Security of Women in Afghanistan

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Smith]

I certainly recognise the crucial importance of the aid programme in building on what has been achieved to date. I also recognise that we need to engage with the whole of Afghanistan to get the messages across.

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

I commend my hon. Friend for the work he does with the all-party parliamentary group on Afghanistan. He talks about the challenges for the whole of Afghanistan. Will he join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on the work that the Department has done to promote the interests of women? I have visited the country a number of times, and things have changed—albeit slowly—in the areas of education, health and access to justice. Does my hon. Friend also agree, however, that there are too many disparate agendas? DFID does excellent work, but it often takes place separately from that done by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the non-governmental organisations operating there. Given that we have been in Afghanistan for more than a decade, do we perhaps need greater co-ordination to achieve the success that we wish to see?

[Sir Robert Smith]

Effective co-ordination among all the agencies involved is an important part of maximising the benefit and working together. The conference in London in November could provide an opportunity to focus the minds of all those agencies on adopting a co-ordinated approach.

I want to put on record the names of some of the victims of the attacks on women that have taken place in Afghanistan. Islam Bibi, a senior policewoman from Helmand province, was murdered last July. A few months later, another senior policewoman from Helmand, Lieutenant Negar, was also murdered. Parliamentarian Rooh Gul survived an attack in which her driver and eight-year-old daughter were killed in August. Parliamentarian Fariba Kakar was kidnapped by insurgents and held for ransom before, fortunately, being released in September. Sushmita Banerjee, a well-known author who had written about life under the Taliban, was dragged out of her home and shot 15 times in September. December 2013 was a deadly month for Afghan women. A policewoman, Masooma, from Nimruz was shot on 5 December, and on 19 December a policewoman and a pregnant teacher were found hanged in Uruzgan. In January 2014, Yalda Waziri, a senior government official in Herat, was murdered by unknown attackers who shot her from a motorbike. High-profile attacks such as those get into the news, but many more victims in everyday life go under the radar. Nevertheless, we should be concerned about them, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I am reluctant to interrupt what is a very powerful speech, but does she agree that there is huge concern about the contracts for schools and clinics? The west builds them, but then we do not provide the contracts for the teachers to continue there—certainly after we have left. That applies not only in the southern area, the Pashtun area, where the Taliban operate, but in the north.

[Pat Glass]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the Minister is listening.

As I was saying, it is because of the teachers—my professional colleagues of whom I am so proud—and others working in women's health, human rights and security that the lot of women in Afghanistan has improved. However, that is now at risk as the time of withdrawal draws close. Most international forces are set to withdraw this year, and, as the deadline draws near, women activists, women teachers and doctors and those working on behalf of women in Afghanistan become increasingly concerned about the future.

I want to give just one small example of what is happening now. We worry about what will happen after we withdraw in 2014, but what is going on now? In 2009, the law on the elimination of violence against women finally criminalised acts of child marriage, rape and other forms of violence against women. Despite that, there was a 27% increase in attacks on women last year in a society where attacks on women usually take place within the family and are rarely reported or challenged. Now a small, seemingly inconsequential change in the criminal law could make domestic violence against women almost impossible to prosecute. The new law proposes that relatives can no longer testify when a woman has been assaulted or raped. Essentially, that means that no one can testify on a woman’s behalf, because in Afghanistan a woman rarely sees anyone outside of the family. Relatives are the only people who would ever be privy to a woman being abused, who would see her afterwards or who could testify on her behalf. The change in the law would mean that women could be beaten and raped without any fear of prosecution for the persecutor.

We are withdrawing from Afghanistan, but we have not gone yet. This Parliament, the British Government and international forces need to tell President Karzai now, firmly and loudly, that this kind of law must be repealed. It is an offence to Afghan women and to women everywhere and it needs to go. This is not what Daryn Roy and the other young men and women from constituencies up and down this country fought and died for. Although I understand the need to withdraw, surely we owe an assurance to our war dead and to those who have been injured and who have fought on our behalf in Afghanistan that they did not fight for nothing and that they leave a lasting legacy that includes a better, safer and educated future for the women and girls of Afghanistan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

We are urgently discussing the situation with Médecins sans Frontières, the UN and other donors, and we have made our concerns very clear at senior levels of the Burmese Government. The health situation in Rakhine state is already on the brink of crisis and there must be no deterioration in the provision of health services of which MSF was a crucial part.

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

T5. For Britain to succeed in international upstream engagement, humanitarian missions and stabilisation missions, does my right hon. Friend agree that DFID must co-operate strategically and tactically with the MOD, and this must include allowing the MOD to claim back all funds spent that meet official development assistance criteria?

[Justine Greening]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that DFID and the MOD work closely together on upstream conflict prevention, humanitarian relief and stabilisation, as seen in our response in the Philippines. Only last year we completed a joint analysis with the MOD to make sure that there was full recognition of the MOD’s contribution within the internationally agreed official development assistance definition.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Of course there are still too many people unemployed in our country, but there are 1.6 million new private sector jobs, 1.3 million more people in work, big cuts in unemployment, big reductions in the claimant count, and almost half a million fewer people relying on out-of-work benefits. That is what we want to do, and we have not forgotten the record of the Labour party. Unemployment rose by nearly half a million, female unemployment rose by 24%, and youth unemployment went up by 45%. Instead of giving lectures, the Opposition should make an apology.

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

Q13. In recognising British success at the Oscars, would the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Bournemouth university and the Arts University Bournemouth, as over 50 of their graduates helped with the design effects for that amazing British film, “Gravity”? Does that not prove that Bournemouth leads the way in digital media, is a great tourism destination, and does amazing party conferences as well?

[The Prime Minister]

As ever, my hon. Friend is right about all those things. Bournemouth university has excellent courses that have helped to build up the British post-production and facilities industries, which are busy helping to create blockbuster films. It is very good news not only that are we winning Oscars for British films but that British studios are full to bursting point making movies. The facilities and post-production industries are leading the world. We need to go on backing that industry, which is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken steps with things like helping the computer games industry, helping high-end television, and continuing to back the very important film tax credits that have worked so well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan]

I am confident that not only would the Prime Minister enjoy making such a commitment, but that he could do so truthfully and accurately, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and indeed all of us in the Department for International Development, ensures that the money that we spend on behalf of taxpayers goes to people in need, and not into the pockets of anyone who might be corrupt.

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

May I invite the Minister and the Secretary of State to look at the Ministry of Defence’s stabilisation activities, such as mine clearance, police training in Afghanistan, and the replacement of the Kajaki dam turbine? Those activities are not claimed as going towards the ODA target of 0.7%; if they were, I believe that we would be exceeding it.

[Mr Duncan]

One of the great achievements of this Government is the great co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and DFID, under the auspices of the National Security Council. When it comes to spending, we work very closely with those two Departments, but we must stick within the OECD rules that govern the definition of official development assistance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the conflict pool is a relatively new mechanism to ensure that the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and my own Department work more closely together in fragile and conflict-ridden situations where we know that partnering up can make a difference. We look with interest at the reports from ICAI and the National Audit Office, and we are looking in the next spending review to see how we can strengthen the process and the effectiveness of the way in which the conflict pool works.

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

Will the Secretary of State welcome the comments by the Prime Minister that ODA funding can, in some dangerous environments, be used by the military to provide overseas humanitarian aid and development assistance and begin the process of stabilisation?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The Prime Minister is right to say that we should be open to new ideas about how my Department and the MOD can work more closely together. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the existing ODA guidelines clearly set out what spend can be counted as ODA and what cannot be, but things such as peacekeeping fall within the ODA definition and we should look at how we can work more closely with the Ministry of Defence.

UK’s Development Work (Girls and Women)

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

In recognising international girls’ and women’s day, may I say how sad it was that the Opposition opened up by complaining about the 0.7% of GDP official development assistance spending? They had 13 years in which to correct that position, and this Government are already spending that amount. It was sad that they had to open up with those comments.

I commend my right hon. Friend’s powerful statement, from which I will take away some stark statistics. Women perform two thirds of the world’s work, but they earn only 10% of the income, own 1% of the property and hold 20% of the leadership positions. That suggests that there is much more work to be done. She mentioned that there had not been a good outcome at the UN talks last year. Will she tell us what needs to happen this year to ensure that that outcome is not repeated?

[Justine Greening]

All countries that have been keen to see the strong draft conclusions agreed have been lobbying furiously behind the scenes and in public. I have had two conversations with Michelle Bachelet, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has done some excellent work this week in New York on behalf of the Government as the cross-government champion on violence against women. At EU level, we have encouraged a unanimous EU approach to the issue. However, there is no doubt that those countries that do not want to see progress have also been getting organised, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to avoid a repeat of last year’s outcome. That would be a tragedy, and it is one that we are desperately trying to avoid.

International Development Committee Report (Afghanistan)

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I accept part of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not entirely accept his apocalyptic version of events. Real progress has been made; we should not underestimate that. Although Committee members’ opportunities to travel and engage were limited, we were impressed that people, especially women, told us, “Please be in no doubt that what you’ve done has dramatically improved the quality of our lives, and please don’t abandon us when your troops withdraw.” That is a crucial point.

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

As co-chair of the all-party group on Afghanistan, may I welcome the report and the Minister’s comments? I have been visiting the country regularly since 2005 and am worried that the improvements to security that we have seen have not been matched by advances in sustainable economic development and governance. Afghan fatigue seems to be setting in. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, once the US elections are over, the international community must redouble its efforts to assist Afghanistan in preparing for the situation post-2014, when the international security assistance force finally withdraws?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I absolutely agree. It is important that we say to our taxpayers and to the people of Afghanistan that we have no intention of seeing a curtain come down in 2014, which means that we have withdrawn. There will be a transition, a change and something different.

Sudan

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your tutelage and chairmanship today, Mr Walker. As others have done, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing this important debate. It has come at an interesting time. There are plenty of distractions, both domestic and international, that might focus our attention elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) reminds us of our historical links with the country of Sudan, and why we should take a continued interest in what is happening there and in developments as life moves forward.

Sudan is an exceptional country on many counts. It is one of the largest and most geographically diverse countries in Africa, with huge mountain ranges splitting the deserts in the north and the rain forests in the south, and the River Nile splitting the country from east to west. As with many African countries, its borders are a consequence of colonisation, and a product of the deals that settled imperial battles in the 1800s, which created an artificial state where the political differences between the north and the south matched the geographic contrast that I mentioned.

Indeed, from 1924 until its independence in 1956, British policy in Sudan divided the country into two separate territories: the Muslim area in the north, and the Christian area in the south. It is not surprising that, with such a stark cultural, religious, linguistic and economic difference between the north and the south, the country has been beset by conflict. To suggest, however, that we can divide such things and create a polarised view of the country would be misleading. There are over 200 different ethnic groups, each with their traditional beliefs, cultures and histories, and often their own language.

Conflict there has been. The humanitarian crisis has been described by the United Nations as

“one of the worst nightmares in recent history”,

and various leaders from across the country are accused of war crimes, including President Omar al-Bashir. The conflict has lasted for decades and the civil war has cost the lives of millions of people. It has driven millions of others from their homes, straining relations with neighbouring countries and squandering millions of dollars of international aid. The conflict is denying the country economic prosperity and, as has been mentioned, Sudan is a rich country. Oil has been mentioned a number of times, but there are also reserves of gold and cotton. All that is being squandered because the civil war is in the way.

The long overdue referendum was held in January and the country has been primed to split, which should happen in July this year. As the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill said, one area, Abyei, has still to determine where it will sit under the new order. There is a comprehensive peace agreement, but that resounding issue is unsolved. There are some spoilers; a number of organisations and tribal influences and so on are trying to prevent the peace process from reaching fruition.

Where does the border go? That is crucial. Any map showing the oil fields will illustrate the difficulties and the problem. Much of the oil straddles the border or is in the south, but the oil refineries and ports from where the oil is distributed are in the north towards the Red sea. The south produces 80% of the country’s oil, but currently receives only 50% of the revenue. The north has recognised the desire of the south to split, but it is no velvet revolution.

The Khartoum Government have a history of using proxy forces to bleed political concessions from the south. The most worrying example of that has already been mentioned and is the Lord’s Resistance Army. That Christian fundamentalist group was formed away from Sudan in 1987, and is today led by Joseph Kony. It has no coherent political strategy; it is a bizarre group that draws on religious fundamentalism and urges brutal guerrilla tactics such as cutting off the noses and hands of victims. It claims its members are possessed by spirits, and Kony advises his recruits to smear oil on their chests as a way to protect them from bullets. Its relations with Khartoum are worrying. In the 1990s, Sudan funded and trained the LRA to fight against Ugandan and Sudanese rebels in the south. In 2005, al-Bashir decided to cut links with the group after signing the comprehensive peace agreement. Nevertheless, there are continued reports of LRA activity, and despite official denial of those links, violence in south Sudan persists.

The LRA is not any small group, and it has caught the attention of the United States, which in December 2008 decided to send in the CIA in Operation Lightning Thunder. It was a botched operation that tried to remove the LRA from north-east Africa, and affected not only Sudan, but the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other countries. The operation had an adverse effect because rather than the group being removed, Kony’s troops dispersed into the land where they remain today. That epitomises the challenge of this contemporary conflict which involves a non-state militia group whose activities do not recognise any borders or laws. The group numbers less than 1,000 people, but it seeks to destroy the good work that has been done in the peace agreement.

President Obama has called for the LRA to disarm through the Northern Uganda Recovery Act 2009, and that strategy has been advanced. The Americans have taken the issue seriously and put it in statute to help the future of Sudan. The four objectives of the Act passed by the United States Congress are to increase the protection of civilians; to remove Kony from the battlefield; to promote defections, disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of fighters; and to increase humanitarian access and continued relief.

I would be curious to know whether the Minister believes that the work done by Britain ties in with that done by the United States. The official Government line condemns the actions of the LRA and in February, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), stated:

“We are sparing no effort at all in helping those countries who are on the front line of tackling the LRA, and we are doing all we possibly can to bring its leader to justice in the International Criminal Court as well.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 724.]

I invite the Minister to update the House on what actions Britain is taking, together with the United States, to tackle that group.

Perhaps I may digress and ask the Minister some further questions about funding for Africa. The amount of aid given to Africa every year is about one tenth of the value of the minerals that are exported out of Africa. Much of that money disappears because there is no accountability or transparency to show where that mineral wealth, and the money paid by countries such as China, Britain and others, actually goes. The statistics on the website of the Department for International Development state that about £150 million is given to Sudan every year. Will the Minister spell out how that money is accounted for and how transparency is provided? When the coalition Government were formed, I was pleased to hear the announcement that there would be more scrutiny of spending, to ensure that money is spent in a correct and accountable way.

It is important to step up our support. More incidents of violence are occurring in south Sudan, which suggests that force is being used to disrupt the moves towards peace. That level of violence takes place far away from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which suggests that organisations such as the LRA are receiving patronage from Khartoum or from outside.

As we ponder the consequences of the Arab spring—an opportunity to change things for the better and to sow the seeds of democracy that comes once a generation—we must look at how we can avoid a repeat of what we saw in Iran. Iran had its own revolution where our influence was perhaps not welcome, and we ended up with a regime with which we have not been able to work.

As we focus on Sudan, we must remind ourselves that this is also a once-in-a-generation opportunity and a chance to make a change and introduce a new country to the world. That requires the support of the international community. This rare opportunity that comes once in a generation must be harnessed. The birth of a new and fragile state such as south Sudan needs international support to sow the seeds of democracy and encourage the genesis of economic growth. Most importantly, we must deny insurgents, bandits and violent opportunists the chance to seize power by force. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, Britain’s historical involvement means that we owe it to Sudan to do our part. In the past, we had an historic role in carving out a poorly designed state over a century ago. Let us hope that today we can have a positive influence that might lead to longer lasting peace and prosperity for this new country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I hesitate to interrupt a powerful and authoritative speech. My hon. Friend speaks of education, and we would all agree on its importance. Last year, under the previous Government, DFID provided about £150 million, but only 4% of that went to education. Will my hon. Friend join me in seeking to have that figure increased?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Education is particularly important. Without it, one would find it difficult to get out of the present situation. We have not heard much about gender equality in today’s debate, but education is particularly important for women because they are often the ones who not only do most of the work in these developing countries but are denied their rights the most. Like my hon. Friend, I am keen to ensure that DFID pays great attention to education.

Let me divert for one sentence, Mr Walker. I have stuck to the script so far, but I would like to provide an example. Pratham, a charity in India, has got 20 million boys and girls into education, and that is one of the greatest things that any non-governmental organisation on earth can do.

As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire mentioned, the fifth area that needs assistance, training and expertise is the security and judiciary services. The security services must be educated to understand that they are now operating under a democratic regime, which requires proper scrutiny and accountability. On the judicial side, it is important that proper police courts and prisons are set up so that the rule of law can be maintained and we do not let the southern state revert to a lawless, squabbling load of tribes.

Finally, the other issue that needs addressing is health. Even in Juba, there are virtually no hospitals. If the health system is virtually non-existent in the capital, there must be no trace of it in the rural areas. In a poor country such as this, the health indices are inevitably very low. This is an area in which the international community could rapidly produce some sort of rudimentary health delivery system and start to meet the aspirations of the people.

We need to get the whole issue of democracy up and running. At the moment, 94% of the MPs come from the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and the other 4% come from a breakaway part of the SPLM. We must educate those MPs to understand the need for opposition parties. I sometimes wish that we did not need opposition parties here. Nevertheless, we cannot have a proper democracy without opposition parties. The essential job of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound]

My experience of DFID projects—admittedly, more in central and south America than in Africa—is that the single most important issue is sustainability, not where a product comes from. Many hydraulic kits for wells that have been provided from this country, with the best will in the world, simply do not last because they cannot be repaired and maintained because the parts cannot be sourced locally. That is the tragedy. Of course, if there is a hydraulic water raising factory in the hon. Gentleman’s Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency—there might well be, and if there is not, I am sure that there will be in a couple of weeks—let it cover the globe with its marvellous equipment, but let us also train local people to provide engineering resources so that the equipment can be maintained. We used to say that when the donkeys stop nodding in the oil fields, it takes a great deal to get them nodding again.

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. We are here to talk about Sudan, not about branding DFID.

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not wish to test the line that you have just given, Mr Walker, but we are also talking about what aid or support Britain can give, and the style of that support is important and has been mentioned at least a couple of times. DFID has had a policy of doing things on the quiet. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) makes the significant point that it is important to get the aid there in the first place, but I encourage the Minister to give us an update on where we stand on promoting the fact that Britain is helping so that not only the locals, but the domestic audience, can see where the money is going. We need to enhance our reputation with countries so that we receive the benefits of further deals in industry and commerce that will come about as a result of the stronger relationships we have due to the appreciation that the help is British.

[Stephen Pound]

I entirely take on board your strictures, Mr Walker.

One difficulty is that Britain has not had entirely clean hands over a long timeline. Britain is inextricably linked with the past, and it is a great tragedy that the shadow of the past lies over us. Many would say that that is all the more reason to take such action, but let us never forget that the great poet of empire coined an expression that became part of the common currency when he said:

“ere’s to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your ‘ome in the Soudan;

You’re a pore benighted ‘eathen but a first-class fightin’ man”.

That typified people’s attitude to what was then Sudan and Egypt, which was going to be not just the biggest country in Africa, but by far the biggest.

I am acutely aware, Mr Walker, that we are here to talk about a specific subject, so I shall return to what we can do in Sudan.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this extraordinarily authoritative and informative debate. I congratulate all Members who have taken part in a debate that will, I hope, allow those who read the proceedings to benefit and learn from it, too. It is a timely and important debate, given the scale of the challenge faced by the peoples of Sudan today and of north and south Sudan tomorrow. There are many opportunities for the UK, one of the many nations that can contribute to the future, to help to bring about the best benefits.

I begin in complete sincerity by thanking the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) for doing whatever was necessary to persuade the Backbench Business Committee to nominate this topic for debate, and for his interesting, thought-provoking and, above all, comprehensive introduction. It gave us the hooks on which the rest of the debate has been able to hang. He did that very ably and I am pleased to acknowledge expressly the inspiration that he has derived from his leadership of the Parliamentary Friends of CAFOD and the advantage that he has taken of the knowledge with which it has supplied him. I hope that I will be able to do justice to what has been a comprehensive debate. Many points have been raised and I will seek to address as many as I possibly can. I will attempt to address any points that I cannot address today either through further meetings with the Associate Parliamentary Group for Sudan or by letter.

It is important to recognise that, as the British Parliament, we have taken and continue to take an extremely close interest in both the interests and the future of the peoples of Sudan, which will become two separate countries—north and south Sudan—from 9 July. That interest is genuine and important, and the debate is timely and is welcomed by many interested parties. Many people will want to consider what we have had to say in today’s proceedings, so, rather than immediately address in detail some of the issues that have been raised, it would be helpful to set out some of the context that has informed how the British Government and DFID in particular have decided upon their policy towards Sudan, and how we hope to support the growth of the new nation state of south Sudan.

The UK has four key Government objectives for the people of Sudan and their constitutional manifestation. First, we are working towards a peaceful conclusion to the comprehensive peace agreement, including the transition to two countries in July. Secondly, we are committed to an inclusive peace with justice in Darfur. We have focused on many other aspects of Sudan recently, but it is vital that we do not lose sight of the paramount importance of our concerns about Darfur, because they continue to this day. Thirdly, we are working to ensure national and regional stability for Sudan. Fourthly, we will support the development of democratic and accountable Governments, delivering a more equitable distribution of Sudan’s resources—a point that has been touched on ably today—in the hope and, I would say, expectation of an improvement in the human rights situation in Sudan. Although that is not an explicit linkage, it is certainly something whereby, by working hard to get one aspect right, we would expect to have influence on the other and to see it develop.

In the context of the overall promise—which the coalition Government have been able to confirm and maintain, and which has been welcomed and supported broadly throughout the House—to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance by 2013 and to ring-fence that money, the UK has committed more than £280 million in Sudan this year. Of that, £140 million will be provided through DFID in its African context. We have offices in various countries. We have an office in Juba as well as the one that has been established for some years in Khartoum. The further £140 million will be in the assessed contributions to the two peacekeeping missions in Sudan—United Nations Mission in Sudan and United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned that he had spoken to a member of the African Union, which supplied forces to UNAMID. That shows how much that is a joint UN and African Union mission in Darfur, and it is vital that that be maintained.

The UNMIS mission has just been renewed up to 9 July, which I think was supported broadly throughout the House. The issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), whom I should like to congratulate on an outstanding and authoritative speech, which was made with great knowledge. He made the strong point that we need to look beyond UNMIS on 9 July to what will succeed it. I give him the categorical assurance that we in the UK Government are determined to do whatever possible to continue to promote influence so that there is a successor approach to that broad peacekeeping and peacebuilding opportunity. That nation state needs to find a firm footing and the ability to have the confidence that it will not be set off track.

We read last week about recent incidents of various killings—what has been called south-south violence—and those who are perpetrating them are doing so in an insurgency role and are often, allegedly, dispossessed ex-generals with various interests. Those are areas in which we have to make sure that there is an ability to resist the undermining of the important process of going forward in a positive way that meets the enormous aspirations that were articulated by many people when they queued to vote in the referendum with such unity of purpose, which was an interesting phrase used by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). If we can harness the unity of purpose that delivered the referendum result, we can have great hope for the way in which south Sudan will be able to develop its resources in order to build an economy upon which it will be able to sustain the interests of its people.

In addition to the two lots of £140 million this year—the assessed contribution and the direct bilateral aid that we have identified—a further £8.3 million will be provided for conflict prevention projects and to support the Assessment and Evaluation Commission. After this financial year, as we announced following the DFID bilateral aid review, we will provide £140 million a year for the next four years up to 2014-15, which is one year beyond the four-year envelope that we have announced for others. Sudan, therefore, has already been singled out for special treatment to achieve the greater predictability and certainty that has been called for by many Members who have spoken in today’s debate. That support will be for both countries, north and south.

Our four-year strategy will focus on transition from humanitarian programmes to support for durable and sustainable livelihoods in conflict-affected areas. It will encourage peacebuilding between the north and the south, in the east, in Darfur, and between Sudan and its neighbours. It will support increased democratic and accountable governance, operational and fiscal decentralisation, and a reduction in the incidence of corruption. That was another point that was made forcefully, and rightly so, by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds. The strategy will also focus on more equitable and sustainable development through a better use of the national budget, including a shift from military expenditure to more productive use of resources, and a focus on economic diversification and employment. I will address directly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. His comments led us to stretch our terms of debate to the issue of trade and badging what we do from the UK. I will come back to that point because it is important that we deal with it.

It is clear that poverty indicators are generally worse in south Sudan. We have come to the conclusion that, as a rule of thumb, at this stage about 65% of the funding—about £90 million out of that £140 million—will be focused on the south. The remaining 35% of our funding—around £50 million—will focus on the north of Sudan, including Darfur, the east and the three areas known as Abyei, South Kordofan and the Blue Nile.

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not wish to interrupt or pre-empt what the Minister might say about the accountability of the spending. He talks about corruption. There is an argument that, if we put no money into Africa—absolutely zero aid—it would prompt many of these corrupt organisations to become far more transparent and utilise the money they have far better. I do not agree fully with that argument. However, I am concerned. The money we are providing is part of a £44 billion package of aid that goes to the whole continent of Africa every single year. The amount of money that is generated by mineral exports is $393 billion a year. That is a huge amount. We know that that money does not reach the front line because of corrupt Governments. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how we can prevent that money from being wasted and ending up in places such as Dubai, rather than going to the front line, where we would like to see it.

[Mr O'Brien]

Let me absolutely categorically assure my hon. Friend that, as far as we are concerned, corruption is completely unacceptable. To the extent that we have knowledge of corruption and can prove it, we have a completely zero tolerance approach to it. We have a much more explicit understanding of the issue and a lot more work has been done on identifying how to stop the opportunities for corruption, given that it has become endemic in some countries during some parts of the processes.

I will come on to transparency, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take some assurance from the review on bilateral and multilateral aid that has taken place during the previous 12 months. The various multilaterals were scored according to how well they were doing, including in relation to transparency. On the receiving Governments, we have pledged an aid transparency guarantee and have said that we will put all expenditures above £500 on the net, which DFID is now doing.

We also want to help to empower civil society organisations in receiving countries, so that they can see at a grass-roots level what is meant to be coming to their country. They should then be able to make demands upwards into their systems. We need to encourage democratic institution building, so that the process is no longer something done to them as peoples. Such organisations should be able to demand that those who are politically accountable to them say what they are doing with the money that is supposed to have come their way. If we can get that transaction transparency at both ends, that is precisely where we hope to be able to improve the situation considerably.

On the example my hon. Friend gave that we should perhaps go to year zero and remove all support to Africa, the only people who would suffer would be the poorest, and the only people who would have a temporary blip would be those who might have to search hard in their Swiss bank accounts rather than suffer anything at all.

[Mr Ellwood]

Is the Minister aware of the American Dodd-Frank Act that has been passed? That obliges companies listed on the New York stock exchange to declare how much money they give to a country’s Government or individual Heads of State when they strike deals on oil and so on. Could we apply that to DFID and British companies that are operating in Sudan and elsewhere to make sure that there is that transparency?

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. Can the Minister return to the subject of Sudan?

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—

Oral Answers to Questions

Tobias Ellwood Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr O'Brien]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for identifying the key issue of FGM. We will certainly consider carefully what he has said, as we look to roll forward the programmes, in order to ensure that we deal in the most effective way by bearing down not only on the activity, which is clearly intolerable, but on the societal and cultural drivers that lie behind it. That is what will be most influential in driving the funds to help the programmes.

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

9. What steps he is taking to ensure maximum effectiveness in respect of the aid provided under his Department’s programmes.

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

It is essential that we spend every pound of aid effectively. We will do that through rigorous independent evaluation, greater transparency and an unremitting focus on results. We will transform the transparency of aid information, ensuring accountability to UK taxpayers and people in developing countries. The UK will review all aid to focus it on results and on outputs.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for that reply and welcome my right hon. Friend to his new appointment. He stressed that Afghanistan is our main foreign challenge. How will he ensure that the money that is poured into Ministries in Kabul is able to make its way all the way down to the front line—to those communities that need it most?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about those issues. We have looked very carefully at the mechanism for delivering that aid, which is vital to the development effort in Afghanistan, and independent analysis suggests that the World Bank trust fund, which, as he will appreciate, pays out on the basis of receipts for work carried out by the Government and Government employees, is a highly effective way of getting money through to the front line.