Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

Those who are hit hardest by disasters are almost always the most vulnerable members of society. What steps has the Department taken to ensure that inequality is considered in resilience planning?

[Mr Duncan]

People who live in poverty are indeed the ones who suffer most as a result of natural disasters, which pull them into a cycle of debt, illness and thence even deeper poverty. Investing in measures to help communities to cope with disasters protects lives and livelihoods, and safeguards investment in a country’s development.

Drug-resistant Tuberculosis (Developing Countries)

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you presiding in the Chair, Mr Caton. I will try to get through my remarks as quickly as possible, as a couple of other hon. Members would like to make a contribution and the Minister, whom it is good to see in her place, has very kindly indicated that she would be happy to hear them.

After making a few brief comments on tuberculosis and drug-resistant TB globally and in the UK, I will raise three important points that I hope the Minister will be able to address: support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; investing in innovation; and the need for a national strategy in the UK to include an international target. However, before raising those issues, I would like to make a few observations.

The Minister recently met the all-party group on global tuberculosis to discuss its report, “Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: Old Disease—New Threat”. Much of what I will speak about today is focused on the conclusion and recommendations of that report, which makes constructive recommendations that are evidence-based. I thank Mr Simon Logan, co-ordinator for the all-party group, for his assistance in preparing my remarks for today’s debate.

Tuberculosis in the UK reflects the global reality. TB is one of the world’s most common deadly infectious diseases. In the 1970s, my wife was a junior hospital doctor. Her consultant told her that by the time she became a consultant, TB would have disappeared, like polio, due to BCG, mass X-ray and drug treatment. How wrong can you be?

One third of the world’s population has latent TB, but only a small percentage goes on to develop the active form of the disease, which makes them sick and can kill if not treated. Unfortunately, little progress has been made towards eliminating TB in the UK—there are about 9,000 new cases each year—and global progress is painfully slow. The disease remains an urgent public health problem around the world, and we now face a new threat—drug-resistant strains that are significantly more expensive and difficult to treat. It should be said that both are curable, albeit with a long course of antibiotics. TB does not get the profile that the death and destruction it causes warrant. This is a serious issue, and we must do more to tackle it. It is not only a moral obligation; it is in our national interest.

The first line of defence against drug resistance is appropriate management of TB and the strengthening of the World Health Organisation’s standard treatment, called directly observed therapy, to prevent resistant strains from developing. However, we also need to take steps to tackle this threat head-on, as it is often airborne and can be passed from person to person in the same way as normal TB.

Rates of drug-resistant TB appear small in terms of the global burden of the disease, accounting for 440,000 of the almost 9 million new cases each year, but only about 10% have access to diagnosis, and the financial and treatment burden is substantial. The number of people affected is increasing and so is the cost. Patients have to take 15 to 20 tablets a day for up to two years to be cured of this more extreme form of the disease and they often experience horrible physical and psychological side effects as a result. It is also on the rise in the WHO European region, particularly in eastern Europe. Almost 80,000 cases occurred in the European region in 2011, accounting for nearly one quarter of all DR-TB cases worldwide.

The UK is not immune to this problem. London has the highest TB rate of any capital city in western Europe, and resistant strains of the disease have gradually but significantly increased since 2000. In my constituency, there are 61 cases of TB per 100,000 people. That is in Tower Hamlets. Neighbouring Newham, which I used to represent before the boundary changes in 2010, has double that amount, giving it the highest rate of TB in the UK. It is comparable to that in some high-TB-burden developing countries. To put that into context, the UK average is 14 cases per 100,000 people.

The threat that this public health concern presents to the UK recently led the chief medical officer for England, Dame Sally Davies, to warn that antimicrobial and infectious disease resistance poses a serious threat. One of her key recommendations was for the Government to campaign for it to be given a higher profile and priority internationally. In that regard, financing mechanisms such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria plays a crucial role in funding programmes for diagnosing and treating TB in low and middle-income countries. The global fund accounts for almost 90% of international TB funding. For many countries, there would not be a response to TB without the global fund’s support.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) and I were on a visit to Ethiopia and visited St Peter’s hospital there. I asked what percentage of the funding for the drugs came from the global fund, and it is 100%—without it, people would die.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend reinforces the point that I have just made about how important the global fund is. As I am sure the Minister is aware, the global fund is asking donor Governments, such as the UK Government, for new funding in this replenishment year, and the UK Government have a crucial role to play in ensuring that that process is successful.

In the history of the fight against TB, there have been periods of urgency and periods of innovation, but only rarely have urgency and innovation come together. The rise of this new extreme form of the disease has given a new sense of urgency to global TB efforts, and after a decade of focused investment in TB innovation, we have a promising pipeline of new drugs, diagnostics and vaccines.

It is clear that to address rising rates of drug resistance, action is needed at national and international levels. The all-party group recently published its report, which was the culmination of more than six months’ work consulting world-leading experts on steps that the Government could take to help to address the increasing threat of drug-resistant TB. I shall highlight three key recommendations from the report, and I would be grateful if the Minister focused on those in her response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for choosing a topic of huge significance and importance. I was delighted to be able to go to Ethiopia with the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), whose work I pay tribute to. I was in Geneva at the global fund meeting with the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and I also pay tribute to his work in this field. The global fund is of huge importance. I do not want to spend time on it, because it has already been touched on, but I shall reiterate the question that we want the Minister to answer: what steps are the UK Government taking to support the future replenishment of the global fund in 2013? It is important because, as I said when I intervened, the entire budget of many of the hospitals dealing with TB comes from the global fund, so without it, they will have serious problems.

To put TB REACH, which the hon. Lady touched on, into context, of the estimated 9 million people who get ill with TB every year, 3 million go without proper diagnosis or treatment. Put simply, we fail to reach far too many people—often in the poorest and most vulnerable communities—with quality TB care. TB REACH offers a lifeline to the people in that missing 3 million. It is hugely important.

The hon. Lady mentioned the 36,000 health extension workers. The health extension programme in Ethiopia is successful for two reasons: the health extension workers are predominantly women and they are predominantly, or almost entirely, local. When we asked them, “What hours do you work?” they said, “We work nine to five, Monday to Friday, but everyone in the village knows where we live.” So they are available around the clock.

I want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond, so my final question is: does she agree that initiatives such as the one we visited in Ethiopia—the one that I have just mentioned—support innovative and effective techniques to find people with TB quickly, avert deaths and stop the disease spreading? I hope that such initiatives will be supported by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. South Africa is an epicentre, so far as its spend on what is a relatively confined industry is concerned.

I was talking about Burma. It is estimated that between 2013 and 2016, the 3MDG fund will spend $20 million on tuberculosis. Funding is an important strand. DFID also supports a number of global partnerships that work on strengthening basic TB control. For example, the Stop TB Partnership plays a critical role in helping countries to strengthen their TB policies, and in supporting the improvement of funding applications for large TB-control grants.

The UK’s contribution to UNITAID, of up to €60 million per year, has funded new laboratory infrastructure in 18 countries, 10 of which now routinely diagnose MDR-TB. The network will have detected approximately 12,000 MDR-TB cases by the end of 2011, compared with only 2,300 cases in the same countries in 2008.

I will move on to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, because I know it is of particular interest—this is not the first occasion on which it has been raised with me. The majority of UK funding to global TB control is channelled through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and we have increased and accelerated our funding and are on track to meet our £1 billion commitment to the fund for 2008 to 2015. The fund is, as hon. Members have mentioned, absolutely critical to achieving many of the UK’s health-related international development objectives, so it is important to us that it continue to deliver ever-more impressive results. The UK intends to increase its contribution, pending, as we have said, progress on the implementation of crucial reforms. That obviously falls within my portfolio, and I have had reports from all DFID offices around the world, having asked them to report to me on the fund. Recently I was in Nigeria and had a meeting with recipients of global funding from across the three diseases, to understand the changes that are being heralded in with the reforms at the global fund—so far so good.

We are committed to working with others to ensure that the planned autumn replenishment is a success. We are a world leader, but sometimes it would be nice to be at least equalled in some of these things by other donor countries. We will use our influence to draw in more overall financing. I understand the call to go early, but there are many multinational decisions to be made and, as I have said, this all depends on progress.

On investment in research and innovation, which I think all Members would agree is critical, DFID has a strong record of supporting research and development for effective treatments, diagnostics and vaccines. An example of that is our effort to increase the affordability of diagnostic testing for MDR-TB. DFID’s support of the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics has contributed to the development of a rapid molecular test, GeneXpert, which has the potential substantially to improve the diagnosis of TB and drug-resistant TB.

DFID aims to continue our strong record of supporting investment in TB research and development, including through product development partnerships, and we will strive for value for money in such investments. On DFID’s support for innovation, we will consider the hon. Gentleman’s request that we fund TB REACH against, obviously, the competing priorities and commitments in our international health financing decisions.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

Will the Minister recognise the importance of TB REACH? We can have all the drugs in the world, but if we cannot find the people with TB, we cannot use those drugs.

[Lynne Featherstone]

Absolutely. The point is that we are waiting for the evaluation. TB REACH worked by giving a small amount to a great number of organisations to test how to reach people in difficult circumstances. It had precise pre-specified targets and cost-effectiveness benchmarks, and we have to await the evaluation of that first phase to assess what our funding might be for the second phase. We cannot go ahead of that, although I understand that reaching people is critical. We should also work to strengthen health systems, because ultimately we want health systems that are able to reach every individual in a country and dispense whatever medical care is necessary, but I understand the point in relation to TB.

On Ethiopia, about which I have not yet responded, DFID provides significant support to its health system, directly supporting community health workers, and we agree that they do a great job, including on TB. I have been to Ethiopia myself—twice, in fact.

In conclusion, I am very proud to serve in the coalition Government who, even in tough times, have protected the development budget and will reach the target of 0.7% of gross national income this year. I am also proud that we have cross-party consensus in this Parliament: it is one of our finer moments. We are equally clear about the responsibilities that come with those resources, particularly when this country is itself struggling for survival. Those responsibilities are to spend taxpayers’ money well, to deliver aid that is accounted for transparently, and to ensure that our support delivers value for money and gets to where it is most needed.

Significant progress has been made in controlling TB since 1995, with more than 51 million cases treated and 20 million lives saved. That progress was rooted in improved partnership, policy, innovation and leadership, so there is cause for optimism. I thank all hon. Members here, because the issue is really important and I appreciate their continued pressure. The issue needs to be worked on in all the ways they have proposed if we are to get the better of this disease: our progress is good, but not remarkable. The UK is playing its part, but as I have said, we are all clear that significant challenges remain.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Lynne Featherstone]

The Prime Minister is quite right. The work that we are doing to give land title to smallholders means that they have security and can work their land without it being taken from them.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

I join Members from all sides of the House in expressing my support for the If campaign, which seeks to end food insecurity and global hunger. One of the main causes of food insecurity is the illegal acquisition of large areas of land by investors. What steps has the Department taken to support good land governance in west Africa?

[Lynne Featherstone]

As I said just now, some of our programmes involve land titles for smallholders, and the UK welcomes the successful negotiation of voluntary guidelines on the responsible government of land tenure, fisheries and forests that was concluded at the Committee on World Food Security last year. The UK is working to promote transparency of land administration and security of tenure in a number of countries. For example, in Mozambique we are helping local communities to register their land, and we want to continue that progress.

Global Hunger

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bayley, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. I thank Mr Speaker for granting such an important debate, which could not come at a more appropriate time.

This is the year for the UK to take decisive action to end the worst scandal of our time, the blight of hunger. It is also fitting that this is the year when we take the leadership of the G8, nearly 10 years on from our pledge to make poverty history. It is time that we assessed our progress and made a further commitment to the world’s poor.

In the past decade, we have come a long way towards eradicating poverty in the world’s poorest regions. More than 50 million children have started going to school in sub-Saharan Africa, while deaths from killer diseases such as malaria have fallen by almost 75%. But we have not gone far enough. While one in eight women, men and children go to bed hungry every night, and each year 2.3 million children still die from malnutrition, the inhuman tragedy is unacceptable and we simply cannot rest on our achievements.

It is clear that the most vulnerable in our society are still not benefiting from our efforts to make poverty history. The millennium development goals have not yet delivered the structural changes that are so desperately needed. For that reason, today I will outline a vision that I believe this country can turn into reality, provided we seize this very important moment. We need to join the 100 organisations that are launching their campaign today to call on the UK Government to take action.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a unique point in history and that we desperately need to seize this unique opportunity?

[Mr Clarke]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am delighted that he is shadow Minister for International Development, and I know that he will pursue these points with great enthusiasm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I am sorry; I said earlier that I wanted to give the Minister a reasonable amount of time.

The situation seems to me to be absolutely disgraceful. Beyond the way land is bought, sold and used, the system is opaque. Once food is produced, it enters the global market, which is dominated by a handful of multinational companies in a system with little transparency. That is not to say that those companies are inherently bad, but we would be foolish to overlook their incredible power. For example, 90% of the global trade in grain is controlled by five companies. Who benefits from that control? Shareholders, or people who are hungry? Companies have more information about us than ever before, yet as global citizens we have little useful information about their social and environmental impact. There are reporting requirements under the Companies Act 2006, but they are not useful to investors, producers, Government or civil society. Decisions continue to be made in the shadows, without participation by the people they affect. That cannot be right.

We in the UK could take a leading role to end the scandal. With the Prime Minister at the head of the G8, we can do a great deal. We could take action to ensure that small-scale farmers keep hold of their land to grow food. We could crack down on the tax dodgers depriving poor countries of resources to ensure the right to food.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

I said that I would not give way, but I will on this one point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

I was in Zambia recently, when a British company owed the Zambian Government £70 million in unpaid tax. Imagine how many hospitals, schools, clinics, vaccinations, mosquito nets and so on could be made available to the Zambian people for that much money.

[Mr Clarke]

I am glad that my hon. Friend managed to make that important point.

We could work for global agreement on new sources of climate finance, which is important. We could underpin everything with transparency, the rule of law and strong institutions. To do all that, we must fulfil our existing commitments on aid and investment for agriculture and nutrition, the very basis of a functioning society.

If we look back in the history of our great nation, to the time of social writers such as Charles Dickens, hunger was a plague on our society, but political leadership took Britain out of that abyss. If we look at the world we live in today, there are still many challenges. The poverty in our own country is very real. The recession hits the poorest families hardest, and resources are scant. There is always the temptation to see no further than our immediate needs, but I sincerely urge the Government and the people of our country not to make that mistake.

Britain is where it is today because of key political choices made during times that were also hard; the NHS and the welfare state were created when the country had barely recovered from the second world war. Now is the time, during hardship, when our effort counts most. As Martin Luther King, Junior, once said:

“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable...Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”

We can make a difference. If the Government were to commit to enshrining in legislation the promise to spend 0.7% of our gross national income on aid, they would ensure that the UK is one of the first to reach a promise made 42 years ago, setting an outstanding example for others to follow. I will put that into meaningful context. Once reached, the 0.7% target amounts to 1.6p in every pound spent by Government, compared with 5.8p for defence, nearly 20p for health and just over 30p for welfare. That contribution would take us one step closer to a world free from hunger, but it is not enough; we must go further.

In the midst of a crisis, the UK has a vital opportunity in 2013 to lead a new drive to tackle global poverty and hunger. We will be one of the first major countries to reach 0.7%; we are the chair of the open government partnership; we will be working closely with the current presidency of the EU, the Irish Government; and, above all, we have the presidency of the G8. We must lead other countries at the G8 in increasing contributions to address hunger. We must collectively commit, at the very least, an additional £417 million a year to sustainable small-scale agriculture to achieve food security for more than 418,500 people.

Will the Minister tell us whether the UK plans to take forward those commitments? Of equal importance, it is crucial to establish when the Government will put aside parliamentary time to pass the 0.7% Bill, thereby fulfilling their promise.

Women and children in the world’s most fragile places are the furthest from meeting the millennium development goals, and their well-being must be our priority. That is not only a moral duty; it makes economic sense. In 2006, the World Bank estimated that malnutrition causes a 10% loss in lifetime earnings for individuals, and reduces gross domestic product by as much as 3%. An estimated 20% of deaths related to lack of nutrition are caused by short stature, which is an outcome of childhood malnutrition. That is not a failure of production; it is a failure in the way we process, distribute, buy, sell and consume food and manage waste. In other words, the global food system is broken, and it is killing people.

According to the United Nations Children’s Fund, approximately 195 million children globally are stunted, and data from previous years show that almost 80% of those children live in just 24 countries. Studies have shown that if basic affordable measures are introduced to address key immediate causes, child death could drop by as much as 25%. It is by investing in children in the countries most affected by hunger that we will make the biggest impact.

Our children are our future, and to neglect those in greatest need is to harbour the resentment and bitterness that later erupts into the wars that we now see spreading across Africa and elsewhere. I am delighted that today our non-governmental organisations and charities are coming together for the first time in eight years to launch a major new campaign, which shows the politicians who believe in it that we are not alone. I hope colleagues can attend the launch tonight in Mr Speaker’s house.

Those charities and agencies are there every day, on the ground, all over the world helping people in need on our behalf, as I have seen for myself. Their supporters, the people of the United Kingdom, have time and again dug deep into their pockets, and generosity and compassion have prevailed. They are, therefore, in a strong position to invite politicians to add to what they have been doing, and they are about to do so again. Their call this time is that we do everything we can to close the widening gap and fix the food system for our common future.

Beyond state action, we need to ensure that every powerful force in the food system plays a positive role, including multinational companies. We can do that through creating transparency, which leads to accountability. By updating the Companies Act with a simple reference to human rights, the information that companies have to disclose about the impact of their operations can be made useful, and paint an honest picture rather than showing edited highlights. It is not too much to ask that those with great power are held to account. Transparency is about highlighting good practice and exposing bad practice, encouraging businesses to take a longer-term view of their business models and practices. At the same time, we can demand more transparency in how the Governments of developing countries spend their money—a type of transparency that we enjoy here at home—so that their citizens can also hold them to account, and so that we can ensure our money is well spent.

Campaigning is not always comfortable for Governments and politicians, but we can reflect upon what we can achieve: Live Aid, the jubilee debt campaign, the millennium development goals, the Make Poverty History campaign and the Green Climate Fund. Those things changed the world for the better, and we can do that again.

Timing is vital; the scale of the challenge should fill us with urgency. If we do not act now, the situation will get a great deal worse as food prices become more volatile and environmental shocks become more frequent and destructive, not to mention another generation’s full potential being lost to the scourge of starvation.

That sense of urgency should also make us hopeful, not only because of the opportunities that are before us this year or because of the commitment of our people, but because of the commitment here in Parliament. While world hunger is high up our agenda, and rightly so, it is time that we all worked together, using all our skills, resources and commitment to get child hunger off the table.

HIV (Developing Countries)

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on bringing this important issue before the House. Some people know about it and others have acquired knowledge of it, as I have through my office and the organisations that I deal with.

The topic is worthy. Many of us cannot fail to be touched by the scenes on television from Africa and other parts of the world, and we often think, “If only the children had more food.” However, looking more deeply at the issues, they need not only more food, but more medication and, in many cases, HIV medication. The hon. Lady referred to the statistics. Some 1.7 million people died of AIDS in the past year, and there have been 2.5 million new infections this year, so there has been an increase to about 38 million people with HIV infections across the whole world. Those figures put the issue into perspective, and bring into focus where we are on this.

Every year, one of the girls in my office takes a two-week summer holiday in a small country called Swaziland. I will speak specifically about that country, because I have some knowledge of the area. She does it through the Elim Church’s international missions; the headquarters are in Newtownards in my constituency. The missions do marvellous work in Swaziland, in schools, education, and health, and in trying to build lives and give people more quality of life and opportunity. Two years ago, we had the youth choir over from Swaziland. What put the issue into perspective for me, perhaps for the first time, was meeting some of those young people, who were in their teens or early 20s. I did not know this until they had returned home, but the girl in my office said, “Jim, many of those people you met have AIDS—not by choice, but from birth.” That puts the issue into perspective; it certainly did for me.

In Swaziland, the people are very similar to those in Northern Ireland—they have the same friendliness that we have, and that the Scots also have, and which we are renowned for—and it is also about the same size as Northern Ireland, but there is one big difference: 40% of Swaziland’s population has HIV/AIDS. The perspective is that nearly half the population has it, and the difficulty is that no one talks about it. I agree with what the hon. Lady said about educating people better to address the key issues that affect them.

When someone goes into an overcrowded hospital in Swaziland, they find two people on each bed and another lying beneath each bed. That is the nature of their hospitalisation. They are probably there for tuberculosis, cancer or some other problem, but they will never admit that the underlying issue is HIV/AIDS, and we must address that. Those lovely young people from Swaziland whom I met had what I would call heavenly voices, but that belied the undercurrent of their health issues.

In Swaziland, to use that country as an example, people do not protect themselves against HIV. They do not use the condoms that are given out for free, because that would be an acknowledgment that they were already ill or could become ill. We have to get past the barrier that seems to exist. In Swaziland, as in many other African countries, male circumcision is also available as a method of trying to reduce the number of people with HIV/AIDS. Will the Minister give us details, if she has them—if not, I am happy for her to reply in writing—on how much the use of condoms and male circumcision has reduced HIV/AIDS in Swaziland, in which I am particularly interested, and across the world? For every one starting treatment, two become infected, which gives us an idea of the massive mountain that we have to climb.

My office sponsors a child in Africa. It is not big money; every week £1 goes into a box to sponsor a young orphan in Swaziland. Through the Elim missions, that money gives orphans clothing, school fees, school books, food and, most importantly, the HIV medication that they need to allow them to live a full, normal life—small moneys, but big dividends and big returns. The kids live on a farm and are sponsored by people from all over the world who understand their illness and how to treat it. The orphanage has a hospice, with a nurse who picks up the first signs of infection. They have hope and a future, but unfortunately the same cannot be said of most people with AIDS in Swaziland, not because of ignorance, but because they just do not want to face the key issues.

An entire generation is missing due to this disease. Grandmothers look after toddlers because the parents have died of AIDS. The grandparents who concentrate on the children perhaps do not want to talk about it. They do not talk about it to their grandchildren, because they do not want them to know that their mums and dads died from it. Again, we can see the dangers for that third generation. A middle generation is missing because of the epidemic, and the older generation is keeping that from their grandchildren, so another generation is being raised not to talk about this unspoken illness.

The scenario is replicated across Africa and the whole world; we have statistics and information relating to places such as Indonesia. Will the Minister respond about the educational drive that we need? It has to be an educational drive that people will respond to, not one that sounds good on a piece of paper that can be sent off without our knowing how the drive works or whether it will be successful. We need to know that it will ensure that we can put an end to losing entire generations. I have looked through the statistics on India. It has had an AIDS campaign since 2001, and it has reduced new infections by 50% in 10 years. The statistics illustrate that; there were 270,000 infections in 2001, and 120,000 in 2012. However, there are still 2.1 million people in India with AIDS, which gives us an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

There have been many pharmaceutical developments, and some of the costs are fantastically different. In America, one dose of medication would cost $12,000, but the same medication can be produced in India, where there are pharmaceutical companies, for $300. Again, we must focus on that. With the wonders of modern medicine, HIV/AIDS no longer has to be a death sentence; medication and care can allow people to have a long life. That life will not be as long as ours in this Chamber, because the disease reduces people’s length of life and their time on this earth, but it will be longer than if they were under the threat of the disease without any medication.

Medication is not always readily available, and given the cost implications, it is clear to many that change must come from stopping the spread by educating people and changing their mindset. If that needs the help and support of those of us in the western world, I believe that we should give it.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in many African countries, for education to be successful, it needs political leadership behind it? Without that, we will struggle.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree that we need leadership at the very top in all countries, and that we need to make the necessary commitment.

The pupils who came over here as part of the choir from Swaziland were young, and although they were AIDS carriers, they were clearly focused on what they had to do for the future. If we can keep young girls at school, or give them an improved livelihood, so that their focus is on the good things of life, we can reduce the number who can be infected by AIDS. I support the efforts of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire to highlight this issue in the hope of securing attention and help for people who are so much in need, in Swaziland and many other countries across the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Bayley, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to take part in a debate under your chairmanship. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) for securing this vital debate, and I pay tribute to the work that she does on the issue.

As I was reminded when I met campaigners from Why Stop Now? on world AIDS day recently, impressive progress has been made in the fight against HIV/AIDS, but as other speakers have already said, there is still much more work to be done. Millennium development goal 6, which is to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, galvanised international attention to the fight against HIV, and created political momentum that has played a substantial role in the success of the HIV response.

Since 2005, 25 countries have seen a 50% drop in new HIV infections. In 2011, a record 8 million people living with HIV had access to antiretroviral therapy, which is more than half of those in need of such treatment. Globally, there were more than 500,000 fewer AIDS-related deaths in 2011 than there were in 2005. As a result of the mobilisation effects of the MDGs, people living with HIV are living longer, healthier and more productive lives. A tipping point—where more people living with HIV are initiated into treatment than there are people newly acquiring HIV—is now within reach.

However, global action and shared responsibility is necessary to sustain investment in AIDS programmes. Consequently, although we have all welcomed the progress made to date, we must also acknowledge the challenges that lie ahead and make a concerted effort to maintain political momentum. I was particularly disappointed—I put it no more strongly than that—that the UK failed to send a Government Minister to the international AIDS conference in Washington in July.

[Pamela Nash]

I just want to highlight that an ex-Government Minister attended that conference on behalf of Parliament: Lord Fowler. There was also representation at the conference from the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, and from the all-party group on global tuberculosis. We were able to meet parliamentarians from across the world and discuss a lot of the important issues that we have discussed today.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

And vital work it is. That gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her personal commitment in this area, and to the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, which does incredibly valuable work. We must ensure that the UK and the EU maintain their commitment to financing efforts to combat this epidemic, and make strategic plans to capitalise on the opportunity that we have all said is within reach.

Let me move on to some of the challenges that we face. First, progress on HIV has been uneven across countries and certain populations. Although many countries have seen impressive declines in the rates of new HIV infections, since 2001 the number of people newly infected in the middle east and north Africa has increased by more than 35%. HIV prevalence is also consistently higher among sex workers, intravenous drug users and men who have sex with men. In sub-Saharan Africa, as has already been said, women have a 60% higher risk of HIV infection than men. These groups often face legal and social barriers, including discrimination and criminalisation, which impede their access to services.

Secondly, as the majority of HIV infections are sexually transmitted or associated with pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding, there is a need for greater integration of sexual and reproductive health responses, and HIV responses. I think that the Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), mentioned how important that is.

In 2011, one in five maternal deaths was directly related to HIV, but when women living with HIV receive antiretroviral treatment during pregnancy, the risk of transmission is reduced to less than 5%. This progress on mother-to-child transmission has been hailed as a hugely significant factor, and it provides a real opportunity to take control of the problem.

Finally, we need to acknowledge the importance of middle-income countries, which are often forgotten. Three of the top five countries with the highest HIV burden but the lowest coverage of antiretroviral treatment are middle-income countries. We need to focus on tackling this inequality within and between countries, and ensure that human rights are integral to the global response to the HIV epidemic. Will the Minister tell us what steps her Department is taking to tackle discrimination and to ensure that there is access to HIV treatment for the poorest, most vulnerable communities? There is also a need for urgent action to ensure that we can continue to reduce transmission and expand access to treatment to those who need it.

As a number of speakers, particularly the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire, mentioned, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which was created in 2001 to increase funding to tackle three of the world’s most devastating diseases, has approved $22.9 billion for more than 1,000 programmes in 151 countries and provided AIDS treatment for 4.2 million people. That is incredible. The fund channels half of all antiretroviral drugs to those living with HIV/AIDS. The UK has been the fund’s third biggest donor since its creation, and the second largest bilateral HIV donor, which reflects our impressive leadership on this issue. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire talked about a period of 30 years; this work is not party political, but will go on across decades and across political parties.

However, in May 2012, the International Development Committee’s inquiry into DFID’s contribution to the global health fund urged the Government to honour their promise to increase their contribution to the fund significantly, over and above the current pledge of £384 million for 2012 to 2015. The Government have cited a desire to see reforms to the fund as the reason for the delay, so will the Minister tell us more about the fund’s new funding model and strategy? The IDC specifically stated that

“DFID is a key partner whose increased contribution to the Global Fund could unlock funds from other donors. It should do all possible to commit additional funds earlier than 2013 by prioritising its assessment of the Global Fund ahead of, and separately from, the broader update of the Multilateral Aid Review.”

Given that next year will be a replenishment year for the fund, will the Minister use her G8 discussions to leverage additional funding from other countries and announce further UK funding for the fund? Does she agree that announcing funding for the fund would help to increase certainty and encourage other donors to make a commitment of additional resources?

The UK Government should be doing everything they can to ensure that the global health fund is able to operate at the height of its ability, tackling these horrific diseases and saving lives, so I ask the Minister: can she say when we can expect to see the “increased contribution” to the fund from the UK that was announced by the previous Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), earlier this year? Also, what steps are the UK Government taking to galvanise support from other donors for the global health fund? Although the fund is not the only institution involved in the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria, it is by far the single biggest actor in the fight against these diseases. It was a British Government who spearheaded the drive to establish the global health fund, and it is the current British Government who should pick up the mantle at this important moment, showing the leadership to get the fund back into full operation.

In conclusion, it is clear that progress is being made on HIV. The number of new infections is declining, and the number of treatments is increasing, but we must not lose sight of those who are still in desperate need. Rather than focusing on single programmes or issues such as family planning or drug availability, the overall approach must be one of cohesion. Health systems and the integration of HIV/AIDS responses with wider programmes of reproductive health must be considered. Commitments to address the global AIDS pandemic must not take a back seat as other issues take the political stage in the UK. As significant advances are made and global leaders in the United States and elsewhere begin to state openly that an AIDS-free generation is within reach, the UK must continue its leadership on this issue.

The significance of what we face must not be forgotten, and as 50% of people eligible for HIV treatment do not receive it, it is essential to support those most at risk, to help them to access the help that they desperately need without fear of discriminatory laws or prejudices. The UK’s impressive record on this issue must be maintained and, as such, we need continued and renewed leadership. Will the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to increase access to medicines for the 7 million people who are still waiting for HIV treatment? Will the Government commit to a blueprint that will lay out the UK’s contribution to the attempt to gain control of the HIV pandemic internationally? Much has been done; much is still to be done. However, as the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said so eloquently, success is within our reach.

Overseas Aid (UK-based Consultants)

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I want to draw the House’s attention to the growing phenomenon of wealthy UK-based management consultancies creaming off millions of pounds from the aid budget. We are seeing—the process has accelerated in recent years—the emergence of lords of poverty. People are building fat businesses and paying themselves fat salaries creamed from the budget of the Department for International Development. Lords of poverty, hardship tycoons, pinstriped famine magnates: whatever we call them, the phenomenon is growing, and I think the British public would deprecate it.

Let me say from the beginning that I support Britain’s commitment to raise its aid budget to UN levels. I congratulate the Government on their willingness to ring-fence their aid budget. We are talking about some of the poorest people in the world. Those who would cut our aid budget are not just wrong; they are not considering how, in the 21st century, we are all our brothers’ keepers. For a fraction of Britain’s gross domestic product, why would we not take steps through aid and trade to promote stability in other parts of the world? It is not just about standards of living, happiness and health; it is also fundamentally about global stability, and I believe that an aid budget, correctly used, has a big role to play in that.

Aid is not just about a glow of virtue for western Governments and taxpayers; it is about building a world that is safe for all of us. This month’s insurrection in the horn of Africa is next month’s terrorist attack in western Europe.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

To add to the point that my hon. Friend is making, I wonder how many more entrepreneurs, researchers, top doctors, scientists and so on there would be if we lived in a fairer world.

[Ms Abbott]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The world as a whole would benefit if it were fairer and if the energies and talents of more people in third-world countries were directed into education, science and entrepreneurship. Tragically, in some cases, they are being directed into piracy and the drug trade.

This country has a proud record on aid, both in personal donations by the British public and in successive British Governments’ commitment to aid. It is a known fact that the British public are among the most generous in the world when it comes to donating as individuals to disaster emergency appeals. It is also a fact that under different Governments—I want to be fair—we in this country have been fortunate to have some extraordinarily committed and charismatic Ministers for international development and aid. I am probably one of the few people in the Chamber who remembers Lynda Chalker, but anyone concerned with the future of Africa gives her a huge amount of credit for being prepared in both good and bad days to fight the corner for the importance of aid and of work with Africa. She played a crucial role in international development when I first entered the House.

There was also my colleague, Clare Short, of whom even her enemies would say that her finest hours were spent as Secretary of State for International Development. She did a huge amount, with an increased budget, to drive the Department forward. Nobody can deny her commitment and her energy. Members from both parties have done a huge amount, often in adverse political situations within their parties, to drive forward the international development agenda. I believe that when it is presented to the British public in the right way, they feel a lot of support for a properly deployed aid budget that genuinely benefits the people. The British public have shown in their response to disaster appeals that they want to help.

We in this country have a proud record on aid and international development. I welcome the fact that this Government have been prepared to stick to the UN targets for aid and to ring-fence the budget, but in recent years—I am not suggesting that the process began in 2010—more and more aid has been diverted to management consultants at the expense of practical projects that might be of benefit to some of the poorest people in the world.

I draw the House’s attention to a small British charity called Operation WellFound. WellFound requested £250,000—not much, as aid budgets go—to build wells and latrines for 60,000 people in Burkina Faso, one of the most impoverished nations on earth. WellFound put in a bid for funding to DFID, which then referred it to an organisation called Triple Line Consulting, a London-based company that advises on overseas aid, which examined it in detail. I will return to Triple Line Consulting. The application for just £250,000 was rejected in August.

WellFound—a tiny charity, but it does tremendous work—got an e-mail giving three reasons why it would not get the money. First, the bid was not considered sufficiently innovative. Digging wells may not be new, but there are millions of people all over the world for whom access to clean water is vital. One would think that the consultancy would have appreciated that. Just because something is not new does not mean that it is not relevant and important.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that clean water is the basis for almost everything else? Kids do not go to school if they are ill because they do not have clean water. It affects their health, education, time at work and so on. It affects everything. If people do not have clean water, everything else falls by the wayside.

[Ms Abbott]

Clean water may not be new or exciting, but it is the basis for many things. I have been fortunate to travel a bit around Africa—to Nigeria, Ghana and Uganda. Access to clean water is still a vital issue in such countries, yet that small charity had its application rejected.

Apart from the fact that the bid was not innovative, Triple Line Consulting went on to say that it did not explain how poverty would be alleviated. As my hon. Friend just said, access to clean water means so much to communities’ ability to move forward economically. The final reason why Triple Line was not prepared to approve the application was that poor WellFound did not provide evidence of how the work could be replicated on a larger scale. It seems to me that if one builds 25 wells, the way to replicate that is to build 50 and 75. I suspect that Triple Line just cut and pasted standard responses to that aid bid.

The decision came as a huge blow not just to the small team who run WellFound but to the villagers in Burkina Faso, where construction of the wells has had to be delayed. That experience, which is a microcosm of what seems to be going on in the world of international development, is far from unique.

The Sunday Telegraph, which I am not in the habit of quoting, did an analysis of DFID spending that showed that £29 million—take a deep breath—was paid in the past 12 months to Triple Line. It seems that the only thing that Triple Line triples is its own bottom line. Triple Line’s main contract and the bulk of its work is to assess applications for grants from DFID’s global poverty action fund. To be fair, the company passed on £27.1 million of this money to the aid providers that it vetted. However, it kept £1.9 million as a fee for its services. Had it been willing to shave a little bit off its fee, it could have handed the money to the little well project and the people of Burkina Faso could have had the wells.

The public will be baffled by DFID’s outsourcing assessing a bid for aid to one mega-consultancy and then outsourcing it again to a different consultancy, a specialist branch of the accountants, KPMG. In the past 12 months, DFID has paid KPMG more than £35 million. Of course, KPMG says that a lot of that is passed on to aid providers, and perhaps it kept back £3.5 million as a fee. That will reassure the people of Burkina Faso.

Triple Line is typical of the sort of company that has emerged in recent years and is one of the lords of poverty that I am talking about. Triple Line is based in Putney in the UK and is owned by two directors who founded it in 1999: Lydia Richardson, a socio-economist—I do not know what that is—who lives with her husband in a £1 million house in Wimbledon, and David Smith, an economist, who lives just a few streets away. Triple Line’s website says:

“We operate on the principles of openness, transparency, accountability and trust.”

However, it registers as a small company, meaning that it is not required to publish its accounts. That is how open, accountable and transparent it is. The owners refuse to disclose what their income or profits were last year or how much they were paid in salary or dividends. Apart from working with DFID, Triple Line lists 37 other clients on its website and states that its annual turnover is £2 million. So the £1.9 million it creams off DFID represents the major part of its turnover, which apparently it gets from cutting and pasting standard replies to small charities that want relatively small sums to do practical work.

That is just one company. It is important to look at the bigger picture. We know that last year alone DFID spent £500 million on consultants. The data compiled by a national newspaper show that the vast majority of those contracts are going to UK-based companies. The share going to UK firms has risen in recent years. I will return to the point about how desirable it is to give an increasing proportion of our aid budget to UK-based firms.

Of the 117 major DFID contracts and procurement agreements worth nearly £750 million, as published on the Government’s contracts portal since January 2011, only nine went to non-UK firms. Several of the best-paid consultants are former DFID officials, who appear to have gained substantial increases in their personal wealth since leaving the Department, even though they are still doing essentially the same work.

I am not the first person to notice this phenomenon. Earlier this year, a parliamentary report warned that the UK Government’s drive to cut costs could make them over-reliant on contractors—like Triple Line—and could even put the effectiveness of their aid programmes at risk. Members of the Select Committee on International Development said that their concerns about DFID’s use of contractors and other external partners were compounded by the lack of publicly available information on UK aid-funded contracts.

The Government have good intentions in seeking to maintain levels of and ring-fencing aid spending, but a public constituency for continuing high levels of aid cannot be built unless there is a measure of openness and transparency, which we have not seen to date.

The rise in the amount of money given to UK-based consultants is alarming, but before I speak a little bit more about that in general, let me mention another lord of poverty, creaming millions off the aid budget. Adam Smith International is the offspring of the think-tank, the Adam Smith Institute, which is probably better known to Government Members than to me. Adam Smith International has gone from strength to strength. It was paid a total of £37 million by DFID last year to promote the free market in the third world. Its total turnover that year was £53.6 million, with profits of £5 million, up 10% in 2010. Let us pause and think. We in this country, as a consequence of austerity, are seeing cuts in Government and at local government level. All hon. Members know that some measure of austerity would have had to happen, whoever was in government, but ordinary people are seeing cuts in their local government services and at Government level. Yet one of the lords of poverty is able to drive its profits up by 10% to £5 million.

It gets better. The managing director of Adam Smith International, which gets most of its money from DFID and therefore from the taxpayers—the same taxpayers who are seeing cuts to their local government services and cuts in Government—pays himself a salary with dividends that in 2010 totalled almost £1.3 million. The managing director of Adam Smith International trousers £1.3 million. Anything further removed from the public’s idea of the kind of people who go abroad to help some of the poorest people in other countries could not be imagined. I repeat that if we are going to build a constituency for continuing high levels of aid—in my view, it should increase—we have to examine this sort of abusive business activity, with people running what are supposed to be aid organisations and paying themselves salaries in the millions.

William Morrison, another member of Adam Smith International, earned £200,000 from that firm and collected dividends worth £1.06 million from its parent company, Amphion Group, which is wholly owned by him and three of his fellow directors. Amphion Group’s accounts state that its purpose is to act as a holding company for Adam Smith International. Mr Morrison’s salary rose by a quarter last year, to £253,000. He and his three fellow directors shared dividends of £7.5 million—almost £1.9 million each—which they paid to the Amphion Group. The directors collected salaries averaging £125,000 each. A director of Adam Smith International and Amphion, Peter Young, justified the payments, saying,

“If you want to get a good job done, you have to get people who know what they’re doing.”

With the greatest respect to Adam Smith International, I must say, as someone who has travelled in Africa and travelled extensively in the Caribbean, where my family originate that the idea that one cannot get the skills to improve and strengthen the government and economic structures of third-world countries without paying UK-based directors £125,000 each is risible. There are so many people of Nigerian, Afghan, Caribbean or horn of Africa origin with the skills, ability and talent, but they are unable to break into this sort of work because companies such as Adam Smith International have a death grip on it. They use the size of their organisations to squeeze out smaller and aspirant organisations.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we use, for example, African consultants in Africa, not only do they have a better idea of what is happening on the ground but the money that they receive is spent in their own country, so we achieve a double benefit for the people who live there?

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, which I was coming to. I am concerned about aid as a British parliamentarian, on behalf of the British taxpayer, and as someone with an interest in global realities and the important role that aid can play in creating global stability, and as one who one wants to help the poorest people in the world. I am also concerned about aid because, having personal contacts in some of the countries where it is dished out, I know that it causes huge frustration to see UK-based consultants flying out for a week or a month, staying in four-star hotels, going around in 4x4 vehicles, sending a few e-mails, writing reports that simply regurgitate known facts and then flying back to the UK, when there are local people who have a better understanding of the conditions. Whether it is in Afghanistan, west Africa, the Caribbean or the horn of Africa, local people could do those jobs just as well.

Furthermore, as my hon. Friend pointed out, if we employ locally based consultants, first, we help to build the knowledge base and infrastructure of those countries and, secondly, we pump money into their economies. If the only hope that people in third-world countries have when faced with those bloated UK consultancies is to get a job as a driver, a cook or a nanny, and if in the 21st century we are not prepared to start to shift funding to the skills and talent that we know exist in some of those countries, it is no wonder that the question of aid has become a talking point not only in the UK—often among people who are opposed to the principle of aid in the first place—but in Africa. How much good has that aid really done? Part of the reason people query how much aid we give to Africa and the third world—we can all see the statistics—is that they see that the money is paid to UK-based consultants and has a minimum practical effect in the local economies.

To return to the lords of poverty, there are dozens of staff in UK-based development consultancies—substantially funded by DFID—who pay themselves six-figure salaries. At Hertfordshire-based HTSPE, which got a third of its turnover from DFID last year, the highest paid director is on £144,000. The company earned £12.1 million in 2010-11 and is currently involved in the Department’s numerous programmes. GRM International received large sums of money from DFID but managed to pay only £47,000 in tax in Britain last year—possibly a debate for another time. GRM International was bought out by managers in 2009 and has since merged with another aid giant, Futures Group, and secured massive contracts from the US and Australian Governments. The firm was paid £67.7 million in management consultancy fees for aid delivery to the poorest communities in Zimbabwe in August 2011. Last year, the highest-paid director in Oxford Policy Management, which runs the DFID oil sector transparency initiative—I wonder if they have heard about that in the Nigerian delta—and several other programmes, earned £125,000, up 25% in a year.

No one says that people working for such companies should not get a living wage, to coin a phrase, or competitive rates. If we look at the absolute poverty in the countries that they are working in and recognise the possible effect on local economies if we were more willing to give money to local consultants, however, we have to query such massive salaries, profits and turnover, from DFID expenditure and with no real clarity about the outcomes.

The new Secretary of State for International Development has announced an inquiry into the use of such consultants, and we welcome that. Will the Minister tell us when to expect that inquiry to be completed and made available for public discussion? A review of Britain’s multilateral aid programmes, to assess the effectiveness of 43 aid organisations receiving UK money, was concluded to have contributed significantly to improving transparency and achieving value for money. The internal review of the Department’s spending on technical experts ought, therefore, to have similarly benign results, although when we want to review the use of consultants and technical experts we find ourselves in a hall of mirrors. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the UK aid watchdog, has also announced plans to examine DFID’s use of contractors, but those plans have stalled because many of the people involved are themselves big aid consultancy organisations.

There is immense good will in this country for the concept of giving money, whether from an individual’s pocket or from the Government, to help some of the poorest people in the world. That good will, however, is being strained by the rising amount that is going to British-based consultancies and by the difficulty of seeing their out-turn. I am concerned that, in DFID’s efforts to cut staff, it has outsourced work such as assessing aid bids that properly ought to rest within DFID and could certainly be done a lot cheaper in DFID, rather than by KPMG with its profit margins—nor is there any reason to think that an international accountancy company knows more about aid than people who have worked in DFID on the matter for all of their careers. Yes, we are on the right track with the overall sums of money, which it is important to ring-fence, but the trend, since 2010 in particular, has been to give the money to UK-based consultants.

When I refer to UK-based consultants, let me be clear that some are expert in house building or malaria nets, for example. One of the most successful pieces of aid to the Caribbean was when Metropolitan Police officers were seconded to the police in Jamaica. Jamaicans appreciated that, because the police brought real expertise and it was a real skills transfer operation. Frankly, it also enabled the politicians of the time to bypass some of the alleged corruption in the Jamaican police department. That aid was valued, so I am not saying that in all times and in all places there is locally based expertise that DFID should pay for. What I am saying is that generalised management consultancies, such as Adam Smith International, to name but one, send young people with no background in aid or development to Nigeria. They fly business class and stay in four-star hotels, earn considerable sums, and then fly back, while Nigeria continues much as before.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the transformation to a huge increase in consultants is ideologically based?

[Ms Abbott]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I was anxious to strike a non-partisan note, so I avoided that subject. However, any objective observer who sees the money going to generalised management consultancies with no specialist knowledge of the practical aspects of aid might think that there was an ideological motivation. We are discussing some of the poorest people in the world, and it is wrong that mere ideology should mitigate using money in the fairest and most effective way.

We need to know when the internal inquiry is due to report. The Department for International Development must consider whether some of the simple work of assessing bids for aid—there is a habit of sending out expensive management consultants—could be done more cost-effectively in-house. I urge the Government to look at some of the margins and massive profits that some organisations are making—the salaries that bosses pay themselves, and the millions of pounds of turnover—from DFID money. They must examine whether some of those margins can be shaved. Everyone else is practising austerity, so why should the lord of poverty not do so? Why is it necessary to pay people hundreds of thousands of pounds to prevail upon them to take up work to help some of the poorest people in the world?

Above all, we must consider using more local experts and consultants. Everyone who is concerned about aid agrees that that provides better value for money, and the people involved understand local conditions and are in it for the long term. If I were a young man working for Adam Smith International, I might fly out to Nigeria for a couple of months, and in 12 months’ time I might be in Afghanistan or somewhere in eastern Europe. Would I have a long-term concern that people in Nigeria will be better off in the long run as a consequence of my activities? No, because I would get on a jet plane and leave it all behind. Local advisers, consultants and technical experts live in those countries and will do so for the foreseeable future, so they have a genuine interest, which UK-based consultants may not have, in ensuring that what they are doing will have a long-term effect and make their country a better place to live in.

Just this morning, we heard about the millions of pounds being spent on an education project in Nigeria. It sounds like an excellent project, but the report that was published this morning queries its effectiveness, and says that children leave the school without mastering basic educational skills. That brings the whole issue of aid and development into disrepute. In these times of austerity, British taxpayers are entitled to know that aid money is being well spent and not top-sliced by overpaid, UK-based management consultancies. The very poor people we want to help need to know that the UK Government are straining every sinew to ensure the best value for money from their expenditure.

I go to Jamaica most years, and apart from UK policemen on secondment, people there and in other Caribbean countries have no idea where aid money for the region goes to, because so much of it is spent on UK-based consultants who mix in an exclusive social circle in the capital. They train, and write reports and e-mails, but they do not interact with people.

Aid has a purpose, because in a 21st century global economy, I am my brother’s keeper. It has a purpose, because it is the right thing to do, and promotes global stability. The aid we give to countries such as Afghanistan and Palestine should build general relationships with this country. If it is trousered by UK-based consultants, and people in those countries do not see its practical benefits and believe that the only beneficiaries are those consultants who jet in and out, far from helping to build relationships, that aid raises a question mark at the very least.

For the whole time I have been a Member of Parliament, this country has had one of the best records for aid, including individual donations, of any country in Europe. It has had a great record under some Conservative Ministers and some Labour Ministers. We have every reason to be proud of that. The new phenomenon of increasing amounts of money going to UK-based management consultancies—some people say it is an ideological move, but I would not—far from building a constituency in this country for high and continuing levels of aid, bids fair to undermine it. We are a better country because we meet our commitments on aid. The very least the Government can do is to ensure transparency and accountability, and to assure the British public that they are receiving the maximum value for every penny of that aid.

In a world where small, vulnerable island states are buffeted by climate change, small countries in Africa are at the mercy of the commodities markets, and China, sometimes unscrupulously, is moving into areas where Britain was once the most influential foreign donor and partner, ensuring that our aid budget is spent effectively could not be more important. I urge the Government to examine the issues, and to introduce an internal inquiry, and I assure the Minister that I will return to the subject over the course of this Parliament.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Howarth for chairing the debate; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for introducing the subject and for the passion that she always brings to such debates. It is a pleasure to sit alongside her.

With our economy suffering, value for money has never been so important to taxpayers. Understandably, there was some confusion and great concern about the revelation that the Department for International Development had spent more than £500 million on UK consultants. It is hugely important to raise the issue here today.

I want to make a number of points about value for money, the use of the private sector and the use of UK companies, rather than companies from developing countries. Last March, the International Development Committee released its annual report. Even then, there were concerns about the effectiveness of aid and the possibility that it was being undermined by the use of UK consultants. In particular, the Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), highlighted plans to reduce DFID’s operating costs to 2% and cut administrative costs by a third, from £128 million to £94 million. Does the Minister believe those plans are hampering our aid programme? We understand that the measures have been implemented to reflect similar cuts at other Departments, but it is concerning that, although the Department’s budget is increasing, its capacity could be decreasing. We believe that that has led to an increase in the number of UK firms and consultancy agencies receiving money from the taxpayer.

I was not fully aware of all the figures my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington referred to, but it seems that people are making salaries of £1 million and £1.5 million at the expense of some of the poorest people in the world.

[Ms Abbott]

The fact is that people who would regard themselves as middle income in the countries that these people are allegedly flying off to to help would not earn the sums we are talking about in a year. DFID should pause and think about whether it is right to drive a system that encourages people to cream off money in this way.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

I totally agree. Does the Minister feel that that approach represents true value for money for the British taxpayer? Can she demonstrate that it is the most effective approach to reducing poverty? If DFID is about anything, it is about reducing poverty among some of the poorest people in the world.

The British public—my hon. Friend touched on this—are compassionate, caring and extremely generous, and we have only to witness some recent examples to see that that is true. I could cite Haiti, because of the disaster that struck it. It is not in the British Commonwealth, and it is not a country that DFID deals with; indeed, it was suggested that, because it was a French colony, France would lead the way in dealing with the disaster there. However, the British people showed huge generosity; they did not care whether Haiti was a French colony or a British colony—they cared for the people of Haiti and gave enormously generously.

It is vital that we can show people that their money is going to help millions of families—women and children around the world—and that it is not being wasted by large consultancies in the UK. In the light of that and the Department’s recent announcement that it will investigate where its money is spent, may I, in the spirit of transparency, pick up on my hon. Friend’s comments and ask the Minister yet again when the internal report will be published in full? Interestingly, I asked that question at DFID questions recently. The Secretary of State—I appreciate that she is new to her post—gave me the longest answer in the whole Question Time, but did she tell me when the report will be produced? No. We need to know when it will be produced and whether it will be produced in full. We have a right to know where the money is being spent.

I hope the Department will be open and transparent about how British taxpayers’ money is spent and where it is going. The Secretary of State is relatively new, but I hope she will get to grips—people keep using that term—with how money is being spent in her Department, because the £500 million given to UK consultants represents 8% of the DFID budget. We also hope that the report will shed light on other funding streams. What struck me about my hon. Friend’s comments was the fact that a small non-governmental organisation that was digging wells for poor people was refused £250,000 when we are spending 8% of the budget on consultants.

The coalition Government have sought a different style of development. I do not want to get into an ideological argument, but there seems to be an increased emphasis on the private sector and on a more—I choose my words carefully, and I should when I am looking at my hon. Friend—paternalistic approach to the way we deal with the developing world. That approach ideologically favours the private sector, and we have seen examples of that.

I am not saying that I am against the private sector, which is hugely important. Let me give one example. Recently, I was in Nairobi, and I went to look at private schools. Now, private schools in Nairobi are not like the private schools we would imagine in other parts of the world. Kibera is the largest slum in Nairobi—one slum, one million people. There are a handful of schools on the outskirts. If local people want their children to have an education, they have no choice but to pay a relatively small amount to allow their children to go to school. The amount they pay for their child to go to school for a month is the same as the cost of a bottle of beer in one of the top-class hotels in Nairobi that some of the consultants we are talking about might stay at. People do not have a choice about making such payments, but this is more a social enterprise than anything else, so I am not against everything that is private.

[Ms Abbott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although no one in the 21st century objects in principle to money going to the private sector, being spent in-house by the Government or being spent by aid organisations, the watchword has to be whether it is spent effectively? Is the maximum benefit going to the recipients of aid? We do not take a position as between private, public, Oxfam or whatever; the issue is effectiveness and whether we are helping the people we seek to help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

I totally agree. There are two things: effectiveness and value for money—value for money for the British taxpayer and for the developing country.

The aid process was supposed to encourage developing countries to be involved in their own development. Untied aid—we have a proud record on untying aid—offers an excellent example of partnership with developing countries. By hiring agencies in developing countries, we make development more accountable to local people, and I made that point very clearly earlier. That uses local expertise, builds capacity and provides job opportunities.

I want to make a little point about capacity. I was in Zambia not too long ago. One company—I am told it is British—owed £70 million in unpaid tax. Some £70 million should have been paid to the Exchequer in Zambia, but it was not, and part of the reason for that is that Departments there do not have the capacity—lawyers, accountants, tax experts and so on—to get the money. Surely aid could be used to help countries help themselves.

In using local expertise, we ensure that value for money and effectiveness are our criteria. That is an example of how the private sector can be used effectively alongside development. The Government have been vocal in their support of partnership over aid, but by not using consultants from developing countries they appear to be squandering an excellent opportunity to engage with developing countries on an equal footing.

There is, understandably, some resistance to aid in the press and some parts of society. It is therefore imperative that the Department is open about its spending. The public should understand why the Department has chosen to select 92% of contractors from Britain, rather than from the developing world. I want to give the Minister quite a bit of time to answer the questions we have raised.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: aid is about our effectiveness in helping people in developing countries, and if we waste huge amounts on consultancies in this country, we have to ask whether that is value for money for the British taxpayer and right for the people of the developing world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

I assure the hon. Lady that I do meet and will meet members of the rising intellectual classes, or whatever she termed them, and that I would give them the same answer: the point is whether aid is effective and whether the British taxpayer gets value for money. That is important.

The good part of what the hon. Lady said was that the Opposition are committed to the 0.7% aid target, or are glad that the coalition have made that commitment. We will be the first country to deliver that, as set out in our manifesto and the coalition agreement, in 2013. She is right in what she says, in the sense that that is the percentage that we as a first-world developed country should give, not just because it is right, but because it is smart. It is a wise and good thing to do because it helps us and others. I am glad that both sides agree about that. The hon. Lady spoke of safety for all, and that is part of it.

There have been political shenanigans to do with aid recently, and as the hon. Lady has taken to reading The Daily Telegraph, she will have noticed that it often levels a salvo or two at the 0.7% target, and not only at the consultants. However, the whole point of a percentage is that it is geared to the fortunes of the country as they go up or down. We can maintain our commitment to the figure, because it is geared to our economic fortunes.

I want to put the debate in context. When the coalition Government came to power in 2010 we made it clear that we would ensure maximum development impact on the ground, and full accountability to British taxpayers, so that their money would be well spent. We have done much to improve value for money for UK taxpayers, and for the poor people who receive our aid and development assistance. As the hon. Lady mentioned, that has included, through the bilateral and multilateral aid reviews—which are revered across the development spectrum throughout the world for the work they have done in examining value for money, a full assessment and analysis of where and how we spend the aid budget to ensure that it gives maximum value for money. That has adjusted the focus so that it is now on a smaller number of countries, and funding to some poorly performing international agencies has been cut, in a move that gets life-saving help to many more people.

I prefer the term “suppliers” for those to whom the hon. Lady refers as consultants, because, as she said, while a global figure is given to them, only a percentage of it is administration, and the vast majority of it is for delivering the programme in-country. It is important to recognise that the direct engagement of contractors, or suppliers, is only one of a number of channels that we use to deliver development assistance on the ground. We strengthened the business case process in January 2011, to ensure that there would be good decision making about when and how to use contractors in our programmes, and we must also acknowledge that the suppliers engaged by DFID undertake a wide range of activities to support the delivery of the development programme. The majority of those suppliers’ contracts are managing the delivery of programmes, or managing the distribution of funds to deliver programmes on behalf of DFID. Those were some of the examples that the hon. Lady raised.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

I understand the point that the Minister makes, but I wonder how she can justify salaries of £1 million or £1.5 million to some of those people.

[Lynne Featherstone]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating: it is a question of what they delivered, whether it was value for money, whether it could have been got cheaper elsewhere, what the processes were, whether they were rigorous and whether the arrangement delivered, on the ground, the enormous programmes that we are carrying out throughout the world, in-country, across Africa and Asia. As to the suppliers we use, yes, UK firms win a significant proportion of our work, and the vast majority—90%—of the larger contracts. Technical capacity is one of the major deficits in the poorest countries, and the market for professional services and technical assistance in developing countries runs to tens of billions of pounds a year. British firms have strong expertise in the area and compete effectively in that big, global market—including for contracts awarded by DFID, but also right across the world.

UK aid is, as the hon. Member for Workington said, untied, and almost all our contracts are subject to competitive tender. When UK firms win contracts from DFID it is because they have offered value-for-money solutions to the requirements in the contract. We encourage firms from developing countries to compete for DFID business. However, local markets often lack the capacity, especially for programmes where specialist skills and experience are required to maximise results. That is particularly relevant as we have increased our focus on working in fragile and conflict-affected states. However, it is important to note that local firms and staff benefit from DFID contracts when our suppliers establish local teams in-country to deliver the programmes and to advise, just as we employ members of the local community to work in DFID offices, for the very reasons that the hon. Lady gave: they have local knowledge and experience. However, often it is not possible for local firms to mount the sorts of applications that can deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

I will return to that issue in due course. The hon. Lady keeps returning to the point about local employment and local opportunities, but we agree about that. It is a question of making it happen and encouraging that, but I have explained to her how that is being done.

On the implication that somehow a tsunami of contracts is now going to management consultants, there is an increase, but there is an increase to what we are doing in all our areas. There is an increase in what we are doing through budget support. There is an increase through sector support. There is an increase to NGOs and there is an increase in the use of suppliers. That is because, as we build towards the 0.7% figure, we are having to scale up and ensure that we deliver. Having different channels through which we deliver is probably the best way forward. A mixed economy of development assistance ensures that we are working and firing on all guns.

Of course DFID’s use of suppliers has grown in recent years. That is because our overall programme has grown and because we are doing more in fragile and conflict-affected states, where the risks are such that we have to retain more control ourselves, rather than channelling money through Governments. In some places, it is just not possible to work through the Government system, and NGOs are not always in place, so we have to work through those with specialist expertise, who can work in these very difficult circumstances. We do that by using suppliers who are accountable to us; it is to us that they are accountable.

We have asked ICAI to review the use of consultants. It is in the early stages of conducting a review of DFID’s use of suppliers to deliver programmes. The report is due in May 2013. The scope of the review is such that it will examine how DFID uses contractors. I am referring to the make-or-buy decision in relation to the business case: how do we decide whether we are going to do something ourselves or whether we need to buy in the service? The review will examine how we select contractors and secure value for money in the procurement process and how we hold them accountable—the contract and supplier management. The ICAI methodology for the study is to select and review a sample of five or six contracts as case studies to identify whether DFID is achieving impact and value for money in its use of contractors.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

Will the Minister commit to publishing the report in full?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I am coming back to that report. The ICAI report will be published in May 2013.

In terms of the response to the IDC, I do not have the information to hand. I shall have to write to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington on that point.

The hon. Lady referred to the lack of clarity about outputs from DFID programmes. In terms of how we ensure that UK aid money is spent effectively, the main tools are the new business case process, which has brought value for money and results up front in the design of all programmes; annual reviews, which enable us to monitor the value for money of programmes during implementation; and research and evaluation to identify what works best and to learn lessons both from our own projects and from those of others.

In terms of measuring value for money, the value-for-money framework ensures that the value for money of a programme is assessed at various stages of the programme cycle, from business case to DFID’s annual review process, and projects are then scored on whether they are achieving value for money. DFID has also invested heavily in building the evidence base and conducting research and evaluations of programmes to learn lessons about impact and drive greater value for money in future programmes. That is one of the biggest changes in aid and development assistance since the days of the Government whom the hon. Lady supported. There has been a shift in focus on to the evidence base and an insistence that almost everything can be measured and we can look to outputs. The evidence base is critical to evaluating what works, so that when we spend more money, we ensure that we spend it in the most effective way.

There was an assertion from the hon. Lady that consultants add little real value and do not do real work. Contractors actually perform a very wide role. Most of the supplier contracts are buying people and services that support delivery, either by managing the implementation of programmes or by managing the distribution of funds. Sometimes that includes in-kind aid distributed by suppliers. Examples include bed nets and cash—the 40p or 50p a week given to extremely poor people by suppliers contracted by DFID. We also use contractors to provide technical assistance to country Governments to support them in the development of local capacity. Others are used to undertake monitoring and evaluation of programmes or to conduct research to help to improve the effectiveness of our aid. Many of these suppliers play a key role in DFID delivering tangible development outcomes in the world’s poorest countries. I have made clear the importance that we attach to value for money, but also the importance of delivering for the poorest.

I do not have a date for when the report commissioned by the Secretary of State will be finished. I know that the Secretary of State has announced the details of the actions being taken as a result of the review. The recommendations of the report—so it must have been finished—are still being considered, and work is ongoing to plan for implementation. The reason why the report is not in the public domain is that it comes under advice for Ministers and it includes commercially sensitive information, but what the Secretary of State is doing as a result of the report will be published; in fact, I think it has been published already.

The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington asked why some of the suppliers working for DFID do not appear to pay enough UK tax.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

The hon. Lady suggests that the report cannot be published because it contains sensitive material. Is she prepared to produce and provide this information? She can redact the delicate, sensitive information. We want information that is as full as it can be in order to prove that the Department is as transparent as it should be.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I am afraid I have forgotten the point that I was addressing to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, because the intervention came then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

Whoever said it, it is an insult to the work going on to change people’s lives, deliver on the ground and make future prosperity sustainable.

The private sector is part of the solution. A growing economy that can lift its people out of poverty, as well as the technical assistance that more developed countries can offer, is important.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

rose—

[Lynne Featherstone]

I will not give way, because I am coming to my peroration.

In conclusion, contractors can perform an important role supporting the delivery of programmes that make a difference on the ground. They can, and do, deliver impressive results, often in incredibly challenging environments, but we look to them to do more. If they read the debate, they will know that they need to think about how they bid, knowing that our focus will be even sharper and our demand for value for money even greater. Our demand that they put more emphasis on how they will encourage local people along their supply chain to bid for work for them and for us is important. I am adamant that we will strive to maximise value for money, results and impact in every possible way. I am acutely aware of how important that is to those whose lives we seek to improve, as well as to UK taxpayers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend has raised an important matter which I, too, recognise. I have already engaged the Indian Government in discussions—at the World Bank meeting a few weekends ago—and I shall continue those discussions, as a matter of urgency, over the coming weeks. I think that as the aid budget enables countries to develop—and far fewer countries are classed as lower-income than 10 or 20 years ago—and as they move from aid-based to trade-based support, we must work with them carefully to establish what constitutes a responsible transition package, and that is what I am discussing with the Indians.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

I, too, warmly welcome the new Secretary of State to her post. Of course we all want to see value for money, so in the spirit of openness and transparency, will she tell the House when she will publish her report on the Department’s use of private consultants?

[Justine Greening]

I have already made it clear that we will take a number of actions in relation to the work that I arranged to be done, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to wait and see what steps we are able to take. The key to all this is ensuring that we understand when we should do things in-house and when we should opt for external support, and then working out how we can secure much better value for money. Many of the countries in which we operate are fragile and conflicted, and therefore need specialist skills. I think that it is right for us to use consultants; the question on which I have challenged the Department is how we can use them far, far better.

Post-2015 Development Agenda

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I am pleased to have secured this debate on post-2015 development goals at a very appropriate time.

The issue for debate today is what should happen to the set of international goals for development when 2015—the date by which the development goals adopted in 2000 were meant to have been implemented—is reached. Should the world community create entirely new ones? Should we incorporate the 2000 millennium development goals, in so far as they have not been fulfilled? How do the goals after 2015 relate to the sustainable development goals adopted at Rio? Do we need goals at all?

Those are important issues and this is an appropriate time to discuss them, for a number of reasons. First, the international community—states, non-governmental organisations, charities and the rest—in both richer and developing countries is now seriously beginning to address those issues. In the UK, we have a particularly good opportunity to influence the debate about the strategic approach to be adopted after 2015, because the Prime Minister has a role as the co-chair of the UN Secretary-General’s high-level panel, which is looking at the global development agenda after 2015. The first full meeting of that panel takes place in London next week.

The first question to be addressed is whether there should be a new set of international goals like the millennium development goals. I strongly believe that there should, although not necessarily in the same format. The idea of an internationally recognised set of targets is, I believe, a good one. Targets such as the MDGs can focus attention, action and funding, and set achievable objectives. We can see how far progress is being made in particular areas. There is plenty of evidence that the existence of the millennium development goals of 2000 did encourage the world community to focus efforts. Without them some, maybe much, of the progress would not have been achieved.

Indeed, some of the millennium development goals have been met ahead of the deadline set during the various negotiations leading up to their adoption. For example, the proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty—that is, on less than $1.25 a day—fell in 2010 to less than half the 1990 rate, according to the World Bank’s preliminary estimates. That fall in extreme poverty applies in every region of the developing world, including sub-Saharan Africa, where the situation is sometimes the least positive.

The proportion of people without access to safe drinking water was also halved by 2010 and there were significant improvements in the lives of 200 million people living in slums around the world. That is more than double the millennium development goal of 100 million people having their lives improved in that way.

Other targets are on track to be met, such as the target to halt and begin to reverse the spread of TB by 2015. As for universal primary education, the overall enrolment rates of children of primary school age in sub-Saharan Africa increased from 58% to 76% between 1999 and 2010. Mortality rates for children under the age of five have fallen markedly and 6.5 million people at the end of 2010 were receiving antiretroviral therapy for HIV or AIDS in developing regions.

The number of children not attending school, which was 108 million in 1999, had fallen to 61 million in 2010. There has been progress and it is important to emphasise that, to answer those who suggest that there is no point in doing anything in the field of international development, that it is a waste of money and that we cannot do anything about it. We can make progress; the world community can do something if we act together.

There is no doubt that in many areas progress is slowing down, no doubt partly due to the economic crisis. Development assistance at a global level has now fallen for the first time in 14 years. In 2011 it fell by 2.7%, turning back an increase in the previous 14 years, during which the UK had, of course, been a leader. I am certainly glad that the UK has remained committed to the 0.7% target, which we hope other countries will follow.

We have reached the time to discuss what should replace the existing millennium development goals. The issue is being debated by NGOs and Governments, and our own Select Committee on International Development in the House of Commons is starting its own inquiry. It is inevitable when such debate takes place that all sorts of options will be put forward for inclusion in a new list of development goals, and it is difficult to choose between them. I am certainly not going to cherry-pick today and produce my preferred list of specific targets. Indeed, part of the reason why I was keen to secure this debate was to find out more about the Government’s thinking on these issues before the 1 November meeting, to which I have already referred.

However, I do want to suggest some main themes on which a new list or programme—whatever form the new international development agenda takes—can be based, and the reasons why. My first theme is responding to climate change and environmental sustainability. There are two reasons for that. The first is that the existing millennium development goal on environmental sustainability is arguably one where, in some areas, some of the least progress has been made overall. The second is that the extent and urgency of the threat from climate change is much clearer now than it was in 2000.

It is frequently the poor in the poorest countries who are the biggest losers from the potential effects of climate change. I do not have time to go into the detail today, but issues such as flooding and desertification come to mind. Access to sustainable and affordable energy is a big issue. There is still a big question mark about how climate mitigation and adaptation is to be financed; it is still far from settled following negotiations in Copenhagen and Cancun.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

To emphasise the importance of climate change and flooding, I should say that I was in the Philippines earlier this year. Floods occurred in an area that had not been flooded for 50 or 60 years. The total number of deaths was between 25,000 and 30,000, among the poorest people of that area. That demonstrates the importance of doing something about climate change.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Absolutely. We are seeing that kind of example in many other countries in the world. While we must always be careful of trying to ascribe every natural disaster to climate change, the evidence is building about the effect on countries such as the one referred to by my hon. Friend.

I would characterise the second theme that should feature in whatever development goals are adopted by the international community as equity and inclusiveness. That is to take account of the fact that general development targets can frequently fail to address the particular difficulties faced by particular sections of society. There is most obviously the need to ensure that targets take account of the biggest part of the population: women. The need for gender equality in the post-2015 framework has already been widely recognised. I would also point out that there are other sections of society that can also lose out when their special issues are not taken into account in the agenda that is developed—children, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities, to name but some of the groups.

Clearly, the answer is not to add more and more targets covering more and more sectors and groups to a list of development goals. What is needed is to ensure that there is sophistication in how broad targets are translated into specific programmes. As more countries in the formerly developing world have experienced substantial economic development, we have seen how poverty and deprivation can exist side by side with rapid economic development. That is why a sophisticated approach is important.

The third theme is tackling hunger and the causes of hunger. Again, eradicating extreme poverty and hunger is a target under the existing millennium development goals and some good progress has been made. In recent years, we have seen plenty of examples where hunger and malnutrition have worsened, with famine in a number of areas in the world. As food prices rise globally, there is considerable concern that the situation will become significantly worse, not better. There is now an increasing consensus that tackling food insecurity and supporting agricultural development needs should be a major focus of common action by the world community, and that certainly needs to be reflected in whatever post-2015 agenda is agreed, however it is structured.

The most recent estimates of undernourishment from the Food and Agriculture Organisation suggest that 15% of the world’s population now live in severe hunger. There has also been only slow progress in cutting child undernutrition. About one third of children in southern Asia were underweight in 2010. Of the 20 countries worst affected by food insecurity, the majority are in sub-Saharan Africa or south Asia, and we have seen some very recent examples of severe problems with famine and hunger in those parts of the world. As well as tackling the immediate outbreaks of famine and issues related to hunger, it is important to have a major emphasis on agricultural development and food security. We need to provide long-term answers to the problems that will be faced by increasing numbers of people in the world unless action is taken by the international community.

Some of the themes I mention could be regarded as part of the building blocks on which we develop new goals. There is a need to break down the barriers to world trade, which is important if developing countries are to make the best of their economic potential. Everyone here will be aware of the almost imperceptible movement following the Doha round negotiations. It is 11 years and there is still no sign of progress. We should not forget that for many developing countries, being able to get the benefits from trade is important and one of the top priorities that the international community must seek.

Another theme that should be part of the overall picture is the need to recognise the importance of peace and security, controlling the arms trade and preventing conflict. The biggest single factor that undermines and sets back development is war, big and small, and it is a stark fact that no low-income, conflict-affected or fragile state has yet to achieve a single millennium development goal.

I have outlined a number of themes that should be part of the debate. Clearly, we also have to consider how far some of the existing MDGs have been reached and how far those that are furthest from being reached should be incorporated in a new set of goals. I am not suggesting that the five themes that I have set out should be reflected in five specific targets. Indeed, each of the themes could in itself bring forward a number of specific goals, but those themes at least set out some of the key issues for development in the forthcoming years and should be the basis from which a post-2015 agenda, in whatever form it finally takes, should be developed.

I am interested to hear what others in the Chamber consider should be the key priorities for the post-2015 development agenda and to hear from the Government how they are to take that agenda forward.

I urge the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, to play as active role as they can in setting this agenda and helping to develop it. Previous Prime Ministers achieved results on an international level because they gave the matter a high priority, and had the backing of the House and support from much of the public. I hope that the current Prime Minister will rise to the challenge of helping to set the agenda, to reflect both the concerns in this country and those that affect the international community as a whole.

We are in difficult times, but that means that there is even more of a case for fulfilling our moral duty and showing our solidarity with those who, in many cases, are the worst victims of the economic crisis that they had no part in causing. On many of the key issues of international development, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been saying the right things. The Prime Minister in particular now has an opportunity, through his role in the high-level panel, to show leadership, both at home and internationally, and I urge him to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is an interconnection with, for example, education? If we are to get more and more children into school, we need to address gender and disability issues.

[Rushanara Ali]

I totally agree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith mentioned, we need to highlight that issue. We also need to recognise that disability rights are anathema in many countries. We have a responsibility to share the learning on some of the things that have been successful in our country. The rights agenda goes beyond one group and includes those with disabilities and other groups that are particularly marginalised.

Despite economic growth in middle-income countries, we know that in countries such as, say, India there are still some 400 million people living on less than $1.25 a day and more than 800 million people living on less than $2 a day. There are important questions to explore on how we can enable countries such as India to do more for themselves while ensuring that we do not pull out our aid efforts, which would leave large numbers of people in more challenging, difficult circumstances.

We should continue to support efforts to lift those people out of poverty and, over time, allow those countries to take more responsibility. Although there are pressures on such middle-income countries, we need to ensure that our efforts and focus remain on the poorest. Even if the Governments of those countries do not act and respond to those challenges in the immediate future, we should work with them to enable them to do so.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

I do not intend to speak for long, because I want to ensure, if possible, that the Bill gets its Second Reading today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick), not only on coming so high in the ballot, but on choosing a topic that I can only describe as—to repeat, to some extent, what the Minister said—one of the great issues of our time. Let me also say how pleased I am that the Government are supportive—even if for only half of the Bill—and determined, as I and many others are, that it gets on the statute book. However, there are some forgotten people as well. We should not forget the millions of people outside this Chamber who have campaigned on the issue—people from non-governmental organisations and all sorts of other organisations—and for whom, if the Bill goes through, it will be a dream come true.

People talk about the effectiveness of aid, but let me give the House just one statistic that comes to mind when people ask whether it does any good. As a result of aid involving malaria nets and all the work done with medicines and so on, over the last 10 years a third of the African children who would have died from malaria have not done so. There are many justifications for the Bill. We hear about how it can help deal with migration and terrorism, and about how it is good for business and trade, but at the end of day, we are doing this because it is the right thing to do. Recently I was in Zambia. We went from Lusaka down to Choma, and then out into the bush country—not even on roads, but through long grass and so on—to a little village. We saw mothers there who were pulling clean water from a well that had been provided by overseas aid. The look on their faces! When the words of one of those mothers were translated into English, we heard that she was simply saying how pleased she was that her children were not sick—that they had clean water and were disease-free.

This Bill is the right thing to do morally, but—to pick up the point the Minister made—it also puts the UK on the moral high ground where it deserves to be. That will enable us to say, in bilateral or multilateral negotiations with other countries, that we are the first country in the world to do this.

The Bill is important for us as a Parliament, for the Government and for the Opposition. It is important for the United Kingdom, but far more than that, it is important for millions of people in some of the poorest countries of the world. It is for them that we are doing this, and I hope that the House will support the Bill.

Food Crisis (The Sahel)

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I am delighted to have secured this debate. I also thank my colleagues for joining me here this afternoon.

To put the debate in context, 18 million people across seven countries, from Senegal to Eritrea, are now feeling the effects of food shortages. The horn of Africa crisis is beginning to fade in our memories, and as it is not the force it was in the media, our attentions start to turn to another crisis. Although we have an opportunity to do better this time, I am concerned that the world community is not acting swiftly enough. These crises illustrate how food security is a growing problem, which will show no sign of lessening unless there is a global commitment to tackle the issues. That global commitment must deliver its promises to the world’s poor.

I want to focus on a few issues, including children’s welfare during food crises, long-term investment and short-term recovery, and funding and the international community. Living in the region when times are not too bad is difficult. Four of the Sahel countries, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso and Mali, are in the bottom 15 human development index countries. Even in a very good year, Oxfam says, 300,000 children die from malnutrition. These communities are some of the most vulnerable in the world and they lack almost all of life’s most basic requirements. To meet the millennium development goals, the Government must work to protect these people by investing in their future and protecting their present.

The current crisis has recognisable traits plus the added complication of conflict. We have seen it before, but this time we must deal with it differently and better. Cereal production across the Sahel in autumn 2011 was 25% lower than in 2010. A change in the climate can be an inconvenience here in the UK. We saw that with the Queen’s jubilee when it rained throughout the pageant. When we have water shortages, we might not be able to bowl on our favourite bowling green because it has not been watered. In the Sahel, however, such shortages can be a matter of life and death.

One of the most dangerous consequences of a food crisis is malnutrition, which often hits children first, and the most vulnerable children at that. Malnutrition is destroying the potential of thousands of children across Africa. In early May, UNICEF warned that 1 million children could die from malnutrition in the Sahel. We have been warned and we continue to be warned about the ramifications of not acting. The Government must act now to prevent not only deaths but the spread of malnutrition.

The Save the Children report, “A Dangerous Delay” highlights how damaging malnutrition can be, as it directly affects education and future earning power. The impact of not acting now will affect generations to come. Oxfam estimated that it cost $1 a day to protect a child from malnutrition before the 2005 food crisis in Niger, but $80 a day to save a child’s life from severe malnutrition once the crisis had peaked. It makes sense both morally and economically to act now.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. We are all aware of the number of debates that have taken place on this matter in this Chamber and elsewhere in the House. There is a problem of food security right across the globe, but in these countries some 300,000 children will die from malnutrition. Of course there is an issue of aid, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is good not only that we send aid to those regions but that the aid reaches the people who need it? There is also an issue of education and, where possible, irrigation should be introduced. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on the need for security of food.

[Tony Cunningham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and pay tribute to him for the work that he has done on this problem over many years. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do more, but the problem is broader than just malnutrition; lots of other factors are involved as well.

Although some money has been pledged to Save the Children, UNICEF and elsewhere, not nearly enough is being spent to protect children from the harmful effects of long-term malnutrition. World Vision estimates that in Niger nearly 50,000 children have dropped out of school since the crisis began, and that 44% of school-aged children are migrating for work. The food crisis is not just about food; it affects a child’s health, mental well-being, education and future. We sometimes forget that education is a once in a lifetime thing. Malnutrition does not just affect the child while they are hungry; it is a life sentence. If a child misses out on education at a vital period in their life because of malnutrition, they never recover. Malnutrition is a life sentence for many people in this region.

Although UK funding has increased, it has not taken into consideration that the need has grown since 2010, when funding was £20 million. I urge the Government to act swiftly, not only to provide crisis funding but to invest in the future of the Sahel communities.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing such an important debate. On the point about contributions, the Department for International Development has already made significant contributions of food, water, seeds, medicines and vaccinations for cattle, and the Minister will have even more details. Some 1.4 million people are being helped at the moment. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that this humanitarian crisis is so grave that we need leadership and involvement from the entire international community, and that further assistance and contribution from some of the wealthier middle east countries would not go amiss?

[Tony Cunningham]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution and pay tribute to her for her work on this matter over a long period of time. I noticed that the Minister was shaking his head. I do pay tribute to the Government for what they are doing and I will come on to say that we very much welcome the extra money. The point that I was trying to make was that we need to be doing more on a world community basis. We need to involve Europe and other bodies. I certainly was not minimising what the Government are doing.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Following on from the hon. Lady’s point about global leadership, does he agree that it was disappointing that the G8 leaders did not take a stance similar to the one taken in L’Aguila in 2009? We need a global response to food security, ensuring that we tackle not only the urgent crisis in Sahel but future crises in other parts of the world.

[Tony Cunningham]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The UK Government can do their bit and provide support and additional funding, but unless we get a global commitment and involve multilateral institutions, we will not solve the problem.

As I have already said, I urge the Government to act swiftly, not only to provide crisis funding but to invest in the future of the Sahel communities. The long-term investment should include investment to build capacity and resilience within those communities. The region’s long-term problems must be tackled before a crisis emerges; it is so important to deal with crises before they happen, rather than wait until they happen to act. Not only do we risk lives if we wait but the cost of the delay will also be huge; that was another point that I made before.

Recent humanitarian disasters have shown the importance of heeding early warning systems and not delaying before taking action. “A Dangerous Delay”, the report produced by Oxfam and Save the Children, highlighted the mistakes that were made in the response to the east African crisis. The report said that national Governments, donors, NGOs and the UN needed to

“act decisively on information from early warning systems and not wait for certainty before responding”

and

“actively seek to reduce drought risk in all activities, ensuring that long-term development interventions increase resilience and adapt to the changing context”.

I am sure that the Minister has been waiting to hear my next point: I very much welcome the news that the Department for International Development has increased funding. However, what I am saying is that the Sahel crisis is so huge that we need even more money, and we also need the UK Government to make sure that everyone else is pulling their weight too. The extra £10 million from DFID could not have come at a more important time, but the UN states that we are still missing £300 million to fight the worst of the crisis. Food security is no longer just about the human imperative of having enough to eat; it also impacts on government and on the very structures of the societies in which these people live.

I will conclude as quickly as I can, because I want to give the Minister ample opportunity to tell us what he is doing—not only what he is doing as part of the UK Government’s efforts, but what he is doing in relation to the actions of international organisations, other donors and other countries. I hope that he will paint a picture of the UK being hugely active in trying to deal with an incredibly difficult crisis.

As I have said, Oxfam has warned that 400,000 children may need life-saving treatment for malnutrition. A donor-pledging conference is crucial. Can the Minister comment on the possibility of having such a conference? Is a conference feasible? I would very much welcome one as soon as possible, because the crisis is getting worse as we speak. We need a donor-pledging conference to minimise the risk that the crisis poses to children and severely affected communities.

The UK is respected worldwide for its commitment to aid and for the difference that it makes globally. That was the case under the last Labour Government and I hope that it will be the case under this Government too. I hope that they will make a commitment to do the best they can for some of the most vulnerable people in the world. I hope that this Government will continue the UK’s work in this area and, as I have already said, that they will encourage as many other individuals and organisations as possible to get involved. What role can the UK play to encourage more funding? That is the key question for the Minister. The Government must increase their own funding, but they must also encourage more funding from other organisations. That additional funding is desperately needed.

I thank Members for being here in Westminster Hall today and I thank the Minister for coming along. I am sure that we are all hugely concerned about the growing crisis in the Sahel, but this is a debate. We have uttered warm words; we have all said how vital it is to act and how desperate the crisis is, but those are simply words. What we need now is action, and I hope that action is what we get.

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

I am delighted to have this opportunity to ensure that we give a high degree of attention and recognition to what is unquestionably one of the most pressing issues facing the people of our planet today. It is therefore very timely that the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) has secured this debate. I saw it listed on the Order Paper some time ago, and I think that it has been brought forward to today, when Parliament has reconvened. I am glad that we now all have the opportunity not only to catch up with the facts on the ground as we now best understand them, but to understand what our response on behalf of the British people has been to date.

I particularly seek to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions about where we go from here. We are not only focused on the immediate humanitarian needs, although we are rightly focused on them at this stage, but on the resilience issues highlighted by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and the hon. Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). Indeed, we also focus on the year-on-year challenges that face that area of the world.

The crisis in the Sahel is something that we need to debate, to ensure that it is kept in the public eye. As the hon. Member for Workington said, it is currently estimated that about 18 million people are at risk of food shortages, of whom 8 million need immediate assistance. We are witnessing exceptional circumstances, as almost 1.5 million children are expected to suffer from severe acute malnutrition this year, which is obviously a large increase on the number of children affected by food insecurity in the Sahel year on year. The worst affected countries are Niger, Chad and Mali, where 72% of those who are affected by the crisis live, but a huge swathe of land is affected, from Senegal and Gambia on the Atlantic coast to the northern parts of Nigeria and Cameroon, as well as areas to the north and east of those areas.

The humanitarian crisis in the Sahel is getting worse. Increasing numbers of people are being forced to resort to coping mechanisms that store up trouble for the future, such as reducing the number of meals each day or going without food altogether for days at a time. The physical condition of the livestock that provide the livelihoods for many families in the Sahel is beginning to deteriorate, and some animals are now too weak to reach pasturelands. Admission rates of severely malnourished children to therapeutic treatment centres are on the rise, and greater numbers are being admitted to treatment centres in Niger than at the same stage of the 2010 crisis.

I will respond in particular to a point made by the hon. Gentleman about the cereal deficit. He said that cereal production in 2011 was 25% lower than in 2010. That is certainly factually true, but 2010 was actually a bumper year, so we need to be extremely careful about how we understand the phenomenon for the resilience argument going forward. In 2011, cereal production in the Sahel was actually about 3% in deficit compared to the overall running average. There is, of course, a structural problem about what that average represents in terms of meeting the ongoing and continuing need.

[Tony Cunningham]

Does the Minister accept my point that, even in the good years, life is desperately hard for people in the Sahel?

[Mr O'Brien]

Absolutely; I was seeking to make that point. It is helpful to reinforce the point that, in any event, we are dealing with an extraordinarily challenged area of the world, which has a year-on-year crisis; that is no exaggeration. However, as I have just pointed out, we have an exceptional situation now—this minute, this year—and a fairly tight window in which to do something about it before the weather conditions in the normal weather patterns arise in the next few weeks and make it even more difficult to gain access to the area and deliver aid, even where security issues do not make that more difficult than it already is climatically and geographically.

That is why, as Ministers in the Department for International Development and on behalf of the British people through the coalition Government, we announced yesterday an additional £10 million to be provided immediately, to help just over 1 million people in six countries of the Sahel, by giving food, health care, clean water, animal feed, treatment for children and aid to refugees. That brings our total funding commitment to the region to date to £20 million, which will assist more than 1.4 million people at risk of hunger in the Sahel—a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald in her intervention.

The UK has shown leadership by being one of the first international donors to respond to this crisis, at the same time as we have pushed others to do more. Our initial £10 million, which was given some weeks back, is already starting to demonstrate results. An example of UK aid impact in April includes assistance to more than 43,000 men, women and children. Of those 43,000 people, 15,000 people in Niger have received food; 27,000 people, or approximately 3,464 families—that is a rather precise number for an approximation—in Niger and Mali have received inflation-proof cash vouchers to purchase food and other critical supplies; and 1,700 Nigerien children have been vaccinated against measles.

In addition to our direct support, the UK has provided a substantial share of multilateral contributions to the response to the crisis in the Sahel. The UN’s central emergency response fund has released £57 million, and the European Community Humanitarian Office has provided £105 million. So the UK is taking its fair share of the burden. But for our intervention and contribution, the situation would unquestionably have become even more serious at an even earlier stage. Families would have used up seeds and plants, and breeding animals would have been eaten and household assets sold to meet immediate food needs.

We have to be clear, however, that our links with the Sahel are not as strong as those that we have with other areas of Africa. We do not have the local presence or knowledge to take a lead in the Sahel, as we have done in the horn of Africa, for instance. Therefore, in response to the hon. Gentleman’s urging on this point, it is vital that we get other donors to be encouraged to step forward to carry their share of the international response, particularly those that have the shared history, the knowledge and the presence on the ground in the countries of the Sahel that the UK does not. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I continue to lobby our counterparts in other Governments, to urge them to increase their support.

Things are made even more difficult, of course, by things such as the coup in Mali. The rebellion in the north of the country has added a new and potentially dangerous dimension. More than 300,000 people have been directly affected by the conflict. Humanitarian agencies are increasingly concerned by reports of human rights violations, of increasing malnutrition and of armed groups seeking to place restrictions on humanitarian access. We have witnessed the effects of the deadly combination of drought, food insecurity and conflict in Somalia.

[Tony Cunningham]

Now that the Minister has mentioned conflict complicating things, does he also accept that what has happened in Libya has had an impact on the Sahel region, with returning soldiers and so on? That does not help at all.

[Mr O'Brien]

I absolutely agree. I prefer in this debate not to get too far down into the security implications, but suffice it to say that, perhaps a little unusually for a Minister of the Crown, I have driven right the way through the Sahara and this area and know the geography well. It was many years ago, but in the years when I was going there, it was seen as relatively safe, without the pressures that have come from returnees from some of the conflicts—in Libya, for instance—and the access to cut-price AK47s and other munitions. There were already very insecure parts to the region, because it has always been borderless from the perspective of how people perceive and identify themselves and adhere to various ways of life. That presents additional challenges. We have already closely monitored, and will continue to monitor, the humanitarian situation in northern Mali, to the extent that access and information are obtainable, and encouraged the Economic Community of West African States to continue with its efforts to find a diplomatic solution.

The international community has learnt from previous crises in the area in 2005 and 2010 and has brought those lessons to bear, as best it can, this year. Early interventions have helped many people to cope, including the UK’s cash voucher programme, which has enabled more than 3,400 families to hold on to their livestock during the start of the hunger season. However, we are now approaching a critical point in the crisis, with historical experience suggesting that acute malnutrition rates will rise to reach a peak in July and August. The rains expected to start this month will make it more difficult for aid agencies to deliver supplies across the region and will increase the risk of diarrhoeal diseases and malaria.

The urgency of the situation requires an intensified and co-ordinated international response. The UN’s appointment of a regional humanitarian co-ordinator for the Sahel will support a more coherent and prioritised response, and that is welcome. The UN has revised its estimate of the funding needed to meet humanitarian requirements to almost £1 billion, which is more than double its initial needs estimate and is an indication of the growing seriousness of the situation. It is therefore right to put pressure on other donors, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as we speak, calls are being placed—I happen to know because I am personally involved—through to Germany, Norway and Canada. There are, of course, continuing and very active discussions with ECHO, through Brussels and through our French counterparts, as they have the strength of historical connection that perhaps replicate ours in the east and in the horn of Africa.

It is right that we focus our attention on meeting the immediate needs of people in distress, but at the same time we must continue to learn lessons from the Sahel’s third humanitarian crisis in less than a decade, so that there is much less likelihood of a repeat in the coming years. The underlying causes of the crisis are deeply rooted and long-standing.

The Sahel is a climatically vulnerable area and its vulnerability will be exacerbated by climate change. Even in so-called good years, some areas have rates of acute malnutrition chronically above 15%. It takes only a year of below average rainfall to push many more people over the edge; many poor households are still recovering from the 2010 crisis. It is not, however, simply a problem of uncertain climate; it is one of poverty, rooted in poor governance, political instability, endemic conflict and weak economies.

The key point is that there is enough food to feed the people of west Africa in 2012, and in many areas of the Sahel food is available but at prices that the poor cannot afford. In the markets of Mali, Mauritania and the north of Burkina Faso, food prices are historically high—more than double the five-year average for this time of year in Mali’s capital, Bamako, and 85% higher in Ouagadougou. It is a problem of economic access made worse by protectionist measures of Governments, such as restrictions on grain exports and border closures. We must continue—I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are continuing—to support the free movement of trade and food affordability to ensure that even the poorest can eat. At the same time, we must help Governments and communities to withstand a harsher and more uncertain climate, unlocking the region’s economic potential and helping to build a stronger contract between peoples and states.

The coalition Government are implementing recommendations from the humanitarian emergency response review to strengthen the resilience of poor people in Africa to withstand and recover from future shocks and to increase food security. We are developing safety net programmes, supporting work to improve agricultural livelihoods, funding research into higher-yielding and drought-resistant staple crops, and building stronger health and education systems. By 2015, 20 million young children around the developing world will benefit from our nutrition programmes.

Although we do not have a bilateral programme in the Sahel, the UK retains significant development investment in the region through our contributions to the multilateral development organisations. The European Union’s security and development strategy for the Sahel will commit €600 million over the next 10 years to provide basic services, increase economic opportunities and rebuild the contract between state and communities. The UK is also the second largest contributor to the World Bank’s global facility for disaster risk reduction and recovery, which is helping 20 developing countries, including Mali, Senegal and Burkina Faso, to cope with disasters, adapt to climate change and build long-term resilience.

In picking up the hon. Gentleman’s point, I remind the House that the meeting of the G8 identified food security as a major theme that it wished now to focus on, and we are not only fully behind that but have had some help in ensuring that it is the focus of the agenda. We will continue to push that, both at the G20 and at other gatherings. It is vital that we recognise that worldwide, as a top development, humanitarian and aid issue—whichever way we define it—addressing food insecurity through resilience and other food security measures is now a huge and important priority for us, as the UK Government, with our development programme and humanitarian response, but also increasingly among the international interlocutors and partners.

The long-term investments in resilience and development not only are needed to give poor people in the Sahel and other vulnerable regions the means to take control of their lives again, but represent far better value for money than emergency humanitarian aid alone—a point underlined by the hon. Gentleman. So now that we have made our commitment clear and have stepped up not only bilaterally but particularly and equally through the multilaterals, urging the prioritisation that is required, it is the moment to build on working with others to try to get them to make up their equal shares. I am pleased to see that the responses are beginning to come forward and that we are seeing much greater prioritisation of, and focus on, this very immediate crisis that we all face.

[Tony Cunningham]

Will the Minister please assure me that he will take a personal interest in monitoring the situation as the days, weeks and months go on?

[Mr O'Brien]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that absolute assurance because for the past 14 weeks I have been making sure that I have a daily report. For reasons that he will understand, plans about how close I can get to having eyes on are in development.

In the meantime, I am grateful to have had this opportunity to update the House on the significant work that the coalition Government, on behalf of the British people, are doing to encourage the rest of the international community, as well as to contribute our fair share to what is a very difficult crisis that the world faces today.