International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the mere appearance on the Marshalled List of the dread words “the Treasury” will send a shiver through most of my former colleagues and a very large part of the House. None the less, I feel that this amendment might be more persuasive if people unconnected with the Treasury supported it. I feel an obligation to support the proposal of my noble friend Lord Butler, and I strongly disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, which was that this amendment is incompatible with the 0.7%.

There is no reason, as I shall explain in a minute—I shall speak very briefly— why the 0.7% should not be compatible with rigorous examination by the Treasury of the budget of the department. One of the fears that have been expressed by those who are sceptical about this Bill is that it creates a perverse incentive to spend money so that the whole focus is on the quantity, not the quality, of expenditure. There is a risk that we may be jet-hosing the programme with money, with the only objective being to meet the 0.7%.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, quite rightly reminded us of our obligations to the poor, and he made the point that there are huge numbers of people in this world who survive on tiny incomes. There are 2.8 billion people surviving on less than $2 a day, and 20% of those people survive on less than $1 a day. That fact makes it very important that we see that this expenditure is economically and properly spent, because every bit that is saved, every bit that is not wasted, can be the difference between life and death for people living on the poverty line.

Exempting overseas aid from the public expenditure process is the removal of the process. The process of the public expenditure round is that departments have to make a case for spending money, not just for the global total. There is examination in advance of the major items that make up the totality of the programme. Getting rid of that entirely removes the discipline that a spending department, or in this case DfID, has to make for the money that it wishes to spend.

There a provision in the Bill for examining the expenditure retrospectively, but that is not the same as examining it in advance. Surely the department would benefit from having the effectiveness of its programme examined not just retrospectively, when nothing can be done about it, but in advance, when people can be warned and when projects can be examined by people outside the department. It is a great pity that there is no single body in the Bill, as far as we can see. At previous stages, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, made the point that they did not want to have one department looking at this, but that re-emphasises the need for the Treasury to have a look at this in advance. That is compatible with the 0.7%, because all that would be involved would be the Treasury examining it and saying, “We would like you to look at this project”, and, “We think this project is better than that project”.

Incidentally, Clause 2(3)(b) refers to how, if the Government fail to meet the target of 0.7%, they have to explain how it may be due to fiscal circumstances. If you are going to have fiscal circumstances involved in the calculation of the 0.7%, it seems very sensible that the Treasury should be involved. Who else would know about the likely fiscal circumstances? Indeed, it is implied in the Bill that the Treasury would have to be involved because nobody else can talk very persuasively about the fiscal circumstances.

I believe that in order to make the Bill effective and to make sure that expenditure reaches the poorest of the world, this amendment ought to be supported.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I fully endorse and support the two important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, which were both about our values as a nation, our leadership and our use of soft power, the importance of which was so ably described in the recent report of your Lordships’ Select Committee on Soft Power, which I hope we will debate in the near future.

I want to add one point that addresses precisely the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. He raised the issue that is at the heart of the debate on this Bill; it is that this Bill, above all else in my view, allows us to move from a debate on the quantity of aid from this country to the developing world to a debate on the quality of that aid. For 40 years, we have debated only the quantity of our international aid. This Bill allows us once and for all to move on from that debate on quantity to debate the quality of that aid year after year, as the budget for the Department for International Development or any successor department comes in front of Parliament.

Therefore, contrary to the point that was just made by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I think that at its heart this Bill allows us to move from the debate on quantity to a debate on quality, and that is why your Lordships’ House should support it.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support this amendment for non-Treasury reasons, which may be a relief to noble Lords. We all know that the Treasury is full of very clever people, but frankly the Treasury is not always right and therefore there would have to be good reasons, other than the very fine reasons put forward by noble Lords who have already spoken, for urging that there should be an extra annual check on this programme and target.

My reason is simply that other, more effective, ways of promoting overseas development, eradicating poverty and meeting development goals are emerging all the time. The concept of ODA was invented 30 or 40 years ago, possibly more, and many new ideas have developed for promoting development and for contributing to development in more effective ways since then. The truth is that in looking at this Bill and the idea of the 0.7%, your Lordships are really dealing with an old agenda. These were fashionable views 20 or 30 years ago. Aid and development techniques have moved on rapidly.

Official development assistance—the ODA concept that we are dealing with—is rapidly becoming irrelevant. The complex challenges the world is now facing require a radically different financing model, one that requires a comprehensive approach to financing, embracing all sources of public and private finance available to developing countries. Tying the development effort unconditionally and without annual review into an “ODA-able” programme is bound to divert resources from far more productive ways of helping the poorest and encouraging development in today’s conditions.

One of the major contributions developing countries need is peace and security through military assistance, techniques and training, none of which is “ODA-able”. We are deliberately limiting our capacity to help the development process in the conditions of the 21st century, so the case for annual review and revision by the Treasury to keep our development spending programmes up to date and effective seems unanswerable.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Friday 6th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

In response to that point, it is important for noble Lords and for the noble Lord himself to note that the Bill was carried on a Friday, shortly before a general election, with Members of all Houses turning up in large numbers. The Conservative Members of Parliament in the other House voted 58 votes to six; Labour Members 70 to zero; and Liberal Democrats 30 to zero. It is clearly the will of the elected Chamber in the other place, so it is entirely appropriate that this House helps to expedite and not block the Bill.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

It is our job to do our duty. That argument could have been used by the noble Lord and the noble Lord’s office opposite when the European Union referendum Bill came to this place. I did not hear any of them saying that we should accept it because it had gone through by a large majority in the other place. Therefore that disposes of the noble Lord’s objection.

I will say a little more about what this amendment is about. Earlier amendments have been designed to create an area of flexibility which is necessary for good government and for the proper control of public expenditure and conduct of public expenditure, and as I was about to say before I was interrupted, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who has great expertise in these matters, was very strong on the need for flexibility. This has nothing to do with aid in particular but is necessary for public expenditure overall.

This amendment points to particular forms of flexibility. For example, paragraphs (a) and (b) of this proposed new clause relate spending on ODA to the amount of spending on health and education respectively. People in this country feel very keenly about spending on health, and the party opposite speaks almost of nothing else at present. The people of this country feel very keenly about spending on education. There needs to be some comparison of priorities—some connection between the spending on ODA and on other departments. Here we single out health and education, but of course the question of spending on defence was already raised earlier in our debate. There is a 2% NATO target, which of course is not legally binding but is an aspiration; this goes much further. At a time when there is great danger to this country and the world has become a much more dangerous place, that also should be compared with it. However, I will confine myself to spending on health and on education.

There are two other paragraphs in the proposed new clause. The third paragraph says that if the,

“target could only be met by increasing spending on ODA in any one year by more than 5% in real terms … the target should be set aside”.

It is a massive amount, and it is almost certain that we would not get value for money if there were a huge increase in spending in any one year. That would get the Secretary of State and the Government of the day off the hook.

The fourth paragraph to give the Government the flexibility to get off the hook is if there is a budget deficit of above,

“5% of gross domestic product”.

We all know that the budget deficit is too high. All parties are agreed that it has to come down. If, for whatever reason, it is not coming down satisfactorily, that is a serious business, and it should be a reason why in that particular year the Government are not on the hook of the 0.7% aid target.

On the status of the target, questions were put which were not really answered by the Minister, nor by my noble friend behind me who proposed the Bill in this place to questions asked by my noble friend Lord Forsyth about the precise nature of the legally binding commitment. Legally binding sounds, to me, like legally binding. It sounds similar to the Climate Change Act, where there are legally binding targets for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Apparently, it is legally binding—and, no doubt, my noble friends Lady Northover and Lord Purvis will answer specifically on this point. When my noble friend Lord Forsyth raised it, it was not adequately answered, but scrutiny of the Bill seems to make it the case that it is not really legally binding at all. All the Government are bound to do is to lay a report to Parliament saying why the target has been missed.

I hope that this proposed new clause will be accepted, as it is very reasonable and designed to be helpful. I hope, in addition to that, the question of the nature of whether the legislation is legally binding can be clarified. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

And very good they are too. My issue is: how do you make an annual statement about how the Secretary of State has complied with the duty under Clause 5(1)? Clause 5(1) states:

“The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the independent evaluation of the extent to which ODA provided by the United Kingdom represents value for money in relation to the purposes for which it is provided”.

My point, which is my noble friend’s point, and was the original intention of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, had he been able to be here, is that to determine whether there is value for money in these programmes, it is necessary to have a powerful independent body that reports to Parliament. However, what the clause provides for in subsection (2) is for the Secretary of State to put in the annual report, which the Minister has mentioned, a statement about how the Secretary of State has complied with the duty to make arrangements for the independent evaluation.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis—I am sure he is anxious to get back on his feet—in his explanation of this clause, said something completely different. He seemed to say that what was being proposed here was that the Secretary of State would indicate in the annual report how well he had complied with the duty to ensure the independent evaluation of the programme. I am saying that that is a nonsense, and that what my noble friend’s—

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

In a second. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to have an independent body that reports to Parliament and says, “Look, the Secretary of State’s programme has gone wrong here and has gone well there”, and then Parliament holds the Secretary of State to account. The problem with this arrangement is that the independent body is the creature of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State reports in his annual report on how it is doing. That is all I am saying.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I suspect that most other Members in your Lordships’ Chamber both understand and accept the explanation that has been given by both the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the Minister. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made a very good point about comparing aspects of this legislation with previous legislation in this Parliament on the parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial financial expectations. I implore the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to accept—or at least allow the rest of us to accept—the explanations and understandings that have been given, and allow us to move on.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

If the noble Lord understands it so well, perhaps he could explain it to me.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Friday 6th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

I wrote to the noble Lord when he left the Foreign Office because I had so much respect for the contribution he had made to this House. However, I find his attempt to filibuster this Bill really quite disappointing. Not only has there been a Second Reading debate where a clear majority of noble Lords spoke in favour of the Bill rather than against it, there has also been a debate on the report last year of the Economic Affairs Committee in which a clear majority of noble Lords spoke against its conclusions based on their experience and on evidence that perhaps was not heard by the committee. The noble Lord is simply filibustering this Bill, making speeches that are inappropriate, and he is losing the respect that he once had from many on this side of the Chamber.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I appreciate the contribution that the noble Lord makes, but I have not spoken against the Bill; I am speaking in favour of it. I am saying that here is a Bill full of excellent intentions but which could, if we allow it to go unamended by this kind of amendment and the amendments that we will go on to debate today, fall to the danger of being bound by the thinking of yesterday. I beg noble Lords to understand that modern thinking about development takes us away from making it the prime duty—if it is the first “the”, or the prime target, if it is the second “the”—to increase overseas development assistance or pin it to 0.7% of GNI.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

Will the noble Lord accept that the clause does not use the word “prime”, either with the first “the” or the second “the”? It does not say “prime” in the way he is quoting.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am sorry; I am not quite sure what point the noble Lord is making. I am trying to deliver the last sentence of my contribution and I do not understand why the noble Lord feels that it is right to keep interrupting.

I am sure that your Lordships’ House is the place that can refine and improve a Bill and will not try to knock down or contain attempts to improve it, as I believe this amendment does. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and we have heard many wise voices from our Back Benches. We have heard from major committees in other countries, from the Dutch and German ministries and from House of Commons committees that there is a danger of too much emphasis being put on overseas development assistance as “the” target and “the” duty, which could badly distort our development priorities. Today, we need new priorities, and the Bill should reflect them and not reject them. That is why I am grateful to those noble Lords who are prepared to hear some doubts about an otherwise noble and well intentioned Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

The fact is that no form of public spending should have a guaranteed percentage of GDP or of GNI—not just aid but, as we have said, not even defence.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

Will the noble Lord accept that the noble Lord who is proposing the Bill showed some respect to the House in summing up the debate very briefly and not repeating arguments that had been made at an earlier stage—instead referring noble Lords to read those arguments from the report of the Second Reading and other debates. Will he please show the same respect?

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

I was not repeating myself in the slightest. I was making a number of additional points which are highly relevant to the Bill, to this amendment and to subsequent amendments. However, I will draw to a conclusion to allow other noble Lords to take part, if they wish to, in the debate.

The question is, which is more important: good intentions or good outcomes? I know that those who are keen on the Bill as it stands have the best intentions—I do not deny that for a moment. I know that people who support it are certainly well intentioned. Alas, however, as Members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, we have to consider not what the intentions are—I think we are all well intentioned; most of us have good intentions, whatever side of the House we are on—but what are the likely outcomes. If the outcomes are damaging—which they are in the Bill as it stands—the fact that they are well intentioned is no help at all.

In conclusion, we are very privileged to have the noble and right reverend Lord, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, among us. He knows what the road to hell is paved with.

It is the custom in this House for there to be few Divisions on amendments—they can come at a later stage, when we come to Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, the amendment seeks to leave out the provision for meeting the aid target annually and replace it with “five year period”. Its purpose is to try to get over some of the difficulties caused by having a fixed target that has to be met within a calendar year with, as I explained earlier, a Government who are budgeting on the basis of a financial year, and to allow some flexibility. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Fowler, who I know feels passionately about these matters, is not in his place—he has arrived. In his excellent speech he made a number of points that relate directly to this issue and which I shall try to deal with.

The amendment seeks to change the timeframe within which the 0.7% target applies. The Bill currently places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that public spending reaches 0.7% of GNI every year. I should just like to point out that the UN resolution did not actually require 0.7% to be achieved each and every year, so my amendment is not in conflict with the original UN resolution. For some reason, “every year” has been added in the nature of this Bill, and I believe that that greatly adds to the impracticalities and difficulties that the Bill presents. The amendment would mean that public spending on international aid would be required to reach 0.7% of GNI across a five-year period, and that would avoid the need to rush or defer spending on aid programmes.

I shall resist the temptation to take the Committee through the whole NAO report, which was published on 15 January and which I referred to earlier, but it deals with the real concerns and difficulties that the department has had in managing what it is being asked to do by government.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

At the risk of provoking the noble Lord to read out the whole of the NAO report, I hope that he will accept that during the Second Reading debate, which he listened to very carefully, a number of alternative versions and impressions of that report were described by noble Lords, including the very positive comments made in the report about the way the department was preparing for this eventuality. It was not a one-sided report and the version that the noble Lord gave earlier was not the only version described during Second Reading.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am not seeking to take sides with anyone. If the National Audit Office and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee draw our attention to the very serious difficulties which the department has had to meet, and to the serious implications for getting the best value for money in the aid programme, we need to take account of that.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

The report, which I have read in great detail, praises the department for the way in which it sought to achieve those objectives.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

And rightly so. The department is absolutely heroic. It has been given an impossible task. If the noble Lord has read the report, he will see that it had to juggle its budgets and go to the Treasury for extra cash. My noble friend on the Front Bench is shaking her head. If she wants to intervene and contradict me, I would be happy to give way, because it is clear from the report that it has had to do so because of the Government’s policy.

By the way, the Government do not need this Bill to decide to spend 0.7%, 0.8%, 0.9% or 2% of GDP on development aid. This is not a sine qua non as far as the Government’s policy is concerned. Indeed, without the Bill the UK’s international aid budget has grown exponentially over the past few years. In absolute terms, the UK ODA spending increased from £3.8 billion in 2003 to £11.4 billion in 2013. That is an increase of £8 billion over a 10-year period. The most recent rise in spending is particularly striking; it increased by £2.67 billion between 2012 and 2013. That is a 33% increase in spending, which is a lot to take account of in one year.

The National Audit Office report, which I shall paraphrase and summarise—I hope the noble Lord will accept that it is a fair assessment—said that DfID spent an extra £1 billion in international aid in just eight weeks towards the end of 2013 to satisfy the 0.7% target. Spending an extra £1 billion in eight weeks before the year end reminds me of the bad old days of local government when all the roads started getting dug up in March because the local authorities were trying to spend their budgets. All kinds of projects that would not have made the cut if considered on a priority basis and a sensible basis suddenly got done. This is the very situation that we are creating by having this inflexible target over a limited period of time, and it is what the amendment seeks to address.

My noble friend Lord Fowler chided me for using words such as “rush”. He is absolutely right; one of the beneficiaries of the rush to spend was indeed the AIDS programme—and a very worthwhile programme that is. I do not know which programmes lost out the following year when they had to be throttled back in order for the target to be met, but of DfID’s spending in 2013, around 40% occurred in November and December. If that does not say that this is a department trying to spend the money and struggling to meet a target, I do not know what it says. Why did it take until the last two months of the calendar year, the year in which the target is assessed, to spend 40% of the budget? The National Audit Office outlined a number of concerns relating to the 0.7% target and its impact on efficiency of aid spending. These include DfID having to,

“quickly add some activities to its 2013 plans but delay others set for 2014, making it more difficult to achieve value for money”.

One of the arguments that we have heard this morning was used by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, as I recall, in his Second Reading speech. He said, “If we have this target, we can stop talking about the quantity of aid and start thinking about the quality of aid”. I paraphrase him and am relying on memory; I hope I have not misrepresented him.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

I am delighted that the noble Lord has repeated my argument.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord’s argument is no good if we stick with the provisions in the Bill, because, as he said himself, the National Audit Office report says that the target resulted in some activities having to be rushed in. They had to be ready to be implemented and other activities had to be delayed. That is not providing certainty or long-term planning; it is substituting for long-term planning the shifting of particular programmes, such as the AIDS programme that my noble friend Lord Fowler referred to. “What can we do? What can we spend this money on? Right, let’s do the AIDS thing because that is ready to fly, and we will defer this other one because we will not then be able to afford it”. Everything is geared towards meeting the 0.7% target.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I agree that I could not make the noble Lord’s arguments because they are confused. He is confusing two things: the desire to ensure that we have effective programmes to deal with poverty and the desire to meet a particular target and implement it in a legislative form that will have the effect of programmes being delayed and of money being spent unwisely because of the constraints that are being put on the very excellent people in DfID. We are very lucky; in DfID, we have one of the best organisations in the world. Why on earth are we shackling it in a way that prevents it from setting priorities, doing its job effectively and getting the long-term certainty and commitment which the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, who I see is about to intervene again, has talked of so eloquently in his speech.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to respond to his reference to my Second Reading speech. I wish to make two points. First—I hope that the noble Lord accepts this—the National Audit Office report makes clear that it does not believe, and has no evidence to suggest, that any of the money that was spent on projects in that financial year was wrongly spent or that the projects were not worth while. That is very clear in the National Audit Office report. Secondly, that report was specifically commissioned because this was the first year of meeting the new target and clearly there were going to be timescale issues in meeting the target in the first year. The point that noble Lords are making—including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in bringing forward this Bill—is that bringing consistency and predictability to meeting this target year after year will help deal with those timescale issues, not exacerbate them.

[Viscount Astor (Con)]

My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the noble Lord, will he confirm that he is speaking to all the amendments in the group as it is a large group? I say to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that it is normal in Committee to allow the mover of the amendment to make his speech. There is plenty of opportunity to respond afterwards. Indeed, the mover of the amendment can then respond at the end of the debate.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Friday 23rd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, having in the past criticised the delay in bringing forward this legislation, I start by expressing my appreciation to the Government for making time both in another place and in your Lordships’ House to ensure that we can debate and, I hope before the end of this Parliament, agree this important legislation.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on his outstanding opening speech and on bringing forward the Bill in your Lordships’ House. It is a long time since I heard such a comprehensive and passionate but also evidence-based case for the cause that we are debating today. It was also a great pleasure to hear, with all their years of experience and dedicated commitment, the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and my noble friend Lady Royall on our Front Bench, who stressed the important year in which we make this decision—2015. This is when we will go from the millennium development goals to the new sustainable development goals, which will, I hope, move international development on to a completely new level of quantity as well as quality.

It is with the issue of quantity versus quality that I want to start my contribution today. When we have previously debated in your Lordships’ House the issue that is in front of us today in this Bill, primarily two points have been made. The first is that an increase in spending was happening far too quickly. If that was a legitimate point then—and it was of course legitimate that we debated it—then I say to those who have made the point in the past that the time for that argument has passed. Not only do we now have a consensus among all the major parties in the United Kingdom but also the reality of 0.7% of GNI being the annual budget for international development co-operation.

The second point was about effectiveness, which is where the argument about quality versus quantity comes forward. We have been debating for 45 years—I repeat: 45 years—since UN Resolution 2626 was first carried. It is 40 years since it was meant to have been implemented and we have since then debated the quantity of international aid. Today, we have a chance to move on and to debate in the future only the quality of our international aid and no longer the quantity. I appeal to those who have made this argument in the past to consider that point and to join those of us who have supported 0.7% of GNI in moving forward in the years to come to a debate on the quality and effectiveness of our aid. This is important for many reasons.

The key issue of justice is at its heart. We are not rich because it was predetermined and they are not poor because it was predetermined. We are not smarter than the average African, south-east Asian or Caribbean person. Decades and centuries of exploitation, distortion of international trade, abuse of natural resources and bad governance have been encouraged by us, and not just by those who were in power in the underdeveloped world, the developing world, the Third World—or whatever it has been called from decade to decade. We helped to create that situation and we must now help to resolve it. Justice is absolutely key. That justice did not stop at the end of colonial times. We were quite happy to participate in a cold war in the 1970s and 1980s, in the first 20 years after the UN resolution was passed, when both sides propped up dictatorships and bad governance, and the exploitation of people in the developing world who still suffer today as a result.

Looking forward, there is also the issue of our self-interest. There are great fears in our country and across Europe today of migration, fears about the climate and fears about identity-based conflicts, which many people do not understand and do not know what to do about. Do we really imagine that migration, climate change and conflict will be improved by a reduction in or a halting of international aid? Surely the evidence shows us that if we invest in development co-operation, we can help to tackle those real fears of migration, conflict and climate change.

Finally, it is 45 years since the UN resolution was passed and 40 years since it should have been implemented. Can we just imagine what the world would be like today if 40 years ago the resolution had been implemented in the middle of that decade? What would our global education system have looked like? How many people would be smarter, better educated and better able to cope with the demands of the modern world? How many people would have been vaccinated and how many lives would have been saved? How many democracies would have been built? What great works of culture would have been created? How many scientific inventions might have been forthcoming? How many problems might have been solved? If we can imagine what might have been possible if the right decisions had been made back then, we can imagine what is possible in the 15 years to come when we could end extreme global poverty and build the better world that was imagined in 1970.

Syrian Refugees

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

There are immense pressures on the Syrian refugees. In terms of the challenges of winter, the United Kingdom has contributed £32 million towards what is called “winterisation”—that is, the provision of warm blankets, tents, shelters, stoves and so on. As regards admission to the United Kingdom, a number of people have come through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, but we have in addition given sanctuary to more than 3,800 Syrian nationals and their dependants.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, citizens and political leaders across Europe have rightly made a stand over recent days for humanitarian values, human rights and tolerance. I wonder whether there might therefore be an opportunity for the Government to discuss with the European Union an overall raising—and implementation—of the target for introducing refugees from these horrific camps in Jordan and elsewhere into the member states of the European Union in far greater numbers than have been admitted so far.

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord is right to draw attention to what happened last week and to the stand that we have taken for freedom of speech and the rule of law. What is clearly essential here is a long-term political solution. It is very clear that the refugees in the region wish to return to Syria. Therefore, the contribution that the United Kingdom is making to support refugees in the region is extremely important. We are the second-largest bilateral supporter. As I say, we are granting asylum where appropriate, as are other EU countries, but it is extremely important that we take forward a political solution here.

Global Development Goals

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

That this House takes note of the case for establishing new global development goals in 2015.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I should start by referencing the register of interests, in which my interests in a number of development and charitable organisations are recorded.

On 8 September 2000, the member states of the United Nations agreed the millennium declaration and set out the millennium development goals, which aspired to transform the lives of those living with poverty, disease and lack of basic human rights around the world at the start of the 21st century. Those present affirmed their collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity, and they set out key values that should underpin their collective action to support peace, development and human rights.

Those values of freedom, equity and solidarity, tolerance, non-violence, respect for nature and shared responsibility were to drive the international community to action in the hope of eradicating many of the worst conditions in the world by 2015. In the 15 years that have followed, much has been achieved. By tackling disease, achieving gender parity in primary education, improving access to clean water and reducing extreme poverty, the lives of more than 2 billion people have been transformed. But of course much remains to be done. Progress has been inconsistent: around 1 billion people still live on less than £1 a day; millions of girls miss out on secondary school; safe sanitation is absent for hundreds of millions; and too many die or suffer from the impact of violent conflict.

So in 2015, we will not only celebrate the significant, if incomplete, success of the MDGs—and, indeed, the 10th anniversary of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, which did so much to prioritise change in Africa—but the global community through the United Nations will, I hope, agree a new set of goals, the sustainable development goals, which will be the engine for development over the next 15 years, with the aim of eradicating extreme poverty and delivering basic human rights for all.

Much of our political debate in the UK and globally over 2014 has been dominated by fears about migration, security, economic uncertainty, our climate and our planet. These fears cross national boundaries and are shared by people of different cultures and nationalities, and their solutions are truly global, not national. Surely we can agree, though, as we look ahead to 2015, that fundamental to tackling these fears, to help ensure a more peaceful, stable, prosperous and equitable world for future generations, is the need to lift those living in extreme poverty or in fear of extreme weather conditions, or lacking in basic human rights or provisions, out of those conditions and into a better future.

Surely a world that is more equitable, where more have opportunities, where women and men have the same rights and opportunities, where those marginalised as a result of their physical condition, their identity, their sexuality or location are recognised as having the same basic rights as others, would be a world in which it would be easier to deal with these great fears and uncertainties of our times. While the SDGs are ultimately about justice and solidarity, they are also about tackling these great fears of the 21st century and helping all of us live better, safer and more fulfilling lives.

For the first time, in 2015 the global community has a unique opportunity to bring together in one set of agreements goals about our climate, environment, development and inequality with the financial mechanisms and partnerships that are required to deliver those goals. For the first time—because any agreement will be built on years of consultation and involvement, with the record of what works and what does not, with access to 21st century technology and the means of accountability to ensure delivery and results—these goals will surely be built upon greater ownership and partnership than ever before. Tackling inequality must run like a thread through the new SDGs to ensure that all have access and rights. Reducing inequality between and within nations is fundamental to eradicating extreme poverty.

Just as tackling economic inequality will affect the delivery of every SDG, so too will the position of women. It is undoubtedly the case that on a local, national and international level, where women’s participation is guaranteed and women leaders can flourish, development is more successful and sustainable. The participation and empowerment of women, and the eradication of gender inequality in relation to property ownership, income and basic rights will be fundamental if the SDGs are to have the impact we demand.

Earlier this year, I experienced in the Philippines, as so many others experience every year of their lives, how extreme weather events and natural disasters can destroy years of hard work in economic and social development. Programmes that develop and strengthen resilience to such events must be built into the delivery of these SDGs so that the most affected and sometimes most marginalised communities can plan their development for the future, safe in the knowledge that their work will reap results for future generations.

Across all this, the principle of universality of rights will underpin the 2015 agreement on sustainable development goals, and the rallying cry will be, “Leave no one behind”. However, I should like to focus particularly on two key aspects that will no doubt be controversial and challenging in 2015 but must be central to the final commitment if it is to make a difference for the poorest people on the planet. The United Nations Secretary-General published on 4 December his synthesis report, The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet. It brings together all the work carried out so far on the SDGs and sets out six essential elements that must guide the work to strengthen, prioritise and deliver an agreement by September 2015. These elements—dignity, people, prosperity, the planet, justice and partnerships—are our pipelines to peace and sustainable development.

However, the delivery of the goals that we agree will be achieved only if we invest seriously in capacity in regional and continental organisations, and in national institutions and governments in the developing world. This includes: proper taxation systems and revenue authorities that can collect and disperse funds; courts and justice systems that protect the weakest and assert the fair and transparent rule of law; strong parliaments that hold Governments to account and government ministries that can deliver in education and health, and in the creation of jobs; and reliable, independent data collection on which to base decisions and measure success. Therefore, as part of the agreement on financing that will run alongside the newly agreed sustainable development goals after 2015, there must be genuinely concerted and consistent effort to invest in capacity and a willingness, in those nations where the vast majority of the extreme poor live, to support that capacity building and respect, accountable, open, fair and transparent systems and institutions that put people before those in power.

The second key aspect is peace and security. The draft sustainable development goals include, for the first time, a firm commitment to peacebuilding and a recognition of the importance of freedom from conflict and violence if those living in the most extreme poverty and with the worst level of human rights are to see their living conditions transformed. Draft goal 16 of the 17 published by the United Nations last Thursday states that the goal is to,

“promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”.

As Saferworld, with its particularly strong research and campaigning over recent months, and UNICEF, with its campaign on violence against children, have shown, implementing and agreeing this goal is going to be perhaps one of the toughest challenges of all. There will be many states in the UN that will see such a commitment as a threat to their national sovereignty and as opening the door to interference and intervention from Europe and North America. The UK can play a key role this year in reassuring these nations that this goal and this understanding are instead about delivering justice for those who live in the worst conditions in the worst places on earth.

Current projections are that, by 2030, more than 50% of those living in extreme poverty will be living in the most violent and fragile places. As many of us know from our experience in these places, access to schooling, access to health services, access to clean water and access to justice can be almost non-existent. The United Nations cannot only be about peacekeeping and other uniformed forms of security around the world. The member states and their global leaders must address these fundamental issues on the rule of law, with strong but accountable and open institutions, and they must give priority to those living in fear of violence, with the impact of conflict around them every day.

In conclusion, I want to stress the important role of the United Kingdom. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a leading member in the European Union and an active participant in the Commonwealth, the IMF, the World Bank, the G8 and the G20, we are uniquely placed to influence, even lead, this debate. I hope that the Government will do so, and I will ask four questions here today. First, what mechanisms have been set up to integrate and then promote our intervention towards the best possible agreement on sustainable development goals in September 2015? Secondly, what response have we given to the report of the UN Secretary-General, published last week on 4 December? Thirdly, what will we demand at the European Union Council meeting next Tuesday, given its responsibility to help shape the best outcome in 2015? Fourthly, will we insist that commitments on peacebuilding, on inequality, on gender and on resilience to extreme events be upfront in the final agreement? If we do, we will help to usher in an era of transformation that will deliver a safer, more prosperous and more just 21st century. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

My Lords, I predicted on Twitter this morning that we would have a top-quality debate here this afternoon, and I was not wrong. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who participated in our debate for the quality of the contributions and the way in which we have covered so many issues in depth, but with real focus and passion, too. I am particularly delighted to have my noble friend Lord Cashman here, who contributed his experience in the European Parliament in this debate; perhaps we have missed that element in recent years in the many debates we have had to move this agenda forward. I thank the Minister for her responses and for her reassurances and information about the Government’s position.

I will make one other point in closing the debate. I met two teenage girls on a visit to the Central African Republic six weeks ago, who were in an internally displaced persons’ camp. However, they somehow struggled to get out from that camp and go to school each day before they returned home to collect water and perform other duties for their families, who lived in the camp all day, as they had for many weeks and months. If they had been sitting in the Public Gallery today, they would have been very proud to see the way in which we conduct ourselves in our debates. While there is a consensus of commitment, we are able openly to debate and discuss the priorities and the way in which we will take this forward.

To refer back to the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, we have come some way since those old debates, which were polarised between commercial activity on the one hand and government assistance on the other. Today, however, most of us accept that a combination of both will deal with global inequality and deprivation. I hope that our debate here in the House of Lords has taken that agenda forward into 2015 with some style and quality. I thank noble Lords very much.

Motion agreed.

Malawi

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to support economic and social development in Malawi.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, Malawi is a nation of about 15 million people. It is a peaceful, democratic nation and a proud member of the Commonwealth. It is a landlocked country, but Lake Malawi is one of the most stunning lakes, and the ninth largest, in the world, with more species than any other. On 6 July this year, Malawi celebrated the 50th anniversary of its independence, on 6 July 1964. I thank those responsible for my opportunity to secure this Question for Short Debate. I am also delighted that observing the debate this evening are His Excellency the High Commissioner Bernard Sande and colleagues, who have joined us for our deliberations.

Since 1964, Malawi has seen many ups and downs. In 1994 it celebrated the introduction of multiparty democracy and in that time it has seen development in many ways. Malawians are a proud and good people, and good friends to the UK, and to Scotland and Scots in particular. Scotland’s relationship with Malawi goes back 150 years to the time of Dr David Livingstone, that pioneer who was described by Kenneth Kaunda as Africa’s first freedom fighter. Livingstone’s successors, such as Dr Robert Laws, who ran the Livingstonia Mission for decades, and Mamie Martin, who pioneered girls’ education in that part of Africa, were all committed to helping Africans develop Africa themselves. This was not the traditional colonial relationship but one that was much more about mutual respect.

In the 1950s it was the Scots who stood strongest with the Malawians, first to oppose their movement into the Central African Federation, which was a disastrous step by the then British Government that pulled together southern and northern Rhodesia with Nyasaland, as Malawi was then called. Secondly, the Scots supported the Malawians during the state of emergency that followed; in 1959 this included the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland leading the international voice that said that it was time for a daring and creative transfer of power to the people of Malawi. The transfer happened just five years later.

In the first independence Cabinet in 1964, a Scottish lawyer, Colin Cameron, one of the few non-Africans to serve in a Cabinet in post-independence Africa, served as Minister for Works and Transport. Forty years later, in 2004, he was to become one of the inspirations behind the Scotland Malawi Partnership, when Strathclyde University, which had been home to Dr Livingstone almost two centuries before, established with the two Lord Provosts of Glasgow and Edinburgh the partnership. This was reinforced and strengthened in November 2005 by a co-operation agreement between myself as First Minister of Scotland and the then President Bingu wa Mutharika.

The co-operation agreement was based, as all the work over those 150 years had been, on mutual respect, development and working together. Today, the Scotland Malawi Partnership has hundreds of members. It is a non-governmental organisation that has in its membership all of Scotland’s universities, half of Scotland’s local authorities and hundreds of schools. There are health projects and active health partnerships operating in everything from epilepsy to midwifery and from prosthetics to rural GP advice.

A recent survey showed that 94,000 Scots and almost 200,000 Malawians are now actively engaged in these links, and that 200,000 Scots and more than 1 million Malawians benefit from this activity, which contributes mostly in kind about £40 million to Malawian development every year. It also showed that there is widespread support: that 46% of Scots personally know somebody who is involved in people-to-people links with Malawi, and that 74% of Scots have been in favour of those links overall. It is a unique and special model. My first question to the Government is: will they encourage others around the world to look at similar opportunities to link either parts of nation states or small nation states with smaller areas in the developing world in a way that develops mutual respect and mutual benefit but, ultimately, development as well?

The second matter that I wish to address damages that respect and good will, and it is the issue of UK visas. The good will and respect that have been developed are regularly threatened by the shambles surrounding the UK visa system for those in Malawi and other poor countries trying to get to this country. The system is dysfunctional, it is certainly disproportionate and it is, in my view, deeply damaging. From the 15-page application form that people have to fill in to the posting of passports to countries far away, which then have to be returned on time but regularly are not, to the proof of wealth that is required as evidence to secure a visa to come to this country, to the cashless system that encourages sharks to charge a fee to use their credit cards, as people pay them cash—all these measures have led to a whole series of people month after month being denied the opportunity to come to this country from poor communities in Malawi, and indeed elsewhere, in order to contribute to debates and discussions here, even when their host is a highly reputable UK or Scottish organisation or even a government body.

This is an issue that the Government need to take more seriously than they have done in the past. What steps will they take to clear up this chaos and improve the system in the short term? In the longer term, will they initiate a proper investigation to see how the system can be made more likely to contribute to the good relations between this great friend of Scotland and the UK, rather than damaging the relations that are being developed today?

As the 50th anniversary celebrations got under way this year, Professor Peter Mutharika, the new President of Malawi, said very clearly that,

“we need to transform our country from being a predominantly importing and consuming country to a predominantly producing and exporting country … we must strive for economic and development independence”.

I am sure that all of us wholeheartedly endorse and support that vision. However, today in Malawi 60% of the population still live on less than £1 a day. For every 1,000 children born, 68 will die before the age of five, and one in 200 women will die in childbirth. Although 24% of children will have had diarrhoea in the last two weeks, only 16% will have gone to secondary school. Malawi today is still only 170th out of 187 in the Human Development Index.

While there has been progress towards the MDGs on HIV and child mortality, Malawi is unlikely to meet the MDG targets on poverty, primary education and maternal health. Growth and development has been damaged in recent years by political instability, by economic ups and downs and by some more serious problems, as well as by the recent “cashgate” scandal that the new Government are trying so hard to deal with. As a result, UK aid has been partly suspended and direct support to the Government has been suspended indefinitely.

My final questions to the Government are about that UK aid, which is so critical, along with that of other donors, in the short term at least, to securing Malawian development towards the vision of economic independence. First, can the Minister outline for us what plans the Government have in the medium term to move back to a system of general budget support and sectoral budget support that would reinforce the capacity of the central Government of Malawi to deliver for its citizens?

Secondly, what support is the UK providing to build the capacity of central government and national institutions in Malawi to help ensure that scandals such as “cashgate” do not happen again? Thirdly, I have to tell the Minister that I found it very difficult to secure these figures from the DfID website, which I found to be a little bit out of date in places, including referring to the future elections in 2014 rather than the ones that had just happened.

I ask the Minister, if she can tonight, to outline exactly where UK aid is going at the moment. What is the expenditure targeted towards and what is the impact of that expenditure this year? I think that is important information that reinforces the friendship between our two countries and also allows us to hold the Government accountable for that expenditure.

In conclusion, Malawi is for very good reasons regarded as the warm heart of Africa. The friendship between our two nations, not just Scotland but the whole United Kingdom and Malawi, will be there for a very long time. I hope that, in addressing these questions this afternoon, we will be able to contribute to that friendship and move forward together to development and proper independence in the future.

Development: Post-2015 Agenda

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, for securing this debate this evening, which takes place in the week when we see the first evidence that the cross-party agreement in this Chamber and in the other place to achieve the target of 0.7% of our national wealth going to development each year is now starting to bear fruit. This evening’s debate is therefore happening at a very opportune moment. Those who, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, have campaigned for years for that achievement can take some pleasure in seeing the results starting to happen. I am also delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin. At the end of this month we will again take part in the annual Live Below the Line campaign, living on £1 a day for five days to highlight extreme global poverty. I am sure that we will enjoy the encouragement of noble Lords in that endeavour, even if we are not particularly looking forward to it.

I recently spent some time in the Philippines as a volunteer with VSO Bahaginan, which is the partner organisation of VSO in the Philippines. The organisation asked me to go there during the February Recess to work with the Beyond 2015 campaign there on some work it was doing with the Government and with civil society organisations in the country. I jumped at the opportunity, because for the majority of the population in the Philippines development has been held back by what seem to me to be the three key factors that need to be addressed in the post-2015 development agenda. The first is, of course, inequality: the population of the Philippines contains a small number of very rich people, who have done very well over the years. However, to this day a very significant number of people live in poverty and 25% of the population live in extreme poverty, even in a country which is, in comparison to some other parts of the world, at least in the early stages of development.

The Philippines also suffers from the dramatic impact of climate change and extreme weather events. For example, Typhoon Haiyan, which caused such horrific devastation in November, was called Typhoon Yolanda inside the Philippines because they name each typhoon that happens every year after the next letter of the alphabet, and they had already had 24 of them in 2013. The third issue that affects the people of the Philippines is conflict. A long-running conflict is still going on in Mindanao, and ongoing conflicts in other parts of the country that went on through the 1990s and in the early part of this century also hold back development.

It was a fascinating experience, a very stark reminder of the way in which inequality, climate—the environment —and conflict affect the ability of countries and communities to develop, even in the 21st century, and a reminder of the importance of those three strategic issues in the post-2015 debate. We need to recognise that the MDGs have made a major impact across the world. They have raised the level of provision in education, health, clean water and a host of other areas, in some of the poorest parts of the world. However, because of the way that the MDGs were constructed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, outlined, and because of the delay in the first few years, perhaps up until the first Gleneagles summit, which affected the impetus behind their delivery—the MDGs have not have the impact that they could have had in many parts of the world. It is vital that in whatever replaces the MDGs not only do we have more urgency, universality and a global commitment to a genuine partnership that allows countries to lead their own development themselves with our support and with their own mechanisms, the engagement of civil society, transparency, accountability and all the things that matter to make that agenda work in practice, but three key issues also need to be addressed at that time.

First, we have a great opportunity here because, when the MDGs were agreed, there was a completely separate strand of international negotiations on climate. We must build agreements on climate change and the environment and on the ability to resist the worst impacts of natural disasters and incorporate them in the post-2015 framework and not have them as a completely separate set of international negotiations and a completely different strand of goals.

Secondly, as I have said in this Chamber on many occasions, we must address conflict and peacebuilding. If we do not, we will never secure the opportunities we seek for those people living in the poorest countries and communities who are most affected by violence, discrimination, inequality, lack of services and instability. Only by supporting genuine peacebuilding in those parts of the world most affected by conflict, and putting that at the centre of the new post-2015 agenda, will we assist the poorest and most vulnerable people.

Thirdly, we must address inequality—the key issue of this evening’s debate. That includes income inequality and economic inequality. We should address inequality in countries that have fallen behind over the years and in those which have never caught up or are in the very early stages of development and therefore need a greater level of support.

I should mention the living conditions of people in the developing world with disabilities, who are now living much longer than they have ever done previously. In many developing countries, disabled people have a place in society that they have never enjoyed previously. However, in many of these countries, disabled people still have almost no access to education, adequate health services or other forms of support, particularly the opportunity to work or receive financial support outside the family.

Women play a critical role in making development happen, as was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kinnock and Lady Jenkin. The post-2015 agenda needs to address gender inequality but also needs to go significantly further in empowering women to be the drivers of development. We all know that in the most successful examples of development round the world women are playing a key role at both the community and national level. Therefore, the agenda needs not only to address gender inequality but to empower women to make a difference in the developing world and here, so that we can build the better world that we want to see.

Female Genital Mutilation

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on her comprehensive and passionate introduction to this debate, which I suppose was the catalyst for so many other outstanding contributions. I associate myself particularly with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on the need to change culture, not just to legislate, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, about the importance of changing attitudes to child protection.

In the time available, I want to add two things. First, to my eternal shame, I was shocked to discover, early in my time as First Minister of Scotland, that female genital mutilation was happening in a country that I thought I knew very well but clearly did not know as a whole. It was drawn to my attention by Khadija Coll of the African and Caribbean Network in Glasgow, who has been a relentless campaigner in Scotland on this issue since.

We in Scotland legislated eventually, passing new legislation in 2005. I make a plea again today that we ensure that the approach taken to this issue in the United Kingdom is indeed taken across the United Kingdom. There is a danger that the United Kingdom is seen as a soft touch in Europe on this issue, but there is also now a danger within the UK that Scotland is seen as a soft touch. It is vital that we have a cohesive approach to this among the different jurisdictions and secure a prosecution wherever it is possible in the UK as a start towards further prosecutions in the future.

The second point I want to make arises from a very interesting meeting that took place in the House last Monday evening when a representative of the Crown Prosecution Service said that one of the reasons that there is a problem with prosecutions in the UK is that the legislation covers only British nationals. I want to make two points about that. First, if it is the case, we need to address it quickly. There would be widespread support in this House and in the other place for any amendments that were required. Secondly, even if that is the case, it is not a reason not to prosecute. If I had taken my daughter at the age of eight or nine to a neighbour’s house to have her tongue and fingers cut off, I would have been prosecuted. Even if there are problems with the existing FGM legislation, there is no justification for allowing it to continue without prosecutions, given the raft of other legislation available to prosecuting authorities on violence, child abuse, child protection and so on. I make a plea to the Government to take up the suggestions made by other speakers, particularly the noble Baronesses who spoke earlier in the debate, and to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service sees this for what it is. It is violence; it is child abuse; and it needs to be tackled in our country and tackled quickly.

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend is right that the international effort directed through the global fund has had stunning achievements. The rate of new HIV infections among women and girls has declined. The pace of the decline is not as fast as we would wish it to be and that is something that the UK is putting renewed effort into, as will the global fund. Clearly, the focus on prevention will particularly benefit women. There has been far greater coverage of the population as a result of the global fund’s efforts and stunning reductions in the cost of, for example, HIV treatment. In 2000, treating a patient cost about $10,000 a year and that has now dropped to $125 per patient.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, the work of the global fund and the continuing UK commitment to it are to be welcomed, as that work is very important. However, I think that a new dimension is developing, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, concerning the teenagers and young adults who were born with HIV/AIDS and who have survived due to the quality and quantity of those medical interventions but are now facing the prospect of relationships, marriage and having children as they move into adulthood. Either through the global fund or perhaps directly, might the UK Government pioneer some schemes to assist those young people with the advice and counselling that will be required to help them through that transition?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord is right that a generation affected by HIV is growing up. He will also know that a lot of work has gone into trying to make sure that there is no mother-to-child transmission of the disease, and that is very important for these young people. The global fund is well aware that there is a young population whose needs it has to address.