Sustainable Development Goals

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

For the convenience of Members, I point out that the debate can run until 5.41 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

May I check that everyone who wants to participate is standing? I will call the Front-Bench speakers at 5.20 p.m. and there are four of you, so if you take about five minutes each, we will get everyone in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He shows his expertise in the area. Disaggregated data will be crucial in our understanding of whether we meet indicators.

Before I finish I will speak of another particularly important part of the implementation—the “leave no one behind” agenda. As a member of the International Development Committee, I have been fortunate to visit a number of developing countries, and I must say that I have visited few projects that reach out and undertake interventions for people with disabilities. Many of those people continue to be left behind and marginalised, and are missing from the programmes that I have visited. Do we have data on their numbers? The data may vary across countries. What are we doing to ensure that people with disabilities are not continually left behind, and to ensure that we do not think we are doing enough because we are simply not reaching out and noticing that they are there? That should be integral to DFID’s programmes.

Summing up, because I am aware of the time and want the Minister to be able to respond, the SDGs are a welcome step forward. Their implementation is complex and requires funding, although I agree with other hon. Members that there should be investment, so that it is a partnership. Data collection and verification will be key, but what a worthwhile aim it is to make sure that we implement the sustainable development goals, and that the most vulnerable people across our world are no longer left behind.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I ask the last two speakers to divide the final eight minutes between them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) for initiating this debate and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for speaking with even faster delivery than normal, to ensure that I can say a few words.

I am speaking on the back of an event we held in Speaker’s House yesterday with the all-party group on global education for all, which I co-chair, ParliREACH, Results UK and the Malala Fund, following an incredibly inspirational showing of the film “He Named Me Malala”.

I want to talk in particular about education. First, I commend the far greater detail of the SDGs on educational issues—something on which civil society has been campaigning for years. We have heard about goals 3 and 5. I want to talk about goal 4 and the necessary depth that the SDGs have gone into. I will remind Members of goal 4.1:

“By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete”—

“complete” being the key word—

“free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.”

Goal 4.5 is:

“By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations”—

something that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) mentioned. Finally, goal 4.c is to increase the supply of qualified teachers by 2030, which is essential.

We have built on the success of the MDGs, but we must now set a target to ensure that the term we used in those goals—out-of-school children—is made redundant in the next 15 years. Globally, 200 million young people still have not completed primary school education, with 60% of them being women. It is about ensuring quality primary and secondary education. The Malala Fund is adamant that we should ensure 12 years of education—not just primary, but meaningful secondary education as well.

Our all-party group has been to Kenya. We talked to many people there who asked us, “What happens then?”—“then” being when primary education finishes. We need to ensure that schooling is adequately resourced in terms of both physical and human resources. While the old MDGs had an emphasis on quantity, we had a healthy debate in New York, and we won talking about quality.

Malala was clear in her film about discrimination against young girls and women. Of course, we must ensure that we address the biggest minority of all: the disabled. In the few seconds I have left, I commend to hon. Members the all-party group’s report entitled “Accessing inclusive education for children with disabilities in Kenya”. I reiterate the point that many hon. Members made today: the Government’s objectives need to be data-related. In other words, data need to be the starting point and we need to know how the Government’s intentions will be monitored. I look forward to the regular progress reports on how we are meeting the all-important SDGs.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I ask the Front Benchers to follow the example of the Back Benchers and confine their remarks to about five or six minutes to give the Minister and Mr Howlett time to respond to the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Dr Alan Whitehead—not here.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

What does the Minister estimate the total percentage rise for residents of Birmingham will be once the Chancellor’s social care tax, the increased police precept and the 1.9% council tax are added together?

[Mr Marcus Jones]

The core spending power figures that we released just before Christmas and have just consulted on do not take into account authorities putting their council tax up to the maximum referendum principle. Council tax in Birmingham is a question for Birmingham City Council. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely right to say that we should not take any lectures from Labour Members on the council tax because while they were in power for 13 years council tax doubled.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Do the Government have any plans for fresh initiatives, other than business improvement districts, to help traders in small suburban shopping centres, such as Stirchley in my constituency?

[Mr Marcus Jones]

This Government are doing a number of things to help the type of traders that the hon. Gentleman refers to. We have allowed sensible planning changes to allow local areas to respond more flexibly to changing market conditions on the high street. We are tackling over-zealous parking practices and I am working closely with retail organisations on the Future High Streets Forum to develop strategies that will enable our high streets and communities to meet the future needs of the consumer.

Immigration

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on a rather broader contribution than the wording of the petition suggests. I wanted to take part in the debate for two reasons. First, I believe that immigration should be debated and that people’s anxieties and concerns should be heard. If we are not willing to do that, we will create further problems and pressures in society. I received a fair amount of vitriolic abuse for remarks I made in the local press about this petition. I understand that it was picked up by a national newspaper. In those comments to the local press, I expressed some concern about the wording of the petition and about any automatic tendency to debate petitions simply because of numbers. I went so far as to say that I think there is a risk that we could end up legitimising bigotry. Members will not be surprised to hear that that did not go down terribly well, but I draw their attention to the wording of the petition, which begins:

“The UK government need to prevent immigrants from entering the UK immediately! We MUST close all borders, and prevent more immigrants from entering Britain. Foreign citizens are taking all our benefits, costing the government millions! Many of them are trying to change UK into a Muslim country!”

The petition goes on to make the references to graves that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman highlights the capitals, but I draw attention to the shouty exclamation marks that punctuate those sentences.

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Lady is right. I make it clear that I do not consider people who are concerned about immigration, or who object to it, to be bigots, but I have a problem with the petition. Some of the people who contacted me had a legitimate right—they were not constituents, by and large—to say that they did not like what they had read in the press, whether or not it was what I had actually said. I understand that. The vile nature of some of the other people’s comments probably justifies what I said about them—in fact, what I said about them was probably mild compared with what I read from them.

I will pick up on what a couple of people said. A Mr David Harrington, who I understand owns or works for PressLine, a marketing consultancy, extended my criticism to say that I had accused all signatories of being of a racist tendency, which is quite worrying if he runs a marketing consultancy. That may have been what Mr Harrington heard, but never did I say it. The danger of petitions that deliberately set out to pander to people’s fears is that people end up reading things that are not there and hearing things that have never been said.

Mr Harrington, a bit like the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, advised me that it was Labour that had opened the floodgates to mass migration. Members may not be surprised to hear that I do not entirely share that view, but people have legitimate concerns. We all know that there is pressure on some of our services at the moment and that people fear such pressure. There is pressure on health services and on access to school places. Certainly as far as European migration is concerned, I have more faith in the Prime Minister than it appears the hon. Gentleman has, because I do not want to plan to leave the European Union; I want the Prime Minister to succeed in his negotiations. I hope that one of the things the Prime Minister will seriously consider trying to negotiate is a migration fund so that, where we have a significant influx of people into a particular part of the country from Europe, we can draw on it if the influx is putting pressure on our services. That would be a welcome and useful proposal, as has been made clear in my extensive consultations with my constituents on immigration.

There is clearly an issue in relation to the benefits system. The vast majority of immigrants come to work, so we should not be entirely concerned when the petition says that foreigners are “taking all our benefits”, but it is reasonable to ask questions about benefits. For example, most people would recognise that it is absurd that people who do not have children resident in this country are able to claim child benefit. That is a reasonable point. I am not sure that I support the idea of transferable benefits. It is probably also legitimate to say that there should be a reasonable qualifying period for accessing benefits.

The hon. Gentleman drew on the example of curry shops. The balti business is very big in the Birmingham area. The issue is not about whether one should have to bring over a chef from the Indian subcontinent in this day and age. It would be better to put a bit more support and funding into our sixth form colleges and further education colleges so that they are not at risk of collapsing. If we cannot train people as balti chefs and curry chefs in this day and age, there is something badly wrong with our skills training in this country.

I recommend to the hon. Gentleman that, as was Labour policy at the last election—the Chancellor is now keen on some bits of Labour policy—where an employer asks for a visa to bring someone into this country because they argue that they genuinely cannot fill the skills gap, and where it is practical to create an apprenticeship, we should say, “You can have the visa, provided that there is an apprenticeship to train someone from here for the future.” That would be a useful and practical way of addressing that particular problem.

The Government’s targets need a bit of realism. I liked a lot of what the hon. Gentleman was trying to say—he was trying to be fairly balanced—but then I heard him say, “Oh, the last Labour Government let 2.5 million people into the country.” Where has that figure come from? How many of those people are permanent residents of the UK? How many of them does he know anything about? The reality is that that figure has been conjured up for propaganda purposes, just as the Government’s target to reduce immigration is now becoming a straitjacket for the Home Secretary. It would probably be better if the Government were to set out clear principles for the areas of concern on immigration so that people across the country can work together. That would be more fruitful than setting unachievable targets that lead to further disillusionment, which would be a mistake.

Of course, including refugees in the target, thereby confusing refugees with conventional economic migrants, is a dreadful mistake. I hope the Minister, who is responsible for refugees, will take advantage of this debate to tell us a bit more about what is happening with the Syrian refugees. How many orphaned and abandoned children can we reasonably expect to have been resettled in this country come Christmas? An answer to that question would be helpful, and it would also be helpful if he made it clear that he sees a clear distinction between refugees and economic migrants and that he is willing to consider not mixing the two in the numbers.

It is preposterous that this country wants to make it hard for high-value students to come to our universities. I do not know why we should discourage people who pay good money to come to our universities, and who help to subsidise our own students. Such students will not stop going to university; they will just go to Australia, Canada or the United States. The losers will be our universities and research programmes. It is a dreadful mistake to include students in our immigration targets, and the Minister will have no difficulty getting support from the Labour party, and maybe from other Opposition parties, if he were to come clean and make that distinction. Students are not coming here to settle permanently. They are people who come here for a time-limited period and who we actually want to come here.

This petition is misleading in a number of ways. It ignores the fact that the number of permanent visas being awarded is currently down by about 15%; it ignores the fact that many of our most welcome immigrants come on fixed five-year work permits; and it does not take account of what they come to do or where they come from. We are talking about doctors, nurses, scientists, social care workers, digital engineers—the very people the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam wants to come here to help, support and invigorate businesses, and to start businesses—and they are coming from places such as India, Australia, the USA, the Philippines, Canada and New Zealand. They are the main countries that we are taking immigrants from at present, which is hardly the picture conjured up by this particular petition.

Of course, the petition also ignores what the impact would be on our agriculture and hospitality sectors, for example, if we were to end immigration immediately. The effect would be to close down those sectors. I do not know whether the person responsible for originating this petition thought about the implications of that, or whether the 190,000 or so people who were so keen to sign it have considered that, but I understand that closing our borders would mean that it would be quite difficult to leave the country as well as to enter it. As I have said, I have no problem with discussing and debating immigration. There are immigration issues that we should tackle. There are some where we could find quite a bit of cross-party consensus. However, I for one have no desire to have to go around telling my constituents, “I’m sorry. You’re not going on holiday after all this year, because we have decided to support a petition that says we are going to close our borders.” I do not think that things have got quite that bad in the UK.

I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. There is a persuasive argument, I say to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, to consider whether we should issue further guidelines on the wording of petitions. That might be helpful. That is no criticism of the hon. Gentleman or his Committee but there may be times when the current e-petition situation has unintended consequences.

Is it not reasonable to ask that we be given a bit more information about the person originating the petition? It is probably fair to know who they are, where they live, whether they are a registered British voter, for example, whether they have any party political association or any history in relation to a particular subject. It would not be unreasonable to know that. The idea of the e-petition system, of course, was to give a voice to the public and to ensure that we in this place did not ignore issues that matter.

[Paul Scully]

I will quickly answer that point. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Petitions Committee is a new Committee and we are developing and looking at reviewing our processes as we go through. This is the third debate that has arisen from an e-petition and we will always continue to review the system. We certainly know the people who are signing the petition, because we are in contact with them and informing them about the result of their signing the petition, whether it is just a Government response, whether we will have a debate such as this one or whether there will be some other action.

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful for that intervention. My point is that we should know, not just the Petitions Committee. Indeed, all the other people who might be tempted to sign a petition should perhaps know in advance, as well. That would be quite useful.

[Peter Grant]

If we have a petition signed by a significant number of, presumably, genuine people that is based on utterly untrue statements, would it not be better to bring the petition in here and to allow the Government to tackle it head-on and say, “This petition is based on untrue statements”, rather than being seen to be stifling debate and not allowing it to be spoken about at all, because that would just allow untrue statements to gain currency?

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful for that remark. In asking for stronger guidelines, I think we are asking for something similar. I acknowledge that the Petitions Committee is new and that we have started a process that will take time to settle down. However, if the abuse of it is such that we spend all our time discussing things that are nonsensical, untrue or misleading, that is not what anyone had in mind when the system started.

I am glad that we have had the opportunity to debate immigration. I really take issue with this petition. Its wording will not advance many of the arguments a great deal. At least we have the opportunity here to debate it. I hope that the Petitions Committee can consider ways in which it may be possible to tighten up the e-petitions system.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who it is a delight to follow, that I agree with a lot of what he said; I would wear the vitriol that he has experienced with pride. I hope I will not upset him too much with some of the comments I might make about the previous Labour Government.

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on Bangladesh and as president of the Conservative Friends of Bangladesh—obviously, I have quite an interest in Bangladesh.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman read out the wording of the petition. For anyone who has not read it, I should say that it contains a lot of exclamation marks; in my view, that creates a rather shouty tone. Like many hon. Members here today, during the election period I listened to people expressing concern that we have lost control of our borders. I heard from residents who said they were exasperated that we, as British citizens, could not fully control who came into our country, partly because of the right of EU nationals to travel freely to this country; and from residents who were also angry about illegal immigration—for example, those who break into our country on the back of lorries and who slip into a murky world of criminality and the black economy.

In this uncertain world, we as a country should be able to know who is coming across our borders and for what purpose. Illegal immigration and people traffickers do a disservice to all legal migrants and help fuel sentiments such as those expressed in this petition.

I want to regain strong control over immigration and I share the sentiment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who opened this debate: I am hugely in favour of the promised referendum on our membership of the EU. It is time we had the discussion and the debate. I will be campaigning to leave the EU. We will consider that issue in the next few months.

How can we hope to control our UK immigration numbers when 42% of our immigrants can walk straight in from the EU, regardless of family ties or skill set? We will listen to the debate on that issue as the months go by. Freedom of movement and of residence for people in the EU was established by the Maastricht treaty in 1992. Now, free movement has a much broader meaning than in the original wording of the treaty of Rome, which talked more about “workers” than about “persons”. The four pillars of the EU—free movement of goods, capital, services and people—seem to be non-negotiable. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is trying to negotiate them, but the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, said in January this year that regarding

“the end of the free circulation of workers, there can be no debate, dialogue or compromise. We can fight against abuses, but the EU won’t change the treaties to satisfy the whim of certain politicians.”

There is the rub: as long as Britain is a member of the EU, the EU will not countenance meaningful change that would mean Britain has the policy freedom to control its borders as it sees fit.

This petition asserts that immigrants are taking “all our benefits”, which is a highly alarmist statement. I share the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who spoke before me, that there are areas that we need to look at. Under EU laws, there are areas we need to tighten up on, particularly the highly contentious area of child benefit. We have all talked about that issue; there are cross-party concerns about it. It is worth noting that the figures for 2013 showed that £31 million of British taxpayers’ money was sent abroad as child benefit to other European countries, and that two thirds of that money was sent to Poland.

The EU will fight to defend people’s ability to nominate the country in which they wish to claim their child benefit. However, the Prime Minister believes that it cannot be right to send benefits abroad to children who have never lived in this country and who may, for all we know, not even exist. It is no surprise that a Polish worker would prefer to nominate to receive UK child benefit when it is four times the amount that could be awarded in Poland. Yes, we are welcome to go to Poland and to make a similar claim over there, but it is highly unlikely that we would.

However, despite wanting to tackle the syphoning-off of British taxpayers’ money to Europe, I profoundly disagree with the wording of this petition. It conflates immigration pressures and personal faith. I want a sensible immigration policy that is creed and colour-blind; that welcomes workers to fill vacancies in this country that need filling; that welcomes students to enrich and support our top universities—on that I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak; that respects familial ties and, importantly, our Commonwealth connections; and that does not discriminate against an individual because of his or her personal faith, because to do otherwise would be to go down a hugely dangerous road. Surely the holocaust, which happened in the not-too-distant past, should have taught us a lesson about discrimination on the grounds of faith, which this petition seems to advocate.

In August, the latest net immigration figures were 312,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam remarked in his well-balanced comments, 50% of respondents in an Ipsos MORI poll for The Economist said that immigration was the biggest challenge this country faced. Not only was that the highest such percentage ever recorded, but it surpassed the figures for the economy and the NHS. There is no dispute, therefore, that we need to talk about immigration, but how we talk about it is important. As elected representatives we must discuss the matter, but this petition is not the answer.

The petition currently has 199,000 signatories, and I am pleased to say that only 189 of them are from St Albans—0.25% of its electorate. In contrast, more than 500 of my constituents wrote to me about banning foxhunting, so supporting the petition is not high on the St Albans agenda. My constituency has an approximately 10% ethnic minority make-up; the largest black and minority ethnic community is the Bangladeshi one, which at 2,500 represents 2.5% of the population. Christian denominations make up 57%, at 55,951 individuals, and the Muslim denomination is 4,653, which is 4.8%. When I am at our war memorial on 8 November, I will expect to see, as usual, religious leaders from my churches, synagogues and mosques all reading passages and prayers from their sacred texts.

In St Albans we welcome prayers for peace, and we recognise that Muslim soldiers too have fought alongside their brothers from all faiths in the defence of our country. When someone criticised the fact that excerpts were read by the leading imam from one of our mosques, I wrote back and said exactly that—that they should bear in mind that these people support our country regardless of, or because of, their faith, and we should not discriminate. More than 400,000 Muslims alone fought in the first world war on behalf of this country.

I do not believe that faith can be forced. I profess a Christian faith, and I have friends who share other faiths and friends who have no faith, including my husband—he has no faith at all. I do not believe, as the petition asserts, that our faith, however personal, is threatened by Muslims, nor do I accept that Muslims are trying to change the faith of this country. The fact that Muslim families have been shown to have a higher number of children and may bring them up in the faith might mean an increase in the number of people who profess that faith, but it might not. I do not think, however, that someone can rob you of your faith. If a person’s faith comes from within it will not be threatened by another person’s faith, only by another person’s intolerance or oppression of that faith.

In many countries, religious minorities face oppression and we must speak out against that. We should not be fearful or foster or import intolerance into our country. One of this country’s pillars of strength is that each man and woman has the ability freely to express their own faith, and I want nothing to do with any petition that suggests otherwise.

I do not dispute that we need a full and frank discussion about how we manage our immigration levels, but I do dispute why reasonable people would want to associate themselves with an ill-informed petition. What provokes nearly 200,000 people to agree with the aggressive, shouty and unpleasant sentiments expressed in the petition? I am sorry—this is the point where I might upset the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak—but a large part of the fault can be traced back to the previous Labour Government’s failure to see the true impact of EU migration.

In 1997, net immigration to the UK was 48,000 and a 2003 Government report projected that additional future net migration would average between 5,000 and 13,000 a year. In one year alone—between 2003 and 2004, when the accession countries joined the EU—net migration to the UK jumped from 185,000 to 268,000. Net migration has been well over 200,000 per year since, with one exception: when it dropped to 177,000 in 2012.

[Steve McCabe]

On a minor point, does the hon. Lady accept that it was the recognition of that error with the original accession countries that led to the transitional controls that the same Government imposed for the next round of countries? That error was not ignored.

[Mrs Main]

I accept that it was not ignored. The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next comments. The modelling was based on the equal access of member states to the labour market, but other states had imposed transitional controls at that time and the UK and Ireland had, unfortunately, not. We learnt that hard lesson.

A former speechwriter for Labour, Mr Nether, wrote in 2009 that

“mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.”

He went on to say that he remembered

“coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended—even if this wasn’t its main purpose—to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

That is an incredibly unhelpful statement, but if Mr Nether was correct it is no wonder petitions such as this have found favour in communities that might feel duped and that we are not facing the ongoing effects of mass uncontrolled migration.

In response to local authority and community concerns, mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, the Communities and Local Government Committee looked into the matter. I served on the Committee in 2008, and we produced a report. At the time, the Committee was Labour dominated—obviously—and it also had a Labour Chair, Phyllis Starkey. It is worth noting the report’s findings. We learned lessons, and we have to learn lessons now. The report’s summary states:

“There is significant public anxiety about migration, some of which arises from practical concerns about its effect on local communities.”

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak referred to that. It continues:

“On our visits we heard from settled residents”—

some of those settled residents were second and third generation from other countries—

“about many such concerns, including the limited English of new arrivals; the problems associated with Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs)…a perceived increase in anti-social behaviour; and pressures on public services. The practical concerns of settled residents about migration need to be addressed by central and local government for cohesion to be improved, and cannot simply be dismissed as expressions of racist or xenophobic sentiments.

Recent migration has placed pressures on local public services in areas that have experienced rapid inward migration, including pressures on schools, translation services, social care, English language teaching, policing and the NHS. These pressures are currently left unfunded by Government, because resource allocations are being made on the basis of flawed population data. Leaving local services with inadequate funding to cope with added pressures from migration is not only detrimental to the service provided to local communities; increased competition between groups for access to limited public resources can also negatively affect community cohesion.”

That happened, and I believe that the petition has come out of it. I think that the petition is wrong in its sentiments and language, but we cannot dispute those findings. We need to face into the situation—all of us. It will take a long time to turn it around.

In an effort to row back from that situation, the points-based immigration system was introduced. Our Government, elected on a mandate of trying to control immigration, say the same. We have, however, to be honest, in this Chamber and in this Parliament: we can control only outside-EU immigration. We are unable to control EU migration, so other areas must be particularly hit, including former Commonwealth countries. The bar is set extremely high, and it has an unfair and disproportionate effect on certain communities and industries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the curry industry. What he said was absolutely right, but the Chinese food industry is affected as well. The curry industry is worth £4 billion and employs 100,000 people across many of our constituencies. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned training up people. Yes, we can do that, but it seems rather perverse that a poor Polish immigrant can walk into this country and take up any vacancy they find in any industry, including the hospitality industry or a curry restaurant, even though they might not have the relevant skills, while a poor skilled Bangladeshi chef is not able to that because the bar is set so high.

My hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam, for Northampton South (David Mackintosh) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and I returned two weeks ago from visiting a social action project in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a very poor country and it will be enormously difficult for its people to jump the bar to get in and take up vacancies. Someone from the EU can walk in and, hopefully, get a job in any restaurant by virtue of their EU membership.

In response to public concern, we have made it our mandate to cut immigration to tens of thousands, but my own concern is that certain countries are discriminated against. People from those countries have families here and other ties to the UK. We should not just tinker with the margins of the figures by hitting only non-EU countries. We need to look at immigration as a whole and ask ourselves what we can, and cannot, realistically control.

I want to regain control of our borders so that the UK once again says welcome and gives refuge and asylum to those it wishes to come and shows the door to illegal immigrants. Yes, we need controlled immigration. Yes, we need a reasonable debate. However, we do not need nasty, small-minded xenophobia, which wording such as that in the petition encourages and feeds. The petition and its wording have got it wrong on so many levels. After we have considered it today, I suggest that we consign it to the dustbin, where it belongs.

I want a debate on immigration. I do not want a shouty, nasty, ill-informed petition that means we are then discussing whether people are trying to turn us into Muslims or grab our jobs or whether to stop this, that and the other. We need to say why we believe in controlled immigration and explain how we can control it, recognising that we have control over only small amount. That leads to the big debate, which I look forward to having over the next few months, on whether we should throw the whole thing up in the air and say, “Do we want to be able to control our borders?” If being a member of the EU means that we cannot, that is part of the robust debate we should be having. I am pleased to have had the chance to put those comments on the record. I look forward to the vitriol, which I will wear with pride.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

This is one of those occasions when I am pleased to get the chance to speak but wish it was in significantly different circumstances. I agree that we need to have a rational debate about immigration, but it is impossible to have one based on the petition submitted to us. It is perfectly in order for anyone to ask for an immediate end to immigration and all borders to be closed immediately, as the petition does—although, as has been pointed out, a border cannot be closed only one way; immigration can only be stopped in both directions—but the rest of the petition is a series of statements, most of which are demonstrably untrue. They are inflammatory, xenophobic, Islamophobic and just about every kind of phobic that someone would care to avoid having to be involved in, and that is not how we should conduct a debate about immigration.

The debate on immigration has descended to that level because the kind of nonsense in the petition has been around for a long time and none of the major UK parties before we became a major UK party was prepared to deal with that in the way that they should, which is to stand up to it and tackle it head on, rather than allow it to become an argument about who can be tougher on immigration. I am bitterly disappointed that the Conservative party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats did not take the chance to stand up and say, “This demonisation of foreigners, immigrants and people because of their religion or creed is utterly wrong. It is un-British for those who believe that being British is a great thing to want to hold on to.” As a Christian, I believe that the attitudes shown in the petition are fundamentally un-Christian. I know for a fact from speaking to a great many friends who are followers of Islam that those narrow-minded, xenophobic ideas run counter to the philosophy and truth of Islam.

[Steve McCabe]

I know that one thing the Conservative party and the Scottish National party have in common is the desire to kick the Labour party, but does the hon. Gentleman not see any slight contradiction between on the one hand being accused of opening the floodgates and letting 2.5 million flow into the country and on the other being accused of demonising immigrants? Does he not think there may be a contradiction there?

[Peter Grant]

I think the contradiction is between the hon. Gentleman’s comments and the fundraising mugs that his party was selling during the election with the slogan, “Controls on immigration.” As soon as one starts to play the anti-immigration line in the context of anti-immigration political parties—one such political party has been reduced to one Member in the House of Commons—we have lost the chance to have a proper debate about a serious issue that concerns a lot of people.

Belatedly, I need to declare an interest. In fact, we all need to declare an interest, because one day not that long ago, we were all immigrants. This place operates on alien immigrant principles that were introduced by a bunch of illegal immigrants called the Normans. If we all go back far enough—some of us do not have to go back far at all—we are all descended from immigrants. My great-grandparents were immigrants. My father-in-law is an immigrant. My dear departed godmother, Auntie Mary, was an immigrant. I have a brother and a sister who are immigrants—not a half-brother and half-sister or step-brother and step-sister. We have the same mum and dad. We were born a few miles apart, because a new hospital had been built by the time they came along.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees (Richard Harrington)]

It is an honour and a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I am sorry that I did not have the chance to say the same to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who after a long stint in the Chair presumably had to leave to enjoy some refreshments.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for serving on the Petitions Committee and for leading this debate as he did. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate; I am delighted to say that every single person who has spoken, without exception, has rejected the petition’s wording. That did not surprise me. I hope that the person who started the petition will realise that within the House of Commons there is no one—not one person, I assume—who agrees with them; if there were, they would have come and spoken. I am pleased about that. I am glad to have the opportunity to have this debate but I personally found the wording of the petition simplistic and, I am afraid to say, quite offensive.

It is clear that controlling immigration is a topic of significant public interest and I suspect that many of the people who signed the petition did so because they believe it is an important matter rather than because they agreed with the wording of the petition; I hope I am right in saying that. Similarly, I welcome the opportunity to debate the wider topic of immigration, but it is a shame that that has been under the umbrella of this particular petition. I know that people know this, but the Government totally disagree with the sentiments of the petition. In particular, we reject the idea that anyone is trying to turn this country into a Muslim country or any other type of country that it is not. I note in particular the comments from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who rejected completely the horrible implication of the wording that being Muslim or supporting Islam is something that in any way contradicts being British. I support her view.

I offer my commiserations to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who cannot point to any immigrants in his family history. Perhaps that is one reason why he supports independence for Scotland; if he has any English ancestors, he would be able to say that he came from immigrants like the rest of us. In all seriousness, I thank him for his contribution and agree with most of what he said.

I can say with some pride that I have immigrants on both sides of my family. My father’s family were refugees from the Spanish Inquisition and came here, via Holland, in the time of Oliver Cromwell. My great-grandparents on my mother’s side were immigrants from Russia and Poland; in fact, my earliest political conversation was when my late grandmother told me I should always vote Liberal Democrat—actually, she said I should vote Liberal, as she was talking about a time before the Liberal Democrats—because Gladstone, when Prime Minister, brought in the legislation that allowed refugees from persecution to come to this country. I place on the record that I did not take her advice.

In all seriousness, we are proud of the fact that the UK is, without any doubt, a multiracial democracy—I do not know what else it could be called. Most sensible people will be proud of that. It is a tribute to us that more and more people from abroad want to come to the UK, because of the economy, strong family ties and our world-class education system. I commend what the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said, but in response to his remarks about students I should point out that the most recent figures for the numbers of students coming here show a 4% increase, year on year. The Government’s reforms with regard to foreign students removed the large number of completely fraudulent so-called schools and colleges. The numbers of students coming to this country has increased.

Everyone would agree that we have a proud history of protecting those most in need. The Prime Minister announced to Parliament at the beginning of last month our agreement to resettle 20,000 vulnerable people from the Syrian crisis. I should make it clear that that agreement is about vulnerable people. Some are currently in camps, but they are mainly outside camps. The majority of refugees in Jordan and in Lebanon, in particular, are living in tents in fields, not in camps; that is also the case for a lot of refugees in Turkey.

We have agreed to resettle 20,000 of those people during the course of this Parliament. They are being selected on the grounds of vulnerability. Among the many good points that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam made in his opening remarks, he mentioned his concern about selecting people who came under false pretences as refugees. We are doing everything we can. We are using the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organisation for Migration, which is very experienced about migration, Home Office and other tests to make sure that those people are selected using the United Nations definition of vulnerability. There is no automatic selection.

[Steve McCabe]

I appreciate that this issue is not the central point of the debate, but although I have no problem with attempts to assess and process those vulnerable people—most folk would agree with that—the Government will need to take about 380 to 400 people a month to meet their own target of 20,000. Given that those vulnerable people are in the camps he has described, and winter is almost upon us, when can we expect to see some of them settled here?

[Richard Harrington]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has been watching the recording of the sitting of the Home Affairs Committee last week; the Chair of that Committee brought up the same point and asked me repeatedly to come up with an actual number. I do not think that giving a running commentary is correct but, as the Prime Minister mentioned today on the Floor of the House, we intend to have settled 1,000 people by the end of the year. It is difficult to average it out on a month-by-month basis, although the numbers per month would be what the hon. Gentleman said.

I am confident that we can do it, but am wary of the pitfalls. Some were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, such as people coming fraudulently, but we must also have the proper preparations for when people get here. Those will include having housing, the correct medical care for both mental and physical health issues, education where appropriate and English lessons, which are very important.

I commend those local authorities that have helped us with resettling the smaller numbers of people we have resettled so far. I visited Bradford; the council there—a Labour council, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) will be pleased to hear—and its leader, Councillor David Green, really are a model for other councils in what they have done for the refugees they have taken. I also commend the response from the Scottish Government and local authorities in Scotland. Generally, the response has been pretty good and we are confident that, at the moment, the number of places being offered is broadly commensurate with the numbers of people. Very many small local authorities have emailed to say that they would be happy to take refugees. That is a credit to this country and all parts of it, although while we very much appreciate what has been said by some of the smaller Scottish islands, in some cases the offers may not be practical. That makes no difference to the validity of those authorities’ comments, however.

The Government recognise the significant migratory pressures on the UK. Immigration puts pressure on public services. It can damage our labour market and push down wages—all points that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) said so eloquently in her speech, worry constituents. She mentioned the Brighton main line, which I know is very typical. However, she also mentioned that in parts of her constituency there are critical shortages of labour. In the past, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) mentioned with regard to Cornwall, labour shortages have been met with willing, able, hard-working and decent immigrants. The issue is therefore very complex.

There have been many really decent speeches. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant)—I will get into trouble for my pronunciation of his constituency’s name.

Humanitarian Crisis in the Mediterranean and Europe

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson]

I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he has just come in, but obviously he has not been listening to a word I have said. I said from the beginning of this opening speech that I am not interested in a bidding war or a discordant note across the Chamber about the things we agree on, and I paid tribute—including following another prompting—to the Government for their effort, and I will continue to do so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman listens to what I am saying. We should ask ourselves, individually and collectively: “Are we doing everything we can?”

In May the European Commission announced emergency resettlement mechanisms that would encompass 40,000 refugees, and today it announced a second emergency mechanism that will involve the relocation of 120,000 refugees from Hungary, Greece and Italy. The Commission called on member states to come to a Commission meeting on 13 September and take a share of that 120,000. Jean-Claude Juncker of the Commission said he wanted “everyone on board”, which I imagine includes the United Kingdom—I certainly hope it does, because the door should not be closed on refugees. He said that action is needed, and action is being undertaken by the United Kingdom. We welcome that—let me say that again—and we ask what more we can do.

Our motion recognises the funding that the Government have committed to humanitarian initiatives to provide sanctuary for refugees in camps across the middle east, as that makes a real difference to people’s lives. It calls for a greater international effort through the United Nations to secure the position of displaced people, and recognises that the Government have committed—again, I stress that we welcome this—to accepting 20,000 vulnerable people from camps in Syria over the next five years. We are calling for additional action, and we hope that, in the spirit in which the motion has been drafted, Government Members will find themselves able to agree. We have called for a Government report to be laid before the House by 12 October 2015 when Parliament returns from the conference recess—that point was made during Prime Minister’s questions by the acting leader of the Labour party, and it seems entirely reasonable.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I do not want to detract from the reasoned tone of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but is it not important to be absolutely clear that children accepted under the vulnerable persons programme will not be kicked out of the country when they reach 18? We were told today that that would not happen, but I understand it could well happen under the programme.

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct in saying that it could happen, but the fact that we have had clarification from the Prime Minister acknowledges that it would be totally unacceptable in the country for that to happen. I have not seen the official statistics, but when I last looked I think that 216 or 217 people were part of the vulnerable persons scheme. That is one reason why the Government had to look pretty quickly at updating their approach to the humanitarian crisis and its scale. We learned that there is not automaticity in vulnerable children who might come to the UK being able to remain in the UK, and we could perhaps have greater clarity in that area from the Government, and greater generosity in providing confirmation that children will not be sent back to countries such as Syria—potentially still in a civil war—when they turn 18.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome my hon. Friend. It is important that we get this right. We saw a big increase in adoption during the last Parliament because of the changes that we made, and what we are putting on the table in this Parliament is not only extra money but the proposal to create regional adoption agencies so that counties and other adoption agencies can come together. What matters above all is finding a loving family and home for the child, rather than ensuring that it is in the precise geographical area where that child is in care.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Q9. I am told that the Prime Minister may be planning a vote shortly using EVEL to repeal our hunting laws. Will this be a case of English hunting for English foxes?

[The Prime Minister]

No, it will be an opportunity for the House of Commons to debate an issue and then have a vote, as we were discussing earlier. I do not know what everyone else came here for, but I think that that is quite a good idea.

Ebola

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

This case shows that the work of the MOD is intrinsically linked to the work on development. We need to see the UK foreign affairs strategy in the round and to be prepared to look at it in that light.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady says that she will hold her nerve, stay the course and support the recovery of health services, but House of Commons Library figures show that she cut health care support to Sierra Leone and Liberia by more than £10 million during this Parliament, only for the Prime Minister to have to top it up by £80 million to deal with the crisis. Does she not need to admit that that is evidence of poor judgment on her part, rather than evidence of her holding her nerve and staying the course?

[Justine Greening]

Since 2010 the UK has spent a total of £64 million in the health sector in Sierra Leone, compared with a total of £23 million spent between 2005 and 2010 under the previous Government. I think that a more constructive approach in this sort of discussion is more productive.

Development Projects (Afghanistan)

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Mr Weir, I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise some issues about the role of the Department for International Development with respect to development projects in Afghanistan. If you will allow me, I would like to begin by making some general observations about how DFID conducts its business.

About 9% of DFID’s 2011-12 budget, some £360 million, was given directly to the private sector. Of the 117 major DFID contracts and procurement agreements—worth nearly £750 million between them—published on the Government’s own portal since January 2011, only nine applied to non-UK firms. The reality of aid under the present Administration is that it is an economic development project largely designed, organised and delivered by the private sector. Nearly £500 million spent by DFID in 2011 went to private consultants. Aid has become a lucrative business for consultants, several of whom take home six or seven-figure salaries.

It is worth remembering that in 2001 the UK Government promised to untie aid and that one of the first commitments of the present Government when it came into office was to reaffirm that decision. The coalition pledged that

“We will keep aid untied from commercial interests, and will maintain DfID as an independent department focused on poverty reduction.”

However, the reality today is that large parts of UK aid are being channelled through big multilateral organisations and British commercial firms. The European Network on Debt and Development—Eurodad, as I believe it is called—has noted that developing countries are often little match for firms from big donor countries. In the UK, KPMG—one of DFID’s top contractors—has an entire department dedicated to working with development groups.

With this approach, the UK Government seem to have adopted the model of the US, which unashamedly ties aid to local business opportunities. It is a model that has acquired a rather sullied reputation in the US, as a result of the activities of Halliburton or the behaviour of International Relief and Development, the contractor company.

Interestingly enough, the US has recognised the potential conflicts of interests with contractors and consultants who play multiple roles, the blurring of the lines between profit and non-profit groups and the risk of using contractors who are not subject to proper oversight and discipline. The US acknowledges that there is a stench of corruption in some of its aid channels. However, at the very time when the US is reviewing its approach and has given a commitment to spend at least 30% of its aid money through Government and organisations in developing countries, the UK seems to be heading in the opposite direction.

DFID has set up a unit to focus on private sector development and claims that it will

“help private enterprise work its miracles as the engine of development”.

However, this approach has been criticised by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which questions how it can be adopted fairly and effectively. The ICAI argues that staff need clear guidance and a framework within which to

“develop a coherent portfolio of projects that, taken together, effectively support economic growth and poverty reduction”.

The ICAI made those comments as part of its investigations into DFID projects in Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Tanzania, but I believe that I can demonstrate that its concerns about projects in Afghanistan are not very different. The ICAI has argued that the current aid model encourages contractors to focus on short-term targets and quick wins, rather than on helping countries to embark effectively on economic growth and poverty reduction. In effect, it is a “get rich quick” approach for some, but according to the ICAI some of DFID’s private sector projects end up having a negative impact on the very people and places that they are supposed to help.

In the financial year 2011-12, DFID awarded 135 contracts worth a total of £489 million. Five individual contractors secured 50% of that funding. Of course, the model being used permits many contractors to have multiple contracts, and so we see organisations such as Adam Smith International with 28 live contracts, Mott MacDonald with 27 and Coffey International with 20.

When I debated the question of the Bost airfield and agri-park in Afghanistan—a debate in Westminster Hall, as it happens—on 18 March, I asked a number of questions about the contractual arrangements surrounding the Bost development proposals. In her reply to that debate, the Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone)—did not mention the memorandum of understanding that had been signed in mid-February 2011, but I am sure that she must have been familiar with the terms of that agreement and how it limited the capacity of either party to pull out of the project unless it faced a major collapse.

I have looked again at what we know about the Bost project, and I want to press the Minister who is here today to tell me, if he can, what went so drastically wrong in the 22 months from February 2011, when the agreement on the project was signed, and December 2012, when the Secretary of State for International Development says she terminated the project after a visit to Afghanistan. I hope he has some idea of the specific events that led to the termination of the agreement and that he can say a little more today about what led to it. What factors spiralled out of control and forced the Secretary of State to close down the project?

As the Minister will know, the ICAI report on Afghanistan refers to the work on the business park—the Bost agri-park—as being 90% complete, which makes the decision to pull the plug on the project all the more confusing. And what of the Islamic loan product? What has happened to that? Is that more DFID money being written off, or can he give me an update on that project? What has happened to the flexible fund? I understand that it has been transferred, so can he update me on where it has been transferred to? What was the basis of these decisions? Is there any reason why, after two years and with the Department about to embark on a new phase of work in Afghanistan, he is unwilling to clear up some of the questions about what has gone before?

As the Minister will know, the Afghanistan Investment Support Agency, or AISA, issued a statement on its website, in which it said:

“On 9th January 2013, DFID without any rational reason informed AISA that they have decided to stop funding for the development of the first phase of the BABP.”

That is, the Bost agri-business park. The statement continued:

“DFID’s unprofessional team involved in BABP project and their lack of understanding and expertise about its own project arrangements has been surprising”.

That sounds as if our Afghan partners thought that DFID had not behaved very well over this matter.

The Secretary of State has told me repeatedly that she made the decision to end the Bost project after visiting Afghanistan in December 2012, because of a failure of our partners to complete the work and the fact that the project could no longer be considered value for money. However, the outgoing deputy head of mission, Mr Fergus Cochrane-Dyet for the Helmand provincial reconstruction team, wrote to the provincial governor on 8 January 2012, 11 months before the Secretary of State decided to terminate the project, and said:

“We could not obtain the necessary assurances on environmental and land related issues required by the UK to complete responsible construction within a reasonable timeframe. We will stop our involvement in the Park now because the cost to complete the Park exceeds the economic benefits we estimate will follow.”

I want to know, as straightforwardly as possible, whether Mr Cochrane-Dyet is blessed with second sight. Is that how he was able to anticipate the Secretary of State’s decision? Alternatively, does he just not know when he entered and left Afghanistan? Is it just a mistake? It would also be useful to know who the key figure was at the centre of this agreement and the memorandum of understanding.

I understand that the programme director was a Mr Dominic d’Angelo, but the agreement was actually signed by an “acting head”, a Mr Andrew Kidd. There may, of course, be a perfectly simple explanation, but I am curious to know whether Mr d’Angelo’s role as an employee of the consultancy firm Upper Quartile could have had anything to do with it.

The Secretary of State answered my parliamentary question on 11 June 2014, telling me that her Department paid only three consultancy firms directly for work relating to the Bost airfield and agri-park development, none of which were Upper Quartile. However, Upper Quartile’s website mentions its work relating to the Helmand growth fund on behalf of the UK Government and spells out that it has done work in relation to the Bost project:

“the company’s experienced team is reviewing the investment potential—both domestic and international—in the Bost Airfield and Agriculture Park.”

Of course, like many other firms, Upper Quartile is not the beneficiary of just one DFID contract, but several. Again, in June 2013, Upper Quartile was tasked by DFID with providing advisory support to a Minister with a high degree of visibility in the Afghan Government. I know about this because I read it in a news release written by one Dominic d’Angelo, in his capacity as an adviser to Upper Quartile.

Upper Quartile seems to be a very important contractor for DFID. Mr d’Angelo went to Kabul in 2009 as a DFID employee then went on to serve as a ministerial adviser to Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, and then as a senior adviser to Minister Amin Arsala. But in 2011 he was still working for DFID as the man in charge of DFID’s Afghanistan growth and livelihoods team, responsible for at least £150 million of taxpayers’ money. At least two other prominent Upper Quartile employees who appear on its website also seem to have been DFID employees.

The Minister will know that I have tried to indulge my curiosity on these matters by submitting some freedom of information requests. On 16 January, I asked whether I might have a copy of the appraisal report produced by Upper Quartile consultants on the Bost agri-park. The Department replied that the report was being withheld under regulation 12(4), as the material is still in the course of completion and contains unfinished documents. The project was closed down by the Secretary of State in December 2012. Is the Minister saying that the report is still material in the course of completion and an unfinished document?

In September 2013, I submitted an FOI request and asked whether I could see a report in relation to a contract won by the Mott MacDonald consultancy firm, which covers an impact assessment and extensive planning regarding the Bost airfield and agricultural business park programme. I was told that the request was being refused under regulations 12(3) and 13(2), as the Department believed that letting me have this report would involve releasing details that would breach the legitimate expectation of an individual’s right to protection of personal information. Naturally, I am not clear what personal information was involved. I was asking to see a report on planning and an impact assessment. The request was also refused on the grounds that it was unfinished material. Will the Minister confirm today that he still regards it as unfinished material? When might it become finished material?

I am aware of at least three consultant reports on the Bost airfield and agri-park project, two of which the Department has refused to let me see and a third, by Coffey International consultancy group in July 2010, which says:

“Bost park represents a high risk investment that has a high risk of financial failure.”

Naturally, I can only speculate about what the other two appraisals say and how so much of our money continued to be committed to this project.

DFID’s own website, “Development Tracker”, says that only £2.7 million of taxpayers’ money was spent on the airfield and business park, yet a Minister—a different Minister, I should say—told me in response to a question in October 2013 that a total of £8.42 million was spent on the airfield and business park programme. How do we account for the additional £5.7 million? Will he tell me exactly what the £2.7 million was spent on and what the remaining £5.7 million was spent on? How much of it went on consultancy fees and which companies and/or individuals were the beneficiaries?

I understand that Mott MacDonald, as well as producing a Bost consultancy report, was contracted to develop the engineering design for the park and training for the Helmand-based businesses, and that it in turn subcontracted part of this work to Monic & Monic Consulting, to provide capacity-building training for local businesses. It is alleged that Monic & Monic then charged local businesses for writing a business plan: the allegation is that it was paid twice. Is the Minister familiar with this accusation and has it been investigated? Will he say today that he will investigate it? Can he say categorically that these allegations play no part in the Department’s decision to give so little information about these companies, their contracts and the termination plan?

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s report of March 2014 was less than flattering about DFID’s efforts in Afghanistan. It cites

“examples that include weak component design and assessment for the Bost Agri-Business Park, the Flexible Fund, the hybrid Sharia-compliant loan product and the biomass project, all of which were ultimately cancelled or transferred to other programmes.”

It accuses DFID of indulging in over-ambitious and complex programme design and of a lack of consultation with intended beneficiaries. Indeed, the report points out that the more ambitious and multifaceted the projects, the less successful they were, and that even where projects are deemed as successful, it is not clear how long the positive impacts will be sustained.

The review covers the effectiveness of DFID’s bilateral growth and livelihood projects, which account for approximately 30% of DFlD’s annual aid budget in Afghanistan.

The ICAI report makes some key recommendations and I should be interested to hear the Minister’s view of them. It says that DFID needs to review formally current and future projects and focus its portfolio more firmly on reducing poverty, using evidence-based interventions. Does he intend to take that advice? It says that DFID should ensure that the intended beneficiaries are, as far as is practicable, directly consulted when new projects are being designed. How will he respond to that challenge? Can he confirm today that it is still the Department’s intention to proceed with a major project on tackling violence against women and girls in Afghanistan? Can he say more about how that project is proceeding and what companies and/or organisations are involved? Who has been consulted to date?

ICAI also says that DFID should enhance its approach and commitment to independent monitoring to assess current and future project performance, and to allow proper assessment of the impact of the programmes. How does the Minister intend to address that?

There is an unpleasant smell about some of DFID’s dealings in Afghanistan; the same names and companies appear too often. The British public puts a high value on aid to developing countries, but they expect that money to be invested in health and education programmes, and in investment that helps local people to improve their own economy and living standards. It should not be a get-rich-quick scheme for a privileged few. We need more transparency and more evidence of value for money for the British taxpayer.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)]

I last visited Afghanistan in 1976, when it was a very different place. I had the pleasure, and indeed the liberty, to hire a horse and ride round the lakes of Band-e Amir and to visit the standing Buddhas at Bamiyan, since destroyed by the Taliban, all entirely on my own and entirely safely. Of course, things have changed dramatically since those days. The British taxpayer has shed treasure and British soldiers, sailors and airmen have given their lives and shed much blood in attempting to return Afghanistan to some form of stability. Perhaps those days will come again.

Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and, after 30 years of warfare, we have the extraordinary situation where the average lifespan is only 49 years. One third of the population lives on less than 70p a day. Barely one in three is literate and able to read and write, and one child in 10 dies before their fifth birthday. It is unlikely that, or rather, it is certain that Afghanistan will not meet any of the millennium development goals before 2020. That is why we believe it is right that we should have a lasting commitment as a partner to Afghanistan for the long term. Our aim is to deliver 71,000 jobs for people in Afghanistan and to provide primary education for 5.4 million people, with 40% of the places for girls. We want to assist, and we provide important technical assistance on the public finances and to address corruption, strengthen basic services and fundamentally improve the lives of women, as well as providing resilience for the country in the face of natural disasters, given that it is situated in earthquake zones and subject to those dangers.

The focus of much of our development has been on the rural economy and providing for the distribution of goods and access to markets. Since 2002, we have been the largest donor to the World Bank’s Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund. I should point out to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) that about half our aid to Afghanistan is channelled through the World Bank to provide basic services to people. The achievements of the Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund include the delivery of some 9,321 miles of road, benefiting some 6 million people.

We also support the infrastructure trust fund, which provides finance for power. As a result—this is among the other achievements of that fund—some 30% of households are now on the electricity grid. We also contribute to the comprehensive agriculture and rural development facility, which tackles obstacles to rural development, increasing productivity, encouraging value-added production and improving rural incomes. It has delivered some 6,663 jobs, of which 1,977 have been for women. It has increased incomes by some £2 million, delivered 800 small farms and 250 greenhouses, and provided for canals and reservoirs. The next phase of the project begins this year, with an even more ambitious target of 13,000 jobs and an increment to incomes of some £88 million.

We are presented with an enormous opportunity by the political developments in Afghanistan with the new Ghani regime, and we will be hosting a conference in London in December to catalyse on that. The conference was originally conceived as a technical catch-up on the conference that took place in Tokyo to try to keep Afghanistan up to the mark in delivering its side of the development bargain, by reducing corruption and living up to our expectations on probity. The situation has fundamentally changed with the Ghani regime and his welcome appointment of his main presidential rival as Chief Executive Officer, or, to all extents and purposes, as Prime Minister—although the Afghanistan constitution does not have a role of Prime Minister, that is the nearest comparison by which to paraphrase that role. He has put his rival in that role and announced by presidential decree a reopening of the investigation into the plundering of the Kabul Bank in 2012.

[Steve McCabe]

The Minister is making a fascinating, upbeat speech, but we are a bit like ships passing in the night. Given that it does not sound as though he will be able to address the points I have raised, I ask him to look at what I said and give me a thorough written response.

[Mr Swayne]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come to his points, but the title of the debate entitles me to put on record the policy of the Department and the achievements we have made and seek to make. With respect to the opportunity that is now opening up, it is time to re-engage with Afghanistan in the London conference in December, which will provide an opportunity for the new Afghan regime to lay its cards on the table and show its commitment to reform. The conference will provide us with the opportunity to restate our long-term commitment to Afghanistan, notwithstanding our withdrawal from the combat role.

The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the Bost development before. On account of that and the 40 parliamentary questions that he has tabled on the matter, I took some trouble before this debate to look into what he clearly sees as a conspiracy of silence to conceal information from him. Given the number of questions and the new information he has presented today, he is right: I will not be able to address them all in this debate, although I will attempt to address as many as I can.

My immediate reaction on having read his earlier Westminster Hall debate was to think, “Is there a conspiracy?” As a fellow Member of the House—and one who served under his chairmanship in that famous private Bill Committee—I say to the hon. Gentleman that while it may smell rotten to him, I am of the belief that there is nothing rotten here. However, given what he has said today, I will of course go away and look at it again. I make a genuine offer to him. I know how frustrating it must be to try to elicit information through parliamentary questions, only to get a glacial increase or increment or a step back with each one, but I am more than happy to pursue this matter through correspondence. I will be as open as I can.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made good use of the Department’s website. We believe in transparency and making things public, with respect to freedom of information requests. Will the report ever be finished? I am afraid the answer is: “No, it won’t.” As I understand it, the reason the report he referred to has not been released is because it was a draft report.

[Steve McCabe]

Reports.

[Mr Swayne]

They were draft reports. DFID had no intention of proceeding with the scope covered in those reports. We were for carrying forward a much smaller project. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the memorandum of understanding. My understanding is that—

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The UK is building vital new roads and bridges and helping Nepal to bring in foreign investment, including on hydro power. In the past three years, UK aid has created 150,000 jobs and built or maintained more than 4,000 km of roads in Nepal.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

T5. Is it still part of DFID’s strategy to try to reduce opium production in Helmand province, and if it is, can we have an update on the progress?

[Justine Greening]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for ensuring that our development work in Afghanistan is effective. He will be aware that we have done a significant amount of work in relation to livelihoods and economic development both in Kabul and, critically, out in Helmand. I am happy to write to him with further details on that.

Afghanistan

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

That is an excellent suggestion. We are working across Government in preparation for the NATO summit. It is fantastic that we are hosting it, and that we are hosting it in Wales. I very much want to make the most of that opportunity to reach out to those diaspora groups that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Commission for Aid Impact gave an amber-red rating for a third of the projects, including the growth in livelihood project, which is relatively poor. Does the Secretary of State think that there is an argument for looking again at the process by which development officers identify, select and allocate funding to those projects?

[Justine Greening]

One thing I have tried to strengthen in DFID is programme management capability, which includes the way in which and the speed with which we respond to programmes that are not on track. We look at Afghanistan, and other such places, because it is such a challenging environment for us to deliver and monitor projects while they are happening on the ground. The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly good point, and I can assure him that this is a good time for us to look at our Afghanistan programme given the transition that has taken place in the delivery of our projects—some of our projects used the provincial reconstruction team in Helmand, but now we have retrenched within Kabul. I assure him that we are planning ahead to understand what the next three-year outlook should be for our livelihoods programmes and to make them a success.