Future of CDC

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Malcolm Bruce]

Absolutely, and I obviously hope the Secretary of State can give us that assurance.

In a sense, the organisation needs to be a trailblazer for what an investment model in developing countries ought to be, and a role model not only for other DFIs, but for the well-intentioned private sector. We have concluded that there is scope for clarification at the very least and for the maximum transparency.

We were as shocked as the Secretary of State that despite the sale of Actis, the fund manager, for £373,000 and the fact that the Government were apparently entitled to 80% of the proceeds, not a penny had been paid by the time the Committee took evidence. I know that he was anxious to vent his spleen about that when he gave evidence to us. I do not know whether he will be able to give any indication today of whether the Government can sell their share and, if they do so, whether we will get a fair rate of return—after all, that will be reinvested for the benefit of poor people.

Perhaps the Committee’s most significant recommendation was that the investment model for CDC should be changed. I know that the Government have not entirely accepted our recommendations, but I think that they acknowledge the strength of their principle and the spirit. We recognise that the fund of funds model could unlock a substantial amount and that it does attract investment. Particularly if the report’s recommendations are taken on board, that could be focused in a way that gives real, sustainable, long-term benefits to poor people in poor countries.

We felt that some of the money needed to go into more direct, riskier and more pro-poor investment. That means not that it should be thrown away or invested irresponsibly, but that lower rates of return should be acceptable or that a mix of grants and loans should be applied. We suggested the name “CDC Frontier” to indicate that the body would be operating slightly more experimentally.

One point about our recommendation of having two separate businesses was that because the fund of funds has been very successful at attracting and unlocking substantial extra funding—it has provided very good leverage—we were concerned that a more risk-associated set of investments in the same fund might frighten off some investors who have contributed. I hope that the Secretary of State will reassure us and that his response shows that he has taken our concern on board. As long as the Department and the way in which CDC is established are able to reassure those people, the Committee will be content if our specific model is not adopted. I hope that the Secretary of State understands that the proposal was not a gimmick, but a genuine attempt to ensure that we had the balance of the changing nature of the business right and that we did not have a higher-risk aspect undermining the area with a proven track record.

The Committee felt that there should be some agreement on the sort of sectors within which CDC should operate, but the Government did not entirely accept that recommendation. I appreciate the reason behind the absence of the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). He is a valued member of our Committee and has real expertise in agricultural development in east Africa. He was rightly exercised by the view that most countries in which we have the greatest commitment to pro-poor development are rural, and agricultural productivity is a major cause of poverty. The Committee accepts that the world is changing. We have produced a report on urban poverty and increasing urbanisation, so we do not see development as something that happens just in remote parts of rural Africa, which is sometimes the public image. However, it is true that in both the sub-continent and Africa, a high proportion of the poorest people depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, yet the productivity of agriculture is frankly abysmal in many cases.

When the Committee recently visited east Africa, some of us spent a night in a village in the heart of rural Burundi—

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Malcolm Bruce]

I will not take any interventions on that point. There is an internal issue in the Committee.

In Burundi, we witnessed for ourselves some of the poorest of the planet’s poor people struggling. I was going to say that they were on the edge, but they were beyond the edge—they were not operating at survival levels. If it were not for the intervention of non-governmental organisations, I do not think that they would have survived. It was estimated that their per-capita income was 20p a day. Apart from very basic and poor living conditions—no electricity, one tap for 4,000 people and pit latrines, although not for everybody—we saw exhausted soil, diseased plants and minimal yields that were inadequate even for self-sufficient farming, never mind cash-cropping.

The hon. Member for Stafford, as someone who knew a little more about agriculture than other Committee members, said that it should be possible to perform a soil analysis, to work out nutritional benefits and to advise on disease-resistant plants, and possibly to increase the yield of the agricultural holdings by up to eight to 10 times. That would be a massive return, so we felt that CDC should be part of the process of tackling that problem. We would like to think that it would consider investing in improving agricultural outputs in such poor countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I endorse and congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chair of the Committee, on the way in which he has introduced the report. As I am a Committee member, it would be rather surprising if I said that I disagreed with the report, so I will say that I agree with it, having participated in its compilation. In addition, my life on the Committee would not be worth living if I said anything else.

I would like to ask the Secretary of State a couple of questions. In a sense, this picks up where the right hon. Gentleman finished. He talked about the join between the Department’s private sector activities and those of CDC. I am still a bit uncertain about where that join is and how the Secretary of State sees it. When we visited India, that issue came home to me when we came across a target of 50% for how much of the Department’s budget should be spent in the private sector. I had not heard of that before. It is obviously very well known that the Government felt that more of the Department’s activities should be channelled through the private sector—I do not necessarily demur from that—but it was the first time I had heard that there was actually a target of 50%. A number of my colleagues and I found that a bit surprising because, if DFID is about doing what is right to combat poverty, the private sector should be utilised where it is appropriate, and what in some places might be called the third sector and the public sector should be utilised where that is appropriate. The objective should determine the percentage. That is not what seems to be happening here, where the percentage is in danger of determining the objective.

As we asked more questions about that, I got more confused about exactly what the policy was. When the Secretary of State winds up, will he clarify where the 50% figure comes from, rather than 40%, 30%, 60% or 80%? Why 50%? If such a target is appropriate for India, is there a 50% target for other areas where the Department is operating? If so, what is that based on? Is it based on the same criteria as for India or is it based on different criteria? If the figure is not 50% for other areas, how did he arrive at the different percentages? I am genuinely confused about how that works.

I would also like to know what the join is between that figure and the role of CDC. Certainly there was an uneasiness among some of our interlocutors in India about DFID saying that it wished to devote 50% of its activities to the private sector. That was not because the people we spoke to considered private sector investment to be unimportant. Indeed, a number of the most creative projects that we saw there could go under the heading of private sector projects, and they were often very small scale and very pro-poor. As the right hon. Member for Gordon mentioned, the people concerned were questioning whether, if this is going to be done on an industrial scale and on the basis of a particular percentage, it should be a private sector-led activity—the private sector investing—rather than something done by DFID directly.

[Anas Sarwar]

Does my hon. Friend recall the conversation that the Committee had with representatives of the Indian Government, who said that they would not see direct private investments by the Department for International Development as aid assistance? They recommended that DFID create a private sector wing, or arm, of its organisation to make those investments. In this case, it could be argued that that wing is CDC. If that 50% of funding does not go through CDC, does that not highlight the failures of CDC?

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In a sense, that is what I am getting at. I well remember that discussion. There was unease about the percentage. There was certainly a view that there was a need for vehicles specifically attuned to that, rather than simply a percentage of the aid assistance programme. Does the Secretary of State see CDC as the vehicle for delivering that percentage, or do CDC’s activities somehow sit on top of that? If he does see it as the vehicle, has he communicated that down to his officials in the field, so that they are not necessarily structuring their budgets in a way that might not be what he wants to achieve? If he does not see it as the role of CDC to take that role—back to my original question—where is the join between what the Department itself does directly and what CDC does, particularly in regard to its direct investments, rather than its role as a fund of funds?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

It is a pleasure to appear under your benign chairmanship, Mr Walker, for the first time. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who launched this debate today, and his Committee on its work not only on CDC, which has been enormously helpful to my Department, but on a range of other matters to which it brought extraordinary expertise and experience as well as energy, when considering difficult and intractable development problems. Secretaries of State do not always agree with Committees on every issue, and that is true of the International Development Committee and this Secretary of State. However, for the record, it is a pleasure to work with such an expert Committee. The Department and its Ministers draw huge strength from the way in which the Committee goes about its business, and I am extremely grateful to all its members for that.

This has been an excellent debate on many of the key issues that the Government are trying to address in connection with CDC. Let me start by emphasising the point that several hon. Members made—that CDC, given the terms of reference under which it has operated in recent years, has done an extremely good job. It has provided an excellent return to taxpayers, and it has increased substantially the funds under management, but my submission is that in development terms it is a greatly under-utilised asset, and needs to be changed.

It is fair to say that some years ago, CDC perhaps had too much development DNA in its work, and not enough financial rigour. Indeed—I hope that this does not cause Labour Members to blush—the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was minded to privatise CDC, but that did not proceed. The pendulum has now swung to the other extent, and it is a very strong, financially driven organisation that is not much different from many other organisations that operate in emerging markets. It seems to have lost some of its development DNA, and we need to put that back in the centre so that it has both rigorous financial control DNA, as well as strong development DNA. That is our intention, and I am pleased that it was strongly endorsed by the Committee in its response to our proposals.

It is worth emphasising the point that was made by the Committee’s Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, that aid is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The coalition Government have been determined to refocus the development programme so that the aid programme is fuelled by the engine of development—the private sector. Here, I turn to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who is my hon. Friend in Birmingham, where our constituencies are close together. He asked about the 50% figure for the amount that will be spent through private sector development in India, and for which other countries we were minded to adopt that policy. He also asked me to explain why I saw the private sector as a key means of development, and we had some exchanges on that when I appeared before the Select Committee.

I suspect that, although the hon. Gentleman sees intellectually that the private sector is the engine of development, he may have residual reservations, and sometimes under the bedclothes late at night he may think that it is perhaps the enemy of development rather than its engine. The truth is that if one believes that the private sector is the engine of development, one wants to bring to bear all the available skills in the private sector to try to drive development forward. Some 90% of the world’s jobs are created not by Governments but by the private sector. Wealth creation and economic growth empower societies and enable them to lift their citizens out of poverty.

[Richard Burden]

I do not know what the bedclothes are like in the north of Birmingham, but the Secretary of State is searching under the wrong bedclothes in the south of Birmingham because that was not the question I asked. I wanted him to explain the figure of 50%, as opposed to 40%, 60% or 80%. If there is a logic to that figure, what is it based on? Does it apply elsewhere, and if so, on what is that based?

[Mr Mitchell]

As I made clear to the Committee, the figure of 50% feels right in the context of India. I suspect that in many bilateral programmes over the years, there will be an increasing role for the work of the private sector as countries move down the path of lifting themselves out of poverty. In Vietnam, for example, we can see how that engine has driven the alleviation of poverty. There is no science to the figure of 50%, but it feels right in the case of India. As I said when I gave evidence to the Committee, it is not an arbitrary target but an aim.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in defending our decision to continue with an aid and development programme in India, it is important to respond to public concern. We must explain that, yes, India is roaring out of poverty, but there are more poor people in India than in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. Seven and a half times the total population of the United Kingdom live on less than 80p a day, and it is right to walk the last mile with India on development. The aid and development programme is important, and makes up part of the rich tapestry of Britain’s relations with India that were so singularly reinvigorated by the Prime Minister’s visit last year. Those relations are important and we all—not only people in India but those in Britain as well—have a huge amount to gain from Indian prosperity. For that reason, we decided to freeze the programme, focus on work in the poorest states and redirect a significant part of the budget—up to approximately 50% by the end of the next four years—to pro-poor private sector development. That will create the jobs and prosperity that are essential for India.