Official Development Assistance

Debate between Baroness Sheehan and Lord Collins of Highbury

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to start with. Like her, I feel immensely proud that the United Kingdom has been a development superpower and contributed so much to the world. Our support and leadership on development has saved and changed millions of lives. Last week the Minister told this House that the development priorities would remain the same, but a cut from 0.7% to 0.5% would represent a 30% reduction in funding. NGOs have estimated that, if applied across aid spending in areas previously managed by DfID, could mean that each year 5.6 million fewer children will be immunised and 105,000 lives will not be saved; 940,000 fewer children will be supported to gain a decent education; 7.6 million fewer women and girls will be reached with modern methods of family planning; 2 million fewer people will be reached with humanitarian assistance; 3.8 million fewer people will be supported to access clean water and better sanitation; and 16.5 million fewer women and children will be reached with nutrition programming.

I am also proud of the UK’s contribution to the global efforts to tackle Covid-19, particularly on vaccine development through Gavi and the breakthrough at Oxford, but does the Minister agree that these efforts will be hampered without strong health systems to deliver and administer vaccines, and that UK aid is critical to this?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, our ODA spend in tackling global issues, such as the pandemic, climate change and conflict, has been firmly in our national interest. She emphasised that cutting UK aid risks undermining efforts to promote a global Britain and will diminish our power to influence other nations to do what is right.

Is the noble Lord familiar with the words of General James Mattis, who said that if development funding gets cut,

“then I need to buy more ammunition”?

Does he share my concern that the effect of this cut in aid spending on instability will be to reduce the impact of the Government’s announced increase in defence spending? It will make it harder for us to pursue our national interest and to create a safer, healthier, fairer and better world for us all.

We know that we need a dramatic acceleration in the pace and scale of global climate action. As we approach 2021, when the UK will host both the G7 and COP 26, the UK has an opportunity to lead the response to the Covid pandemic and the climate crisis. This cut reduces the funds available for both these efforts and shows that the UK is stepping back when its support is needed most. For the climate conference to be a success, we must harness the political will of other countries. As hosts, it falls to the United Kingdom to lead by example, not to withdraw,

Does the Minister agree with President-elect Joe Biden that effective foreign policy relies

“not only on the example of our power, but on the power of our example”?

The example that these cuts set is of stepping back when, in the midst of this global pandemic, we should be stepping up.

Mark Lowcock, UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, has this week made clear that the impact of these cuts will not only affect the world’s most vulnerable but damage the UK’s global reputation. Have the Government abandoned their plan for a global Britain? What plans do the Government have to legislate for this cut to aid spending, in the light of the responsibilities outlined in the international development Act 2015? When do they plan to bring a Bill forward, and do they intend to include a sunset clause to ensure a return to 0.7%—the agreed OECD global target?

The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, understood that this decision is not a necessity but a political choice by this Government. I will work hard with her and with all like-minded Peers across this House to oppose this ill-conceived, short-sighted decision.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to your Lordships’ House. In her resignation letter to the Prime Minister, the former FCDO Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, called the cut to the aid budget “fundamentally wrong”. She could not in all integrity defend the betrayal of a manifesto commitment made less than a year ago. Her view is endorsed by many others in the Minister’s own party in both Houses. No fewer than five former Prime Ministers—three from the Minister’s own party—and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury have said that this cut to international aid is morally wrong and harmful to Britain’s standing on the international stage. Not so long ago—in July and again in September—the Secretary of State, Dominic Raab, agreed.

To tie the cuts in the aid budget to the £4 billion increase in the defence budget is to rub salt into the wound. The Secretary of State would do well to heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, in your Lordships’ House last week. He said that the UK’s influence comes,

“largely through the integration of our hard power ... with our soft power”,

and that reducing the international development budget will significantly

“reduce the impact of so-called global Britain”.—[Official Report, 25/11/20; col. 250.]

In his Statement, the Secretary of State says that the cut to the aid budget nevertheless means that Britain’s aid spend remains at No. 2 among the G20. This misses the point. The outcry is because the Government are reneging on an unequivocal manifesto commitment and cutting aid over and above the fall in GNI at a moment unprecedented in global history. Future generations will rightly be appalled. It is akin to kicking someone when they are down. The British people have a strong sense of fair play. It is wrong to suggest, as I have seen in the press, that public opinion is on the side of these cuts. There is no evidence to support this assertion.

The 0.7% of GNI aid target, enshrined in law, is a proud Liberal Democrat achievement. It was spearheaded in the other place by the Private Member’s Bill from my right honourable friend Michael Moore. In your Lordships’ House, it was ably led by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, supported by my noble friend Lady Northover—then a DfID Minister in the coalition Government. Do the Government intend to change that law to reduce the aid target to 0.5%? If so, do they intend to use a Finance Bill as the vehicle for it?

Can the Minister state categorically that the 0.7% will be met this year? I regret that I need to ask this, but doubt remains. Will any shortfall caused by the overenthusiastic £2.9 billion cut announced in July be managed in a way that alleviates poverty and offers taxpayers value for money?

The Secretary of State does not mention scrutiny either in this Statement or in his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, chair of the International Relations and Defence Committee. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness and value for money of ODA spend will not be the preserve of internal FCDO processes, but rather subject to independent, open and transparent scrutiny, including by parliamentarians?

What assessment have the Government made of how many UK international NGOs will go under next year as a consequence of the economic situation and of this cut? How many jobs will be lost in the UK? Does the Minister agree that these NGOs, particularly the small ones, have the trust of local community leaders and so have been able to go that vital last mile to deliver essential healthcare, nutrition and—crucially today—vaccines? Surely he accepts that the COVAX initiative will fail unless we can get supplies to where they are needed. We must have robust health systems on the ground to vaccinate people. I fear that this Statement shows that joined-up thinking is not currently a strength of the new FCDO.

Syria: Protection of Civilians in Afrin

Debate between Baroness Sheehan and Lord Collins of Highbury

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.

As we have seen over the weekend, the Kurdish community across the United Kingdom is watching, and it needs to be reassured that the United Kingdom is doing everything it can to try to alleviate the terrible humanitarian crisis that is developing. Time and again, those fighting in Syria are consistently failing to take precautions that protect civilians. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations said to the Security Council on 12 March:

“Syria is bleeding inside and out. There should be only one agenda for all of us: to end the suffering of the Syrian people and find a political solution to the conflict”.


Alistair Burt, the Minister of State for the Middle East, said the best opportunity for peace and security is,

“to support the Geneva process … and to work as hard as we are diplomatically to get the parties to find a better answer to the conflict”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/3/18; col. 677.]

What is the Government’s latest assessment of the Geneva process? Does the Minister believe that there will be a political solution and that Daesh will be defeated when Turkey sees its priority as stopping the Kurds rather than getting a political solution? The Statement says that the protection of civilians must be balanced with,

“Turkey’s legitimate interest in the security of its borders”.

We must be clear that the incursion is neither legitimate nor justified and has no basis in international law. According to reports—and as the Minister himself said—Turkish forces are right now advancing on Afrin, and there are real concerns that when they enter there will be widespread atrocities as they seek to root out those they call terrorists.

The Government said that although we cannot get close to Afrin, the UK is doing its best to make sure that United Nations agencies and others active in the area have supplies available if people are able to leave. Will the Minister update us on the efforts to work with our allies, especially the EU, to enable people to leave? In addition, can we do more than simply urge all parties to respect the law of distinction between civilian and military targets? Surely one way is to make it clear that no one can act with impunity in breach of international humanitarian law. Human rights monitors can act as one of the greatest deterrents against civilian atrocities and can ensure that perpetrators of abuses are held to account.

Alistair Burt said that the Government intend to hold the Turkish Government to account for the representations they have made about preventing civilian casualties. What specific steps will the Government take to do that—that is, just how do we hold them to account? The Government say Afrin is an area where the UK is not present on the ground, from where it is difficult to get information out, and where UN workers are not able to operate. Therefore, what steps are the Government taking to achieve a more unified multilateral approach with our EU partners in order to urge Turkey to allow access for humanitarian aid and independent monitors? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to quickly restore full humanitarian access to Afrin so that the UK and other partners can get aid in and ultimately save lives?

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The UN Security Council Resolution 2401, announced on 24 February, was jointly negotiated with the Russians and was greeted with relief as it allowed for a ceasefire in order to deploy humanitarian aid convoys to all besieged areas, including eastern Ghouta. However, it was apparent straightaway that the Syrian regime’s concession of a five-hour ceasefire window was a mockery of any so-called humanitarian gesture, as it allowed scant time for supplies to be loaded on to lorries, the necessary permissions to be sought and put into place, and for the aid to be delivered where it was needed. On top of that, medical supplies were removed from lorries, leaving civilians without necessary and essential supplies. This has been the appalling situation since 25 February. Finally, yesterday, the US permanent representative to the UN, Nikki Haley, made a statement condemning the action of the regime, adding that the US could be forced to act unilaterally. I am puzzled as to the timing of today’s Statement to both Houses. Is it in response to the US’s statement yesterday, and if so, do the Government share the view that the ceasefire was a failure, and does it imply our acquiescence in the US’s sabre-rattling? Can the Minister at the very least articulate the Government’s view of Nikki Haley’s threat to take action?

We are all shocked by the situation in Afrin. Reports of the shelling of villages and residential areas are deeply troubling. Violence in the Afrin region escalated after the Turkish Government announced on 20 January the start of a military offensive codenamed “Olive Branch”, which in my view is a macabre choice of name. Between 22 January and 21 February the Kurdish Red Crescent reported 93 civilians killed, including 25 children, in attacks by the Turkish military. A further 313 civilians were wounded, including 51 children. Meanwhile, Kurdish YPG forces shelling in Azaz have allegedly killed four people.

The use of artillery and other imprecise explosive weapons in civilian areas is prohibited by international humanitarian law and all parties should cease such attacks immediately. I hope that the Government have conveyed that message to Turkey in the strongest possible terms. The Kurds have been key allies in our fight against Daesh and I think that all noble Lords will be appalled by the attacks that they are now facing. The Minister will be aware of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, in 2015, which states that the only sustainable solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. Does the Minister therefore agree that such a process must involve Kurds in Syria? Finally, the Kurdish region has already accepted around 2 million refugees and internally displaced people. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the impact that the Turkish military operation will have on this group?

Safeguarding in the Aid Sector

Debate between Baroness Sheehan and Lord Collins of Highbury

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement and of course I welcome him back to the Dispatch Box. I am very pleased to see him there. I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement and her swift and robust action in dealing with this appalling situation of vulnerable women and girls being exploited by men with power acting with impunity in an appalling culture of silence. We must not, however, allow the actions of a few to undermine the efforts of the vast majority of people who carry out their work with integrity and commitment in often dangerous and difficult circumstances. Nor must we let this damage the commitment of the British people, who daily support charities such as Oxfam to save lives in crises and tackle the root causes of injustice. Of course, most importantly, we must not let this stop us helping those who need our help most.

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has written to taxpayer-funded charities to ask for written assurances that they have safeguarding in place. While I note that she will be sharing this approach with other government departments, can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that all departments with ODA spend will adopt the same processes and that they too will report to Parliament on the outcome of those efforts? I also welcome her swift commitment to a safeguarding summit on 5 March. Out of that summit must now come real commitment to reform: tightening international criminal regulation, establishing a global passport or register for humanitarian workers, and setting up an independent regulator or centre of excellence. I was pleased to note in the Statement that our global partners have been invited to that summit in preparation for a perhaps even bigger one later in the year.

However, reform must not be just about policies and procedures. It must also be about a change in practice and culture. This appalling situation, as the Secretary of State pointed out, came to light only because of whistleblowers. Trade unions play a critical role in supporting workers in such circumstances. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that trade unions representing workers in this sector are also fully represented at the summit? In the evidence given this morning to the International Development Committee, the point was made that short-term contracts often prevent people speaking out. I welcome the commitment by Oxfam’s chair of trustees that employment procedures will also be reviewed and reported to Oxfam’s governing council in March. But can we be assured that that sort of review looking at those sorts of issues will also be undertaken by other NGOs and charities so that we look across the board and not just at Oxfam?

I note that Oxfam has agreed to withdraw from bidding for any new UK government funding,

“until DfID is satisfied that they can meet the high standards we expect from our partners”,

but can the Minister clarify what the criteria for restoring funding will be? What exactly does the Secretary of State mean by “high standards”? I hope that, apart from all the policies and procedures, these will include a clear commitment to ensure proper consultation with workers’ representatives.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, we are all shocked that aid workers from a respected organisation such as Oxfam could abuse the trust of vulnerable people in Haiti, whose lives had been shattered by the earthquake in 2010. Action must be taken to ensure that such abuse at high levels of a world-renowned charity cannot be repeated, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement.

However, having read the Statement in full, I am disappointed that it talks only about strengthening safeguards going forward. What we really need is a wide and far-reaching inquiry into the scale of historic abuse and that which exists in the sector today. All the indications are that this is but the tip of the iceberg and, to deal comprehensively with the situation, we must have all the facts. In 1999 the national crime agency said that the charity sector was susceptible to being targeted by paedophile rings. We must know if that is the case. Reports that men in positions of power have acted with impunity in exercising control over young women are rife in the sector. There are allegations of abuse in the awarding of short-term contracts by those in permanent senior positions. What we really need is an independent inquiry into the global aid sector—failing that, at least into the UK aid sector—that will leave no stone unturned. Unless we know what has gone on in the past and hold people accountable, we cannot hope to go forward with confidence.

This is also an issue about governance. Oxfam has been found wanting on many levels, and the whole sorry saga has highlighted the failure of good governance by those to whom it answers—the Charity Commission and DfID. Both accepted without question the charity’s version of events and did not probe further into what “sexual misconduct” meant. Both failed to ask the obvious question of whether minors, of either sex, were involved. Both have questions to answer and improvements to make if they are to avoid future failures. Any inquiry must encompass their role in the Haiti cover-up.

I welcome that the UK intends to work closely with the UN. This is a global issue which the global aid community must address collectively, so the proposal for a sort of passport for workers in the UK aid sector is welcome. Will there be government support for a global aid worker accreditation scheme? Inevitably, unless answers to these questions are forthcoming, attacks against the 0.7% of GNI that is devoted to overseas aid will increase. But this would not only be a kick in the face of the vast majority of aid workers, who work tirelessly to alleviate extreme poverty, but jeopardise some of the really worthwhile programmes bringing health, education and sanitation solutions to those in desperate need. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so I ask the Minister about the Secretary of State’s decision to bar Oxfam from receiving new government funding. Last year it received £31.7 million from DfID. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on programmes serving the poor and destitute if support is withheld this year? What are they planning do to mitigate the extra hardship this will inflict on aid recipients?

I will mention just one other thing, which has disturbed me throughout the media coverage over the past few weeks, and that is the use of the term “beneficiaries”. Will DfID consider using a term other than beneficiaries, which sounds as though people are in receipt of an inheritance rather than baby milk? Perhaps “aid recipients” would better describe their vulnerable state. It is no more of a mouthful than beneficiaries: both have five syllables.