Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

What the timescale is for the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and if he will make a statement.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

What discussions he has had with international (a) development non-governmental organisations and (b) counterparts of the Secretary of State for International Development on the creation of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)]

The new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development office is a huge opportunity for the UK to have an even greater global impact as we recover from the coronavirus pandemic, and also as we prepare to hold the G7 presidency and host COP26 next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I reassure the hon. Lady that we are still committed to delivering the merger by September. She asks, “Why now?”. The reality is that coronavirus has illustrated just why it is so important to have an integrated and aligned approach. We have achieved a huge amount through the international ministerial groups we have brought together, but it has also shown how much more powerful we can be as a force for good abroad if we bring all those different elements together, such as aid and the foreign policy network. The GAVI summit is one example, but there are others. We have a moral duty to support the most vulnerable countries around the world to protect them against and prevent a second wave, but it is also important to save the United Kingdom from the implications of that.

[Patrick Grady]

As chair of the all-party group on Malawi, I hope the Foreign Secretary will join me in welcoming the election of Lazarus Chakwera as the new President. Malawi has benefited from DFID investment in governance and democracy, and from the transparency initiative, for many years, which has perhaps contributed to this peaceful transition of power. What guarantee is there that in merging the two Departments, that kind of work, which DFID was able to specialise in and which might otherwise be forgotten about, will continue to be provided and properly scrutinised?

[Dominic Raab]

I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the free and fair election in Malawi. It is really important that such things take place in countries that do not have a history or pedigree of democratic transitions. While I agree with him entirely about that, I am afraid that I do not agree with the assumption in his question. From Kenya to Nigeria in Africa, let alone more broadly across the world, the experience in our missions is that we are most effective when we fully integrate and align the development aims and aid budget with the wider foreign policy strategy. That streamlining is precisely what the merger will help us do across the board.

Xinjiang: Uyghurs

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience in this area. Of course, she will be aware that the Foreign Secretary has committed to making a statement about our sanctions regime. That will be done before the summer recess. We have made clear our deep concern about this report and the human rights situation in Xinjiang. My hon. Friend will forgive me; of course, we will not speculate on who will be sanctioned under the new regime, particularly as the legislation is not yet in force, but she should not have too long to wait.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I have constituents who have repeatedly raised concerns with me about China’s human rights record, whether towards Buddhists in Tibet or towards Falun Gong practitioners, and now we are faced with allegations of human rights violations of the highest order. The Minister keeps saying that companies should conduct due diligence about their supply chains. What is he doing to ensure that they actually conduct that due diligence, and what is his advice to companies that find that there are human rights abuses in their supply chains?

[Nigel Adams]

Certainly, if I were a company and had found that there were human rights abuses in my supply chain, I would be looking at a different supply chain, quite frankly. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issues with Tibet and Falun Gong. Clearly, these are very concerning issues. We will continue to work with private sector companies; we provide advice through our posts for those that wish to conduct business in China, and we will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation: UK Response

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

That quote has been much bandied around. It is absolutely right. The context for it was when I was asked what we would do in order to have a clear review of how the outbreak of coronavirus started and came about. I wanted to be clear, and the United Kingdom is clear, working with our international partners and as a matter of principle, that we need to have a sober and clear-sighted independent review and analysis of how the outbreak happened, how it was allowed to spread and what we can do to prevent it from ever happening again.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the concern of charities such as Amnesty International and Hong Kong Watch about how these laws could impact on the work that they carry out in the territory and that the political opposition more generally could be accused of subversion and imprisoned simply for speaking to foreigners with ties to foreign Governments. Will he commit to the hilt to support the work of charities and non-governmental organisations operating in Hong Kong for the protection and freedom of its citizens?

[Dominic Raab]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. Of course, the climate for NGOs, and for anyone speaking out in an independent forum, whether in the media or otherwise, has massively closed down. That is not just wrong as a matter of principle and the values that we share in the House. It is wrong as a matter of the joint declaration, but also as a matter of China’s view of Hong Kong’s future, reflected in Chinese law, and in particular the Basic Law.

Covid-19

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend, and of course we will look at those cases. In areas where we do not have a large or substantial consular presence, we are obviously going to have to innovate and still provide practical advice and consular support as best we can. I know that the relevant Minister will be very happy to meet her and take forward those cases, and I am very happy to raise them with my interlocutors.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

What discussions is the Foreign Secretary having with the Home Secretary about foreign nationals in this country who find themselves in a similar situation? I have a constituent who is self-isolating in line with the guidance, yet she is being told that her visa will be over-stayed and that she needs to leave the country. What thought are the Government giving to these kinds of situations, especially if, when such people get to the end of their quarantine, there are no flights home?

[Dominic Raab]

Of course, we have foreign nationals here who are in very similar positions to the ones that UK nationals themselves are in around the world. We will of course look at those cases as sympathetically and constructively as possible. We know what it is like, from all the cases that we have coming through to the FCO and through to our consular services. I have already raised this issue with the Home Office and the Home Secretary, but we will reaffirm it based on what the hon. Gentleman said today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that issue with his Iranian counterpart yesterday. We are deeply concerned about both the individuals the hon. Lady mentions. We are liaising constantly with the Iranian authorities whenever possible and keeping in touch with family members to ensure that they are let out as soon as possible.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

In what way is continuing to disregard the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and the resolution of the UN General Assembly on the future sovereignty of the Chagos Islands a diligent exercise of the UK’s soft power?

[Nigel Adams]

We are confident in our position on the issue the hon. Gentleman mentions. We are more than happy to talk to him following the session so we can discuss it further one to one.

Commonwealth in 2020

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) on a passionate, and in some ways quite prescient, maiden speech. He has picked a pretty appropriate debate in which to make it, and I wish him and anyone else making a maiden speech today all the very best. Some of us were also elected at pretty short notice back in 2015, and it is absolutely appropriate to remark on the welcome we received from the support staff, the Doorkeepers and so on.

It is great that we are able to debate the future of the Commonwealth and Britain’s relationship with the Commonwealth on Commonwealth Day itself, as the service has been taking place in Westminster Abbey and as the House has agreed to the Second Reading of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill. It is great to see the Minister in his place; I was looking back at Hansard and I do believe that he moved the motion in the debate on Commonwealth Day last year in Westminster Hall, as a Back Bencher—a debate in which I responded on behalf of my party. The debate is a little higher in profile today given that it is happening in the main Chamber.

The presence of the Earl and Countess of Dumbarton, making their last appearance in their current roles, has given a bit of added focus to the celebration in Westminster Abbey. We wish them all the best as they move on to pastures new. Another attendee in the abbey, as well as Mr Speaker, was the Speaker of the Malawian Parliament, the right hon. Catherine Gotani Hara, whom I had the immense privilege of meeting when I was in Malawi last year and with whom I enjoyed a very nice lunch this afternoon. The bringing together of such a number of different people from a number of different backgrounds and different parts of the world shows the effect of the Commonwealth.

The theme for Commonwealth Day in the year ahead is “Delivering a Common Future: Connecting, Innovating and Transforming”. It certainly will be a year—indeed years to come now—of innovation and transformation in the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world, and not necessarily for the better. I hope that Scotland’s constitutional future and international relations will also be transformed; I might say a bit more about that later.

It is worth reflecting, as others have, on both the history of and the recent developments in the Commonwealth. Last year’s debate was marked the 70th anniversary. That milestone has come and gone, but the institution continues to demonstrate its relevance and interests to the member states. We welcome, as others have, the readmission of the Maldives to the Commonwealth at the start of this month, following a period of internal democratic reform that resulted in its becoming the 54th member. That shows how the Commonwealth can be a force for good.

The UK’s term as chair-in-office is coming to an end, and the position will be taken on by Rwanda. As the shadow Minister remarked, that is unusual and a first, because Rwanda is not a former British colony. It is also a member of La Francophonie collection of nations, so it has a very interesting dual role.

Like the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), who made a brief intervention, I was on the delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association that was part of the preparatory work for Rwanda taking on the chair-in-office. We noted features of its democracy, including its high level of female participation and representation in Parliament, and its stable and growing economy—remarkable in that part of the world and given the country’s history. But there are also concerns around freedom of the press and freedom of participation, and it is right that such issues should be raised. The delegates at that conference will have much to learn and discuss.

I pay tribute more widely to the role of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I was an executive member between 2015 and 2017, and found it a valuable experience. The CPA plays an important role in connecting parliamentarians, and promoting mutual learning, sharing and partnership. It does not simply say, “Look at what a great example we can set here in the United Kingdom”, but asks, “What can we learn from different Parliaments around the world?” I mean, a number of members of the Commonwealth still include hereditary members of the aristocracy in their legislatures —Tonga, Lesotho and a small island state known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: it is not our job to go and lecture other members of the Commonwealth on the ideal models of democratic participation. We should all be in learning mode.

One of the most celebrated features of the Commonwealth is, of course, the Commonwealth games, which leave a lasting legacy wherever they are held. I was taught to swim in the Commonwealth pool in Edinburgh, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in January. The 2014 games in Glasgow also left a lasting and visible legacy in that city. Over the period from 2007 to 2014, the games contributed £740 million to the city’s gross value added, so Birmingham has very much to look forward to in the years to come. I just hope that it gets weather as exquisite as we had for those two weeks in 2014, which has not been repeated.

As well as looking at the past, I want to look at the future, and how the institution will develop in years to come. I am not sure whether it has been touched on yet, but we cannot ignore questions about how the secretariat is funded, financed and run, because we have to keep the house of the institution in order. Failings in that area might lead some members—there are plenty of voices in Australia, for example—to question the value of the entire institution, which would be pretty unfortunate. That is why we have to look back to the principles of partnership, mutual learning and accountability.

The bigger challenge that the Commonwealth has faced, and which has been touched on, is the difference between the declarations and statements made and the ambitions that the Commonwealth has for itself, and then the reality in many of its member countries. It champions—and we want to champion—democracy and human rights, but there are gaps and standards that are not lived up to, and that is particularly true on the question of LGBT rights, about which the shadow Minister spoke so eloquently; I entirely agree with him.

I admit that Malawi—a country that I have close and fond relationships with—is behind the curve in recognising the rights and freedoms that the LGBT community should have. If the Commonwealth is to be a force for good and make a difference in the modern world, these are the kinds of issues that it must seek to address through its structures and among its membership. That brings me to the role of the United Kingdom and its relationship with the Commonwealth, and how it fits with the concept of a global Britain.

For all the undoubted value that the Commonwealth brings to its members, it can never be a substitute or alternative to membership of the European Union. The fundamental differences are clear even from the names of the organisations. The Commonwealth is about a shared heritage and shared ambitions. The European Union is a political, economic—and, yes, a social and cultural—union. Membership of the EU has delivered economic benefits that are simply not possible for our relationship with the Commonwealth to replicate. The relative size of the economy, the nature of the trade in goods and services, and the sheer facts of geography and requirements of transport, mean that no trading relationship with Commonwealth countries could match what we had with the European Union.

If the Government do want to strike ambitious trade deals with Commonwealth countries, there will have to be arrangements, and give and take, on both sides. India, for example, has already signalled that it would want to see an easing on visa restrictions and travel opportunities. Therefore, although Brexiteers might rejoice in the ending of freedom of movement within Europe, the reality is that modern trade relies on the movement of labour, irrespective of our trading partners. People will still want to travel as a consequence of any future trade deals that might be entered into.

What the Commonwealth certainly is not, and should not be thought of as, is some route back to the bygone days of an empire or Britannia ruling the waves. Even if some of the more extreme elements on the Tory Back Benches were to think this desirable, it would quite understandably be resisted by the other member states. When the UK Government try to brand these islands as “global Britain”, we have to ask how that reality matches the rhetoric, because even for Commonwealth countries—the countries with which we are supposed to have the most historic ties, which so many Brexiteers saw as somehow preferable to our historic European ties—access to the UK is limited and constrained. I, and colleagues who are with me in the Chamber, have repeatedly raised concerns about the ability of artists, academics and businesses to get visas—not to stay, settle down, take jobs away or cream off the welfare state, but just to access the country to attend conferences and cultural events—yet they still face massive and expensive bureaucratic hurdles.

When I was in Malawi last year, we went to visit the British high commission, and it was festooned with “Britain is GREAT” branding, and adverts saying, “Come to the United Kingdom and take part in the Chevening scholarships”. Yet the night before we had been discussing with young Malawian members of civil society the fact that they could not even apply for the Chevening scholarships because they were not getting their visas. We hear time and again of visitors who come here, invited by the British Council and by the Commonwealth Secretariat, and who are denied their visas and access to the United Kingdom. So the notion of Britain being open for business—of global Britain in some new, glorious era—simply does not match reality.

Nowhere is that clearer—again, I echo the shadow Minister on this—than on the issue of the visa charges for Commonwealth citizens who have served in the UK armed forces. When personnel who are Commonwealth citizens leave the UK armed forces and wish to apply to continue to live in the country that they have served for years, they face fees of thousands of pounds to do so. The Royal British Legion reckons that a service leaver with a partner and two children will be presented with a bill of almost £10,000 to continue to live in the UK, despite their years of sacrifice and service. Without leave to remain, these veterans are cut off from being able to access employment or state support, leaving them and their families reliant on charitable funds or facing repatriation to their country of origin. We wholeheartedly support the Royal British Legion and others who are campaigning for these fees to be scrapped for Commonwealth service leavers.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

For the record, there are a huge number of people on the Conservative Benches who entirely agree with that point. We should look after these men. I have served with Fijians of great distinction. They have the right to stay here, and we should not charge them for it.

[Patrick Grady]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his comments. Perhaps if we put forward some amendments to an immigration Bill, when it comes, we can achieve some cross-party consensus on this.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

We are hearing from members of the armed forces and the Royal British Legion that these people have been recruited because we are not meeting our own recruitment targets here in the UK. We are going out to these countries and actively recruiting: promising the earth and then delivering very little for their families. It really is not how we should be operating.

[Patrick Grady]

I entirely agree. My hon. Friend speaks with some experience on these matters. The mismatch between rhetoric and reality is a bit of a theme on a number of issues in this debate, particularly the final one that I want to touch on. Again, this will not be a surprise to the Minister, because we have exchanged words on it in Westminster Hall on many occasions.

The issue is, of course, the UK’s role in the question of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Mauritius, which claims sovereignty and whose sovereignty has in fact been recognised by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, is a fellow member of the Commonwealth. Where is global Britain in all of this? Mauritius has had to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. The UN resolution stated that the United Kingdom should surrender the British Indian Ocean Territory unconditionally, and the deadline for that was breached in November 2019. Where is global Britain in all that? Where is the respect for the partnership of the Commonwealth of Nations?

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Patrick Grady]

Yes, I happily give way to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on overseas territories.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I totally understand and accept the points that the hon. Gentleman is making about the Chagos Islands and Mauritius, but will the Chagossians be consulted on whose sovereignty they wish to fall under? As we have that policy with all our overseas territories, such as Gibraltar and the Falklands, which have had a referendum, surely the Chagossians should be the people who should determine their destiny of their own homeland.

[Patrick Grady]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am a huge fan of popular sovereignty and very committed to the concept of self-determination. But I do not want to make light of his comment; he is absolutely right. The point that I am trying to make is in the context of how the UK Government respect the rules-based order and the decisions coming from multilateral institutions that they claim to want to take part in and respect. Absolutely—the Chagossian community themselves should be at the heart of the decision-making process about their future and the future of their islands. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that. It is probably not the last he is going to hear of it, if it falls within his wider ministerial remit.

This is the challenge regarding the question of Britain’s role in the Commonwealth in 2020. The reality that we have experienced with Brexit is that it is a fundamentally narrow, isolationist decision that will reduce the UK’s role on the world stage, and its relationship with the Commonwealth should not be used as a fig leaf to cover that reality. That stands in contrast with the ambition of my party and an increasing number—in fact, perhaps now a majority—of people in Scotland for a Scotland that plays a fuller role on the world stage as an independent country that defines its independence by its membership of supranational, international multilateral organisations like the Commonwealth of Nations, the United Nations and the European Union.

The more the United Kingdom bangs its isolationist drum and sooks up to superpowers at the expense of the established multilateral system, the sooner the day of Scotland’s independence and its membership as the 55th member of the Commonwealth of Nations will come.

Official Development Assistance Target

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and recognise that he is putting in a bit of a shift on the Treasury Bench today, although he could have saved us time if he had answered a single one of the questions that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) put to him in his winding-up speech during the last debate. We might not even have needed this Adjournment debate, but as it is, this gives us the opportunity to go into some of those questions in a bit more detail.

I also take this opportunity to thank the voters in Glasgow North for returning me once again, and to my staff team, my campaign volunteers and the team in the Scottish National party Whips Office—Anne, Christopher and Kieran. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for his service in the Whips Office and welcome back my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), who is joining the team.

I am very grateful to have secured this debate so early in the new parliamentary term because, as we heard in the preceding debate, the future of the aid budget and how it is delivered is one of the most pressing matters and choices facing the Government. It is important that they hear early on in the parliamentary term of the cross-party concerns and those of many stakeholders before they make yet another decision that they may well come to regret.

We have just 10 years left to meet the global goals for sustainable development that were agreed at the United Nations in 2015. They represent an international consensus about the kind of world that is both possible and necessary to ensure a healthy, sustainable planet and society for future generations. We should give credit where it is due: the global goals agreement was driven in no small part by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. Crucial to giving credibility to his case was the progress that the United Kingdom was making towards meeting the target of spending 0.7% of national income on official development assistance. The idea that wealthy countries should aim to spend that much on aid dates back to the 1970s, when it was calculated that doing so would generate enough resources to meet the targets that were then in place to end world poverty and improve access to food, education and other basic human rights.

Thanks again to that cross-party consensus, the UK is, as we have just heard, one of the few countries in the world not only to be meeting the target, but to have it enshrined in statute. All that is very commendable, and at a time when there is considerable disagreement in other parts of domestic and international policy, it is something that should be very carefully protected.

The success has been not just the achievement of the target but how the aid has been delivered. The Department for International Development was established in 1997. Again, it might be rare to hear an SNP Member commend the actions of the Blair Government, but this was a significant and ambitious decision, and one that has, and should continue to have, the support of a wide, cross-party consensus. Over the years, DFID has evolved and changed, but it has provided a distinctive and dedicated voice within government that has championed our commitments and obligations to the poorest and most vulnerable around the world—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

[Patrick Grady]

You’ve got to love some of the procedures in this place, Mr Speaker.

DFID has provided a vital link between delivery agencies and government, whether they are large multilateral institutions such as UNICEF and the World Food Programme, or our own domestic agencies, such as Oxfam, Christian Aid and my own former employers, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and its sister organisation, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development. DFID funding has helped member organisations of the Scotland Malawi Partnership, which has provided secretariat support to the all-party group on Malawi—I hope to continue chairing that group in this Parliament. DFID support has helped its members put the network’s partnership principles into practice, building priceless people-to-people and community-to-community links between the two countries and building relationships of solidarity, mutual respect and learning that help Malawi, Scotland and the UK make progress towards the sustainable development goals and more.

DFID’s support for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—I declare an interest, because I am still a member of its board of governors—has also helped to strengthen democratic institutions in developing democracies around the world. That in turn means that Governments become more effective in mobilising their own resources to help societies meet the global goals.

In recent years, countless lives have been changed by DFID’s Aid Match programme, which has allowed individual donors in this country to understand more clearly just how each pound they give can change lives overseas. SCIAF told me about Paulin, a farmer in Rwanda, who has been provided with access to clean water through an Aid Match-funded programme. Paulin said that

“thanks to the support, I can now feed myself and my children. The area is very dry but we can share the water we get from the water tanks and we can grow crops. I can eat and rejoice!”

We should all rejoice at the lives changed and the progress made thanks to the delivery of the aid target through DFID.

Throughout all of this, DFID has been one of the most accountable, transparent and scrutinised UK Departments. As well as the usual round of questions here in the Chamber and a heavy load of Westminster Hall debates, active Chairs of the International Development Committee over the years have kept a keen eye on its programmes, and of course it is also scrutinised by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. Publish What You Fund’s global aid transparency index in 2018 rated DFID as “very good” for its effectiveness and transparency. In contrast, it rated the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as “poor”. This is concerning because in recent years, particularly since 2015, the FCO has been one of the Departments spending an increasing share of the overall aid budget.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Evidence from Australia and Canada, which have merged their foreign and development departments, has shown that this can threaten the quality and impact of aid, and detailed analysis carried out by the Overseas Development Institute has found that foreign policy and development alignment has little or no obvious benefit for either. Does the hon. Gentleman agree therefore that a merger of DFID and the FCO would put at risk the excellent work that an independent DFID has done around the world, as he has outlined in his excellent speech?

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely—the SNP, of course, promotes independence for all kinds of causes. This is at the heart of the debate. It was raised by the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson in his conclusion in today’s debate on the Queen’s Speech, it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), and it has been raised by Members across the House, and I will come back to it as well. I hope the Minister will take this chance to answer it. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) is absolutely right to raise the international examples, because there has been regression elsewhere in the world. The UK is supposed to pride itself on its global leadership, so let us see if that is to continue.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate and compelling speech in favour of overseas development. Does he agree that we are much better able to have the kind of impact internationally that he talks about when we are one United Kingdom than we would if we were fragmented into four different nations?

[Patrick Grady]

I will be happy to return to that, but I would point out that 0.7% is a proportion of gross national income, so Scotland, under a Barnett formula or whatever, as an independent country, would continue to spend its equivalent proportion or possibly more.

We have yet another ministerial team in DFID. I welcome all those Ministers to their posts, especially those who have arrived via the Government Whips Office, but they should know that the trend away from the aid target for DFID spending is something that many of us have been keeping an eye on for many years, and it is a cause for concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling pointed out earlier, over 27% of ODA funds are now spent by Departments other than DFID, including the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. I have been particularly concerned about the increasing amount of spending that is effectively being double-counted, towards both the 0.7% aid target and the NATO defence spending target of 2% of gross national income. I know that Ministers will say that they do not mark their own homework and that it cannot be helped if some spending meets both measurements, but every effort should be made to ensure that the two targets are reached with distinct spending and that any overlap just happens to be a bonus.

The National Audit Office concluded in June 2019 that aid spending outside DFID was not transparent enough. Those concerns can only be compounded by the growing rumour and speculation in the press and elsewhere about the future of the Department and the Government’s commitment to the ODA target. The Tory manifesto in this election barely mentioned international development and made no reference to the sustainable development goals. All the other main parties committed to maintaining DFID as a stand-alone Department, but the Tory manifesto was silent on that. The Minister now has an important opportunity to clarify, on the record, the Government’s position and intentions. Members have been asking about this all day, and we do not want to hear a “wait and see” response. He has seen my early-day motion about this issue and he knew perfectly well what the subject of this debate would be from the title, so here goes.

Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that the Government will spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance each year for the lifetime of this Parliament? To do anything else would jeopardise over 20 years of cross-party consensus and risk undermining any pretence to global leadership on these issues. Can he confirm that the Government will not seek to change, or initiate changes to, pre-existing international definitions of official development assistance? If the OECD definition were to change, that should be done on the basis of an evidential need and using a consensus-based approach. At the very least, any changes would need to be agreed through a genuinely participative, consultative, global process. It would defeat the entire purpose of meeting the target if the definition of aid were to be arbitrarily or unilaterally changed, especially if it allowed aid to be used for diplomacy, military or corporate commercial purposes.

Can the Minister outline what discussions, if any, have taken place within Government about the continued existence of DFID as a dedicated, stand-alone Department? What is his response to newspaper reports that DFID might be retained as a Department, but that its Secretary of State would also be the Foreign Secretary? He must surely accept that if that were to happen, it would be a merger of the FCO and DFID in all but name. If DFID is to remain both effective and accountable, it must have its own dedicated Secretary of State, who can champion its cause in the Cabinet and answer questions on the Floor of this House.

Have any such discussions about the future of the Department been part of preparations for the Government’s proposed integrated security, defence and foreign policy review? As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton asked earlier from the Labour Front Bench, what is the timetable for the review? Will it be subject to consultation, and what other opportunities will there be for stakeholders to contribute? What is the Minister’s response to press reports that DFID country reps will be asked to report to local UK ambassadors? Does he realise that this risks politicising DFID programmes in developing countries?

Aid should be delivered without fear or favour. One of the great achievements of DFID and the global aid community since the 1990s has been the move away from conditionality of aid and the understanding that progress towards the global goals should be separated from any specific relationship issues with country Governments. We cannot allow that to slide backwards. If the Minister sees a case for integrating DFID functions with embassies, can he have a word with his colleagues at the Home Office, who are busy stripping visa functions out of embassies, privatising them and causing chaos in their wake? Either embassies are hubs for the entirety of the UK’s presence in a country or they are not.

What reassurances can the Minister give to DFID staff about the size of the workforce and the Government’s commitment to retaining their expertise, especially, but not only, for those based in Scotland?

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the current reports and the lack of clarification from the Ministers in charge, staff based at DFID’s East Kilbride headquarters—who are doing fantastic work in reaching the poorest people all over the world through their programmes and their specialist expertise—face an uncertain future? Does he agree that that is unfair to them, and that clarity and reassurance must be offered immediately?

[Patrick Grady]

I wholeheartedly agree, and that was the whole point of my applying for tonight’s debate. We want those assurances from the UK Government.

Let me gently remind the Government, and other Conservative Members who raised this issue earlier, that in 2014 the presence of DFID in East Kilbride was touted as one of the great benefits of the Union, and it was said that its loss would be one of the great risks of independence. As I said earlier, the independence White Paper committed us to going further than the 0.7% target, and we would have wanted to retain that global expertise. It seems that—as with so many of the promises of Better Together in 2014—following Scotland’s choice to stay part of the United Kingdom, all the supposed risks of independence are being realised in any event.

What reassurances can the Minister give to the many stakeholders, charities and non-governmental organisations, here in the UK and around the world, about the future of the funds that they currently receive from DFID? Changing or diminishing aid definitions, departmental restructuring, or any wavering of the 0.7% target will put at risk the ability of those organisations to deliver their programmes and plan for the future.

No organisation should be, or wants to be, dependent on specific grant funding, but for many organisations of which I have had personal experience, DFID grants provide a foundation that allows them to develop or expand other aspects of their work. That is particularly true of the UK Aid Match programme, which I mentioned earlier. It is not without its flaws, but it has grown in popularity in recent years. The best development results are achieved when funding is provided on a stable basis over a long period rather than being chopped and changed on a whim. Such agencies should also be allowed—even expected—to challenge and lobby Governments on all of these issues, without any fear that that will affect their ability to be awarded funds for overseas programmes.

My final question to the Minister, which I have asked several of his predecessors and will probably ask several of his successors, is this: how do the Government define the “national interest”? It has been a mantra of DFID Secretaries of State and other Ministers since 2015 that aid should work in the national interest, but when it comes to aid and development, how does the national interest differ from the global interest? In what way is achieving the global goals for sustainable development contrary, or somehow supplementary, to the national interest?

It is in all our interests to end poverty, to ensure that every child is given an education, to keep the oceans clean, and to help communities adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. We are all part of one human family, and our own individual dignity is diminished when our poorest sisters and brothers are forced to live in a poverty that is not of their own making, so the global interest—the global vision of the sustainable development goals—must be in the UK’s national interest.

If the Government accept and recognise that, the logic follows that they must continue to meet their international obligations to aid and development through the 0.7% target, and they should deliver that through a dedicated Department for International Development. I hope very much that the Minister and his inevitable successors, in whatever shape or form, will agree.