International Development: Budget
(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to transfer a portion of the international development budget to the budget of the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, because the noble Lord’s Question for Short Debate will be taken as last business, the time limit for it will become 90 minutes rather than 60. Therefore, speeches should be limited to seven minutes, except for those of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the Minister, for which the limits will remain 10 and 12 minutes respectively.
Lord Empey
My Lords, it is often said of politicians that they should not ask a question until they know the answer. However, I can truly say that I do not know the answer to the question that I will ask this evening, and that my motive in securing this debate is to seek answers and clarification.
There is no doubt that large numbers of our fellow human beings live in terrible conditions that we can barely imagine, and which our community finds appalling. Whether it is hunger, slavery, exploitation and trafficking, disease, war or natural disasters, there is virtually no end to the misery suffered by millions of people, with the young and old as the principal victims.
There is a long tradition in this country of being willing to help others, both financially and in other ways. One has only to look at the money that is raised annually by appeals such as Children in Need, and at the response to international disasters, when the British people give generously. There is a well established tradition of volunteering, with many young people, in particular, willing and anxious to spend some of their lives in the service of others. Sadly, on a number of occasions this has put those young people in personal jeopardy, and some have lost their lives. My own region of Northern Ireland always punches above its weight in such enterprises, and this creates a great sense of pride in our fellow citizens.
In recent years, there has been growth in the amount of taxpayers’ money that has gone to international development. In the Budget 2013 document of March this year, the figures were stark. Resource DEL for the Department for International Development will rise from £6.1 billion in 2012-2013 to £8.8 billion in 2013-14. When capital DEL is added, the total figure will increase from £7.8 billion in 2012-13 to £10.7 billion in 2013-14—an increase of 37%. No other department of state enjoys such largesse in this time of austerity. By comparison, the Ministry of Defence’s total resource and capital DEL figures show a more modest increase of 5% due to increased capital spending.
This Government have set out on a number of occasions their ambition to spend 0.7% of GDP on international aid. In recent days, the Prime Minister has, in his capacity as chairman of the G8, chaired a conference designed to raise money for many starving people. However, earlier this year, in February, David Cameron alluded to the possibility that funds currently allocated to the Department for International Development could be reallocated to the defence budget in order to provide security and stability in regions where this was necessary to distribute aid safely.
There is already co-operation between the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is essential to ensure that UK policy is properly co-ordinated. Military campaigns are often accompanied by humanitarian projects, and the foreign policy objectives of Her Majesty’s Government can often be advanced by such spending, as the briefing pack for the debate demonstrates. The flurry of parliamentary Questions, both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, suggests that I am not alone in seeking clarification of what is proposed.
The OECD and the International Development Act 2002 define what is regarded as legitimate aid spending. This could be in conflict with the MoD’s understandable concern about recovering costs and relieving pressure on its overstretched budget. I do not have a problem with that. The work of the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be part of a seamless process designed to help those in greatest need. Without a proper framework of security, this is often neither safe nor possible. I regret, for instance, the trite and sarcastic statement by Max Lawson, Oxfam’s head of policy, that what is needed is spending,
“on hospitals and not helicopter gunships”.
This makes no positive contribution to the very difficult balances that Ministers have to strike.
Given all this, what exactly was the import of the Prime Minister’s intervention in February? If nothing has changed, why was his speech necessary? If something is changing—and maybe it needs to—why are Ministers being coy about it? Given our current financial circumstances, and considering that many people in the country simply do not believe that all their hard-earned taxes always get to the people who need them, but instead, in a minority of cases, go to corrupt officials, gangsters and despotic regimes, it is necessary for the Minister to tell the House exactly why such an intervention was necessary, and explain what exactly is happening to the very large international development budget.
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and other Ministers take great pride in the fact that the United Kingdom is taking the lead in a number of important projects throughout the world. Undoubtedly it is something in which all people in this country take pride. It is also true that our defence forces are under great strain and pressure. However, there is in some cases an inextricable link between having support from defence forces on the one hand and allowing them to be co-ordinated with staff from the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I seek clarification on why the Prime Minister said what he said if there was no change taking place—and, if there was a change, perhaps the House may have an adequate explanation so that a judgment can be made.
Lord Bates
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I pay tribute to him for securing this timely debate. Noble Lords on all sides of the House, irrespective of their point of view, will look forward to hearing the answers to the questions he posed, which should be in the public domain.
Essentially, he reminded us that there is a choice about how we spend our budget, and whether we devote it to overseas development assistance or whether we spend it on military interventions. On that subject, I will underline some important facts that are sometimes overlooked in the current debate—understandably, because these are incredibly tough fiscal times for the country and times of great hardship at home. Therefore, people are asking questions about how we are spending our money overseas. For every £1 we pay in taxes, just over 1p is spent on aid. For every £1 we spend on aid, we spend £6 on defence. Clearly we need to look at that situation and keep it constantly under review. I was impressed by some figures that came out of the weekend summit to which the noble Lord referred—and it is wonderful to see Northern Ireland in the spotlight this week, in the lead-up to the G8 summit in Lough Erne, Enniskillen. Therefore it is timely that we should focus on that in particular.
Save the Children sent me some figures which pointed out that, in 1990, 12 million children under the age of five died from preventable diseases. They then showed that, in 2011, that figure had fallen dramatically to 6.9 million. Aid has played a crucial part in that; so has trade. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, was a distinguished Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland and knows the importance of trade in lifting people out of poverty. None the less, 5.1 million fewer deaths of under-fives per year is an incredible return that the British people and others are getting on their investment in the poorest in the world.
It is always very difficult when these things happen because, when we see need around the world, a hue and cry goes up that “something must be done”. We are finding this at the moment in Syria. There is no doubt that, if you are in a ministerial office—at the Foreign Office, in the Ministry of Defence or in No. 10—the pressure to show immediate responses is immense, and military action is an immediate response. It has impact, it is visual and it shows a degree of leadership. To invest in aid, training people in how to develop crops, drilling wells, improving sanitation and educating the child takes longer. In a sense, they are less immediate, but the long-term return is vastly more.
We need to look at this very carefully and I read the Prime Minister’s speech about it with care. It could have been interpreted as leading to some potential change in the way that we allocate aid. Yet, the Prime Minister has nailed his colours to the mast on this to a greater extent than probably any leader in recent times. He has been inextricably associated with arguing the case for aid, not least last weekend. Within the Conservative Party, which is part of the coalition, he vigorously makes the point about the value of our aid spend in the world. That is very significant. We are just reaching the point of achieving our goal of 0.7%. We are seeing the returns: 5.1 million fewer lives lost. We are being told by the UN that the eradication of poverty for under-fives by 2030 is a real possibility, and that a further 1.7 million lives per year could therefore be saved. When we are on the brink of that incredible breakthrough, it would be unthinkable to look at blurring the edges between two very distinct types of spend. They are two very necessary types of spend in their correct context but we must not blur the edges. There are international agreements as to what overseas development assistance means and they come together in the Conflict Pool, the work of which I applaud. It has been a great innovation in bringing together the Ministry of Defence, DfID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, getting them to work together in control of a single budget to tackle prevention, rather than by intervention.
When the Prime Minister launched this, he said, in another place, that,
“we must get better at treating the causes of instability, not just dealing with the consequences. When we fail to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention, the costs are always far higher”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/10; col. 798.]
We know the impact of that through our intervention in Iraq and our continued presence in Afghanistan. That intervention is critically important. We know that more than 1.5 billion people live in fragile or conflict-affected states and it is no surprise that none of these has achieved a single millennium development goal. There is a link there.
I understand the argument that you need the military solution to create the security on the ground to allow trade, education and assistance with governance to develop, but I profoundly disagree with it. When people are without income, without hope, they have nothing to lose or to live for and that is then a catalyst for violence, rather than something which abates it. We need to remember that as we consider all the options open to us.
Lord Judd
My Lords, it is always good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bates, because he brings judgment, wisdom and a strong humanitarian commitment in so much that he contributes to debates on issues of this kind. He argues his case particularly convincingly. I hope that my words will underline the significance of what he has said.
I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on having introduced this debate. It is incredibly important and not something to be swept to one side after the remarks by the Prime Minister, so I hope we can have clarification of what exactly he meant.
It is quite a long time since I was in government. My first job was in defence and, after two years there, which I enjoyed greatly and found very challenging, the Prime Minister asked me to move to overseas development where I became the Minister for a short while, until Tony Crosland died and I moved to the Foreign Office. When I made the change, quite a lot of my friends asked me, wasn’t this an incredible change to make from defence to overseas development? I looked at them straight in the eye, because I believed it, and said, “Not at all. Both are about human security and well-being”. During my years in defence, I was always impressed by the number of senior officers, civil servants and others, who used to say in discussion, “Of course, we’ve lost if war breaks out. Our job is to prevent war and to ensure that peace can prevail”. Of course, development is ensuring that peace is not just the absence of war, but it is the ability of people to live full lives and to develop their potential.
I strongly believe that this is a time of so many challenges, including hunger and malnutrition—which is particularly sinister with its long-term effects, not least on future productivity—of climate change and of infant mortality still, although we must all take heart from the great progress to which the noble Lord, Lord Bates, referred. However, this is not a time to start raiding the aid budget. There may be very real arguments about how we do it better, get better value for money and prioritise better. Some of that has begun with the examination of programmes in India and South Africa, for example. These are big, important arguments but it certainly cannot be said that there are still not demands which far outstrip what we are even now able to make available.
The British people should take great pride that we are setting examples to the world in our commitment to overseas aid and development. At a time of low morale in Britain about so many things, this is something about which we can get excited—the positive battle for humanity, and the well-being of people and the children who are being born, or who should be born today but still die before they have a chance to enjoy life. It is very significant that we can say to the world, “Don’t do as we say but follow our example because this is a challenge that we are determined to meet”. I make no bones about it: I congratulate the Government unreservedly on having honoured the pledge of allocating 0.7% of GNP to aid. There will be arguments about priorities and techniques, but having kept that promise and that determination is something in which the British people should take pride. That is not to say that the example should not be followed in the battle for social justice and against poverty, deprivation and inadequacy in our health service in our own country, but at least in our relationships with the world we can hold our head high. It is an example of what we should be doing in our own society, if I may put it that way.
There will always be an overlap between overseas development and defence—that is clear. Certainly, humanitarian assistance, let alone long-term development, cannot take place if there is insecurity and instability. Therefore, in some situations it is necessary for defence forces and aid operations to work hand in glove. However, there are tensions—for example, in Afghanistan. The Army liberates an area and wants to put things in quickly which give the people a stake in the liberation of their territory before the Taliban moves back. Overseas development workers say, “Hang on a moment. It’s not just a quick fix. If we are to put a school or a hospital in, it has to be sustainable because if we have a quick fix the whole thing will collapse and we are likely to lose everything”. Therefore, there are real tensions between the disciplines of long-term, sustainable development and the immediate needs of the Armed Forces. The challenge is how we bring those two aims together in a useful and sensible way. I always think it is very exciting when the military can feel that on occasions it is contributing positively to human well-being by ensuring that supplies get through and that goods are delivered. That is something which many people in all three services of the military enjoy and value. However, these two aims are not the same tasks and how you marry them together will always pose a very difficult challenge, but one with which I think we should grapple.
In conclusion, we still need to give far more attention to the issues of conflict resolution and conflict prevention, although we are giving them much more attention than we used to. The resources to do that should come from the aid budget although the military has a contribution to make. I hope that in all the Government’s considerations those issues remain priorities.
Lord Chidgey
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on securing this debate, on his thoughtful contribution and on the concise way in which he presented it, which is an example to us all. I will certainly try to follow that example.
It is a delight and a privilege to follow my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who was first elected as an MP in Portsmouth many years ago when I was a young student at Portsmouth Polytechnic. I am afraid that he did not persuade me to vote for him. Nevertheless, it is always a pleasure to hear him extolling with such oratorical skill his well-known absolute commitment to international aid and development. I shall try to follow him with a few precise words of my own.
For some months now, there has been a mounting campaign within the defence community for the MoD to be given an ability to draw upon elements of Britain’s aid and development budget. The attempt to access this ring-fenced budget as part of the comprehensive spending review has thrown up suggestions that DfID should, for example, pay for flights on RAF transport aircraft, in particular for military helicopters used to carry civilians as well as soldiers, by prepaying a guaranteed number of flights for each type of aircraft in regular use by DfID. There have also been suggestions that DfID should pay for some naval patrols and protective equipment required by civilian staff. The Royal Navy’s Atlantic Patrol Task is a case in point. Tasked with protecting our interests in the Caribbean, the APT takes on humanitarian aid during the hurricane season, together with assisting with counternarcotics and anti-terrorism operations.
There has been a push from the MoD to redefine more of its work as official development assistance, not surprisingly given the way in which the Prime Minister’s remarks about establishing effective links between defence and development have been largely, if not blatantly, misinterpreted in some quarters. They were spun to mean that more ODA should be spent on defence, increasing the momentum being created behind the campaign to that effect. However, the fact of the matter is that ODA can be spent by the military only on very specific activities due to strict guidelines from the OECD and the United Kingdom’s own International Development Act 2002, to which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred.
Apparently, discussions between the MoD and DfID are ongoing, so perhaps in her reply the Minister could tell us whether an options paper has yet been put to the National Security Council and, if so, when its response is expected. The Government have made it clear that they would like to see more of the aid budget diverted to defence by building up the Conflict Pool already used by DfID and the MoD.
If we can help states riven by conflict and war, and help to deliver security and provide stability, we also provide the base on which all development can proceed. The Government’s commitment to investing greater resources in preventing violent conflict before it breaks out is widely welcomed. The use of the Conflict Pool through the Building Stability Overseas strategy is widely seen as a step in the right direction.
The Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s recent report, Evaluation of the Inter-Departmental Conflict Pool, recognised that it has proved effective at identifying and supporting worthwhile conflict-prevention initiatives and has delivered some useful, if localised, results. It goes on to say that the Conflict Pool functions well as a responsive grant-making instrument for supporting small-scale peacebuilding activities by local parties in conflict-affected countries.
The ICAI report identifies a number of ways in which the Conflict Pool can be improved through greater attention to how the cross-departmental approach should work in practice, identifying more clearly how Conflict Pool spending can achieve impacts on the scale required, adopting a more conflict-sensitive approach, and improving monitoring and evaluation systems. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the House of the actions that the Government have taken, and are taking, in this regard.
Aid is not the only mechanism that the UK can use to promote peace and support stability and development. According to Saferworld, there are a number of ways in which the defence community can contribute to conflict-prevention activities—elements such as security and justice sector reform, small arms counterproliferation and monitoring arms transfer control arrangements. Some may count as ODA while others may not. The MoD mentions the BSOS in its Defence Engagement Strategy paper but does not set out how it intends to contribute to upstream conflict prevention. This gives an impression of a lack of commitment to the BSOS and belies the MoD’s responsibility to ensure that its approach in fragile states works towards the vision of stability outlined in the BSOS. Will the Minister clarify how the MoD is working to fulfil its commitments under the BSOS, which sets out the UK’s approach to addressing conflict overseas?
Finally, I echo the words of Bill Gates who, with the Gates foundation, has set new heights in philanthropy in aid and development. When he opened DfID’s new offices in Whitehall last week—in fact, we should not really call them new; that is a misnomer as they are a refurbished conversion that will hopefully do the job—he said that the UK should take great pride in the compassion and generosity of its people and its commitment. Mostly, it should take great pride in its ability to deliver effective international aid on a scale that makes the UK a world leader, and the Gates foundation its preferred partner.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Empey for tabling this important and timely debate. We always have to consider the brave men and women of our armed services and be sure to leave no stone unturned in ensuring our absolute commitment to their success and to the protection of the nation.
However, I seek reassurance from the Minister with regard to switching funding from development towards defence because, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, made crystal clear, we are talking about the lives of millions of children. Even a small reduction in funding will be measurable in children’s lives. We as a nation are making a huge difference through our commitment and the example that we are setting to the international community. We are taking a leadership role in international development by saving children’s and adults’ lives, and showing other nations the way in doing so. Perhaps it is arguable that by taking these steps we are also contributing to an increase in the reduction in population growth across the globe. As families are supported as women receive education, birth rates drop, so population growth drops. It is arguable that that might contribute to long-term stability and a safer and more secure global environment.
I should declare an interest. I was funded to visit Angola during the civil war there 12 or 15 years ago. I have visited Angola on a couple of occasions subsequently, funded by Save the Children and Tearfund. I recall meeting AIDS patients in Luanda who were utterly helpless because there was no treatment that they could afford. They were living desperate lives. I also remember visiting an area for internally displaced people and seeing a group of men and a young woman who was with them talking about condom use and how important it was in preventing the spread of AIDS. I remember seeing street children who were living in the sewers of the city. They came up from there to make a life for themselves. I visited a school sponsored by an NGO that provided street children with an education and opportunities for employment. I visited a project funded by DevelopmentAid where young men were building their own homes. I visited a maternity unit, which sadly had no or very few incubators for babies. The main problem was that the roads were in such poor condition that mothers found it difficult to get timely help during their pregnancies.
The difference which the British people make internationally by their investment in educating women, reducing levels of poverty and ensuring that children get adequate nutrition is huge. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, drew attention to the long-term impact of malnutrition in early life. By making a difference in these areas, we are also contributing to lower birth rates and a reduction in the world population.
This is the right thing to do because we are saving children’s lives in Africa and across the world. It might also be argued that what we are doing is prudent because we are introducing more stability by reducing population growth by ensuring that women are educated and taking that step forward. I join in the tributes made across the House to the coalition Government for their commitment of 0.7% GDP to international development, and I look forward to what I hope will be some reassurance from the Minister that there will be no trans-switching of funding from international development to defence. Both are crucial and need to be treated independently.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I join those thanking the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for introducing this debate. It is very timely and perhaps gives us an opportunity for some clearing of the air after the Prime Minister’s recent comments and the reactions, or overreactions, in some cases, to them.
Let me emphasise from these Benches our complete support for the Government’s overall allocation to the aid budget. I believe that history will give a very favourable judgment on this country’s decision to maintain its increasing level of commitment at such a challenging economic time. Our world seems ever increasingly to be characterised by growing divides between wealth and poverty, whether between individuals in a given country or between countries themselves. I sometimes think that there are not many issues on which the Lords spiritual are in total agreement, but this is definitely one of them. At least, I believe that to be the case, but my right reverend friend the Bishop of Derby has yet to speak.
Aid should be directed to alleviate poverty, but that poses the question: what is poverty in our world today? When thinking about poverty we should, of course, take its obvious meaning which tends to come first to us: it is a lack of money and material resources. But poverty is not just a lack of material resources; it can also be poor health, which can be psychological as well as spiritual. Poverty can be not living in a democracy in which individuals are valued. Much poverty in its broader sense is caused by wars or other social upheavals, just as the greatest single source of poverty in this country is arguably family breakdown. The best way to address poverty in our country might well be to have a co-ordinated, cross-departmental strategy to reduce family breakdown, in as much as the Government can influence such major social trends.
The same applies to development aid overseas. Above all, it needs a joined-up, cross-departmental strategy, and in as much as this is what the Prime Minister was advocating in his recent remarks, I have no problem with them. I also have no fundamental objection to our aid programmes being integrated somewhat with our broader national interests or security strategy. There has been a tendency in the past for the development programme to be almost on its own plane, apart from other aspects of government policy. But it is distinct, as has been rightly said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. It always seems to me to be part of the overall programme of what we are trying to do as a country. Surely we are learning the hard way, as has been mentioned, that soft power in all its guises is often more lastingly effective than hard power. Indeed, there seem to be many conflicts which have no purely military solution, as indeed is the case, it appears, in Syria.
In relation to the Ministry of Defence, for example, I can see a strong case for offering assistance with mine clearance, or rehabilitating former soldiers into society after a conflict ends. We heard something about that in the previous debate about the Offender Rehabilitation Bill: there is a particular problem with ex-servicemen who find life difficult some years later. No doubt a whole range of activities, which might be regarded as aspects of peacekeeping and peacemaking, should involve the Ministry of Defence along with other departments. I see no reason why that should not be the case. That should involve not only other departments of government, but voluntary agencies—let us remember those too, including faith communities.
In Africa, in particular, there is a major problem of preventing aid money being swept up into a culture of corruption. Often the safest way to distribute money in those countries is through the faith communities. My most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot be here today, but this is a particular concern of his, as he has had a major interaction with Africa over the years, and indeed looking at his blog, as I do every night before I go to bed, there is an instance of the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church in Sudan using money from the overseas development budget— £3 million or £4 million —to train thousands of teachers in a country where only about 1% of the young women complete secondary education. Again, that is a really important example of collaboration outside the immediate structures of government, but that should be built on collaboration within government.
I believe that this country has a proud record on overseas development. I simply want the Minister to reassure me that that will long remain the case.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for raising this subject this evening and for giving us an opportunity not just to seek clarification but to express what is clearly a strongly held view among most Members of your Lordships’ House. I refer to the inference that the expenditure pattern on development might change to assist the Ministry of Defence in what may be perceived as current difficulties with its budget, and the real strategy at the heart of what successive Governments have been trying to achieve, which was damaged by that intervention, or at least the public description of it.
I associate myself wholeheartedly with the content of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and his analysis of the importance of this issue and of conflict in fragile states. I also wholeheartedly endorse the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester.
The Government have done remarkably well on the agenda for international development over these past three years. Many who were, perhaps in advance of the 2010 election, slightly suspicious of the Government’s commitment to international development, have been proven wrong. The consistency with which they have applied the comprehensive approach initially begun by the previous Government, by improving and expanding upon some of the procedures that were put in place, such as the Building Stability Overseas strategy, the extension of the Conflict Pool following its review, the establishment of a National Security Council, and the implementation this year of the 0.7% of gross national income of our national budget for international development, have all been important steps on the right road.
It is not just in their individual actions that the Government have been right. Having watched this closely and been pleased at what has happened over the past three years, even I was surprised to see the Chancellor on television at the time that this issue was raised, presumably by one of the Prime Minister’s aides, back in February or March, whenever it was first in the news. The Chancellor said that it was in this area of our expenditure, where we commit to an international agreement and we implement that commitment, that we give ourselves influence around the world in ways that are almost impossible through other means. To hear that coming now on a cross-party basis from these Houses of Parliament should give us all great pride.
In that context it was with dismay that I watched the debate on this issue emerge in the early months of this year. The suggestion that money could be transferred from international development to help out with the defence budget was wrong on four grounds.
First, it is against the rules. So it was a silly thing to say in the first place—it cannot be done. The idea that the international development budget could be used for non-international development purposes was never going to have any traction, and therefore to suggest that for public consumption was frankly silly. Secondly, and allied to that, it is dangerous. It puts in danger those in the field who are trying to work in the most difficult of countries and situations—those states referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bates. It therefore makes the lives of those who take on the most difficult challenges in our world today more difficult.
Thirdly, such a suggestion reverses the strategy begun by the previous Government, built upon by this Government, on the comprehensive approach that says that, in today’s 21st-century modern world, defence, development and foreign relations cannot exist independently of each other. They will be successful only if they work together.
Fourthly, the suggestion reduces our influence internationally. Not only has the UK been implementing this strategy at home for most of the last decade, it has been leading the international strategy on this debate as well. When I was the previous Prime Minister’s special representative for peacebuilding between 2008 and 2010, I had the fascinating privilege to visit United Nations missions around the world, with both peacebuilding and peacekeeping missions. People consistently said to me—particularly local people, or those involved in national government in countries around the world where these missions exist—that the lack of co-ordination between defence, development, peacebuilding and peacekeeping, between a national strategy and the international intervention of agencies and donors, and the lack of a comprehensive strategy were the biggest blocks to building peace and ensuring that development is able to take place effectively.
If we have learnt that lesson anywhere over the past decade, we have learnt it in Somalia, where we have seen remarkable progress over the past two or three years. We should never be complacent about the situation in Somalia and the Horn of Africa, certainly not in the short or medium term. The European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank, individual donors, those involved in development and those involved in military training and expertise are all coming together in one strategy, and making a difference in trying to build a new democratic parliament and some opportunity for Somalia to build its way out of the horrors of the past 20 or 30 years. To reverse that strategy now and to play games with this issue is a dangerous thing to do.
I hope that there will be further clarification. The Minister has clarified this matter in your Lordships’ House before, but I hope tonight she will be able to do so once more. I also hope that in seeking this clarification we will say clearly to the Government that it is essential that they not only implement this strategy here in the UK, but continue to lead on it internationally, and ensure that the United Nations, the World Bank and others work together in a truly comprehensive approach across every continent.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on securing this debate and bringing this topic to the attention of the House. It has triggered a memory for me. As a new Member of Parliament way back in 1997, I can recall very well that a new defence review was being undertaken. I attended an interesting discussion between Ministers past and present about the concept of defence diplomacy. To my innocent ears, it sounded like a new dawn. One of the MoD’s eight missions was to,
“dispel hostility, build and maintain trust, and assist in the development of democratically controlled armed forces”.
The defence budget would fund these activities; it was brilliant. The new dawn soon faded, however, as young and not so young Ministers got the smell of cordite in their nostrils, or whatever it is that makes men—it is mainly men, I am afraid—go to war in order to try to solve the world’s problems. The last Government certainly loved their military adventures.
I have not heard much about defence diplomacy since then, but I am extremely pleased and almost proud, although I do not like that word, that our coalition Government have committed to spend 0.7% of GNI on international development, 30% of which will be spent on fragile states, which we all know are the poorest in the world and unlikely to achieve the millennium development goals. Conflict produces poverty and poverty causes violence and war; we all know that cycle. I appreciate that because of this, there needs to be co-operation between the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.
I am extremely concerned, however, at the suggestion that by some sleight of hand the protected DfID budget will be used to shore up the unprotected MoD budget. What a fall from grace that would be. How cynical it appears, especially if the money is used directly or indirectly for things like helicopter gunships. That would do great harm to our reputation for international development throughout the world. Development and military activity, even defence diplomacy if it is still practised, however well intentioned, must be seen as separate activities. Journalists have reported from Afghanistan that the Taliban has attacked aid workers because they were thought to be collaborating with western forces. NGOs—Christian Aid in particular —have expressed their fears that aid workers’ lives will be in danger in fragile situations if they are thought to be colluding with the military. It would be disastrous.
The best way to bring about peace and stability is through poverty reduction. Young, poor and under- employed people are used as fuel for conflict. We need to concentrate on giving them better lives by educating them, especially the girls, and improving their health and prospects.
As chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Population Development and Reproductive Health, I must add that around 350,000 girls and women die every year in pregnancy and childbirth. The majority of them live in fragile and conflict-wracked states with no access to family planning or safe abortion, obstetric care, or even skilled birth attendants. I must also remind the House that there is an enormous unmet need for voluntary family planning around the world. The consequences of not providing family planning resources are unsustainable population levels, which lead to conflict over the world’s diminishing resources. It is a very important link. While on the subject of women and girls, the Minister would expect me to say that we must not allow Department for International Development money for safe abortion after rape in armed conflict to be diverted away from this very necessary service because of the aid policies of other countries such as the USA.
There is too much demand for aid in fragile states for it to be diverted to the needs of the Ministry of Defence, however hard it argues the case that fragile states need military intervention. It is too dangerous to contemplate, both for the people in the country affected and for aid workers operating there. I have every sympathy for Ministers who are seeing their precious defence budget cut, but the remedies are staring them in the face. Perhaps I may make a few suggestions. First, we must stop thinking that the United Kingdom should intervene in every conflict and civil war around the globe. Secondly, we must stop just fighting terrorism and start addressing the causes of terrorism—noble Lords would expect me to mention the plight of the Palestinians. Thirdly, please can we abandon the ridiculous notion that Trident needs to be replaced? Some £20 billion to £25 billion could be saved in a stroke on Trident alone. That would pay for a few helicopter gunships.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, would like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for introducing this debate, and I hope that noble Lords will see that not only do the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and I sit on the same Bench, we have a similar view on this issue. I thank my friend and colleague the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his wisdom. I hope that I can simply embroider his words because he has said all that needs to be said. Not least is the point that this is not simply about a crude choice, it is about priorities and the particularity of aid alongside the necessity of the military.
I need to declare some interests. I am a trustee of Christian Aid, but tomorrow night I shall be having dinner with the adjutant of the Royal Hospital Chelsea, so I have some military friends and connections as well. I want to take a steer in my brief remarks from the Book of Common Prayer. The morning prayer, the second collect, is as follows:
“O God, who art the author of peace and lover of concord”.
I shall explore the difference between peace and concord. Peace is a spiritual state. It wells up in our hearts, developing harmony and good will towards others. It is what drives aid, it is what unites us across this House, and it is what unites the British people in the Government’s policy to protect 0.7% of our income for aid. There is a desire for peace through harmony, generosity and connection.
When we come to the concord bit, we have to put in place arrangements to deliver it, and it is concord that we cannot agree on. That is where we need political arrangements and sometimes military interventions to try to ensure that there is some concord. These things do not fit together easily and must be properly distinguished. I want to look at each of these emphases and put some questions to the Minister.
If we think about ordering, about the concord that we have to try to create and support across the world, my military friends would remind me that the military has always been involved in creating concord through delivering what we call aid or humanitarian support. I can give examples of this from Alexander the Great to the Napoleonic Wars. More recently, there is a priest in the diocese I serve who was in the Royal Air Force. He tells moving stories about his time as a serviceperson of being involved in humanitarian work such as the rebuilding of schools and getting supplies through lines in order to feed people who were trapped behind them. There is a long and important tradition of the military playing a constructive role in the delivery of what we would call aid. In that sense, we need to look at that military capability, which is often important in a natural disaster. Aid agencies tend to need to plan and budget carefully, but the military has the resource and dynamism to get in there and connect. If the military is going to be part of the aid scenario, we have to look at how that co-ordinates with what we understand about aid, aid agencies and DfID. Is there a case for joint training and planning, especially in relation to natural disasters, and should a co-ordinated effort be made? It is a question that can be asked and it needs to be pursued.
Let us think about the peace that aid agencies, DfID and others stand for alongside the military trying to develop and preserve concord, particularly through aid exercises. Let us think about aid more narrowly—the peace that comes from the heart through trying to connect human beings by helping women and girls, reducing infant mortality or whatever it might be. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, there are tensions because, to deliver aid, people try to offer a kind of neutrality about the political context of finding order and concord. Whether there is peace or disorder, aid needs to be delivered.
Aid agencies and those in partnership with DfID try to work in partnership with the local, and often the local can see aid workers, if they are associated with the military, as foreigners and the enemy. Therefore, the aid operation on the ground, working through partnership, is put in serious danger by being associated with a foreign power.
Of course, as we have heard, the whole aid thrust of DfID and the aid agencies is about poverty reduction. It is not just about good ordering and trying to create the stability that people need. It is about positive things, such as tax justice, land distribution and trade arrangements. There is a much bigger agenda than the military can ever be involved in. So there is a place for military co-operation with the delivery of aid in some contexts. However, that must not compromise the ability of DfID and aid agencies to deliver aid in complex situations where it might be a handicap to be associated too closely with military operations that are associated with interference from a foreign power.
I conclude by asking the Minister to address a number of questions. First, will poverty eradication remain the key purpose of UK aid? Secondly, will the 0.7% commitment be targeted to aid and development and ring-fenced from foreign policy costs? Could there be some kind of quadruple lock to preserve that? Thirdly, what plans are there for the MoD and DfID to work more closely together? Fourthly, does the Minister recognise our concern for aid work if we blur the boundaries between military activity and the provision of aid? That puts the whole credibility of aid and those who deliver it in serious jeopardy.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, this has been an interesting, albeit brief, debate. Like virtually every other speaker, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on his opening speech and on giving us the opportunity to receive, we hope, some clarification from the Government about their intentions on this issue.
The Government have previously said on more than one occasion that they are committed not only to achieving but to legislating for 0.7% of gross national income, in line with the United Nations target, to be spent on international aid and development. There was, of course, no mention of such legislation in the gracious Speech, and no indication has been given about when such legislation might appear or, indeed, why it has not appeared to date, as promised. On top of that, we are hearing suggestions from the centre of government that some United Kingdom aid might be directed to prop up a defence budget facing further cuts and also to promote trade interests and British business. As has been said, the Prime Minister announced just under four months ago that he was “very open” to spending money from the UK aid budget on peacekeeping and other security operations, and that he would like to see more of the aid budget diverted to defence by building up the Conflict Pool that is already used by the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.
Clearly, today’s debate is an opportunity for the Government to put concerns at rest by explaining why the intended legislation has not appeared, and to give the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is seeking that there are no government plans to transfer a portion of the international development budget to the budget of the Ministry of Defence. As the former International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, said, legislating on this issue of the aid budget “takes it beyond doubt” and,
“takes it out of politics”,
in a situation where all three major parties made it clear at the time of the last general election that they would legislate.
We accept, as we have consistently said, that it is essential that international development and defence are better co-ordinated and that, indeed, there should be a co-ordinated approach to tackling conflict that brings together defence, diplomacy and development. We support how the Conflict Pool can be improved and targeted and how a cross-government approach can better prevent and tackle instability. However, any suggestion that aid money can be used to offset deep defence cuts is misleading, since UK aid money can legitimately be used, in accordance with internationally agreed guidelines, only for security, demobilisation and peacekeeping, and not for core military activities. The major proportion of UK aid money must continue to be used to alleviate poverty, improve basic services and support job creation, all of which are central to ending conflicts everywhere. In that regard, can the Minister say whether any DfID review, or a review by any other competent body or organisation, is being considered or undertaken in relation to the definition used for overseas development assistance, or of the interpretation of that definition, and if there is, the purpose of such a review?
International development aid works, since it saves lives, helps reduce inequality and gives people the chance of a better future. It is also in Britain’s interests, since the unrealised potential of developing nations and their peoples represents lost trade and growth for the UK, as well as for those developing nations and the global economy. It is now time for the Government, when they come to respond, to say why the Prime Minister made the statements he did—to which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred—if there is no change in policy. In the light of some recent off-the-record briefings and ad hoc policy statements, as well as the continuing absence of promised legislation, it is also for the Government to show that their direction and good intentions on international development aid will not be compromised by either the consequences of their failure to meet financial targets at home or the need to appease those within their ranks who give such aid little or no priority.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for securing this debate and all noble Lords for their contributions. There has been gratifying agreement about the importance of supporting development and support for the UK’s stance in reaching 0.7% of GNI on aid. We are, of course, the first G8 country to do so. I thank noble Lords for that agreement. The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord McConnell, the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and other noble Lords paid very generous tribute to the Government over that, which we really appreciate.
Especially in a period of austerity, I am very proud of the fact that we have done that and know how important it is morally. Singing, I suppose, in agreement, we have the right reverend Prelates, the Bishop of Chester and the Bishop of Derby, along with other noble Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and other noble Lords emphasised that and pointed out what a difference it makes to the poorest around the world. However, it is also in our own national interest that we do this, which has been recognised as well. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister pointed out on Saturday at the Nutrition for Growth summit:
“We understand that if we invest in countries before they get broken, we might not end up spending so much on dealing with problems—whether that’s immigration or new threats to our national security”.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and other noble Lords asked further about the Prime Minister’s position. Earlier this year, in India in February, the Prime Minister said,
“conflict states … haven’t met a Millennium Development Goal between them … it’s obviously true that if you can help deliver security and help provide stability … that is the base from which all development can proceed”.
He made it clear that spending would be compliant with international rules that define aid spending.
The Prime Minister did not say that he was filling some MoD black hole with the aid budget, whatever some decided he might have meant. He was saying that we need to work together to ensure we establish security for people in fragile and conflict-affected states, so that development can be built on. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and other noble Lords would agree with that. I note the real sophistication in this House in understanding how security and stability underpin development. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, both the MoD and DfID are about human security and well-being. That was a brilliant encapsulation. They are complementary.
I assure my noble friend Lord Bates that, as he knows, as do other noble Lords, that the rules do not allow blurring. As noble Lords are well aware, and as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out, the 0.7% must be spent in line with the definitions of official development assistance—ODA—as set out by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. These directives define ODA as flows to eligible countries and multilateral institutions, each transaction of which is,
“administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective”.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby should find the multiple locks of the OECD reassuring. As noble Lords are well aware, the OECD directives rule out, for example, financing military equipment or services—including helicopters—unless funding is used to cover the additional costs to the military of delivering humanitarian aid.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, in terms of aid workers being put in danger, that we are clear that humanitarian assistance should be administered impartially and on the basis of need. The protection and expansion of the humanitarian space protects aid workers from being seen as targets, but we are well aware of the general threats to them worldwide. We pay tribute to their efforts.
There is, of course, a wide understanding in this House that DfID, the FCO and the MoD need to work together, as the previous Government agreed, to ensure that we bring together development, diplomatic and defence expertise on the ground. The Building Stability Overseas strategy was produced jointly by DfID, the FCO and the MoD in July 2011 with a strong integrated approach across government at its heart, developing work done by the previous Government. Improving stability and security in fragile and conflict-affected states is vital for development. Conflict and instability undermine our efforts to reduce poverty. No conflict-affected country has met a single MDG. That is why the Government have committed to spend 30% of UK ODA in fragile and conflict-affected states by 2014-15. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right to emphasise that.
The UK-led Helmand provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan is demonstrating how DfID, the MoD and the FCO can work effectively together. There we use the military’s strengths in delivery, access and know-how and the civilian staff’s political access, sector expertise and longer-term focus. This ensures maximum impact from our combined resources and expertise. Civilian and military teams work jointly to plan and deliver infrastructure projects on the ground, building schools, clinics and roads where needed and in keeping with Afghan government plans and capacity. Support for such development would not be possible without the military, which provides the security needed for governance and development to take hold.
Of course, as noble Lords know, this co-operation cannot be funded in such a way as to go beyond the OECD definitions. Therefore, for such operations, a mix of ODA and non-ODA resources is required. The Conflict Pool, to which noble Lords have referred, provides a funding mechanism made up of both resources. This was put in place by the previous Government. The mix of ODA and non-ODA is to give maximum impact. This enables the Conflict Pool to pay for military-led activities that help create stability in the most conflict-affected environments. The Conflict Pool is separate from and additional to departmental budgets.
My noble friend Lord Bates is right to praise the Conflict Pool as a tried departmental mechanism to increase the effectiveness of our programmes. Its aim is to reduce the number of people around the world whose lives are or might be affected by violent conflict. It is jointly managed by DfID, the MoD and the FCO and operates on the principle that all policy and programming decisions are taken jointly.
In 2012-13, £175 million of ODA was available through the Conflict Pool. The MoD spent about £2 million of this. As noble Lords will appreciate, the MoD spends more non-ODA from the Conflict Pool: about £40 million in 2012-13.
Like my noble friend Lady Tonge, I found myself going back a little in time as I was preparing for this debate. In 2009, for example, I submitted Written Questions to the previous Government about transfers from DfID, and I shall give a selection of the detail in the answers from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. Noble Lords will find a trail of questions and answers in the months following March 2009, should they wish to look.
In answer to me on 9 March the noble Lord mentioned that transfers from DfID to other departments included £1,650,000 to DCMS for developing sport to do with the Olympics; £300,000 to the MoD; £1 million to the FCO; £6,716,000 to the FCO; £18,899,000 to the MoD for the conflict prevention pool, and so on. There was another transfer of £917,000 to the MoD for stabilisation in Iraq and £1 million to the FCO for police reform in Pakistan. In summary, the noble Lord replied that overall transfers will not significantly affect the UK’s ODA/GNI ratio.
The word “significantly” is interesting. I noted back in my questions that almost all the transfers were in one direction—away from DfID. I hope the noble Lords, Lord McConnell, Lord Rosser, and others, will note that there is a track record for the transfer of funds to other departments from DfID. For example, after the earthquake in Pakistan in 2005, the military supported relief efforts, providing helicopters, engineers and airlift capability. A memorandum of understanding was developed in 2000 between the MoD and DfID which provides the framework for DfID to request the use of military assets where civilian capabilities are either unavailable or inadequate to meet humanitarian needs in accordance with international guidelines.
My noble friend Lord Chidgey asked about the NSC, which has considered the topic of development in conflict, as one would hope it would. This is to ensure that the Government’s efforts are as effective as possible. The MoD recently published a joint international defence engagement strategy with the FCO, and among the four pillars of that are conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction and stabilisation.
Of course we can understand departments looking across at other departments’ budgets, not only DfID’s, I can assure the House. I am sure the previous Government experienced the same thing. I can assure noble Lords that our commitment to cross-departmental work for development is carried out in accordance with OECD rules. Noble Lords have made it clear in the debate that they fully understand the need to ensure that we work across departments, and that is what we must do. Whether it is the MoD, the FCO and DfID, or DfID, DECC and Defra on environmental issues and climate change, or DfID, DoH and DfE on health, development and education, we must ensure that what the UK Government do has the greatest effect in the relief of poverty around the world.
Noble Lords would expect no less of us. We are clear that the Government are committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid. Aid is defined as official development assistance by the OECD. We need to work across departments to achieve as much as we possibly can while we work with international organisations, both public and private, as shown in the nutrition summit. We are all agreed on how important it is to deliver the MDGs and their successors so that we can eradicate poverty worldwide. There is a sophisticated understanding in this House that to achieve that requires working across government.