PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TARGET) BILL

First Sitting Tuesday 4 November 2014

CONTENTS Sittings motion agreed to. CLAUSES 1 to 4 agreed to. Adjourned till Tuesday 11 November at five minutes to Nine o’clock.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £6·00 PBC (Bill 014) 2014 - 2015 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 8 November 2014

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2014 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1 Public Bill Committee4 NOVEMBER 2014 International Development (Official 2 Development Assistance Target) Bill

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: MR DAVID CRAUSBY

Bayley, Hugh (York Central) (Lab) † McGovern, Alison (Wirral South) (Lab) † Bruce, Fiona (Congleton) (Con) † McGuire, Mrs Anne (Stirling) (Lab) † Burt, Alistair (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) † Moore, Michael (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and † Clarke, Mr Tom (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Selkirk) (LD) (Lab) † O’Brien, Mr Stephen (Eddisbury) (Con) (Minister of State, Heald, Sir Oliver (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) † Swayne, Mr Desmond Department for International Development) Hendrick, Mark (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) †Weir,MrMike(Angus) (SNP) † Howarth, Sir Gerald (Aldershot) (Con) † Jones, Graham (Hyndburn) (Lab) Kate Emms, Committee Clerk † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Lopresti, Jack (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) † attended the Committee 3 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS International Development (Official 4 Development Assistance Target) Bill Committee on Defence, and we have enjoyed a number Public Bill Committee of important visits together, so it gives me great pleasure to be here. Tuesday 4 November 2014 I am flattered that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk has invited me to participate in this debate. As Committee members [MR DAVID CRAUSBY in the Chair] may know, I voted against this Bill. I wanted to speak in the debate on Second Reading but did not get the International Development (Official opportunity. Nevertheless, I had the great pleasure of Development Assistance Target) Bill accompanying my right hon. Friend during the recent Scotland referendum campaign. We tramped the lanes—I would not say the streets, for they were lanes—of Blainslie, 2pm as I recall, near Earlston, where I found on the canvass The Chair: Welcome to the Committee. I remind sheets the names of a number of members of my own Members to set their mobile phones to silent. If they so family. As far as we were able to discern, they were on choose, Members may remove their jackets. Before we our side. I salute my right hon. Friend for contributing begin our consideration of the Bill, we must first deal to the outstanding result in the Scottish borders, where with the sittings motion. 67% of the people voted to retain the unity of this great United Kingdom, and I am very flattered that he has invited me to participate. Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD): I beg to move, Although I was unable to participate fully in the debate on Second Reading, I did intervene. I note that That, if proceedings on the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill are not completed at this the vote was ultimately 164 to 6, whereas 283 Members day’s sitting, the Committee do meet at 8.55 am on Tuesdays voted for the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which when the House is sitting. would have enshrined in law a requirement that a I am delighted to be here and to serve under your referendum on the European Union and Britain’s chairmanship, Mr Crausby, for what one hopes will be membership thereof should take place before 2017, and as brief a period as possible, if you understand. The there were no votes against—it was unanimous. I am sittings motion seeks to achieve that, and otherwise rather curious that this Bill seems to be being expedited, speaks for itself. while the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which is of great interest to the people of this country, has unfortunately been binned, largely because the Liberals The Minister of State, Department for International and the Labour party would not afford it the time. I Development (Mr Desmond Swayne): It is a great pleasure have said to my Conservative colleagues that they are to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. The very broad-minded in seeking to advance this Bill, sittings motion is proportionate given the short length promoted by my right hon. Friend—who is a Liberal of the Bill. I hope that we will be able to conclude our Democrat—when the Liberal Democrats nevertheless proceedings next Tuesday. However, if we do not, I helped to scupper our European Union (Referendum) should put the Committee on notice that at that stage I Bill. will seek to amend the sittings motion for sittings thereafter. Two issues arise which are entirely pertinent to new clause 1. First, ring-fencing any departmental budget is Question put and agreed to. a dangerous constitutional novelty. Elections are about priorities. They are about placing before the people a set Clause 1 of priorities, and different parties have different priorities. It is proposed that one particular Department should have its spending enshrined in law as a percentage of DUTYTOMEETUNITED NATIONS 0.7% TARGET gross national income. I know that Members on both FROM 2015 sides of the House feel that health care is an important Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the issue. Some may feel that education is paramount. Why Bill. not enshrine in law spending on those two issues, which are undoubtedly of concern to the British people? I find The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss it objectionable, in principle, that one single Department new clause 1—Commencement— should be taken out and given this special treatment. Of course, it is open to a future Parliament to repeal the “(1) This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint. measure. However, ring-fencing overseas aid or any other Department’s spending is an attempt to limit the (2) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (1) until legislation has been enacted placing a duty choices available to the people in a general election. on the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that the amount Secondly, singling out overseas aid for this unique of defence expenditure as a percentage of the gross domestic constitutional experiment is even more wrong. I am not product of the United Kingdom does not fall below the NATO opposed to overseas aid. I was an international banker, guideline of 2 per cent. in any year.” and I served with Standard Chartered bank. I was responsible for funding an earth dam in the northern Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): May say what Nigerian state of Bauchi in the early 1980s. I believe an extraordinary pleasure and privilege it is to serve that aid complements what is provided by both the under your illustrious chairmanship, Mr Crausby? You commercial private sector and private giving. Aid has a and I go back a long way in our service to the Select role to play. Indeed, the Conservative party has an 5 Public Bill Committee4 NOVEMBER 2014 International Development (Official 6 Development Assistance Target) Bill excellent record. I note that there is no reference in the and South Korea, and the Chinese are busily building briefing to the contribution made by my noble Friend runways and port facilities on pretty much every island Lord Lawson. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he took in the South China sea. Everything written in that an amazing initiative in seeking to cancel quite a large manifesto pointed to the fact that we were facing an number of overseas countries’international debt obligations. increasingly dangerous world. That has come to pass in That was a real contribution in helping those countries shedloads, yet we have been forced to cut our defences. to recover in the aftermath of the oil shock, which many That is why I tabled my new clause. Members are too young to remember. We have a good In 2009, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond record. (Yorks) (Mr Hague) said that there would be no strategic I understand the Prime Minister’s commitment to shrinkage under a Conservative Government. We have enshrine 0.7% of GNI in legislation to fulfil the commitment a Conservative-led Government and, although we have in the Conservative party manifesto and in other party seen the departure of the right hon. Member for Lewes manifestos. I add, in parenthesis, that it was one of (Norman Baker), I think that we still have that coalition about 600 commitments made by the Conservative party Government in place. However, while my right hon. in its 2010 manifesto, compared with something like Friend said there would be no strategic shrinkage, that 128 commitments made by Margaret Thatcher—of blessed is completely untrue. There has been strategic shrinkage memory, of course—in 1979. I am not sure that we have and Britain’s influence has been diminished. fulfilled all the commitments we set out in 2010. I have In speaking of influence, I do not buy the argument discussed this with the Prime Minister on a number of that overseas aid delivers as much influence in the world occasions, because I struggle to understand why he feels as hard power. I understand soft power. One of my that this must be proceeded with at a time when the responsibilities in the Ministry of Defence as Minister nation faces quite substantial economic problems— for International Security Strategy was defence diplomacy. inherited, of course, from the catastrophic destruction It has a role to play and I class overseas aid in that of the public finances by the former Chancellor. It is a category. However, if one walks with a big stick, one question of priorities. I do not suggest that we should can speak softly, but we are in danger of losing the big have cut the overseas aid budget, but I do not think that stick. it should have gone up by as much as it has. It is now something like £11.5 billion, which is about £4 billion Mr Crausby, perhaps you saw the television programme more than it was when the coalition Government took on Sunday night about Afghanistan, which you and I office in 2010. and other colleagues have visited. It was interesting to hear an official from the United States Administration I must say to my hon. Friends in the Conservative speaking bluntly about Britain no longer being a reliable party that I have yet to meet any of our people in the partner for the United States because we have cut back streets who think that this target should be a priority for our armed forces so much. a Conservative Government. They find the policy very strange and I would be interested to hear from any of my hon. Friends if they have a different experience. 2.15 pm By contrast, in our 2010 manifesto, the Prime Minister spoke of: Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): It is a pleasure, “A stronger Britain in a safer world.” Mr Crausby, to serve under your chairmanship. Would We all subscribed to that and I subscribed to the manifesto my hon. Friend agree that at this moment the actions of commitment on overseas aid as well. However, as everyone the United Kingdom in Sierra Leone, where our overseas knows, manifestos are shopping baskets and individual development assistance budget combined with our defence Members sometimes take a different view of some of budget has enabled us to play a role alongside the the commitments given in a manifesto, especially when United States and, indeed, ahead of the United States there are in excess of 600 of them. and France, clearly show that that is not the case? Looking at strategic shrinkage, we should take into On behalf of the Conservative party, the Prime Minister account the situation not only in Afghanistan, but said in our manifesto: globally, in which the United Kingdom is giving a clear “This country possesses great assets and advantages—a permanent lead in a very present danger. seat on the UN Security Council, a leading role in NATO, a strong relationship with the United States, a major role in the affairs of the EU, and armed forces that are the envy of the world. We are a global trading nation and home to the world’s pre-eminent Sir Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, language. for whom I have a huge amount of respect—I know his But, looking a decade or two ahead, powerful forces of economics constituency, having represented Cannock and Burntwood and demography elsewhere in the world will make it harder for us for nine years, which is just south of his area. I take his to maintain our influence. All this in a world that is becoming point about the military contribution in Sierra Leone; more dangerous, where threats as diverse as state failure, international that is entirely true. I pay tribute to 22 Field Hospital terrorism and new forms of warfare are being amplified by the impact of climate change and the spread of nuclear weapons from my constituency, Aldershot, which has about technology. In a world of shifting economic power and increased 100 personnel out there. Together with Médecins sans threats, the UK stands to lose a great deal of its ability to shape Frontières and other organisations, they are doing a world affairs unless we act to reverse our declining status.” fantastic job. I doubt whether any member of the Committee would With great respect to my hon. Friend, he should not venture to suggest an alternative view. confuse that humanitarian exercise with hard power—the Since 2010, the world situation has got far worse. We ability to fight—or with hard-war fighting. They are have seen the Arab spring and the annexation of an not the same. That exercise has a role to play, but we are entire region by a newly vibrant Russia. Syria is imploding, not committing anything like the numbers that we Iraq is under enormous strain, there is North Korea would need to commit to a military operation. It is our 7 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS International Development (Official 8 Development Assistance Target) Bill [Sir Gerald Howarth] when the new clause he is supposed to speaking to advocates that there should be a 2% allocation of GDP capacity to deliver military effect that was questioned on defence expenditure? It appears that he is trying to by the United States official whom we saw on television argue one way and put a new clause the other way, so I on Sunday night. want to check that is in order.

Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab): It is a pleasure, The Chair: I doubt that is a point of order. In the Mr Crausby, to serve under your chairmanship. I am democracy that I live in, Members are entitled to say not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is making the what they think in the Committees that I Chair. case that he thinks he is. He has not yet explained why having, as he would see it, a greater defence capability and committing 0.7% of our GNI to international Sir Gerald Howarth: Thank you, Mr Crausby. May I development at the same time are mutually exclusive; salute your noble stance on freedom of expression? My surely, they are not and he is arguing for his party to right hon. Friend makes a completely fatuous point. I increase defence spending and not to reduce the am sorry to say that he has clearly failed to understand commitment to 0.7%. the point that I have been making. If a contribution of 0.7% of GNI to overseas aid is enshrined in law, my view is, although I do not agree with that principle, that Sir Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. the same should be done for defence. Why? Because, as Lady. As she knows, her predecessor is one of the most I was saying, I, my right hon. Friend the Member for outstanding politicians produced by the Conservative New Forest West and my hon. and gallant Friend the party: my noble Friend Lord Forsyth makes a fantastic Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke believe that the contribution in the other place. I take the right hon. defence of the realm is the first duty of Government. Lady’s point but I set out my two issues at the start. How do we explain to our constituents that we believe First, I do not agree in principle with enshrining in law that the first duty of Government is defence of the the protection of any departmental budget. Secondly, if realm, when our expenditure on defence is hovering at we are going to ring-fence a budget, this should not be 2%? We are just bumping above the NATO limit. While the one. She is playing to my argument and I hope, the Prime Minister has been exhorting every other therefore, that she will support my new clause. They are NATO member to spend more on defence, he and the not mutually exclusive. My hon. Friend the Member for Government refuse to take this opportunity to enshrine Stafford makes the important point that we have civilian in law that we really do believe that the first duty of and military personnel in Sierra Leone. If we are going Government is the defence of the realm. I say to my to enshrine a commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West, overseas aid, the only logical thing to do—given that we how can I look a soldier in the eye in Aldershot and say are all working together—is to enshrine a commitment “Thank you for your service in Afghanistan, where you to spend 2% of GDP on defence expenditure. put your life on the line, were shot at, had your vehicle blown up, and you survived. I am sorry we’re having to Mrs McGuire: Does the right hon. Gentleman not make you redundant, but the good news is I’ve got a lot agree that this is one topic on which there is a political more money for overseas aid.”? I am sorry, but I find it consensus? May I add that it is nice to make a contribution offensive that I should have to do that to soldiers to another Privy Counsellor? The right hon. Gentleman serving in the home of the British Army in Aldershot. made his own case, because the three main political That is the reality of what we face and how the measure parties supported enshrining this commitment in law. is going to be projected, to the extent that people, Indeed, any poll has assessed that around 56% of the beyond the usual suspects in overseas aid matters, take British population think that the 0.7% contribution any interest in it at all. should be supported. I find it galling that a Conservative-led Government and my colleagues, many of whom I esteem and enjoy Sir Gerald Howarth: If I may correct the right hon. working with—at least, my hon. Friend the Member for Lady, unless she knows something that I do not, I have Congleton—are prioritising something that, with all my not yet been admitted to the Privy Council. Perhaps she meetings with Conservative groups around the country, has some news, so I thank her very much indeed for I do not find to be the No. 1 priority. Those same people informing me. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the find it astonishing that when they see the nature of the Member for Eddisbury tells me that my candidacy has turbulent and dangerous world in which we are living been considered, so even if I do not join him in support and read the manifesto highlighting those concerns and of the Bill, I might join him at the Privy Council. the Conservative party’s leadership’s declaration that we have to protect ourselves against those threats, what As a Tory, I am unashamed to believe, as I think most do we do? We are not increasing defence expenditure; of my colleagues do—certainly my right hon. Friend we are cutting it. The Army will be down to 82,000. There the Member for New Forest West—that defence of the will be more people going to the Help for Heroes rugby realm is the first duty of Government. match at Twickenham than there will be members of the British Army. Our surface fleet has been cut to the Mr Stephen O’Brien (Eddisbury) (Con): On a point bone; in 2001, there were 22 frigates and 11 destroyers, of order, Mr Crausby. Is it in order for an hon. Member making 33 in total, and we are now down to 19 with the who is both the author and the mover of a new clause to new builds. I welcome the new build, some of which was argue that to have any kind of percentage of GNI ordered under the previous Labour Government and registered against any part of the budget of the national some of which will be ordered by us but at any one time accounts is a dangerous novelty and wholly to be resisted, a third of those will be laid up, in refit or whatever. 9 Public Bill Committee4 NOVEMBER 2014 International Development (Official 10 Development Assistance Target) Bill There is a substantial reduction in the number of I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for squadrons in the Royal Air Force. We are down to Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk; he did not need to about 108 Typhoon and 88 quite ancient Tornado GR4s, put me on the Committee. I am probably now going making a total of around 200 aircraft, whereas just to have to buy everybody a drink for giving me this 12 years ago the total was well in excess of 300. We have opportunity. I believe in this matter passionately, but I no maritime patrol aircraft in the aftermath of the am not against overseas aid. It has a role to play and it strategic defence and security review in which I participated has influence, but it is the question of quantum and the as a Minister; we scrapped the Nimrod, quite rightly, principle of the Bill that I find difficult. I want to see because the aircraft was not performing in the way that defence expenditure put on a par with aid and the Bill we were entitled to expect—it was £750 million over gives us an opportunity to do that. budget and nine years late. We are incapable of meeting our International Civil Aviation Organisation commitments 2.30 pm to provide a search and rescue capability across the There have been criticisms of overseas aid. Clare north Atlantic. When that yachtsman got lost, we had Short said in 2000: to send an inadequate C-130 Hercules down to some “Anyone who knows anything about development knows that islands off the west coast of Africa and across just to the EU is the worst agency in the world, the most inefficient, the get a minimum reach. I am afraid that the figures speak least poverty focused, the slowest, flinging money around for for themselves. political gestures rather than promoting real development.” She was saying that at a time when 46% of DFID’s aid Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con): It is a budget went on multilateral programmes. Today, of great pleasure, Mr Crausby, to serve under your course, that figure is much higher as the Department’s chairmanship. We go way back so it is a pleasure to see annual report and accounts 2011-12, which were examined you in your place. May I gently say to my hon. Friend by the Select Committee on International Development that his case about defence expenditure has sympathy in in Command Paper 751, show. the House and I would only ask him whether this is the right vehicle in which to be making the point? I do not Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) see overseas aid expenditure pitted against defence (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? expenditure. If the Government want to find more for defence, which they should, they can do so. He can bring forward his argument in a completely different Sir Gerald Howarth: In a moment. The report makes form, but to do so in the way he is now, by pitting the the point that two against each other, does not seem to be right. “About two-thirds of DFID’s expenditure in 2011-12, including Accordingly, if we do not share his view on his new nearly 40% of the Department’s bilateral expenditure…went through multilateral organisations.” clause, it is for that reason and not because we are unsympathetic to his position. At paragraph 24, the report says: “On our overseas visits we have often been struck by the lack Sir Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. of effectiveness of some multilateral organisations.” Friend but those are weasel words. I am sorry. There is a long record of criticism of the way that the aid budget is performing. I am happy to put on record Alistair Burt: I was trying to be generous, but I will my tribute to the current Secretary of State, my right not do that again. How dare you say that those are hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), weasel words? How dare you. who understands that the British people want to see overseas aid spent on the real issue, which is relieving Sir Gerald Howarth: I sought to be generous. My poverty. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said: Eddisbury will confirm that she is doing her level best to ensure that the every penny is accounted for because she “It would be interesting to introduce a Bill in which we promise never to spend less than 2% of our gross national income on understands that it is taxpayers’ money. defence.”—[Official Report, 12 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 1217.] I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for for Eddisbury—I disagree with him on this, as he knows— North East Bedfordshire, he is obviously on side on the for the extraordinary work he is doing in the Sahel for inadequacy of our defence budget but does he not see no reward at all. I will not say he is an example of soft the way that giving priority to overseas aid at the same power because he might take offence and think there time as slashing our defences will be interpreted in the was something physical about my comment, but he is an country? I will withdraw the comment “weasel words” example of what we can do. because my right hon. Friend and I had the privilege of It is not that I am against overseas aid, but it is a working together when the Foreign Office and the Ministry question of quantum. We have plenty of evidence from of Defence worked together and, of course, we worked those reports illustrating that aid, particularly channelled together on the conflict pool. through multilateral organisations, is not spent efficiently.

Alistair Burt: I am delighted to accept my hon. Friend’s Mr Clarke: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, apology. not least because I had almost forgotten the point I was going to make. He mentioned Clare Short and of course Sir Gerald Howarth: I am sorry. I did not mean to we recall her criticisms of European decisions about upset my right hon. Friend; I just feel very passionately aid. Of course we agreed and still agree. Will he accept about the issue. I am a conviction politician and see a that at no stage during her time as Secretary of State for dangerous world out there. The new world order is International Development did Clare Short do anything disorder. other than support the commitment to 0.7% of GNI? 11 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS International Development (Official 12 Development Assistance Target) Bill Sir Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the right hon. aid last year, something like £650 million of that is Gentleman is right. Clare Short was a fantastic champion borrowed money—not our taxpayers’ money, but money of overseas aid; I do not cavil with that at all. I am borrowed from the international capital markets. praying her in aid to illustrate the very point that was We are puffing out our chest and saying, “Aren’t we made by the Select Committee under the chairmanship magnificent? We have lived up to the 0.7% target. There of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm are all these other countries, such as America, which Bruce). She made the point that so much aid—then only spends 0.19% of its GNI on overseas aid, and look 45%, now 66%—is not actually contributed direct from at us—aren’t we good?” In fact we are spending 0.67% the Department for International Development in the of our GNI, but that is not an exhortation to my right UK, but is channelled through multilateral organisations hon. Friend to go to the Treasury and get more money. that, in the words of the Select Committee report, were We are puffing out our chest and saying, “Aren’t we not as efficient at running those programmes as DFID good, aren’t we marvellous?” but it is not our money. was then and, hopefully, is now running even better To the extent that I have apportioned it across the under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the board, I have tried to be reasonable; I have tried to Member for Putney. That is the point Clare Short was suggest that not all of this money is borrowed. I would making, and all I was doing was praying her in aid. argue that overseas aid should not be one of the highest In Committee yesterday my hon. Friend the Member spending priorities and that we could apply all of that for St Albans referred to the report from the Independent to the deficit and therefore one could argue that it is all Commission for Aid Impact. I think my right hon. borrowed. I am not making that point; I am saying that Friend the Member for Eddisbury had some responsibility if we apportion across the board that 5.94% of GNI is in establishing the commission as an independent adviser attributable to our budget deficit—that our budget to the Select Committee. I can do no better than quote deficit constitutes 5.94% of gross national income—then my hon. Friend, who pointed out yesterday that the £650 million is borrowed money on which we are paying report published last week stated: interest; we therefore have no right to puff out our “The shortcomings that we saw in the programme”— chests and say how wonderful we are. We are borrowing this money from the banks to make ourselves feel good —that is, in southern Africa— that we are giving it to the poor in the rest of the world. “and its serious deficiencies in governance; financial management; I do not think that argument will hold much water for procurement; value for money; transparency of spending; delivery the British people. and impact, as well as its failure to use DFID’s body of knowledge In conclusion, I apologise again to my right hon. in trade and poverty, have led to a marking of Red for the programme”. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire. I did not intend to offend him, but I do feel passionately My hon. Friend went on to quote from the report: about this matter. The right hon. Member for Stirling “DFID has not...developed an approach equal to the challenge, has made my point for me, aided and abetted by my nor has it focussed its efforts sufficiently on the poor. While some hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, who rightly drew programmes show limited achievements, there is little evidence of attention to the combined military and civilian exercise impact on corruption levels or in meeting the particular needs of in Sierra Leone. The right hon. Lady made a similar the poor”. point: that in some respects, aid and defence are two These are not matters to do with the quantum of money sides of the same coin. If that is so, I rest my case. New spent; they relate to the operation of the Department clause 1 should be added to the Bill. itself. I salute my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has scrapped the programme because of the Mr Clarke: It is an enormous pleasure to serve under criticism made of the £67 million programme in southern your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, in particular because Africa. That example illustrates that it is not working we are considering a Bill as important as this one. The on the current levels of expenditure, yet we are about to right hon. Member for Aldershot and I go back a long enshrine in law the massive increase in expenditure that way. I do not recall having gone on any overseas trips has taken place and we have not remedied the fundamental together, which is a pity because I might have been able errors that have been pointed out by past Secretaries of to persuade him not to make the speech he has just State and now have been pointed out by an independent made; on the other hand, he might argue that that commission established by my right hon. Friend the would have had the opposite effect. Member for Eddisbury, among others. If I may, I will tell a little story about the chap who I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer was walking over the Clyde bridge in Glasgow. He saw a than I have already. I shall conclude with this comment. man getting ready to jump in, so he ran after him and My right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the said, “Come down, come down—there’s nothing we Committee know that the biggest challenge we face is can’t talk about.” The man did come down and they did that of the budget deficit. In 2010 the budget deficit was talk, and then they both jumped in. I will not jump in in £156 billion; in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher became support of the argument the hon. Gentleman presented, Prime Minister, it was £10 billion. We have inherited a because I found it profoundly unconvincing. Not only massive problem, which struck at the heart of the do I support strongly the Bill sponsored by the right United Kingdom. In my view, our budget deficit is itself hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, a threat to our national security, in the same way that, but, having reflected on last night’s debate, I offer him as Admiral Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the my sympathy because last night I saw his Bill hijacked joint chiefs of staff in America, said, the American on the Floor of the House by Europhobia and today it budget deficit is a threat to its national security. Our is being hijacked by an issue that should be debated on budget deficit is now just shy of 6% of gross national its own merits: defence. We are being asked to consider income. If we were spending £11.5 billion on overseas whether the long-standing commitment by the United 13 Public Bill Committee4 NOVEMBER 2014 International Development (Official 14 Development Assistance Target) Bill Nations and by Government after Government of whatever is that if we do not, we will go back to where we were for complexion in this Parliament to provide 0.7% of GNI many years. We will go back on the figure and back on for aid should be included in legislation. That is the the commitment. issue. There may be a case for what the hon. Member for Aldershot was saying about defence, but that should As we spoke last night, a child died every three be the subject of other legislation. With great respect to seconds. Some hon. Members might feel that it is difficult him, he should not be seeking to hijack the Bill to to explain to their constituents that as a Parliament promote something that I know is dear to his heart. and, in the case of the coalition, as a Government they are trying to tackle that problem, to address the millennium I am delighted to support the Bill, which follows on development goals and to fight the terrible poverty that from the International Development (Reporting and people see before their very eyes on television and the Transparency) Act 2006, which, in the year of Make major issue of conflict. Much of our defence expenditure Poverty History, I was fortunate enough to get through might be avoided if we endorsed the millennium the House. As I said last night, in this modern Parliament development goals on conflict prevention. If that were the person sponsoring a private Member’s Bill can go so, we would then move on to what the Brandt report, only as far as the Government of the day are willing to which I mentioned in my maiden speech when I was accept. That was my situation then, but if I had had first elected to Parliament 32 years ago, sought to agreement at that time, I would have gone as far as the achieve: the interdependence of developing and developed right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and countries. Look at Sudan, where there was a terrible Selkirk seeks to do with his Bill. That Act, until it is conflict; there are great reserves there, which if properly amended, as I hope it will be, by this Bill, says that there exploited and shared among the whole population could should be a report to the House by the Government of create a wholly different situation in that part of the the day on how well we are doing against the target. The world. Bill takes us much further in a very welcome way, and quite rightly commits us to the achievement of that If, as I hope, we say today that the new clause tabled figure. Call it ring-fencing; I do not mind. It is perfectly by the hon. Member for Aldershot is unconvincing, we reasonable for this reason. are saying that we have a commitment to the poorest people in the poorest countries. We have to look those At one point during the debate last night, I felt that I people in the eye as well as our constituents. For many was becoming too angry—I think the Minister will years, those countries and people were exploited and we recall what I said. However, this morning I read what I owe them something. Looking forward, it is in their said and I do not withdraw a word of it. In fact, I interest as well as ours to have an international trading probably was not angry enough. If we are going to sit policy that means that they benefit and so do we, our through the Committee—I know you will keep us in constituents benefit and so do they, and our taxpayers order, Mr Crausby—not debating what is in the Bill and benefit and they see growth beyond their wildest dreams. what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve, then we are going back on the clear decision that was taken I do not want to be unfair—far from it. I want to pay on Second Reading. a compliment, which I hope that my constituents and my Scots colleagues will not hold against me, to the Prime Minister for committing to the figure of 0.7%. 2.45 pm That is to his credit, because he must know that the A couple of political points were made and I am heart of much of his own party is not in that policy. trying to resist the temptation to not respond, but I will That is quite evident. One of the best political broadcasts very briefly. On the business of the economic problems I have seen was the conference broadcast by the that we are facing that are all due to the previous Conservative party in 2010 or 2011, in which the case Labour Government, we are in Committee at the moment; for the commitment to 0.7% was explained much more we are not appealing to the great British public. We all eloquently and professionally than I am doing. I realised know there was an international crisis and that Britain that the Conservatives were doing two things. They was not alone in suffering from the impact of it. The sought to persuade the British people that it was the impact was felt in Ireland, Greece, Germany, France right thing to do, but understanding the views of members and the rest, and we are supposed to believe that we of their own party and newspapers such as the Daily were an island of sanity in a sea of hysteria. That is Mail, they sought to explain in a brilliant political what we are dealing with. Should that be adduced as the broadcast why it was right to have that commitment to reason for not supporting the Bill? I think not. Indeed, I international development aid and in particular to 0.7%. think it is a reason for saying “Yes, the Bill is extremely The case for ring-fencing has been made. We have timely.” That is the point. moved on from 2006. Having achieved that figure, If we look at the whole history of the commitment to which is, as I have said, a tribute to the previous Labour 0.7% GNI, we find that it has fluctuated under various Government and to the present coalition Government, Governments. The Labour Government—Tony Blair’s we must make sure that we never go back on it, whatever Government—inherited a figure, believe it or not, of the influences on us. Those influences may be great—the 0.28%. Look at where we are now. It cannot be right, international economic crisis from which we are, I hope, especially given that all the political parties are committed recovering may not be the last—but whatever the to the figure. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member circumstances we face, the poorest people in the poorest for Angus because I should have mentioned the SNP parts of the world are waiting for clean water, trying to last night; it is committed to the figure and I accept deal with preventable diseases and trying to ensure that that, but so too are the Conservatives, the Liberal girls get an education when they have hitherto been Democrats and the Labour party. If that is so, what is denied one. All those things are rightly contained in the the problem with putting it into legislation? The danger objectives of the right hon. Gentleman’s Bill. I hope, 15 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS International Development (Official 16 Development Assistance Target) Bill therefore, that the Committee will not be persuaded by matters for the world’s poorest. In many ways, we do the distinguished hon. Member for Aldershot and will not need to go much further than that argument. He agree to support the Bill as it stands. spoke about the countless numbers, using a pretty appalling statistic of somebody dying every three seconds who Michael Moore: Before I turn to the details of the need not have died if they were given proper assistance. clause, I wish briefly to set the scene and welcome all the Something like 900 to 1,000 people died during the contributions, recognising the strength of feeling, passion course of our debate last night, which is just horrific. and divergence of view. I make no apology for inviting Whether it involves food, water, shelter, illness or more my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot to take part general development, such as education or the development in the Committee. He is here to challenge, and he of women’s rights and their role in society across the represents a view that exists in the House, which was world, across a whole range of issues, there are shocking expressed on Second Reading and during last night’s realities for countless millions of people across the debate on the money resolution. I am grateful to my world. The traditional things that any Church or faith right hon. and hon. Friends on both sides of the Committee group would have campaigned on throughout my lifetime for their willingness to serve. We have a distinguished and before have been added to in recent times by the Committee, myself notwithstanding, serving on this challenges of climate change and displacement, no thanks important Bill. to conflict that is racking countless countries across Africa and elsewhere. There is challenge after challenge I repeat the gratitude that I expressed on Second facing too many people. Reading to the non-governmental organisations, their supporters and countless people across the country who My contention, which I understand my hon. Friend have helped me and other Members to prepare for the the Member for Aldershot will not accept, is that Bill and who have helped to create the arguments that demonstrably development assistance not only saves the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and lives, but transforms them. The World Bank—I quoted Bellshill and others have advanced over long, long this statistic on Second Reading—estimated that the years. The Bill that I have the privilege and the good measures taken over the last 30 years have lifted 700 million fortune to introduce builds on the work of millions of people across the globe out of extreme poverty.Arguments people who have made the case for such policies over were made on Second Reading, and I echo them today, decades. that the many countries that have received development assistance over the years have developed into what we I want to put on record my thanks to officials and tend to describe as emerging powers and now are highly Ministers in the Department for International Development. successful trading partners of ours and many others Its work is recognised internationally as some of the across the world. If I may, I move from it being morally finest in this sphere. Britain leads in this area. The right and perhaps our duty to make this commitment to previous Government set up the Department, and the it being in our national interest as well, both economically, coalition has continued to develop it. As a Scot, on a in terms of creating and fostering strong economic ties couple of occasions I have been privileged to visit the with countries that are now developing very strongly, substantial number of DFID employees—somewhere and in terms of harder-edge stuff to do with defence. between a third and half of the total—who are based at What we can do to assist people in these war-torn or East Kilbride, just south of Glasgow. I have had the climate-change-ravaged parts of the world is ensure privilege of visiting that office on a couple of occasions, that they are supported in-country and to develop, and seeing at first hand the excellent work done there as well that they do not then become part of the vicious cycles as here in London and in many different countries of terrorism, migration or other issues, which frankly around the world. arrive on our doorstep before long. As I said on Second I would describe the result on Second Reading as Reading, I do not believe that there is some awkward emphatic, not least because there had been a contested choice between the moral responsibility, as I would see Bill the previous Friday. To be able to get 170 or so it, and our national interest; this is something that people in the Chamber to debate this issue is a tribute to works on both counts. the priority that colleagues gave to it. One hundred and sixty-four were in favour and six were against, and last On reaching the target, I will not re-rehearse the night, we improved our score even more: 295 were in history of its coming into play in the 1970s, and the favour of the money resolution, while seven were against. work of the Labour Governments of the day, the The scale of that support reflects the cross-party Conservative Government subsequently, and the recent background to the Bill, which, as others will be aware, Labour Government, who really did ramp up the amount very much reflects previous efforts from Members in of spending that was done. We are delighted to have other parts of the House as well as my own to act on reached the target in the past year. I said as much on this issue. It was in the manifestos of every party—Labour, Second Reading, when I stated that we had spent Conservative, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and “£11.4 billion, or 0.72% of GNI, on development assistance.”— others—at the last election and therefore has the broadest [Official Report, 12 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 1171.] possible support. I am delighted that it was in the However, since that debate, the Department has published coalition agreement, and although I am disappointed its statistics on international development for 2014. that measures were not introduced sooner, I am glad to Pages 8 to 10 explain that the collective effect of revised have the chance to put that right with this private figures from the original estimates and changes in Members’ Bill. methodology—not least the adoption of more recent My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, European accounting standards, which have caused Chryston and Bellshill—I hope he is happy for me to problems elsewhere in recent times—has been a reduction call him my right hon. Friend—made the case passionately in the ratios referred to by the hon. Member for Aldershot for why the Bill matters and why development assistance to 0.67%. That gives a further purpose to the Bill in 17 Public Bill Committee4 NOVEMBER 2014 International Development (Official 18 Development Assistance Target) Bill terms of making us committed to reach the target, We have only to look at what is happening with having narrowly failed in the past year. The significance climate change throughout the world. The other week of the efforts made by the Department and the Government, Christian Aid brought representatives of a partner building on previous efforts, needs to be recognised. In organisation from Bolivia and the Philippines to Parliament, the last year, an additional £2.7 billion of support was who discussed with MPs how their nations had been provided by DFID and other Government Departments impacted by climate change. I spoke to a gentleman across the world. We in the United Kingdom should from the Philippines who talked about the increased celebrate that. ferocity of the typhoons which are hitting those islands due to the impact of man-made climate change, and 3pm about the fact that the coastline is changing. Fishermen Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill. It puts a duty on the were losing their livelihoods because of coastal erosion Secretary of State to ensure that the ODA target amounts and the impact of saltwater coming into previously to 0.7% of GNI and that that is reached in 2015 and freshwater areas. Roads were being swept away soon each subsequent calendar year. It also seeks to ensure after they were built. All of these are huge development that that is accounted for and reported consistent with difficulties which face nations such as the Philippines—and the 2006 Act, which the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, many others in the Pacific and Indian ocean region— Chryston and Bellshill piloted through the House. I pay because of these changes. We have also seen changes tribute to him once again for that and for his work throughout Africa. Hard power and soft power do go within the Department. The clause provides for that together in some ways. In west Africa the British Army duty, as well as how we will know if it has been is helping with the Ebola crisis, which is another huge achieved. I hope that the Committee will support it. crisis which we never saw coming. The Disasters Emergency Committee is now doing an appeal for the Ebola crisis, My final comment is on the new clause. I do not which it does not usually do for a disease. That is disagree that we should be spending 2% on defence in somewhere where armed force and soft power go well this country; that is absolutely vital. However, I also together. agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire that these two things are not mutually I say to the hon. Gentleman that it seems to me that exclusive. It is possible, given our long-standing international soft power is important in defusing many of these commitments, to reach the target on international situations before they get to the stage where hard power development without prejudice to a legitimate debate ends up being necessary. The use of hard power has in on defence spending as well. He pointed out some of fact made these situations worse in some countries. It is the real challenges, which we are familiar with from our not as simple as the hon. Gentleman said. He talked own visits, experiences and debates here in the House. I about the effectiveness of aid, but it seems to me that hope, given the mood of the Committee, that the hon. that is more of a way in which we have to look at what is Member for Aldershot might withdraw the new clause. being done. In passing, I say that it is a shame that the However, should he push it to a Division, I would Government seem determined to take out clause 5 of intend to vote against it. the Bill, which would have been a good way of looking at the effectiveness of aid. I would like to add one or two specific points about Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): It is a pleasure to how aid is calculated. I know from the explanatory note serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I want to that, make a brief contribution to this debate. I fully support the Bill. The right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh it is commonly accepted that ODA has the meaning given to that term by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the and Selkirk and I have not agreed on very much in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. ODA recent years, but we do agree on this particular matter. is currently defined as resource flows to developing countries and It was good to hear the impassioned speech from the multilateral institutions provided by official agencies or by their right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill executive agencies, which meet the following tests: they are administered on the subject. I am sitting in front of him, so I will not with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of say anything that angers him. developing countries as their main objective, and they are concessional in character and conveying a grant element of at least 25%”. If we look back at the history of this, the target has existed since the 1970s. Sweden became the first country I make that point because I looked at the statistical to make the target way back in 1974. Norway and release from the Department for International Denmark reached it in 1976 and 1978, and Luxembourg Development, which talked about meeting the 0.7% target. in 2000. All of them have consistently met it since. The I was interested in some of the items which make up Netherlands has also met the target since 1975. We have that 0.7%. This, again, is where the organisation set out just met—or just not met, as Members say—the target. in clause 5 would have been of some interest. The That is a major step forward. It is worth noting that release states that: 0.7% of GNI is a fluctuating amount that depends on “DFID’s overseas pensions department is also responsible for the state of our economy. That undermines the argument the payment of colonial pensions made to ex-members of the UK that we cannot do it because of economic conditions, overseas civil service who were employed directly by developing because it reflects our country’s economic conditions. countries.” I agree with what the hon. Member for Aldershot I wonder how much that actually is of overseas aid. said about the changes in the world since the 1970s. He went on about the changing need for hard power because Michael Moore: I am the grateful to the hon. Gentleman of the way that the world has changed, as have the dangers who intervened and made a couple of good points. in the world. However, that is equally true of the area of Official development assistance is a term that is defined international development. Countries face much greater by the OECD and by the Development Assistance dangers in many ways than they did in the 1970s. Committee. It is policed by them, and the UK has 19 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS International Development (Official 20 Development Assistance Target) Bill [Michael Moore] Jeremy Lefroy: I shall restrict my remarks to a few on areas that have not been covered. First, on my hon. always made strenuous efforts to ensure that all spending Friend the Member for Aldershot’s new clause 1, I that is classified as ODA meets that standard. We do sympathise with the idea of having a 2% ring fence for not mark that ourselves, as I understand it. As far as the defence. If he were to bring forward a Bill in his own hon. Gentleman’s point is concerned, yes, we should name at some point, I would happily be one of the have scrutiny. While we are having discussions, I hope sponsors. My constituency is home to a very significant that amendments will be brought forward for clause 5; I Ministry of Defence base and will be, like his, one of do not wish us to give the impression that we are the seven largest army bases in the country from next resigning from the principle. There should be scrutiny year, when we receive two more regiments. I firmly of efficiency and effectiveness. believe that a minimum of 2% of GNI should be spent on defence. In fact, one could argue that it should be considerably more than that in these dangerous times. Mr Weir: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I was not suggesting anything to the contrary in raising these Mr Swayne: I point out to my hon. Friend that he will points. The other point I wanted to make regards the have the opportunity on 9 January to support such a Export Credits Guarantee Department— Bill in the name of our excellent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) . Mr O’Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not want to prolong the point, but as it Jeremy Lefroy: That is great: I have always wanted to happens I ought to declare an interest in so far as I find find something on which I could support him and I that my father is caught up in precisely this point. He is shall certainly support him on this matter, as, no doubt, now 82 and only receiving 60% of the pension in this on many others in the future. country because he was the last colonial officer appointed I firmly believe in this and my hon. Friend has made by this country who went to serve in Southern Province, a very strong case. The only point on which I disagree Tanganyika, as it then was, as district officer. Because it with him is linking it to the International Development was under a mandate, having been a reparation in 1919, (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill. I shall he was never a formal colonial officer but a member of give just two reasons in addition to those already mentioned Her Majesty’s Overseas Civil Service and, as such, the why I believe that this is very important. The first is that Tanzanian Government took over the responsibility for it is not just aid givers or development assistance providers his pension in his early years. They promptly declared it who seek to hold themselves to targets. The Abuja bankrupt, so he has only been able to contribute since declaration has committed many African countries to he was 33 into his current scheme. There is absolutely the target of spending 15% of their domestic budgets no comeback on any fund whatever and we just have to on health. Many have not reached that, some have, and accept that those who were in that situation have to as a result those that have—Rwanda, for instance—have suffer. seen their health services very much improved; in fact, I would say, transformed. We are not asking our taxpayers to do something that many developing countries are not Mr Weir: I thank the hon. Gentleman. To be clear, I asking their citizens to do. I also see a great appetite in was not suggesting that his aged father, or anybody else, developing countries to reduce dependence on overseas should not get their pension. I was simply querying why development assistance, which I think we would all this is overseas aid in terms of the 0.7%. Because the want to see. Indeed, part of British overseas development same could be said about the ECGD writing off some assistance is spent on helping to strengthen the tax debts. I accept that if you write off debt, it helps the collection authorities in those countries so that they will country whose debt is written off, but some of it might require less assistance in the future. We are not holding have been for rather dodgy things in the past. One of ourselves to account while letting others not hold themselves my constituents asked me whether it covers arms deals. to account. We support developing countries that are in Will the Minister say whether it does? receipt of overseas development assistance in setting There are some issues about how it is calculated, but their own targets to which they hold themselves to the principle is sound, my party supported it, all parties account. supported it and we have to go ahead with it. It is a good thing, it will do a great deal of good and we 3.15 pm should be at the forefront of it and encourage as many My second point is on global public goods, which is others as possible to do so, including our European just a name for things that benefit absolutely everyone. partners, who have not done so yet. In this case I am particularly thinking about preventing The hon. Member for Aldershot spoke about defence and fighting disease. I declare an interest as chairman of spending. That is, of course, a different matter. He says the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical that no one in his constituency asks him about overseas diseases. In that role I have played only a small part in development. I am sorry, but there is not a queue of building on the excellent work of my right hon. Friend people in my constituency asking me about defence the Member for Eddisbury, who set up the group. He spending, despite the fact that I have a military base will agree that, without long-term, consistent dedication in my constituency as well. In fact, many people raise to providing overseas development assistance for the questions about certain aspects of defence spending development of global public goods—such as drugs that they would like to see cut; Trident being the obvious and vaccines in the fight against malaria, TB, HIV/AIDS example. It is an interesting area to open up and we and, in the future, antimicrobial and antibiotic resistance, could have a debate, but that is perhaps for another which is one of the biggest single threats that we face—we time. will not be able to develop such global public goods. 21 Public Bill Committee4 NOVEMBER 2014 International Development (Official 22 Development Assistance Target) Bill In a report published just a couple of weeks ago, the are being too generous; I take the opposite view. It is all-party group noted that, whereas in 2008 there were right that Britain leads the way and that we set an just one or two anti-malarial drugs coming from the example by legislating to enshrine the duty on the assistance given through the Medicines for Malaria statute book. Venture, there are now six, four of which are directly I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for attributable to the public-private partnerships supported East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) said on Second Reading: by long-term, consistent ODA principally supplied by “A very small Bill, on just a few sheets of paper, will save many the United Kingdom and the United States of America. hundreds of thousands of lives of people we will never meet and That is one of the major reasons why a 0.7% target is so whose names we will never know.”—[Official Report, 12 September important. Such a target would provide reliable, long-term 2014; Vol. 585, c. 1187.] assistance to those programmes, which are vital for It is our duty to the world’s poorest. health and well-being, and those global public goods, If the Bill is enacted it will not tie the hands of future not just for the poorest on the planet but for everyone Governments, as the House of Commons may repeal it. on the planet. Nor will it prevent any party from placing a commitment to cut development assistance to below 0.7% in its Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): It is a great manifesto and seeking a mandate to do so, as it is not pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Crausby. I possible to do that. If it is enacted, I hope that one day am pleased to be here today to consider this important it will be repealed, not because the British people have Bill alongside such brilliant Members—[Interruption.] become less generous, but because with Britain’s help I think there was a sedentary remark about my use of terrible, enduring poverty has finally been defeated the term “chairship.” I do not see what is wrong with worldwide. This House should aim to make aid an “chairship,” and I shall keep using it. I think the word anachronism. However, the clause would require any flows naturally from the use of “Chair” to refer to the Government who want to abandon the UN target to person in the Chair. make their case to Parliament and the people. Of course, there are questions about how to ensure Sir Gerald Howarth: In my experience a chair is an that 0.7% is not only a financial commitment on paper inanimate object, and I take great exception to the and that every pound is spent wisely, but we will come Labour party’s politically correct insistence that we to those points when we discuss the later clauses. As it use “Chair” in this pathetic fashion. I do not think is, the Opposition support the Bill and wish it speed on “chairship” is in the “Oxford English Dictionary”, but to the statute book. Therefore, I will not speak for long. “chairmanship” is. On a minor technical note, has the right hon. Member The Chair: Order. It is for me to deal with that, for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk had any discussions Sir Gerald. I have given you some leeway today on your with Treasury Ministers about the decision to calculate amendment, and I think you should allow me to chair compliance with the target on the basis of calendar the Committee. years, rather than financial years? Does he think that there is the potential for development budgets to be set Alison McGovern: Thank you, Mr Crausby. Given below 0.7% in some financial years and balanced out by the other remarks made by the hon. Member for Aldershot higher spending in the next year so it meets the target this afternoon, I consider myself to be in the very best within the calendar year? company following his retort to my use of language. I could say that the rules of the English language are Michael Moore: As I understand it, it is based on the descriptive, not prescriptive—they describe what is done, availability of data from different Departments and not what ought to be done—but that might trouble the across the development sphere, rather than any attempt Committee a little too long on a trivial matter. at sleight of hand. However, if I am wrong, I am sure To get on to much more important matters, I briefly the Minister will correct me. pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for choosing to introduce this Alison McGovern: I leave it open to the Minister to Bill through his fortuitous placement in the private contribute to the discussion. However, I know that the Member’s Bill ballot. I am pleased that the Bill has right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and managed to chart a course through the internal coalition Selkirk appreciates that, although this might seem like a ructions on money resolutions that seem to have scuppered technical accounting matter, consistency, and therefore a couple of the other highly placed private Members’ predictability, in development funding is almost as Bills. It is slightly surprising that we are discussing this important as the sums themselves. That is one of the issue as a private Member’s Bill, as the commitment to arguments for legislating. spending 0.7% of gross national income on international I consider the new clause tabled by the hon. Member development is the policy of all four parties here today. for Aldershot to be a spoiling clause aimed at holding Three parties committed to legislating for it in their back the Bill, and as such I cannot support it. I do not previous manifestoes and, as has been mentioned, it disagree that the Government have cut rapidly—in some was in the coalition agreement. We have to wonder places, haphazardly—Britain’s defence budget and about the many possible reasons why this is not a weakened many parts of our armed forces. The Government Government Bill. will be remembered for having cut the regular Army The previous Government began the process of meeting based on massively over-optimistic estimates of recruitment the UN’s target of 0.7%. It is a credit to the Government to the reserves. The brave, dedicated men and women that they built on that legacy, and that Britain has now who serve in our armed forces, to whom I pay tribute, reached that target. It is one of only five richer nations deserve far better. In fact, they have a vital, and sometimes to do so, and it is alone in the G8. Some argue that we neglected, role to play in development. 23 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS International Development (Official 24 Development Assistance Target) Bill [Alison McGovern] It might be helpful to cast our minds back to the fact that not only was the promise that 0.7% of our GNI I am passionate about reconnecting the Ministry of would be spent on ODA in all three of the main parties’ Defence, the Department for International Development manifestos at the 2010 election, but that that promise and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that they survived the negotiations on the coalition agreement. It work together more effectively overseas. However, using became a promise on which we were keen to deliver, and our armed forces as a misplaced argument against the I am pleased that it is being delivered under the coalition Bill serves neither our service people nor the wider Government, although I accept that that delivery comes defence agenda. Linking development spending to defence on the back of a combined effort over many years and is is no more sensible than linking it to the size of the not, of course, the work of the current Government health budget, or to education or transport spending. If alone. we start down the road of coupling together different For those of us who were in ministerial office in Departments’ spending levels, we will end up with an DFID at the start of this Parliament, the question arose incoherent budget process. as to how we should pursue the policy. One thing that became clear was that 0.7% is of course arbitrary. It is a Sir Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Lady accept that very long-standing commitment under the UN, and by the introduction of the Bill and her support for it every test in the book, a percentage is arbitrary—it is effectively promote that discussion? There has been a intended to set a goal and an aspiration. We therefore singular, unique exercise to ring-fence one Department. considered whether it was appropriate to come up with She rightly asked: why not health or education? That is declaratory legislation. Like every other Member of the the argument that will ensue. I have proposed what I House, no doubt, I had some misgivings. I am sure that believe to be the important issue of the moment. I think one of the underlying concerns of my hon. Friend the that there is some synergy between overseas aid and Member for Aldershot, who tabled new clause 1, is that defence anyway, for the reasons set out by many hon. declaratory legislation raises a question: just how valuable Members, but does the hon. Lady not understand that and important is it for the House to consider such she is creating a division by what she is proposing? legislation?

Alison McGovern: I think that the hon. Gentleman 3.30 pm has misheard me. I did not say that justifying the There is one distinction between this area and defence. ring-fencing of development spending will mean that As I said in a previous debate—my hon. Friend the there will be justifications for other ring-fences; I was Member for Aldershot quite rightly quoted me—I am saying that coupling together different parts of the indeed extremely sympathetic to the question of there budget would create unintended consequences. Those being a minimum 2% on defence and he knows full well sorts of connections between two parts of the budget that I have every good reason to be, as I have a son would make the whole budget process incoherent and, currently attending the Royal Military Academy at as I said, create unintended consequences down the line. Sandhurst. Therefore, I want to see our armed forces as Britain must maintain its NATO commitments and, as well provisioned as possible. things stand, it does, but concerns about cuts in defence However, the one thing that we could overlook is that spending should not be addressed through the debate making a 2% choice for defence is always a matter of on this Bill. policy choice for any Government of this country, I conclude by returning to the point of the Bill, which because I do not for a second quibble with my hon. is to help us keep the promise that we all made. Development Friend that the defence of the realm and the security of promises are not always kept; if we look through the our citizens is our first duty. The issue for overseas history of international development we see how often development assistance is that that is a definition set by great words are said at summits and promises made that the Development Assistance Committee, an external are not kept. It is important that we use the Bill as a tool body that then has to measure that, in an auditable way, to help us to keep the promise that we made, which is before it is channelled through our own Treasury; all doubly important because it is in the sphere of international ODA expenditure is, in fact, channelled through one development. When poverty is down the road from us, source so that it can be measured. when there are poor people in the next town, it is Because it is an external measure, and because—for sometimes too easy to look away and focus on things whatever reason—it is expressed as a percentage, it has that are easier to deal with. How much easier is it for us helped motivate people at a global level, particularly in to look away when extreme poverty is 100,000 miles trying to achieve the millennium development goals, away? However, I know that if we were with those and, perhaps more importantly, the more economically people in extreme poverty who need help, we would not focused goals that will come after them in 2015, which I look away. We would help, and, as has been said, in the hope will happen as a result of the advice that our long term it would be better for us to help. For all the Prime Minister was involved in developing, as part of reasons that have been mentioned and well explained, the three-party advice committee that proposed to Ban the Bill is the right thing to do, and the Opposition Ki-moon what should come after the MDGs. support it. My feeling is that there is a strong motivational power, and we should not doubt for a second how Mr O’Brien: Just before my right hon. Friend the important that is for UK interests. I do not think it is excellent Minister has his chance to contribute to worth while discussing whether we agree with this as a proceedings, I would like to make a couple of points, moral matter; that is a matter for us all individually, and albeit briefly, because most of the arguments have been to justify to our constituents. However, even in Britain’s well advanced by other Committee members. own interests, the one thing I think that my hon. Friend 25 Public Bill Committee4 NOVEMBER 2014 International Development (Official 26 Development Assistance Target) Bill conceded is that overseas development assistance is, in whole. In my time, as soon as we discovered that anything many ways, part of the projection of power and influence had gone wrong, the best thing that we could do was to across the world. It could be described as part of our ask for the money back and, indeed, we got it back. soft power. Increasingly, and interestingly, it is part of That was very much the best way of solving some of the broad aspect of power. those issues that would otherwise undermine people in If I may be personal for one second, it was extremely terms of corruption. interesting to hear a report by my son, who of course I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for attended the passing-out parade last term of those who Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk on introducing the had just graduated from Sandhurst, and Sir Peter Wall Bill and steering it so skilfully through the House so far, said to them, “You are the first graduates who will not and I strongly hope that it will receive acclamation. We immediately be deployed to Afghanistan. You are now should oppose new clause 1 because it tries to draw a making a choice: between being part of the reactive parallel and a connection between defence and international Army, for all the asymmetric threats that now face us, development, when a connection exists only in the total and the adaptive Army, for when there is a cyclone, or projection of the UK interest. We should not have to tie some kind of earthquake, and we send you quickly to one set of policies to another because, at that rate, we help ensure that there is water and access for people in might be at risk of not being able to stand behind the very grave plights, and where the British Army is able to very promises that we wish to advance. support a co-ordinated effort with mobilised money and discipline, and indeed with the NGOs and others who are able to do that.” We are excellent—I would Mr Swayne: It is a privilege to follow my right hon. claim world-leading—in both areas, and we should Friend, who has a great deal of experience and expertise look at this issue very much in the round. It is because in such matters, which he showed in his short but ODA is externally defined that we need to have something powerful contribution. that helps us to do this. By placing a duty on the Secretary of State to meet Sir Gerald Howarth: I take my right hon. Friend’s the target and to report how it has been met by quoting point, and clause 5 is designed to provide greater the figures for GNI and overseas development aid, the transparency. However, will he accept that the reason clause discharges the commitment of the coalition to that defence is comparable to this is that there is a legislate on the matter and the commitment that was NATO requirement? This is a UN requirement—0.7% made in a number of our manifestos. As such, I support to be spent on overseas aid. There is a NATO requirement, the clause and the important duty that it places on the and NATO is the cornerstone of our defence. NATO Secretary of State. itself has a number of headings of expenditure, which it Turning to the new clause, I feel almost that I ought is eligible to contribute to the 2%. So there is actually a to declare an interest as a serving officer in the armed lot of analogy between the two. forces of the Crown. I entirely understand the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot Mr O’Brien: I do not doubt that for a second; as I addressed the issue. I would have been surprised had he understand it, we are meeting our NATO commitments, not spoken so passionately, given his long record of and indeed, as it happens, we are just above the 2% at involvement and service to defence on the Select Committee the moment. And of course, given that our Government and as a distinguished Minister of the Crown, a service have been urging others to follow suit, that clearly puts for which he was quite properly acknowledged. I would some—how shall I put it? I will use an American not accuse him of hyperbole but he used one or two phrase—moral suasion that we should at least maintain items of loose language. At one point he spoke of that level, to maintain the backing to our own argument. slashing defence expenditure and increasing foreign I take my hon. Friend’s point about the NATO development aid. Now, I know how such an impression expectation. However, it is not as yet auditable, by can come about. He knows as well as I that if two or virtue of the NATO definition; it is still a matter of more Tory MPs meet, they will find ways of discussing complete policy choice for a sovereign British Government how we might increase defence expenditure but, as a how we decide to make expenditure on the defence of conviction politician and a former Minister of the our realm. Of course, putting it in those terms underlines Crown, he would never have overseen such a policy of how important it is that it is indeed our choice, decided slashing defence expenditure. On the contrary, he was under this sovereign Parliament. That is equally the responsible for overseeing a commitment in defence choice for overseas development assistance. It is purely procurement of £100 billion over the next decade. I because the definition is external that we need to satisfy share his aspiration in what he seeks to achieve in the its importance. By having this commitment, we demonstrate new clause but, like the Opposition Members who that it is not worth going through the argument, advanced intervened during his speech, I do not see any mutual by many who are not in this place, to redefine official antipathy between the two. They are very much as sides development assistance. The danger is that that would of the same coin. We should pursue both and I do not let everybody else wriggle off the hook, when we are all believe that the commitment expressed in the Bill should trying to urge them to get there. It is far better to stick be conditional on another Bill that may or may not to the official development assistance definition; to proceed on 9 January. I ask him to consider not moving demonstrate that it is quite possible to get there; and to his new clause when we come to that point in our ensure that we have the most rigorous processes in place proceedings. to avoid some of those occasions, which my hon. Friend I come finally to the question about the difference advanced in support of his argument, where DFID between the calendar year in which we report overseas finds its expenditure is not meeting its original intended development aid and the financial year in which we do target, although those are a small proportion of the all our other business. I confess that that has caused me 27 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS International Development (Official 28 Development Assistance Target) Bill [Mr Swayne] I am grateful to the Committee for having listened to my arguments with greater courtesy than I showed my some angst over recent weeks as it has crossed my desk right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, again and again. If you will excuse my French, Mr Crausby, for which I apologise. He is a much better Christian it is a bugger. than I am, and I know he is much more able to forgive No greater difficulty is presented than by this reporting than perhaps I am. I am grateful and will not press new requirement whereby we have to deliver overseas clause 1, which was tabled by me and my hon. Friend development aid according to a target within a calendar the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Perhaps it will year, while our financial year runs to April. We therefore be debated at a later stage. have to spend a greater proportion than we might Question put and agreed to. normally do of our budget in the calendar year in order Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. to meet a target but then we have a quarter of the year still to go. I have asked several times why we cannot sort Clause 2 that out by having one year, whichever that is. Unfortunately, the answer is that the overseas aid committee of the DUTY TO LAY STATEMENT BEFORE PARLIAMENT IF OECD, which measures our development aid, has decided 0.7% TARGET NOT MET that it should be so. We are one of the largest contributors 3.45 pm of overseas development aid, certainly in terms of our Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the expenditure, and perhaps we ought to be able to call the Bill. shots. I will therefore take as an action point from the hon. Member for Wirral South a commitment to investigate The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss whether we might take steps to change that and I will the following: write to her with an answer. Clause 3 stand part. Clause 4 stand part. Alison McGovern: I am terribly sorry for having raised that point. If I had known that it was such a Michael Moore: I will be brief in setting out the bugger, I would have not wanted to have intruded on purposes of the clauses. Clause 2 sets out the requirement what has clearly been the Minister’s private grief. I rise to lay the statement before Parliament if we have not briefly to commit that, if the Opposition can be of any reached the 0.7% target. There might have been an assistance in undoing the entanglement to ensure that example this year where we thought we had, but it we are clear in our commitment both in actual terms turned out that we did not. The clause clearly explains and in accounting terms, we will work together with the what is required of the Secretary of State. It sets out the Government to do so. allowable excuses for not having made the target in a particular year. They are listed in subsection (3)(a), (b) Mr Swayne: I am grateful for that commitment. I am and (c): economic circumstances, fiscal circumstances, confident that that would lead to a better way of doing and circumstances arising outside the United Kingdom. things and organising our affairs. It might even lead to a It also imposes a duty to ask the Secretary of State to better way of spending overseas development aid. describe any steps that will be taken to ensure that the target will be met in the calendar year following the report year. Jeremy Lefroy: Will my right hon. Friend assure the Subsection (5) seeks to grapple with the issue that the Committee that the discrepancy in timing will not lead hon. Member for Wirral South and the Minister have his Department to accelerate expenditure in order to just explored as far as the accounting periods are concerned. meet such a target if that is not in the interests of good As a recovering chartered accountant, not even I was Government? That has been brought up from time to interested in the minutiae of what was going on, other time. than to know that the Minister is totally in control of it, of which we are all immensely grateful. Mr Swayne: That is precisely the danger that we must Clause 3 deals with the extent of accountability. It is avoid. To meet the overseas development aid target explicit that the accountability of the Secretary of State within a calendar year when there is a different financial is to Parliament and to nobody else. This would not be year over which to deliver it is a bit like trying to land a subject to judicial review beyond Westminster were the helicopter on a handkerchief in a gale. I am convinced provision not to be met. Finally, clause 4 deals with the that we must not go down the route that my hon. Friend repeal of section 3 of the right hon. Gentleman’s Act of rightly pointed to of attempting to spend money to 2006. It has the happy assumption that we will have meet a target. We must ensure that our money is all reached the 0.7% target and therefore it is no longer properly spent. necessary to report when we will meet it. Sir Gerald Howarth: We are coming to the end of the Alison McGovern: I will speak briefly to clause 2. We debate. I recognise the Committee’s indulgence and it support the proposals for the reporting mechanism as will be relieved to hear that I will be in the United States set out in the clause. It is right that any failure to meet next week and therefore I will not be around to act as a the 0.7% target should trigger a detailed statement from thorn in its side. [Interruption.] My right hon. and hon. the Secretary of State, rather than simply noting such a Friends may insist that I should be here, but I have a failure in an annual report. The report must include family commitment to honour, or I would be here to lay details of remedial steps that will be taken the following my wreath at the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot, year to meet the target as proposed. In drafting the where I am a church warden. However, I will be in clause, did the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, the States. Roxburgh and Selkirk envisage that such a situation 29 Public Bill Committee4 NOVEMBER 2014 International Development (Official 30 Development Assistance Target) Bill would lead to the Secretary of State requesting to make Michael Moore: In answer to the question asked by an oral statement to the House so as to ensure proper the hon. Member for Wirral South, it would be a matter scrutiny? for the Government and for the House to determine We have no objections to clause 3 standing part of what the most appropriate form of scrutiny would be. the Bill. The duty to be accountable to Parliament Question put and agreed to. represents sufficient enforcement of the aims of the Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill. Neither do we have issues with clause 4. The provision for reporting on progress towards the 0.7% target Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. as set out in the 2006 Act is clearly rendered obsolete by Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. it. —(Michael Moore.)

Mr Swayne: The right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk has set out clearly the purpose of 3.50 pm clauses 2, 3 and 4. I endorse them and the Government Adjourned till Tuesday 11 November at five minutes to support them. Nine o’clock.