Global Poverty

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. On his general point, he is absolutely right about the importance of including in all our aid and development activity a climate-smart approach—one that, as he says, reflects the importance of the environment. In opposition I had an opportunity to see the direct correlation between those issues in many different parts of the world, and, although I shall not speak extensively today about climate change, I very much hope that there will be another opportunity to do so, and I take his point on board.

In respect of the figure of 10%, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the result of the spending review, but as he will know, the “fast start” money, which the previous Government announced and we support, will all come out of that 10% and out of the official development assistance budget. We have confirmed that that will happen under our Government, too.

I deal now with the changes that we are making in my Department, and the plans that we set out in the coalition agreement. A protected budget, at a time when expenditure elsewhere is being reduced, imposes a double duty to eliminate waste and unnecessary expenditure and to demonstrate at every turn that we are achieving value for money.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position; I am very pleased to see him and his team in place. One dilemma under the previous Government was that, although money was poured into various countries, whether it should have gone there was questionable. India, for example, has a space programme, and China hosted one of the most elaborate and expensive Olympic games ever. In South Africa, I recently visited the Khayelitsha townships, which were horrifying to see, but at the same time there are rich parts of that country. One must ask whether we might put more pressure on those countries to help themselves, rather than just passing on money—I hear, in China—to the tune of £30 million. Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to consider those issues?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his detailed intervention. If he will allow me to come to the point directly, I shall then answer his specific point about China.

I was making the point that a ring-fenced budget imposes a double duty on my Department to eliminate waste and unnecessary expenditure, and to ensure that we achieve value for money. Within a few days of taking office, I cancelled funding for five awareness-raising projects, including a Brazilian-style dance group specialising in percussion in Hackney, securing savings in excess of £500,000. In addition, I am cancelling the global development engagement fund, which would have funded further awareness-raising activity in the UK, and creating savings of £6.5 million. I shall make further announcements on prudent and sensible savings over the coming weeks.

I expect shortly to be able to announce that more than £100 million will be saved from projects that are a low priority or not performing. That money will be reallocated to programmes that are more effective in helping the world’s poorest people. Last but by no means least, I am letting out another floor of my Department. That better use of space in DFID will earn revenue of almost £1 million a year, once let.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

Well, let us be clear about what that “leading” role involved. Why is it that Downing street admitted to The Guardian that the Prime Minister had simply

“not fought for the commitments to be included”

in the communiqué? To quote another NGO, Save the Children was moved to describe the resultant dropping of the Gleneagles communiqué as simply “shameful”. So can the Secretary of State now tell us how many phone calls and meetings he and the Prime Minister held with other Ministers about maintaining their Gleneagles promises? Did they go the extra mile, or did they merely give up? The silence is deafening.

[Mr Ellwood]

As we are exchanging quotes, let me put on the record the truth about what happened regarding Gleneagles. ActionAid said that

“David Cameron is battling hard to safeguard the Gleneagles legacy… Cameron can hold his head high as the UK is standing by its aid commitments.”

Rather than this silly exchange of quotes, we need to move the focus of the debate back on to poverty. Although these new organisations, such as the G8 and G20, are important, it is the older organisations, such as the UN, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, that have to pick up the pieces. The latter organisations are now out of date, having been created when the world was very different, but have to comply with what the G8 and G20 tell them to do. The failure lies there, rather than with the British Government.

[Mr Alexander]

It ill behoves the Conservative party to offer warm words of endorsement to the non-governmental organisation sector in the United Kingdom and then express such discomfort when their policy experts make a judgment on the conduct and performance of the Prime Minister in his first international summit.

I shall turn to the G20. I will, of course, welcome any attention that the new and larger grouping pays to international development and tackling poverty. I believe it is vital that the G20 discusses the wider global economic architecture, that the concerns of the poorest countries are at the forefront and that issues such as taxation and the regulation and taxation of the financial markets are treated as development issues, in the way we sought to do at the London G20 summit. I must express some scepticism, however, about another forum—the working group on development—being created under the auspices of the G20 at the same time as the G8 appears to be abrogating its responsibilities. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister tell the House how he envisages the new G20 group working and how it will be held to account?

Members of the G8 and G20 need to reach beyond the easy myopia that often besets publics and politics in difficult times. That is why I argued, in the White Paper that we published in 2009, that we must not turn away in fear and isolation. Although we rightly focus on tackling the global economic crisis, we must also take the longer view. We need to help fashion a world in which better regulated, greener and fairer markets operate for all, and in which growth and prosperity is generated and poverty alleviated, but not at the expense of people or the planet, on which we all depend. We need to create a world in which the skills and energies of the private sector are harnessed for the benefit of all, but in which its excesses are not treated as an acceptable by-product. We need to create a world in which we help to tackle the conflict and insecurity that blights the lives of so many ordinary people, particularly women and girls, with a broad-based concept of stabilisation, conflict prevention and peace-building that treats security and justice as basic services. We also need to create a world in which we maintain our promises to deliver the aid that helps to catalyse development and realise rights, that puts children into school, helps mothers have safer births, and ensures clean drinking water is available.

We must recognise that tackling poverty cannot be reached by spending aid alone—on that there is common ground between us—although our aid remains essential. We must take a transformative and holistic approach to development, looking at the wider global economy and issues such as tax, conflict, sustainability and gender.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I am grateful for that admission from the Secretary of State, and I hope it will be followed up in the Minister’s speech later with some clarity on the timing of when we can seek to make progress.

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. He is demanding, or requesting, that we expedite our interest in moving towards 0.7%, and that is understandable. However, he was in power for 13 years. One of the first private Members’ Bills I was involved in was put forward by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), who proposed that the then—and indeed any—Government commit to this target. That was agreed and supported by Front-Bench Members at the time. Why, then, is the former Secretary of State now demanding that Conservative Members move faster, given that he had plenty of time to introduce this target into law under his own Administration?

[Mr Alexander]

As I have said, I am happy to have both main parties’ records scrutinised. We trebled aid, whereas the previous Conservative Government halved it. My right hon. Friend played an honourable and distinguished role in ensuring that, through the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, there is effective scrutiny by the House of the rising budget line we delivered year on year. [Interruption.] Forgive me, but I will continue to speak through Mr Deputy Speaker.

I can assure hon. Members that I support the legislation that the Labour party proposed and brought to the International Development Committee for scrutiny. I would welcome the opportunity for our legislation to be passed expeditiously.

There is the question of where and how our aid money is allocated across Government, and on what it is spent. We believe that the majority of our overseas development assistance should naturally be programmed and allocated by the Department for International Development. We were joined in that view by the Secretary of State’s now Cabinet colleague the Scottish Secretary, who warned during the recent general election campaign of the danger that Conservative plans could mean large sums ending up being diverted from the aid budget—for example, to count as climate finance in due course.

Let me quote to the House directly from the letter from the now Secretary of State for Scotland to the now International Development Secretary:

“Dear Andrew…I am flattered by the attention that your researchers are paying to us, but would politely suggest that their efforts would be better spent explaining to voters and the ‘development community’ how Conservative plans for DfID would work; specifically, the very real danger that under your proposals DfID departmental expenditure would leak to other departments such as the MoD and the FCO, what exactly is meant by ‘injecting business DNA into the department’ and how exactly your proposed annual monitoring could hope to work for multi annual programmes.

In other words, time better spent answering the very serious points raised by the NGOs and others about your own manifesto.

With kind regards,

Michael Moore.”

Elsewhere in that intriguing exchange of letters, the Secretary of State attacked the now Scottish Secretary and the now Business Secretary for “undermining” the consensus on international development.

However, I am glad to say that it appears that the differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals have been resolved—in the same way that a python resolves its differences with a mouse. In the coalition programme for government, we see no mention of additionality in climate finance, despite the fact that climate finance is such a crucial issue, as has been recognised across the House today. In contrast, we made it clear in government that from 2013 we would ensure that additional sources of climate finance would be provided, with no more than 10% of our aid spending being allocated to that purpose. The Liberal Democrats had also called for additional climate finance, but alas, like their promises on VAT, this now appears to have been another promise that has been conveniently forgotten. Will the Minister of State therefore tell us whether the Government intend to make any form of additional climate finance available, from what point, and from what sources? If he answers that none will be provided, perhaps he can tell us what he feels the prospects are for the climate negotiations in Cancun later this year, in the absence, as yet, of post-2013 commitments from the Government.

I would also appreciate it if the Minister could explain in more detail than we heard from the Secretary of State what is meant by the Government’s proposals for a military-led “stabilisation and reconstruction force”. We took a pragmatic but appropriate approach to stabilisation in government, recognising the complementary but distinct roles that development, diplomacy and defence should play in places such as Afghanistan. In one of the bloodiest weeks of the conflict, our thoughts must be with the families and loved ones of those British soldiers who have fallen in the service of their country in recent days. The sacrifice of our troops in Afghanistan demands that those charged with the heavy responsibility of overseeing the mission should bring strategic clarity to that onerous and important task.

The Prime Minister confirmed to the House in recent days his commitment to the counter-insurgency campaign in which NATO is engaged. That of course requires military force, but in the words of the US army’s counter-insurgency field manual, authored by the new commander, General David Petraeus, action is also required to

“uphold the rule of law, and provide a basic level of essential services and security for the populace.”

My personal conversations with General Petraeus confirmed to me the depths of his personal commitment to a comprehensive approach that requires more than just military pressure, yet since coming into government, the Secretary of State’s colleague the Defence Secretary has declared:

“We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of education policy in a broken 13th century country”.

Such ignorance of the key tenets of strategic doctrine, even from a new Defence Secretary, is as surprising as it is worrying.

For progress to be achieved through a comprehensive approach to counter-insurgency—and so that the war be ended—what is required is both strengthening of the state and its legitimacy, and striving for a political settlement, as surely as also weakening the Taliban militarily. Under such an approach, diplomatic, development and defence efforts will all play a crucial part in bringing about the conditions under which our brave forces can return home. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister explain to us in more detail how the proposed force will be funded, managed and directed?

As I have intervened to suggest, the Secretary of State has also been at pains in recent days to stress the importance of

“redesigning our aid programmes so that they build in rigorous evaluation processes from day one.”

Perhaps the Minister of State will take the opportunity—avoided by the Secretary of State—to explain the outputs of the £200 million that has been announced by the Prime Minister, most recently on his welcome trip to Afghanistan.

Let me turn to the crucial issue of basic services such as health, education and clean water. I am concerned by what I know to be the ideological approach taken by many on the Government Benches about the role of the private sector in the provision of basic services. Instead of seeing steps forward such as those that were recently taken in Sierra Leone, where health care was made free for pregnant women and babies, I fear that we could see ill-advised and ideological voucher schemes, or other forms of private subsidy that fail to catalyse wider change and are more likely to exclude the marginalised and the poorest. Does the Minister of State intend to continue promoting the removal of user fees, including through the establishment of a centre for progressive health financing? Can he also assure the House that he will make efforts, as we pledged to do, to raise the crucial issue of water and sanitation further up the international agenda?

Related to that, there is the question of our effort and engagement on those vital issues. As we have already revealed in these exchanges, when it comes to international negotiations and diplomacy, it requires real and sustained effort and personal engagement at the highest levels to make the sort of difference that is demanded by the scale of the challenges that we face. So it was, again, sad but revealing that, when questioned in the House last week, the Prime Minister could not confirm whether he had even spoken to President Zuma, other African leaders or even other donors before the crucial summit on education in South Africa in a few weeks’ time. Perhaps the Minister of State could tell us what efforts the DFID ministerial team has been making to ensure that the summit is a success.

The Secretary of State has launched a review of multilateral and bilateral funding from DFID. I do not disagree with that approach—indeed, we regularly undertook similar reviews—but he needs to be clear about whether this is a serious review or whether he is merely creating straw men before destroying them. At the announcement of the bilateral programme review, he simply got it wrong by talking about Russia, when DFID has not had a bilateral programme in Russia since 2007. Clearly he is now belatedly catching up with the facts on China, too, since as recently as 28 May he wrote to The Daily Telegraph acknowledging that

“the China aid programme will end next year.”

He also knows full well since coming into office, thanks to the reviews that I and other Ministers regularly undertook, that it was already the case that 90% of our bilateral aid was focused on just 23 countries, and the vast majority of that on the poorest people.

The Secretary of State has spoken of taking the Prime Minister’s idea about the big society to the global level, saying that his

“approach will move from doing development to people to doing development with people—and to people doing development for themselves.”

Frankly, the idea that DFID or many of Britain’s leading charities, to which the Secretary of State has paid generous tribute today, “do” development to poor people bears little relationship to reality and how much has, thankfully, changed in the development community over past years. Country-led development was a principle that a Labour Government established when DFID was created, not to mention ending the Tory policy of tying our aid.

The Secretary of State talked a lot today about change, but I believe that the new Government have found that much of what they see in DFID shows that it is working effectively. Indeed, as he was forced to concede in one of his first speeches:

“I have been struck by how much DFID contributes to Britain’s global reputation. How it has broken new ground in international development and often succeeded where others have failed.”

We are told that the Minister of State, who is sitting next to him, has also been focused on change in the Department. However, according to the newspapers, that appears to have been more about ministerial accommodation. Out went the pictures of Africa and those whom we were helping and partnering; in came a flagpole, a velvet curtain and a framed photo of the hon. Gentleman beaming his inimitable smile with the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. That is hardly inspirational to the staff of a Department that, under her Government, watched the percentage of gross national income halve after 18 years in which aid had been trebled. In all seriousness, however, what concerns me is not what is on the Government’s walls, but what is not in the statements that they have made so far.

What concerns me most about this Government’s approach to global poverty, even in these earliest weeks, are the limitations of the vision, and, indeed, of ambition, that have so far been revealed. With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I was deeply disappointed by his speech to the Carnegie Foundation in Washington last week, despite the fact that it dealt with vital topics such as gender and development. There was nothing particularly wrong with many of the assertions it contained, but it was a series of assertions in search of an argument. Indeed, I cannot recollect someone travelling so far to say so little.

I therefore ask the Secretary of State: what is the clear forward agenda, beyond the re-packaging of existing policies? With just weeks to go, where are the Government’s clear and concrete proposals and red lines for the UN millennium development goals summit in September? Where is the detailed vision about how we tackle climate change and promote development, and how those can be effectively aligned? Indeed, where are the serious commitments on issues such as climate finance?

The Secretary of State rightly talked about the importance of measures “beyond aid”, but where is the crucial strategy on issues such as taxation and development, highlighted, even in recent weeks, by the excellent work of charities such as Christian Aid and ActionAid? For example, how can we take forward steps on multilateral and automatic exchange of tax information or measures on country-by-country reporting?

Leadership in international development involves more than having a bonfire of straw men. It involves serious ideas and serious action. Benedict Brogan, writing in The Daily Telegraph last week, revealed:

“The other department that has got the mandarins talking is DfID, where there is a lot of disobliging muttering about Andrew Mitchell, the new broom. His view of what aid policy should be and how it works is going down badly and officials are muttering about abilities”—

so much so, apparently, that he is now being

“monitored closely by No 10.”

Surely the true lesson of leadership in international development can be drawn from the experience of Gleneagles five years ago. At that time, there was a dynamic, independent and vibrant global civil society campaign—connected with politics and politicians who instinctively shared the same values and ambitions—that had the ability, the tenacity and the willingness to work for that shared vision so that great things could be achieved. Sadly, at the moment, we see little sign of those dynamics at work in the most recent summit.

For the sake of those with whom we share a common bond of humanity, of those who today continue to be afflicted by needless and avoidable poverty, and of those with whom we share a common interest in a safer, more sustainable and more equal world, we on this side of this House will continue to scrutinise and challenge this Government where required, and, yes, support them, where deserved. The seriousness of the issues we debate today demands nothing less of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I begin, like others, by paying tribute to three excellent maiden speeches. It was delightful to hear those speeches and I am sorry that the Members who delivered them are no longer in the Chamber to hear my speech. They are probably celebrating in the Tea Room, having got through the first milestone here in Parliament. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who spoke passionately and with great knowledge about his constituency; to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), who is clearly going to be a great contributor to the field of defence and, indeed, international development; and, last but not least, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey). Those of us slightly older in the tooth on the Government side—and that might include yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker—might recall her giving a passionate speech at the annual conference in Blackpool on the theme of “What is a girl like me doing in the Tory party?” That was a fantastic speech, and from her performance here again today, we can see why a girl like her is in this place. I am sure that she will represent her constituents well.

Before moving on to my main theme, I would like to respond to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), who made a passionate plea to keep funding based in the UK, which has been stopped by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Let me quote to that hon. Member—

[Ann McKechin]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

Let me finish the point.

[Ann McKechin]

It was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) who said this, not me.

[Mr Ellwood]

I stand corrected; I mean the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). What it says on the tin—I presume that this was true from when the Department for International Development was created—is that DFID is

“the part of the UK Government that manages Britain’s aid to poor countries and works to get rid of extreme poverty.”

That is not in line with what the hon. Gentleman was pleading for—for funding to remain in his constituency—so perhaps he wants to see the definition of DFID change. I will come back to the definition and its importance later in my speech.

What do we mean by poverty? It is not just about an individual, a community or a country being poor; it is about being economically challenged. Poverty is multidimensional. It is lack of food and water, yes, and it is a lack of shelter; it is also the lack of health and access to medical support. Poverty is also about the lack of education and the inability to read, not having a job, and fearing for the future, living one day at a time. In essence, poverty is about powerlessness, lack of representation and lack of freedom.

I am pleased that we are having this debate so early in this Parliament in order to discuss the issues and the role Britain can play in the future. It is an important debate. I—like many other Members, I am sure—was challenged during the election about why we were ring-fencing funding for international development when there was so much economic pressure on all the other Departments. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spelled out the importance of keeping aid working and of making sure that we are able to support the countries that need it so that they can help themselves. Otherwise, immigration issues and environmental issues will grow, and the problem will become much bigger in the long term.

The causes of poverty can be broken down, crudely, into two areas—the natural and the man-made. On the natural side, there is the swell of population in places like India, or crop failure in places like Sudan or indeed disease and epidemics such as HIV/AIDS in places like South Africa and southern Africa. On the man-made front, equally affecting, we have things like corrupt leadership as we see in Somalia, or civil war as we see right across Africa and particularly in places like Angola. Then there is economic failure or even the deliberate denial of funding to poor communities for necessary projects.

Climate change can also be seen to be man-made as well. If sea levels continue to rise, places like Bangladesh would be hugely threatened. What is called water stress would be the result, and the lack of drinking water is estimated to affect 1 billion to 3 billion people. These are issues that we in the developed world need to debate, even though they may affect more people in the developing world.

The yardstick for our debates is now the millennium development goals, put forward in September 2000 by the United Nations with eight clear aims. The first is the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger. Unfortunately, we are a long way from achieving our 2015 target in that respect. The second is the achievement of universal primary education. The number of children receiving primary education has risen to 89% in the developing world, but we are still short of our millennium goal target. The third is the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women. That remains out of reach, as, indeed, do the reduction of child mortality and improvement in maternal health, which are the fourth and fifth goals.

The sixth goal is the combating of HIV and AIDS; the situation seems to have stabilised in many regions. The seventh is the ensuring of environmental stability, and the eighth is the development of a global partnership for development, which involves developing open trading and financial systems. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke passionately about his attempts to establish and promote such systems in Rwanda.

Those are the eight themes that we will use as our benchmarks. When the countries meet for the summit in New York in September there will be much to discuss and much food for thought, given the huge shortfall between where we are now and where we would like to be by 2015.

What is our role in all this? What can the United Kingdom do to tackle the problems, either individually or with other countries, and how should we contribute? I believe that there are many ways in which the UK can make its mark. We often put our hand up when other countries do not, and it is fantastic that we continue to be willing to step forward and encourage other developed countries that may be reticent.

As I said in an intervention on the shadow Secretary of State, the G8 and the G20 are new organisations that have been able to bring in many voices that may have been excluded in the past. They make decisions and agreements, and issue challenges. Older organisations such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which were created when life was very different during or just after the war, have to pick up the pieces and deal with the details of those challenges.

The older organisations are out of date, and are in dire need of modernisation. While we have renewed and are reinvigorating the methods with which we distribute aid to ensure that we receive value for money, I do not believe that the same can be said for those major organisations. That is why I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been hesitant about handing over money before he has guaranteed to ensure that it will be well spent.

[Ann McKechin]

Let me gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that confusing Glasgow and Edinburgh is not a practice that he should try to repeat. However, he has made an interesting point about the current management of the World Bank and the IMF. Does he agree that we should try to ensure that donee nations have a much bigger say in management and decision making than they do at present?

[Mr Ellwood]

The purpose of the debate is to enable ideas such as that to be put into the pot. In this instance, we are not taking about minutiae, but about the need for a root-and-branch change in the way in which organisations both operate individually and interconnect. Afghanistan is a good example of the failure of huge organisations to co-ordinate their activities sensibly in order to assist with post-conflict reconstruction.

As long as conflict continues in developing areas, poverty will thrive. Only when it ends can peace flourish, which will allow support and investment to move in, and business and trade to flourish as well. That is our role. It is dual-faced. We can use what Joe Nye used to call soft and hard power, or soft and hard influence. On the soft side there are, for instance, the Fairtrade initiatives, and ensuring that we support businesses in developing countries in the knowledge that buying a product in the supermarket will genuinely help people in need rather than corrupt organisations. The setting of tariffs can also help, as can targeted investment and funding—which has already been mentioned—and choosing support responsibly.

Any of us who have travelled to African countries will have observed that China is taking full advantage of those countries’ desire for hard currency, but I am afraid that it is doing so in an irresponsible way. The Chinese are not allowing local skills to be developed. They bus in their own people, rob the country of its minerals, drain it dry and then go home or move on to another area. That is happening on a huge scale, and no one seems to want to challenge it.

I will finish my contribution by discussing conflict and the relationship between DFID and other organisations. For 10 years, DFID has been waking up to the fact that it has had to do something very different from what it was set up to do. It does tackle poverty well, and it has been congratulated on that, but it has had to develop a new role in working in insecure and dangerous environments. I am pleased to say that the stabilisation unit and the other work being done are working well, but we took an awful long time to get there. For the first year in Afghanistan the budget was £47 million but the current budget is £5 billion a year. Had we bothered to get the reconstruction and development right when there was a small window of opportunity to win over the hearts and minds of the locals, we would have been out of Afghanistan by then. I am pleased that DFID has moved forward, I am glad that the new management have pledged to ensure that there is better scrutiny, and I wish the new team well.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—