 months or so since the 2015 election.

A strong civil society is a key indicator of healthy, stable democratic societies. As other hon. Members have said, it is such an important indicator that it has been integrated into the sustainable development goals framework—the plan for the planet over the next 30 years. Goal 16 commits countries around the world to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. So it is fundamental to the global vision of peaceful and sustainable societies.

Civil society provides a platform for debate, to influence policy process and to mobilise opinion outside party political structures. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) referred to the Charities Aid Foundation. Its research shows that when asked who is best placed to speak up to Government on behalf of disadvantaged people, and to influence their policies, 84% of respondents in this country said it was charities that specialised in those areas.

The role of the Church and faith-based organisations has also been a strong theme in the debate. Often there is pressure on them from two fronts—from Governments in the countries where they operate, and sometimes from extremists and fundamentalists of other faiths. Yet often those faith-based organisations are among the best placed to speak out on behalf of the poorest and most vulnerable communities. In countries where there is very little infrastructure, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, it is the Church that has a presence in the communities most remote from society and central governmental structures.

Conversely, the absence of a strong civil society is generally a sign of instability. Syria has been mentioned by several Members. The roots of the conflict are incredibly complex, but Syria is an example of how, when people cannot protest peacefully against the Government, or protests are shut down, people turn to extreme measures. It allows violence to creep in, and Governments respond in kind. We fall into a downward spiral. That point was powerfully made by the hon. Member for Congleton when she reflected on other lessons from history, especially given the fact that we are preparing to mark Holocaust Memorial Day tomorrow; I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members are attending a service today. The role of faith-based organisations in this country, such as the Jubilee 2000 movement, the trade justice movement and the Make Poverty History campaign, has also been recognised.

Several specific countries of concern have been discussed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) gave a powerful testimony in her speech. It struck me that the countries mentioned are middle-income countries. Colombia, Ethiopia, Malaysia—mentioned by the hon. Member for Congleton—and Turkey are all classified by the World Bank as lower or upper middle-income countries. I said in yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on West Africa that middle-income country status is perhaps the most precarious, because those countries are in transition from having had little in the way of infrastructure or the kind of development that we enjoy. Hopefully, they are on a journey to the kind of stable democracies that by and large we experience in the west. However, there is a huge risk of regression and backsliding, and it is one of the most precarious periods in a country’s history. An important point that has been made a couple of times is the statistic from the International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law about the 120 or so legal initiatives that have been introduced, in more than 60 countries, since 2012. Many of those are in transitioning middle-income countries. Amnesty has issued more than 40 reports on repression and fundamental freedoms.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Does he agree that we need more lawyers to engage in international development, to help those countries develop strong democracies? That is not something that we have inspired lawyers—particularly the younger generation of lawyers—to think about doing, as we have inspired medics or teachers. If we are really to achieve SDG 16, we need that.

[Patrick Grady]

That is a fair point. The rule of law —we have heard a lot about it in this part of the world in recent days—obviously requires lawyers. I will perhaps come on to say a little about the appropriate use of the aid budget later.

I want to look at a couple of particular cases. Colombia has been mentioned; it is symptomatic of issues around the country that, despite the progress—the peace agreement signed with FARC, pending agreement with the ELN—civil society organisations report that the situation on the ground continues to worsen progressively. In 2016 85 human rights defenders were killed, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights publicly condemned the violence against human rights defenders. What is encouraging, however, is that the UK ambassador to Colombia is one of eight ambassadors who have publicly denounced abuses of human rights and announced their concerns for human rights defenders.

The case of Andy Tsege in Ethiopia, the subject of a debate in its own right here in Westminster Hall, was mentioned again by the hon. Member for Congleton. His case is a powerful example of how UK citizens can be affected by oppressive Government crackdowns on freedom of speech. The Ethiopian Government, which announced the state of emergency that has seen thousands detained and severely limited due process and access to justice, sentenced Andy under a widely condemned anti-terrorism proclamation. Other concerns have been expressed about aspects of Ethiopia’s regulation of civil society. NGOs are not allowed to accept more than a very small percentage of their budget—15% or something like that—from overseas donors. Likewise, only a small percentage may be spent on administration, but the definition of that can be extremely wide. I wanted to flag up those two situations in Ethiopia.

There are some domestic considerations, and it has never been more important for the United Kingdom and its Government to lead by example. The examples given by the hon. Member for Clwyd South were very interesting. Even a local organisation can have a global impact, taking Wales forward to become the first fair trade nation. Scotland was the world’s second fair trade nation, which we are very proud of, but it is something we are happy to work with our brethren in Wales to promote. Indeed, the fair trade movement as a whole is another example of successful civil society campaigning, and it is an approach that also leads to positive economic benefits for people.

Even in the lifetime of this Parliament, since those elected in 2015 have been here, there have been some concerns, such as the threat to repeal the Human Rights Act without any clear indication of what was to replace it. Concerns were expressed about surveillance during the passage of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, and the Government were also pressing the so-called anti-advocacy clause, which would have severely restricted the ability of NGOs in this country to advocate on issues of Government policy. The climbdown on that was welcome. One concern was that scientific researchers in receipt of Government money could not have been called to give evidence to Select Committees in this Parliament, which would have been nonsense. We welcomed the Cabinet Office climbing down to an extent, but we have to keep an eye out for all such things.

I appreciate that a Foreign Office Minister is responding to the debate today, but there is a role for the Department for International Development to play in support of civil society and civil society organisations around the world. The Government should also recognise their importance here at home.

The “Civil Society Partnership Review” was mentioned, but my concern about it was that the concept of partnership was being changed significantly. Partnership was not about working together to achieve shared goals but about a service delivery model through which DFID was almost to commission its desired results from civil society stakeholders, rather than take the collaborative approach that may have been seen in the past.

The hon. Member for Strangford asked about acknowledging the particular role of faith-based organisations. Particular kinds of support and sensitivity are necessary with them.

In recent days the Minister’s colleague in the Government has confirmed several times Government support for the 0.7%, which is important, but I ask the Minister present to do the same again. It is important for as many Ministers as possible to make it clear that the UK Government are committed to the 0.7% in current and future spending reviews, despite the best efforts of some of their Back Benchers.

In the context of Brexit, it is especially important for the UK Government to continue to be seen as a world leader on the 0.7% and not to roll back from such an important commitment. If they are somehow struggling to meet that commitment and to find things to do with the money, plenty of examples have been given today. Only a moment ago we spoke about support for lawyers and legal practitioners around the world. There is no shortage of imagination on how to spend the budget, not least in civil society. I say that as a former employee of a civil society organisation, but I have made my interest clear.

The Scottish Government have a good partnership approach to civil society. Due to the nature of the devolution settlement, they are not allowed to use their small international development budget to fund organisations directly in different countries, so they have to work through civil society organisations in Scotland. There are some lessons to be learned from that model, although it is not entirely replicable at the scale DFID operates on, obviously.

This has been a very substantial and constructive debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Governments at home and around the world should have nothing to fear from a strong civil society and, as we have heard from all Members, they have so much to gain.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill

Debate between Patrick Grady and Fiona Bruce

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady]

I am happy to take that reassurance from the former Secretary of State, but I hope to hear it from current Ministers.

[Fiona Bruce]

As chair of the sub-committee of the International Development Committee that scrutinises the work of ICAI, perhaps our sub-committee could be added to that list.

[Patrick Grady]

DFID and the other bodies rightly face considerable scrutiny, which is as it should be, but we must ensure that it is extended and applied equally to all DFID stakeholders and all the resource that is spent. Perhaps there was an opportunity for the Bill to go further and to place statutory duties on the CDC to report on all its spending to the standards set by the international aid transparency initiative. I wonder what creative amendments might appear in that respect.

Let me be clear that I am not objecting in principle to the concept of development finance. There is a role for the private sector to play in stimulating the economies of developing countries and helping people into work—if carefully managed, it can support innovation and diversification. The Secretary of State’s letter to Members in advance of the Bill gave the example of the CDC’s early investment in the African mobile phone operator that eventually became Celtel. The investment was made when the technology was unproven and the market barely existed. I have seen first hand the impact that mobile phone technology makes in improving people’s lives across sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed, I have been a customer and user of Celtel services on many occasions.

The Scottish Government recently launched their own development finance initiative as part of their international development strategy. The Minister for International Development and Europe, Dr Alasdair Allan, announced in October £1 million of Scottish Government funding to help Malawian businesses over a three year period, which will be match-funded by private investors, providing £2 million in total to invest in Malawi. Those investments will be managed by a new Scottish company, the African Lakes Company Ltd, which has been registered as a limited company for that purpose. The African Lakes Corporation was originally established in Glasgow in 1878 to develop trade as an effective way of displacing slavery in Malawi. More than a century on, that mission has been revived with a contemporary view to investing in Malawi’s future. Through their support for that venture, the Scottish Government aim to show that responsible investment can help Malawi and similar countries to reduce dependence on aid, support the growth of existing businesses and create sustainable livelihoods.

The question is therefore less about the principle of development finance and more about how it is managed and how it fits within the overall picture of aid spending. The Scottish Government commitment of £l million over three years represents just under 4% of their annual development fund budget. The figures proposed in the Bill are of a far greater order—the Bill proposes the quadrupling of the funding cap from £1.5 billion to £6 billion, which would take the total amount that DFID can invest to the equivalent of around half the annual aid budget. I take the Secretary of State’s point that that will not necessarily be invested in one go, but if my understanding of the Bill is correct, it could be invested in one go in principle, which is a concern to some of us. The new maximum, which will be decided by statutory instrument, could be £12 billion, which is approximately the total annual aid budget. It is therefore worth asking, as the hon. Member for Edmonton did, where those figures came from and how they were arrived at. Why £6 billion and not £5 billion or £7 billion? Where is the needs analysis behind that figure?

As we heard in Treasury questions today, total aid spending is very likely to fall as a result of a slowing economy. The 0.7% target is by definition a proportion of total GNI. With further economic uncertainty on the horizon, there is no guarantee that the current figures will remain stable, let alone increase. Would it have been more sensible for Ministers to express the funding limits in the Bill as a percentage, or through some kind of formula that relates to the total amount of aid funding, to make investment in the CDC relate more clearly to the total aid budget at any one time? Although making the cap a proportion recognises the importance of development finance, it also recognises that it is only one small tool in a box, as the Secretary of State said.

We have been presented with the Bill, which incidentally was not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, without seeing the long-promised policy statements in the shape of the bilateral and multilateral aid reviews. We therefore have no real idea exactly how the increase in the investment cap fits with DFID’s broader policy direction and goals. The Secretary of State has said that no disbursements will be made to the CDC without a robust business case. Will she assure us today that such business cases will have poverty reduction and the sustainable development goals, and people rather than profit, at their heart? As I asked earlier, has she given any consideration to the opportunity for building that into the Bill as a statutory duty on the CDC? [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State is not here, I hope that at least one DFID Minister can answer those questions at the end of the debate.

I and many other Members are keen to explore in Committee and other stages the question of how that significant scaling-up of DFID finance to the CDC fits into its broader policy goals and the wider global aid agenda. If satisfactory answers are not forthcoming, and if the Government are not willing to offer the reassurances and amendments we suggest, we reserve the right to oppose the Bill in its entirety on Third Reading.

Greater clarity is urgently needed from DFID and the Government as a whole on the purpose of their aid budget and how they will achieve that purpose. A global consensus framework exists, which this Government, or at least the Government elected in May 2015, helped to negotiate and write in the shape of the sustainable development goals. I said last week in Westminster Hall that, despite what may be read in some of the gutter and right-wing press, there is still public and political consensus in the UK on the importance of aid and the need to tackle global poverty.

The Secretary of State talks increasingly about making aid work in the national interest, but that raises the question: what is the national interest and how is it different from the goal of poverty eradication? Surely meeting the global goals in and of themselves is in the national interest, otherwise there is the implication that previously aid did not work in the national interest or that we have a deeper interest in its effectiveness beyond what the SDGs aim to achieve. If that is the case, what is that interest? What better or more noble purpose is there than the eradication of poverty and disease and the building of peace and equality for all? Surely a global community where everyone’s basic needs are met, where education allows people to thrive and where health and wellbeing contribute to more peaceful societies is by definition in our own interests, as well as the interests of those we are seeking to help.

That is why the goals must be at the heart of the work of the CDC. Ending poverty should not be a happy or convenient by-product of profitable investments; it should be the other way around. If investments that create jobs and provide services that lift people out of poverty go on to make surpluses that can be reinvested in more of the same, all to the good, but it should not be assumed, especially in the context of fragile and developing countries and economies, that generating a return on investment will of itself provide a rising tide that floats all boats. Old-style aid-for-trade and trickle-down investment have left us with a world where we still need a 15-year timetable to meet the global goals, after 15 years working towards their predecessors, the millennium development goals; yet we live in a world of plenty with the knowledge, resources and capacity to meet and exceed all the targets in the goals. What is lacking is the political will. The Government must show they understand that and that their support for the CDC is but one small and proportionate intervention in the struggle for a fairer, more just and more peaceful world.

Every penny that the Government invest in the CDC is a penny not invested in traditional, proven methods of aid delivery, so they have to show why each of those pennies is not better spent on gender empowerment, nutrition, farming, education or any of the other programmes working in partnership, on a non-profit basis, with specialist and grassroots organisations on the ground in developing countries. If they want to maintain the consensus in the House on the use and purpose of aid, the Government must show willingness in the coming stages of the Bill to engage on the points that I and others have raised. I look forward to continuing that debate in the coming days.