Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Funding

Debate between Richard Graham and Theo Clarke

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the funding of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. 

This debate gives us all a remarkable opportunity to focus on a small and sometimes underknown organisation, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which for 30 years has played a distinguished role in standing up for and representing our values on a global stage.

I must declare an interest as the current Chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Today I will discuss with colleagues here in Westminster Hall, some of whom are governors of the organisation, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which I will call the WFD for short, including why we were created, what our aims are, whether we are succeeding, and what we can contribute that matters to the taxpayers who fund us, to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to whom we answer, to other organisations that fund us and, perhaps above all, to the nations and peoples of the world, who we exist to serve.

I believe this is a good moment to ask these exam-type questions of ourselves in public, not just because this year is our 30th anniversary and no organisation has a right to exist forever; not just because the delay in confirmation of our funding this year has caused us to question every activity, programme, office and pound of expenditure; and not even because of the events in Ukraine, where I am delighted to say that our two staff members, Halyna and Marina, are now safe, far from the Ukrainian Parliament, where they had been working to bolster and sustain Ukrainian democracy, in a project with partners that is financed by the United States Agency for International Development—USAID.

It is even more fundamental to examine the UK commitment to open societies and the WFD’s contribution because, I suggest, democracy is in recession. That is the issue of our time, the challenge for our Government for a generation and perhaps longer to come, and the cause on which our children and grandchildren may later judge us. Moreover, it is not simply about one side winning and the other side losing, or even about a rise or fall in the various democracy indices, although the latest reading, from The Economist index, is dire; it is certainly the worst for 15 years and arguably for even longer. I believe that it is about something more invidious and longer-term—a view among the young in particular that democracy is no longer assumed to be the best solution and the best form of governance, and that other, more efficient, models might exist.

If Churchill’s maxim that “Democracy is a terrible thing, but I cannot think of a better way of governing” is still true—it is a maxim that the WFD holds close to its heart—then we, like every generation, must remake the case for democracy and against the authoritarian range of alternatives. Right now, we may be tempted to remember that time and time again, authoritarian regimes have few easy ways of replacing leaders who pass their sell-by dates, stop listening to their people or surrender to imperialist fantasies. However, we also need to keep asking this question: how do we keep our systems, processes and use of technology up to date, relevant and effective?

That is where the work that the UK does to help open societies abroad matters hugely. There is, of course, Margaret Thatcher’s great observation that

“democracies do not go to war with each other,”

which is never more valid than today in Ukraine. There is also the hard truth that democracies are fragile plants that need much tending and, untended, decline—first gradually and then, like all gardens, suddenly very rapidly.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

I note my hon. Friend’s concerns about delays in funding from the Foreign Office. I have to say that I saw first-hand the excellent work done by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy when I attended its training workshop in Ghana for female politicians across Africa. So, does he agree that the Foreign Office must continue to fund that vital work, to help strengthen open societies and democracies around the world?

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She makes a very good point and her own work in Africa, which she continues today in her guise as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy in Kenya, absolutely confirms the point that she makes: in every continent in the world, there are countries in which sustaining this fragile plant is incredibly important. We should not be complacent about that in our own country, or across the pond in North America, either.

In this gardening analogy, the WFD is the constant gardener. We are there for the long term, and our projects need time to succeed. Let me give one example. I have seen our programmes in action in four of the countries in which our western Balkans project operates. I have no doubt that in all of them the project has been a success and great value for money. Were we to abandon the project in less than a month’s time when its funding expires, it would be another setback for open societies in the western Balkans. Yet that is precisely the risk, because the funding for the project, which comes from the conflict, stability and security fund—that is, the Cabinet Office—has not yet been decided. The work that the WFD has been able to do there, improving Parliament structures and scrutiny, helping more women into political leadership positions and so—this is the crucial aspect—reducing corruption, which is the scourge of faith in Government, is really important work, done indirectly by Her Majesty’s Government to help nations across the oceans.

Today, every organisation—barring a civil war or invasion—needs certainty in which to operate. During the pandemic, the Government provided that certainty for both businesses and the self-employed. It is therefore extraordinary that, having declared an end to the pandemic, and with departmental budgets agreed with the Treasury some time ago, until 6 o’clock yesterday evening I could not have told this debate what the WFD budget would be in less than a month’s time. Our outstanding chief executive Anthony Smith is here today, and we have roughly 100 staff in many countries around the world, and there are the rest of the governors, both political and non-political. For us to have to say in a board meeting last week that we could not sign off on a budget—only an indicative operational plan—is not an acceptable way for a non-departmental Government body to operate. It was with great relief, therefore, that I took the call last night from the office of the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for the verbal confirmation of our core funding for 2022-23. I look forward to the written confirmation as soon as possible.

However, I stress that that does not resolve everything, for many of our projects are funded through official development assistance by individual missions. The western Balkans project, pooled by five embassies, is a good example of that. They still do not know what their allocations are. The good news on core funding enables us to complete a budget and a restructure with much greater certainty, and enables us to decide the party political programmes that are arguably the unique feature of the WFD, but it does not mean that all our programmes, or the jobs of the staff delivering them, are secured. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that I speak for many heads of mission and diplomats when I say that, for an organisation well-versed in understatement, the words “frustrating” and “disappointing” are polite ways of describing widespread feelings. I hope that we never have to slog through such agonising budget treacle for so long ever again.

Let me come back to the core purposes of the WFD and our constant reinvention. Our work cannot prevent rogue states from invading others, whether in Myanmar or Ukraine, but we do have the relationships, mentoring and knowledge such that, when freedom returns, we can help those societies to work better. For example, we have an understanding of what is not working in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and beyond. Western democracies want to know why the youth is voting with its feet to leave across the west Balkans, and were they to show the resolve in helping unblock these impediments to more open societies, it would reduce the tensions in that region that exist now and could yet lead to a new round of violence.

All Governments need the tools to help deliver what they believe in. This great country of ours believes powerfully in open societies and democracy—the values on which all of us were elected. Even after temporarily reducing our development spending to 0.5% of gross national income, we still spend over £10 billion a year, the vast majority of which goes on large, multilateral organisations, delivering important work through Save the Children, Oxfam and so on. In that enormous pond of development expenditure, the WFD is but a tiny drop—£6.5 million of core funding this year. However, we do answer to those values and the choice to stand up for them, as outlined in the Queen’s Speech and the integrated review paper that the Government wrote last year, which I still believe to be a very good definition of strategic choices that defend our interests.