International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill
1:48 pm
1:59 pm
Mark Hendrick (Preston, Labour)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The
world is in a state of continual change, with economies being reshaped
and new Governments being formed, but the one constant is the stain on
the conscience of the developed world: poverty. Having succeeded in the
private Members’
ballot, I decided to introduce a Bill to ensure that the Government’s commitment to enshrine in law development assistance spending of 0.7% of gross national income was honoured. That pledge was made in the election manifestos of all three main political parties, and after the election it was included in the coalition agreement. The Bill would also toughen the remit of the independent body established to monitor the effect of aid spending.
ballot, I decided to introduce a Bill to ensure that the Government’s commitment to enshrine in law development assistance spending of 0.7% of gross national income was honoured. That pledge was made in the election manifestos of all three main political parties, and after the election it was included in the coalition agreement. The Bill would also toughen the remit of the independent body established to monitor the effect of aid spending.
The Secretary of State
for International Development has stated that the Government Bill to
implement this pledge is drafted and ready to go, and that the delay is
due only to limited parliamentary time.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)
Would
it not be a good idea for this measure to come forward as a Government
Bill in the time in September that would have been allocated to Lords
reform, but will not now be spent on Lords reform?
Mark Hendrick (Preston, Labour)
All Governments, including the last Labour Government,
have tremendous pressures on their time. However, this pledge was made
by all three main political parties before the election, so there should
not be a great deal of controversy. The Minister
will speak for himself, but I know that the Government are keen for
legislation to be passed on this matter, like all other mainstream
political parties. I am sure that the Government would not want to be
seen to be using the lack of parliamentary time as an excuse for not
getting the Bill on to the statute book before the next election. We
certainly do not want that to happen.
This Bill
gives the Government the opportunity to legislate on this matter. The
draft of the Government Bill was not forthcoming, so I put my Bill
together based on a similar draft Bill that was published before the
last general election by the previous Secretary of State for International Development. I have added other measures which, having spoken to the Minister
earlier today, seem to be acceptable to the Government. Obviously,
minor amendments may be needed if the Bill makes it through to
Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I hope that he and his colleagues will give the Bill a safe passage today.
The
Bill would not only reaffirm Britain’s commitment to the world’s
poorest people, but take party politics out of the debate about aid
spending for the long term. That is important because the measure of any
society—we are talking about the human race as a whole—is the degree to
which it helps and works with its disadvantaged people. The fact that
all three parties agree with that makes me optimistic that the Bill will
make progress. I genuinely want an all-party approach. This issue must
not be kicked into the long grass because of ideology or
electioneering.
Politicians from all parts of the House must realise that by supporting
the Bill, they would be fulfilling the hope and trust that millions of
the world’s poorest people have put in Britain to make their lives
better.
With the current economic hardship in
Europe and the world’s wealthiest nations, it would be easy to dismiss a
commitment on international aid spending, but those problems pale into
insignificance compared with the fight for basic survival of people in
the developing world.
For the Opposition,
putting an international aid commitment into law would fulfil our
values and our belief in helping those who need it most. Our history is
built on battles against injustice, and until we make commitments backed
by action, we will continue to let down those most in need of our
assistance.
Let us imagine being unable to pay for
the drugs necessary to help a sick child, or medicines not being
available at all. Let us imagine not knowing where our next meal will
come from, or living in a war-torn country with no basic infrastructure
to support communities. Those problems are vast. The solution is not
easy, but we can neither shirk our responsibilities nor shrink from the
monumental task before us. The people snared in poverty’s trap cannot
afford inaction.
In 1970, United Nations General Assembly
resolution 2626 committed all economically advanced countries to
providing 0.7% of their gross national income as official development
assistance. The coalition agreement states:
“The
Government believes that even in these difficult economic times, the UK
has a moral responsibility to help the poorest people in the world. We
will honour our aid commitments, but at the same time will ensure much
greater transparency and scrutiny of aid spending to deliver value for
money for British taxpayers and to maximise the impact of our aid
budget.”
It continues:
“We will honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013, and to enshrine this commitment in law.”
As
I have said, there is concern that given the parliamentary agenda,
there may be difficulty in getting time to secure that legislation. The
Bill presents an opportunity to do that.
The UK
remains committed to meeting the 0.7% target, but as we know, it has
not yet done so. The Bill would therefore impose a duty on the Secretary of State
to ensure that the UK meets the 0.7% target in 2013 and each subsequent
calendar year. It provides that whether the target has been achieved
will be determined by reference to the overseas development assistance
and gross national income figures reported to Parliament annually in
accordance with the International Development (Reporting and
Transparency) Act 2006.
The Bill would require the Secretary of State
to lay a statement before Parliament in the event that the UK failed to
meet the 0.7% target in any calendar year from 2013. That would mean
that the Secretary of State’s accountability for his duty to meet that target would be to Parliament alone.
Clause 1 covers the duty on the Secretary of State to meet the 0.7% United Nations target from 2013. Clause
2 sets out his duty to lay a statement before Parliament if that target
is not met. It states that he must do so if his annual report laid
before Parliament in 2014 or any subsequent year shows that the UK has
not reached the
target in the year to which the
report relates. It also provides for the possibility that figures in an
annual report may be revised. Subsection (2) states that if a revision
is made to any year’s figure meaning that it no longer meets the 0.7%
target, the Secretary of State must then lay a statement.
Clause
2(3) provides that a statement must explain why the 0.7% target has not
been met, and that it may refer to economic or fiscal circumstances
that have had an impact. It may also refer to the impact of
“circumstances arising outside the United Kingdom”,
for
example the failure of a foreign Government to achieve the targets
necessary to trigger debt relief. On the requirement for the Secretary of State
to lay the statement before Parliament, he or she must describe in it
any steps that have been taken to ensure that the 0.7% target will be
met in the following calendar year.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)
I
am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—he is being very
generous and making a powerful speech. If we are in a recession, as we
have been, does the 0.7% commitment mean that the amount of overseas aid
will go down?
Mark Hendrick (Preston, Labour)
Yes,
it does. We are talking about percentages. If we have growth, the
overall budget will increase in real terms, but the percentage will stay
the same. If GNI
contracts because we are in recession, the real amount will fall, but
the percentage will stay the same. The Bill maintains a percentage
commitment, not an absolute commitment in real terms.
Clause 4 provides for the repeal of the Secretary of State’s duty in section 3 of the 2006 Act to forecast when the 0.7% target will be met. That repeal takes account of the Secretary of State’s new duty—in clause 1 —to ensure that the UK meets the 0.7% target from 2013 onwards.
Finally, clause
5 sets up a new body, which for the purposes of convenience I have
called the independent international development office. The new body
would bear a great deal of relation to the current Independent
Commission for Aid Impact, which the Secretary of State rightly set up just over a year ago to answer to the Select Committee
on International Development so that it can oversee the effectiveness
and efficiency of aid administered throughout the world. The new body
would keep a much closer eye on the Department and its performance, and
it would have a statutory footing—it would be established in law.
Therese Coffey (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative)
I support a lot of what the hon. Gentleman tries to do in the Bill, but I am concerned about clause 4. I wonder why we are duplicating functions, but the Bill also mentions
“a pre-appointment hearing by, and with the consent of, the International Development Committee”.
To almost resurrect a discussion on other Bills, why does he believe that this extra obligation of monitoring the Department is not the job of the Select Committee and Parliament as a whole? Why do we need that external body?
Mark Hendrick (Preston, Labour)
If
the Government’s commitment is written into law—the intention is that
Governments of whichever party must keep to it—the body needs a
statutory footing, which the current Independent Commission
for
Aid Impact does not have. The new body will also mean much tighter
scrutiny: it will be able to oversee the work of the Department in a way
that the current ICAI
cannot because it does not have a statutory basis. I accept the hon.
Lady’s point on procedures arising from the Bill, but we can iron those
out in Committee should the Bill make progress.
It
is right, during a time of hardship, that we continue to fight against
poverty. I urge the House to grasp the opportunity and to support my
Bill. That will fulfil not only a pre-election promise but, more
importantly, a promise to fight, and one day to fulfil, that dream of
eradicating poverty.
Alan Duncan (Minister of State, International Development; Rutland and Melton, Conservative)
Today stands to be one of the most important days in the history of international development. The United Nations
and other organisations have been campaigning for more than 30 years to
put a fixed figure on what wealthier countries should spend in the aid
they give to those who are less fortunate. Today, Mark Hendrick has moved a Bill that would establish just that. We bear him no grudge for pipping the Government to the post by moving the Second Reading
of a Bill that would enshrine in law our having to spend 0.7% of our
national income on official development assistance. He has beaten our
Bill for reasons the House well understands, but I assure him that our
Bill is ready and that we have—or had—every intention of putting it to
the House. To a large extent, the first half of his Bill is almost
identical to what we would have tabled.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)
The Minister
makes a powerful point in welcoming the Bill and saying that it should
be for Government time. Does he agree that this is such an important
Bill—by any standards, it is a major shift in policy—that it should have
priority over Lords reform so that we can get it properly debated in
the House?
Alan Duncan (Minister of State, International Development; Rutland and Melton, Conservative)
I well understand my hon. Friend’s relative affection—or lack of—for either pieces of legislation, but this is almost a one-clause Bill. The principle is clear and well understood, but we would be delighted, were the House minded to give the Bill a Second Reading, to see him in Committee to discuss his concerns in detail. And, of course, there will be Report and Third Reading.
I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Preston that Her Majesty’s
Government support the Bill and have no intention of opposing it. We
would like it to go into Committee, and hope that, in a few minutes,
that is what will happen. Having said that, we only saw his Bill
yesterday, and I saw that it fell into two distinct parts, the first of
which we agree with. It is what we are setting out to do; it is in the
coalition agreement and is agreed by all parties in the House—it will
enshrine the 0.7% figure in law.
I hope the hon.
Gentleman will understand, however, if we do not agree with the second
part of the Bill, which would set up an independent international
development office. To all intents and purposes, we have done that
already by setting up the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which
is working well and is inexpensive and effective. We believe that his
proposal would do the same thing, with no particular added
value,
but at a higher cost. I hope, therefore, that, just as we welcome the
introduction of his Bill, he will, in the spirit of give and take,
accept our argument about removing this part of the Bill, so that we can
focus on the 0.7% target and concentrate on the search for value for
money and transparency in all that we do.
Mark Hendrick (Preston, Labour)
I am sympathetic to what the Minister
says. Does he not feel, however, that putting this body, whatever its
name, on to a statutory footing would give it more teeth and greater
powers over access to information from the Department that could be
provided to the Select Committee? As a purely independent body without a statutory position, it is a weaker animal.
Alan Duncan (Minister of State, International Development; Rutland and Melton, Conservative)
I
understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but we are not
persuaded by it because we believe that the body we have set up is
working well and has adequate powers. Given the debate in this country
about how much we spend on international development, it is essential
that we are seen to spend it on those poor people who need the benefit
of our spending on overseas development and assistance, rather than on
this sort of body, which, under his proposal, would cost more. I think
that with the current system we can achieve the same thing for less.
There
is a debate in this country—we must respect it—about whether, in a time
of austerity, we should be committing to spending 0.7% of our national
income on official development assistance. I believe that everyone in
this country can hold their heads high, both in the UK and when they
travel abroad, because of what we are doing. If the Bill is passed, we
will become the first seriously wealthy country to commit to spending in
this way. The results we are getting across the world—in terms of
saving lives, vaccinating children and ensuring that mothers and their
children do not die in childbirth—are something of which we can be
enormously proud.
We in the Department for
International Development strive to get value for money. We have
reviewed everything we do—from our bilateral relationships, where we
have direct aid programmes in individual countries, to all our
subventions and payments to multilateral organisations, such as the
United Nations agencies and the global fund—not just with a view to
ensuring value for money across our budget, but in a way that makes lots
of other countries copy what we are doing, so that across the world
others do what we do. Often, where DFID and the UK Government lead, others follow. By leading on 0.7%, I hope that others—who are falling way behind that figure—will follow what we do.
One
of the great and most important principles of development is that we
need continuity. It is no good darting into a development programme one
year and abandoning it the next. Continuity and certainty of programmes
over a number of years are essential to securing good development
outcomes. That is why we have committed to budgets over four years—we
have operational plans, so that we can follow through what we want to
achieve from now to the end of 2014 and beyond—and why a Bill such as
this, which commits us to spending 0.7% of our national income, is so
important. There are few of us who, even if we were down to our last
£100, would not give one of those hundred pounds to someone dying in the
street. That, in proportion, is pretty well all that we are trying to
do with this Bill.
I hope that the House will give it the Second Reading
it deserves today, so that the United Kingdom can be proud of being the
first country to do what so many people have been campaigning for for
so long.
Tony Cunningham (Workington, Labour)
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 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 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.
2:25 pm
Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)
It is a pleasure to follow Sir Tony Cunningham, and to welcome the Bill that has been introduced by Mark Hendrick.
He made a powerful speech, but I am afraid that he did not have as much
time as he might have liked. That is what is wrong today. We have half
an hour for a Second Reading debate on a major piece of
legislation
that represents a huge step change in the way in which Governments have
looked at overseas aid over the years. We have spent several hours
talking about scrap metal dealers, which I am sure is an important
issue, but it is not as important as what we are discussing now.
This
should be a Government Bill. The Government should have introduced it
and made the arguments for it, so that we could have had proper
discussions on it and heard all the views. The Chamber
is not packed today because people did not realise that this Bill would
be reached. I have reservations about the Bill, but I believe that it
needs to have a proper airing and a chance to get on to the statute
book. I am not convinced that the private Member’s Bill route is the way
to do that, but the hon. Member for Preston was right to introduce it
and to put pressure on the Government in this way.
I heard what the Minister
said earlier. He is undoubtedly one of the most talented Ministers in
the Government, and, as an aside, I would say that if we were not in a
coalition, I believe that he would be a Secretary of State
in his own right. However, on what is probably a wet Friday afternoon—I
am not sure whether it is raining outside—this Bill is not the best way
to deal with this issue.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe, Conservative)
If
my hon. Friend takes the view that this is an admirable Bill, and if
all sides agree on it, would it not be better just to get on with it and
allow it a Second Reading?
In that way, the Bill could be introduced, with a full debate later. It
is better to do that than to delay it in any way at all.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful intervention,
but she is absolutely wrong. The whole point of Parliament is that we
discuss these matters in detail and hear every point of view. I am not
saying that this is an admirable Bill; the Minister has said that it has serious flaws.
Mark Hendrick (Preston, Labour)
Is
the hon. Gentleman not making the best the enemy of the good by
insisting that the Bill should be introduced as a Government Bill?
Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)
I
am taking a purely parliamentary view of the matter at this stage. I do
not think that major changes in policy should go through in half an
hour on
Second Reading. There are Government hand-out Bills that can, of course, go through in half an hour on Second Reading, but we should not do that with a measure that seeks to change policies that Governments have dealt with for years and years.—
Alan Duncan (Minister of State, International Development; Rutland and Melton, Conservative)
I
am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words a moment ago, but the
clock is ticking. I can assure him that I believe the Bill will, in
effect, be cut in half. It will go down to one clause,
which will provide for the 0.7% to which all parties have committed in
their manifestos. May I appeal to his good nature and implore him to let
the Bill go through on Second Reading today? I really implore him to do that, for the good of the many people in the world who need our help.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)
I hear the Minister’s pleas. If he is serious—no, of course he is seriously committed to this. So is the Prime Minister and so is the coalition, so it has to be a Government Bill, done properly through this House.
In a Second Reading
debate, we have to discuss the principles involved, so let us start
with one of them. This is not intended to be a party political point.
Overseas aid as a proportion of gross national income was at its lowest
point in 1999, under the Labour Government, when it stood at 0.24%. [Interruption.] The Labour Government had 13 years when, if they had wanted to, they could, in those boom years, have increased the overseas—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend Robert Neill want to intervene, or does he want to chunter from the Front Bench? This Bill can come back on another day and be debated properly.
The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11( 2 ) ).
Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 7 September .