Syria

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

The House has many serious questions about the decision, announced by the Foreign Secretary to the media rather than to this House, to establish a diplomatic channel with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. HTS is a proscribed terrorist organisation, but the Foreign Secretary says that the UK is none the less able to have diplomatic contact. Can the Minister clarify the specific legal basis on which she has established contact? Is HTS the only such organisation operating in Syria that now has a diplomatic channel?

We are now aware that Ann Snow, the UK special representative for Syria, and another senior FCDO diplomat, have met the leader of HTS. Can the Minister tell us who else has made contact? Has contact with HTS leaders only been made via official channels, rather than at ministerial level? I know the Minister will be aware that there is a big difference between the two.

The Foreign Secretary also said that the FCDO is engaging with HTS because it wants a representative and inclusive Government, and an end to violence in Syria. Has the UK conveyed to HTS a clear expectation of what should happen to bring that about? If so, will the Minister now take this opportunity to share that road map with the House? Does she believe, based on those conversations, that HTS will lead a peaceful transfer of power to a genuine civilian Government which protects minority groups?

The Government need to be extremely careful, because by dealing with HTS and publicly doing so, there is a risk of legitimisation of the organisation and its position in Syria. At this stage, does the Minister not agree that that would be premature? These are very early days in the new post-Assad reality, and we need to judge HTS by its actions, not its words.

Now that the Government have embarked on this path, can we expect an unequivocal statement that there is no read-across to other proscribed groups? The integrity of the proscription system is absolutely paramount, and the Government must exercise extreme care not to undermine it in any way. Is it still the case that those who left Britain to support the murderous Daesh regime have no place in the UK, and will the Minister commit herself to ruling out any return of Shamima Begum and others to the UK? We note her comments about chemical weapons; can she provide any further detail on how the UK will push for their destruction?

Let me now turn to the humanitarian aspect of this conflict. We are aware of the Government’s latest aid package to Syria. Two weeks ago, when pressed on aid delivery in Syria, the Minister for the Middle East said he was concerned that practical access for aid agencies would be difficult to maintain, and work was needed to maintain access through established humanitarian corridors. It would be helpful to hear the Government's latest assessment of the situation. The UK has funded more than £4 billion of aid over the past decade and more, but with a terrorist group in control of significant territory, can the Minister assure the House that the only beneficiaries of British aid, including food, water and sanitation, are innocent civilians? British aid must not end up in the wrong hands, so what assurances can she give that the way in which aid is being delivered has taken account of the new operating environment?

There is real concern about what Iran’s next step in Syria might be. There are reports that the regime in Tehran has been in contact with rebel groups, and we need to be very alive to the risk that it may try to re-establish a foothold for its hostile and malign operations in the region. We should be very clear about the fact that would be an awful outcome. We and our allies need to be pulling every diplomatic lever to blunt Iran’s ability to launch a resurgence in Syria, and the House would welcome an update from the Minister on her work on that front.

We all want a stable, peaceful Government in Syria who will protect all groups and minorities, free from the influence of Iran and Russia. That is easy to say, but bringing it about is far more difficult—as will be avoiding an incredibly dangerous power vacuum that could fuel extremism, cause a further breakdown of law and order and bring about a proliferation of criminal activities, including the weapons smuggling and drug production. We need to see a clear plan from the Government that protects British interests at home and abroad, and supports those who sincerely want to protect the innocent Syrian civilians who have suffered so much.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her comments. She has raised a number of issues, with which I will deal in turn. First, she asked about the UK’s engagement with HTS. I did talk about that in my statement, but I can provide additional information. It is clear that the fact that HTS is a proscribed terrorist group does not prevent the UK from engaging with it in our efforts to help secure a political settlement, or from engaging with any future transitional Government in Syria that includes HTS. Its proscription will not inhibit the pursuit of our foreign policy objectives in Syria, and the UK will be guided by a set of core principles for any diplomatic interaction with the interim Syria authorities, with inclusion and the protection of human rights as key considerations. That has been the case until now, and it most definitely will be the case into the future. The right hon. Lady asked about engagement with other bodies at official level. There has been engagement with Türkiye and with the SDF, and that will continue. We are seeking to do all that we can, above all, to ensure that the interests of Syrians themselves are put at the forefront in this very difficult situation.

The right hon. Lady asked about the representations being made by the UK to the HTS. I covered that in my statement, but let me repeat that we have been crystal clear about the fact that any subsequent arrangements must be comprehensive, representative, inclusive and, above all, determined by Syrians. She asked whether this would have any impact on the integrity of the proscription regime; no, and it must not, because that is an incredibly important regime and there will be no linkage. She asked what would happen with those who chose to leave our country to promote and support terrorism by seeking to fight for Daesh; of course those people will not be able to come to the UK. She talked about the use of chemical weapons; I covered that in my statement as well, but, again, the UK will seek to play as much of a part as it possibly can in ensuring that those stockpiles are destroyed after they were used so appallingly against the Syrian people.

The right hon. Lady asked about the use of aid. I have discussed this matter myself, as have many of my officials, with a number of multilateral bodies and with a number of our bilateral partners as well. We are determined to work together to ensure that aid does not fall into the wrong hands and is not diverted. Of course that must not happen, because it is desperately needed by many Syrians. A great many people have already been displaced from Syria to neighbouring countries, but large population movements now seem to be taking place, and it really is important that the aid goes where it is needed. We are, of course, monitoring that in detail.

The right hon. Lady asked about the situation with Iran. The UK has condemned Iran’s reckless and destabilising activity, including its support for militant groups. We have been very clear about that, as the new Government. Finally, the right hon. Lady talked about the need to ensure that we do not see an increase in the developments that have been so concerning, involving the smuggling of weapons and drugs. The UK will focus on that later with the new Government, because we see the damage that has already been caused in that regard.

UK Leadership on Sudan

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

I welcome this statement not least because it provides an opportunity to highlight what is a humanitarian catastrophe. Yesterday, I was fortunate to meet representatives of the World Food Programme. From speaking to them and to others in the sector, I know how crucial it is that we continue to raise the importance of this issue and to keep the situation in our minds.

This war, which is driven by a man-made power struggle, has already resulted in the world’s worst hunger and displacement crisis. It is, as I said earlier, a humanitarian catastrophe. Any further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Sudan will have dire consequences. There are already 25 million people—half the entire population of Sudan—in urgent need of assistance. Eleven million people have had to flee from their homes, and 7 million need urgent food assistance. There are reports of systematic human rights abuses, including sexual violence, torture and mass civilian casualties. What has been happening in Darfur is also incredibly disturbing.

The situation in Sudan is unconscionable. Red lines are being crossed in the prosecution of this conflict that countries such as the UK—the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council—cannot allow to stand. It is also firmly in the region’s interest for the conflict to come to an end and the humanitarian crisis to be addressed. Further destabilisation in the region caused by this conflict must be avoided. Sadly, we are all well aware of the knock-on effect in the surrounding countries. The UK has already invested a great deal of diplomatic energy into trying to bring about a cessation of hostilities and to press for unhindered, safe humanitarian access to Sudan.

The previous Government also invested heavily in aid to Sudan to alleviate the suffering. I would like to take a second to pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not in his place today, for the leadership that he has shown in response to this crisis and for his commitment in government to the people of Sudan.

We understand that the new Government have announced further aid measures, which of course is welcome, but I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further details to the House on which trusted organisations she has partnered with for her emergency aid package. We note that she has said that the package will provide food, water, shelter and healthcare where it is most needed, but can she provide specific examples of the aid items she hopes it will deliver and at which areas of Sudan she envisages it being targeted?

The Minister will no doubt be fully seized of the problem of getting aid into Sudan in the first place, let alone the challenges of distribution. Can she assure the House that everything possible is being done to ensure that this aid can be genuinely effectively distributed? What recent conversations has she had with partners to encourage other countries to provide support to the humanitarian response?

Turning to the warring parties, our position remains that there must be an immediate cessation of hostilities. We understand that the resolution the Government introduced at the UN Security Council with Sierra Leone was thwarted by Russia. However, we would welcome a further update on other avenues the Government are actively pursuing, including backing the Jeddah process. The Government and our allies need to be working around the clock to press the warring parties into a ceasefire and to exert whatever pressure they can to see the lifting of arbitrary obstacles to humanitarian aid delivery.

In conclusion, I am sure the Minister will agree that the status quo in Sudan is not sustainable and that it must change. The UK has a leadership role here. We must use it to its fullest extent.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her remarks and her clear concern about the situation. I hope that a loud and clear message has been sent that there is cross-party concern about what is going on. I was very encouraged by how she described the situation and the need for the UK leadership that we are determined to deliver.

I was very encouraged to hear that the right hon. Lady has met representatives of the World Food Programme to discuss these matters. I, too, met a number of its operatives when I was in South Sudan. They are working incredibly hard to get in the support that is needed. In fact, there was some coverage of this on the BBC this morning—very welcome coverage, given that there has not been a huge amount of media coverage of the situation—including interviews with some of the operatives.

The right hon. Lady talked about the growing body of evidence of serious atrocities and violations of human rights. The UK Government are extremely concerned about that. We were determined to ensure that we had a renewal of the mandate for the fact-finding mission. We were pleased that it was renewed, this time with increased support from African nations. It is important to get a picture of what is really happening, so that there is no impunity.

The right hon. Lady rightly referred to the regional impact. We have seen the impact on South Sudan, Chad and a number of other countries, including countries that were already in difficult situations in terms of food security. She talked about the work of the previous Government, for which I am grateful. As I said, this is a cross-party issue. We are determined to intensify that work, given the deteriorating situation, and to work with other partners to push this forward. We have seen leadership right across the UK on this issue, including from Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh on her visit to Chad, which followed that of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell).

The right hon. Lady asked about the package for delivery of aid. We are working with UN agencies and Education Cannot Wait on targeted support for vulnerable children. She mentioned the need for specific forms of support. We have ensured that our aid, including water and sanitation support, is being delivered in a way that recognises the prevalence of violence against women and girls. Disturbingly, many people in internally displaced persons camps, and in refugee situations, have been subject to that violence, so we have ensured that our support is tailored and effective.

The right hon. Lady asked about other countries we are seeking to work with. We have taken the matter up repeatedly with the African Union and worked to ensure that there is that engagement. The African Union is keen to work with us on this issue, and I have raised it in a number of bilateral engagements, as have many other UK Ministers.

The right hon. Lady talked about the Jeddah process. It has been extremely frustrating that we have not seen all parties to the conflict engaging in those attempts to broker peace. We have been clear that they must participate. Their failure to engage with a number of processes is effectively leading to a humanitarian emergency in Sudan. There has been forum shopping, and that must end.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing this important debate, and thank all Members who have contributed.

As the Conservative Government said throughout, an end to the conflict has to be a sustainable end. That starts with the release of the hostages, who remain in such cruel captivity more than a year since the appalling 7 October terrorist attacks, the deadliest in Israel’s history. As we have said from the outset, Israel has the right to defend itself in accordance with international humanitarian law. The suffering of the hostages is utterly intolerable for Israel and should be intolerable for any person—and any Government—who cares about human dignity and human rights.

Let us be clear: Hamas could release the hostages now, immediately and unconditionally. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on what recent contribution the UK Government have made to the international effort to help to secure the release of those poor hostages, who remain in such terrible jeopardy. Will she also update the House on her department’s assessment of recent events in Qatar, and on what she believes the implications could be for the region?

Innocent civilians in Gaza are suffering and they are desperate. They continue to be used as human shields by Hamas, who have no regard for their safety and welfare. Calling for more aid access is right and important, but helping to make it a reality is a different thing. The Conservative Government helped to identify different ways that aid could get in, and we appointed a special representative for humanitarian affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who was on the ground and had a remit to try to address the bottlenecks to the delivery of aid.

We came up with clear proposals and put them to the Government of Israel, including on aid delivery through Ashdod and Erez, as well as Kerem Shalom and the Jordan land corridor. Israel made a number of significant and welcome commitments on those points, as well as on approving more types of aid. I would appreciate an update from the Minister on what recent engagements she has had with Israeli counterparts on the fulfilment of those vital commitments in recent days and weeks, and confirmation of whether she has identified any additional routes for aid delivery since she came into office.

The previous Government also worked with the US and Cyprus to set up a temporary pier off Gaza for aid delivery, and conducted airdrops—solutions not without logistical challenges, but which were none the less viable. Delivery by land is clearly optimal, but have the Government explored any alternatives to help to bolster the UK’s aid effort? Of course, the type of aid that is delivered is also crucial, and it is important that all bases are covered.

We supported UNICEF to assist more than 5,800 children with severe malnourishment and 853,000 children, adolescents and carers with wider emergency services. On sexual and reproductive healthcare, we gave £4.25 million to support the UN Population Fund’s efforts to reach 110,000 women with up to 100 community midwives, 20,000 menstrual hygiene kits and 45,000 clean birth delivery kits. We also delivered 8,400 shelter coverage kits and funded a field hospital, treating thousands of patients. We funded 2,000 tonnes of food for distribution by the UN World Food Programme.

As humanitarian need evolves in Gaza, how is the Minister proactively ensuring that the UK’s aid offering evolves in kind, and what discussions is she having with our trusted aid partners to that end? Getting aid over the border in the first place is one thing; ensuring that the aid delivered matches need is another. There is also the question of safe distribution of aid in Gaza. Specifically on that point, can the Minister confirm that ensuring effective deconfliction is a top priority in her discussions with Israel about the humanitarian situation in Gaza?

I would like to touch on UNRWA, because we are following developments in the Knesset very carefully. We want more aid to reach innocent civilians in Gaza, because the humanitarian situation is severe, including, of course, in the north of Gaza. But we also recognise that UNRWA must rebuild trust and confidence following the appalling allegations that staff were involved in the horrific attacks on 7 October 2023, and the dismissal of nine UNRWA staff following the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services investigation into those allegations. It is critical that UN bodies ensure adequate vetting of personnel and activities, and UNRWA needs to work hard to prove that it is getting that right. Catherine Colonna’s reforms need to be implemented in full. There has to be confidence that processes have changed, so that that never happens again and neutrality can be assured.

I am aware that the Government have put resource towards UNRWA reform, but that needs to deliver tangible and measurable results, so can the Minister update the House on what progress UNRWA has made on implementing the Colonna reforms, and specifically whether she believes that progress has been sufficient? More broadly, we need to ensure that we are working with every relevant UN agency and trusted partner—including the British Red Cross, UNICEF, the UN World Food Programme and others—to respond to critical food, fuel, water, health and shelter needs in Gaza.

The situation is certainly tense in the west bank. Although Israel must protect its vital security interests, we urge the Israeli authorities to do so in a way that minimises the risk of further instability or escalation. More broadly, in government we encouraged Israel to release frozen funds, to halt settlement expansion and to hold to account those responsible for extremist settler violence. We also strongly urged the Palestinian Authority to implement very much-needed reforms, including on education and welfare, and to set out a pathway to democratic progress.

To conclude, the Conservatives remain committed to peace and stability in the middle east. We ultimately want to be able to lift people’s eyes to a brighter future and a regional peace.

Tackling Infectious Diseases

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing the debate, along with two other members of the International Development Committee. As always, it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who always speaks from great experience and with great knowledge of neglected tropical diseases. I know that he has done a huge amount of work on tackling malaria.

Today’s debate is timely. Last week, DFID announced a doubling of its support for the fight against neglected tropical diseases such as trachoma, Guinea worm and river blindness over the next five years. It was also announced that the UK would invest £360 million in programmes to tackle this type of disease. This week, the World Health Organisation is hosting a summit on neglected tropical diseases, and we have seen the coming together of Governments, non-governmental organisations, multilateral organisations, the private sector, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which many Members have mentioned. That highlights the importance of tackling those terrible diseases that strike at the heart of some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

As a member of the International Development Committee and a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the United Nations global goals for sustainable development, I wanted to speak in what will be perhaps the last international development debate in this Parliament and to take the opportunity to highlight some of the incredible work that UK aid has delivered. I am sure that the Minister will tell us more about the Department’s record over the past few years.

The UK is investing in research and development for new technologies to fight neglected tropical diseases with funding from the Ross fund, which is a £1 billion fund aimed at developing, testing and producing new products—particularly for malaria. We often hear of the importance of bed nets in the tackling of malaria, but that is not the only answer to the problem; we also need to look at drugs, insecticides and diagnostics. The importance of working to tackle antimicrobial resistance has also been mentioned.

We must not forget the impact of Ebola in recent years—a topic that the Committee has done an inquiry on. It is a terrible infectious disease that affected people not only in Sierra Leone and Africa; we know of a couple of British citizens who were seriously affected by it as well. That highlighted the importance not only of looking for ways of testing for the disease and curing it, but of having adequate healthcare systems.

Tackling neglected tropical diseases is clearly good news for those countries that are most badly affected by them. It is also good news for our universities, pharma companies and many of our NGOs and charities; they have vital roles to play in this, too. That also keeps us as British citizens safe. Many of us travel around the world, so it is important for our safe and secure passage to seek protection from and find solutions to those diseases.

I have mentioned Ebola and malaria, and the Zika virus is another infectious disease; we do not hear about many diseases until there is an epidemic or a really serious outbreak. To me, it also illustrates why the UK aid budget really matters. When we spend it wisely, it can make a difference to people’s lives—and it is in our interests to do that. We know that infectious diseases disproportionately affect the poorest people, exacerbate instability and put at risk our national security.

Last year, the UN high-level panel on access to medicines made a number of recommendations aimed at getting more medicines to more people who need them. It also recognised that research and development alone is not enough. Intellectual property law, competition law, procurement laws, drug regulations, public health obligations and patents are all part of this, as is price, which can be a major barrier to accessing treatment globally. For example, generic competition in antiretroviral medicines has led to the cost of first-line ARV drugs decreasing, but third-line ARVs remain prohibitively expensive—especially in middle-income countries. To make that even more pressing, by 2020 an estimated 70% of people living with HIV will be in middle-income countries.

Britain has a proud record in this field. We are leading the way in fighting these diseases through research, targeting and tackling the real root causes of avoidable infections and diseases. However, while we have achieved so much, as usual it is the case that much more can be done. I hope that the Minister will set out his Department’s plans. We know that he is committed to this area. As I began by saying, I welcome the work that DFID has done.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Programme motion: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osamor]

I said in my opening remarks that CDC has improved, but the report says that it is still very hard to know and to demonstrate the impact of development, and work on that still needs to be done. The report is not totally scathing, but we must pick up such objections. If CDC was transparent, I am sure Labour Members would not have to stand up in the Chamber and say what we are now saying.

New clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), lays down conditions about investing only in certain sectors and about not investing in sectors that provide little or no development impact in ending poverty. These sectors include the fossil fuel sector, the primary education and healthcare sectors that charge at the point of contact, the building of real estate, mineral extraction and work in the palm oil sector. If DFID’s investment in CDC is to increase the level proposed in the Bill, this challenge must be urgently addressed and resolved.

In spite of CDC’s very welcome improvements, the NAO’s recommendations show that we should not forget that it remains very much a work in progress for this organisation to demonstrate transparently and robustly that it is achieving its objectives. With that in mind, we cannot regard the Bill as the end of the process. There is no room for complacency within CDC or DFID on the need to alter the organisation’s processes further to ensure and to demonstrate the delivery of its goals. Given the scale of the proposed increase in DFID funding—from a limit of £1.5 billion to one of £6 billion —and the resulting consequences both for the UK’s development programme and indeed for the developing countries it supports, it is right that the Bill is robustly challenged and meticulously scrutinised where it is found lacking, and that stringent precautions are appended to it where necessary.

New clause 10 lays out that any proposed increase in the current limit would not in any one calendar year constitute more than 5% of total official development assistance.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I want to take the hon. Lady back to new clause 7—I tried to intervene earlier—when she listed the sectors that she feels should be excluded. Does she not agree, however, that by specifically mentioning

“education providers that charge the end user”

as an exception, she risks children in some of the most underprivileged communities not being able to access education? From some Select Committee work, we know that such means are the only way of getting education for many of these children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not believe that that case has been made; there has been no justification at any point for the actual figures. To maintain CDC at its current level of activity, we need to realise that it has managed perfectly well with £1.5 billion since 1999 and has recycled it within its own budgets. If it was going up by £1.5 billion or £2 billion, I could understand it with a view to creating space for the next 10 years, but £6 billion and £12 billion seem to me to be well out of the appropriate range.

[Wendy Morton]

From my understanding of the Bill and on the basis of evidence given in Committee, I would like to read the quote that

“no money will go to CDC until a full business case is written in huge detail, which will be prepared in the summer of 2017.”––[Official Report, Commonwealth Development Corporation Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2016; c. 9.]

The suggestion that we are going to give a huge chunk of money to CDC straight away is perhaps creating an unfair impression.

[Stephen Doughty]

Clearly, the hon. Lady did not listen to what I was saying. I did not say that. I said that the Minister had acknowledged that it was not going to be spent in one year, which was the fear when this was initially proposed. What we are asking for in the amendments is just that clear business case. I hope that the Minister—he was nodding earlier—will be able to set out how that process and scrutiny of it will occur, which is only right. There was only limited scrutiny of the last amounts spent, which were quite significant.

Sustainable Development Goals

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for securing this debate. It is always a pleasure to serve with so many other members of that Committee from all parties.

As has been said, the UK’s implementation of the SDGs has been a large part of the Committee’s work in the past 12 months. It has perhaps been one of our biggest inquiries, and the subject will remain very much on our radar. As the hon. Gentleman said, I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on the SDGs, although we now refer to them as the “global goals”, which is a slightly shorter term. Although the International Development Committee has the role of scrutinising DFID’s work, our APPG takes an active interest in the goals and how they are working. We have been able to invite interesting speakers to our meetings and bring together Members from both Chambers. We have covered many aspects, from health to youth engagement and the role of the business sector in leveraging the business community to help on the economic development angle of the global goals. I like to think that we raise and debate issues across the broad base of the goals, and I pay tribute to Lord McConnell for his work on the APPG.

Members of the IDC are fortunate to be able to visit and look at many examples of DFID’s work. I know that other colleagues in the Chamber have seen more examples than I have through having served on the Committee for much longer. That really is a useful source to get a deeper understanding of the work of the Department that we scrutinise, such as: economic development in Nigeria, creating livelihoods and encouraging enterprise, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) spoke passionately; schools in Nigeria, looking at the role of education—as has been said, we are undertaking an inquiry into DFID’s work in education —and healthcare projects and hospitals. That highlights not just the depth of DFID’s work but the breadth of the global goals and their far-extending reach.

In September I was fortunate to visit Sierra Leone with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and our party’s social action project. When we were there, we saw some of the work of non-governmental organisations, including some of the smaller ones, and other organisations there in the recovery phase post-Ebola. Again we saw the breadth of work of the international community and why the broad goals are so important.

In the last 40 years, extreme poverty has halved. Since 2000, deaths from malaria have decreased by 60%, saving more than 6 million lives, and UK investment in immunisation saves the lives of children across the world. Therefore, the work DFID does through UK aid does make a difference, and the UK leads the way in working with women and girls, which is at the heart of SDG 5, tackling female genital mutilation and preventing sexual violence against women. The inclusion of goal 5 among the 17 goals was an important step forward. In the Syrian refugee crisis and the Ebola crisis, international development has helped some of the world’s poorest, but it is not just our moral duty to do it; it is in our national interests, strengthening long-term security, protecting our prosperity and tackling migration.

As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby has explained, the sustainable goals are a global commitment and an ambitious agenda to end poverty and achieve sustainable development and prosperity. The UK took a leading role in developing the goals, which were adopted in September last year, the culmination of three years of negotiation. We should not lose sight of the fact that there are 17 goals underpinned by 169 targets, a major shift from the millennium development goals but building on them.

The other shift covers domestic policy. Therefore, in reading the letter from the Secretary of State, I note and welcome that she, together with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, have agreed that Departments will report progress towards the goals through their single departmental plans. As a Committee we have focused on and called for that for some time.

I also welcome DFID’s acceptance of our recommendation that, following the multilateral aid review, it should lay out exactly how its engagement with multilaterals will help it support the achievement of the SDGs as well as look at civil society and funding some of the smaller NGOs. It is fair to say that that theme has come out this afternoon, and it is something that we as a Committee have raised on numerous occasions. It is therefore welcome news that Ministers will look at that. As a Committee we recognise the work and value of civil society and why it is so important that it has the space to do the work it does, recognising that it can often reach some of the harder-to-reach groups that others cannot. For example, goal 16 focuses on peace—such areas are very hard to reach.

We should be proud of the UK’s contribution to international development and the work of DFID and its staff, many of whom work in challenging environments. As the hon. Gentleman explained, as our Chair, the Committee’s work on the SDGs will continue. It is important that we maintain an SDG thread running through all the work that we do while continuing to ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent and used effectively. We must ensure that work continues on implementing the SDGs and embedding them not just internationally but domestically.

We are just past the end of year one of 15. We have made a start, but there are still many years to go. I look forward—assuming I am still on the Select Committee—to working with DFID and playing a part in ensuring that we deliver those goals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 16 November.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our condolences to the families and friends of the seven people who lost their lives and to those who were injured in the tragic tram incident in Croydon last Wednesday. We all thank those involved in the rescue operation.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming today’s news that the unemployment rate has fallen to an 11-year low? Will she join me in thanking all those businesses that create jobs, such as Jennifer Ashe & Son, whose funeral home on Brownhills High Street in my constituency I was kindly asked to open last weekend?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am pleased to say that in the last year, employment in her constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills has gone up by 88,000. It is good to hear of companies that are providing new jobs. The employment figures show the strength of the fundamentals of our economy: the employment rate has never been higher and the unemployment rate is lower than it has been in more than a decade. I am sure that Members from all parts of the House will welcome yesterday’s news that Google will create another 3,000 jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State and her Ministers to their new roles. As a member of the International Development Committee, I look forward to seeing them in that Committee. Can she reassure me that the non-DFID ODA will continue to see the same amount of scrutiny as the DFID ODA?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right. We have the watchdog, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. As the lead Government Department, leading on overspend, we ensure that the money going across Government Departments through this cross-government strategy is spent on the right priorities. It will be spent in the right way.

Developing Countries: Jobs and Livelihoods

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mrs Moon, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I will keep my remarks brief. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who has over a number of years shown great passion, commitment and dedication to international development, and brings a huge experience and knowledge to this place. I have known him for a number of years. We have been to Rwanda, Burundi and Sierra Leone for Project Umubano, and I can vouch for his commitment to international development and in particular to entrepreneurship, livelihoods and jobs. This is a timely debate, following the debate in this Chamber earlier this week about the 0.7% target and the report on the implementation of the SDGs from the International Development Select Committee, of which I am a member.

I will keep my remarks to one simple fact: if we truly are committed to the 0.7% target, which I believe we are, and to the sustainable development goals, the way to move beyond aid and to move countries away from a dependency on humanitarian aid, with which I fundamentally agree, is through encouraging sustainable development and economic development. That means giving people a life chance, whether it is in our country or abroad. As the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) said, if we teach a man a fish, he will feed several people. We must give people an education, which they need if they are to get on in life, just as they need to be able to earn incomes to look after themselves and their families.

DFID has a very good reputation for supporting many business projects. I have seen some of them, in particular in Nigeria. We need to keep our focus on enterprise and entrepreneurship. We need to keep women involved in this agenda as well, and above all, we need to recognise the value that business and enterprise can bring.

Foreign Aid Expenditure

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am a member of the International Development Committee and co-chair of the all-party group for sustainable development goals, so it is a pleasure to support colleagues on both sides of the Chamber who are speaking in favour of the 0.7%. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on foreign aid spending and, to be precise, the 0.7%. Given the backdrop of the need to secure the UK’s economic recovery, it is right to consider the spending of all Departments, not only DFID’s. We need to ensure that we deliver value for taxpayers’ money and that we understand what does and does not work.

Before I was elected to this place, I had the opportunity through Project Umubano, which was set up by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), to spend time in Rwanda, Burundi and Sierra Leone, so that I could learn about international development by seeing it for myself. I took that opportunity because I wanted and felt that I needed to gain a more detailed understanding of international development. I visited schools in rural Rwanda, a health clinic in Kirambi and NGO projects where they were showing people how to build livelihoods and encourage enterprise. I have many stories I would love to share with Members this afternoon, but I will move on because time is pressing. UK aid has contributed to many of those successes and many others around the world. In the last 40 years, extreme poverty has halved. Since 2000, deaths from malaria have decreased by 60%, saving more than 6 million lives. There are many other examples.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

UK investment in immunisation saves a child’s life somewhere in the world every two minutes. Does the hon. Lady agree that such immunisation programmes not only enable better health in poorer countries but provide an important roadblock to more widespread epidemics?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, and I agree. A lot of work is done by DFID and in the charitable sector by organisations such as Rotary to help to eradicate disease. The UK continues to lead the way. It is working to help women and girls by tackling female genital mutilation and preventing sexual violence against women. The breadth of the work that DFID is involved in is exemplary. I believe that we have a moral duty to do such work, but also that it is firmly in our national interest. It can help to strengthen our long-term security and is a vital part of protecting our prosperity as well as helping to foster peaceful diplomacy. As we have seen in recent years with the Ebola crisis in Sierra Leone and the ongoing crisis with the Syrian refugees, the UK is at the forefront of international development work.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I got the chance to visit Ethiopia and see the structures that came about because of polio eradication. It was exactly these structures that were able to detect that the Ebola crisis was developing, so we protect ourselves as well as protecting others.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady makes a very valuable point. The benefit of such debates is that they enable us to share many examples of projects and the experiences that we have all had. We face a choice: either seek to tackle the root causes of poverty and therefore many of the great global challenges we face, or wait for the problem—be that the threat of mass migration, terrorism, disease, corruption or global climate change—to arrive here on our doorstep, by which point it is often too late.

We have already heard that the 0.7% target is not new. To be honest, I was surprised to find while doing my research that it was actually first accepted in principle back in 1974 by the then Labour Government. Subsequent Conservative Governments also accepted it in principle, and it was finally enshrined in law by the coalition Government. It is important to remember that the 0.7% aid target that we are discussing is 0.7% of gross national income. Let us be clear: that is not “wealth”, as indicated in the title of the petition. That means that aid spending could in theory come down: if GNI comes down, that 0.7% as an amount will also come down.

Critics will say that we should spend only what we need to spend. I get that. I understand that we have to deliver value for taxpayers’ money, but that has to be balanced and put in context. We are often faced with very complex situations. For example, with Ebola, I fear that if we had waited for too long, the situation that we faced would have been much worse and we would yet again have faced the charge of having done too little, too late.

There is growing global inequality in terms of peace. The most peaceful states are more peaceful than ever, but some of the most fragile states are more fragile than ever. That is why I welcome the shift in the Government’s aid strategy to place a greater focus on supporting such fragile states. That often requires a much longer-term approach, which can often bring challenges, and it is certainly not without risks, but without security and stability, development is not possible and it is not possible to move beyond dependency upon humanitarian aid.

I will turn briefly to governance, accountability and transparency. The e-petition states that our aid is leading to “waste and corruption”. I believe it is for DFID to always answer and make its case for the work it does. I am a member of the International Development Committee, which holds inquiries into the Department’s work, and the Department is also scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee, which recently published a report, the National Audit Office and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which I believe was set up while my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was Secretary of State. The purpose of that organisation is to scrutinise DFID’s work and ODA spending. I would like to see more scrutiny. We have yet to fully make the case for aid to the British public. We all have a part to play in doing that. I would like to see more cross-Department inquiries to better reflect the way that the 0.7% cuts across Departments. The case for 0.7% is an important one. It is worthy of scrutiny and debate, but in my view it is worthy of our support.