| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he mentioned what Mr Caborn said in another place, perhaps he can answer this question. Mr Caborn said:
"The Government provide money to arts, sports and heritage in many areas—that is not core, or mainstream, government spending".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/06; col. 1013.]
Can he tell me what that money is if it is not core government spending and not lottery money?
Lord Davies of Oldham: It was clear what I was seeking to indicate with regard to my right honourable friend's answers. The department is involved in expenditure in areas where, particularly with regard to the Heritage Lottery Fund but also with regard to the distribution of sports funding, it is difficult to draw the dividing line in the way that my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley indicated. Scanners were provided by public subscription and contribution, by charitable donations and by the goodwill of communities. As my noble friend rightly said, it tended to be the communities with the greatest resources that first produced scanners. However, I am proud of the fact that the Royal Oldham Hospital, through hard-earned public subscription, had a scanner at the very early stages of development of this medical aid. That did not alter the fact that, through the lottery, additional resources were made available to contribute to the cost of the scanners and equalise the position across the country. That clearly came outside core funding. The Department of Health had no programme for such scanners and they would not have been delivered under the Department of Health as quickly as they were, but they were delivered because of National Lottery funding.
Today, the revenue costs of scanners are now core funding in the Department of Health, so these things change over time, as they are bound to do. That is why the problem of additionality has defeated the noble Lord. He indicated his intentions at Second Reading and I admire him for his effort. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, quoted what I said at Second Reading and I am grateful that he did. I tend to agree with his comments about what I said at Second Reading—it was extremely meritorious and well worth repeating. But he may recall that at that time I did not say that I would be putting this into legislation—I had a Bill before me in which I was absolutely clear that we could not do so. I said at Second Reading that this was our concept of additionality. This was the spirit—the noble Lord's word—within which we would work to promote additionality. But I do not think that it can be achieved in legislation, as I believe this debate has proved. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I shall be very quick. I cannot resist pointing out that this Government are saying that they cannot find legislative words for the concept of additionality when we have been arguing
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1055
for months about glorification, which I should have thought was an infinitely more rubbery concept. What about subsidiarity? That is at the heart of EU legislation.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Shame.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Maybe. Will the Minister not concede that it might be possible to adopt either the definition given by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, or that of the NCVO—what one might call a very broad common-law definition of additionality—and leave that in the Bill without lots of conditional words? There would just be the broad common-law principle, which would achieve the purpose without obstructing the workings of the boards.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord has the advantage over me of being a lawyer, but I do not know how he translates a common-law principle into a Bill, which will become an Act of Parliament, without giving a precise definition of what certain phrases within it will mean. What would core government funding mean in these terms? I shall not berate the Liberal Democrats at this stage, because I have the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on my side for once in spirit. But in its manifesto at the last general election, the Conservative Party proposed a club-to-school scheme—a scheme under which every child would have the right to two hours of free after-school sports coaching paid for with £750 million of National Lottery money. There is an interesting concept of the voluntary contribution from school teachers in providing support and coaching children as against this additional money—or would it be separate money? Would it be part of government core funding? Clearly not, because the Conservatives intended it to come from the lottery. But we would be pressed to say that no element of after-school coaching in sport for children has anything at all to do with the Department for Education and Skills or the provision that it makes. This distinction will not stand up.
That is the nature of the Conservative Front Bench's problems—not that I am berating it for making the attempt. In fact, I am guilty of encouraging it, on Second Reading, to try to do that. I greatly applaud its effort. Unfortunately, I can only give marks for incorporating amendments into legislation if they deserve 10 out of 10. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and many others have said, the amendment falls far short of being 10 out of 10, and will not do for legislation. It will not work, although it is a good try. That is why I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will recognise that his amendment will have to be reconsidered and withdraw it.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am delighted that the Minister read our manifesto with such care; I have to admit that I did not read his with equal care. Anyway, this was a debate in the other place—I occasionally read the Hansard of the other place—so I am not going to go into it, because it was adequately answered.
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1056
I recognise the difficulties of addressing the concept of additionality and putting it in legislation in some form. We will move on and make better progress in the consideration of the next amendments when we come to them. This has been what you might call a "pre-debate" on them.
The Minister did not answer the question posed by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville on when the distributing bodies will have to report on additionality. Will it be their responsibility to make their own definitions, or will they have to take account of directions given by the Secretary of State, who has this additional new power, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is constantly reminding us? It would be helpful—and the Minister can leave the answer until the next set of amendments—to know whether there is going to be any guidance to the distributing bodies, and how they are going to report on additionality. The Government are saying, "We accept the principle, but cannot define it in legislation, so we are going to give it to them to report to us". We need to know how that will work. Is the Secretary of State going to write to them and say, "Please do this, and this is how we suggest you do it"? We will need to debate those issues. Perhaps, however, those questions are more germane to the reporting bit coming up in the next set of amendments.
I remind the Committee that this has happened because the Government have created the Big Lottery Fund—which has 50 per cent of funds—and have given themselves so much power to prescribe what this distributing body will do. That is why we are concerned with additionality. We would not be having this debate if the original four good causes had remained; it would not have been necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that Committee stage begin again not before 8.44 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Botswana
7.44 pm
Baroness Tonge rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the social and economic progress made in Botswana since independence.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the last few years, I have visited many African countries. It is difficult not to get depressed when one travels around that continent. It is difficult to know where to begin with the multiple problems most African countries have. It was so refreshing when, in 2002, I visited Botswana with some noble Lords from this House and Members from the other place.
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1057
Botswana is an African success story. Admittedly, it has a small population of 1.7 million, but it has nearly 80 per cent literacy, which is beyond the wildest dreams of many of the other countries that I have visited. Education is totally free for the first 10 years, as it has been for many decades. Grant loans are given for university education, which many Botswanans take advantage of. Healthcare is largely free and there are good clinics and hospitals. Botswana has had one of the world's highest economic growth rates since independence in 1966 and is now classed as a middle-income country. I will give no more details of the economy of Botswana, because my noble friend Lord Chidgey will be speaking on that later.
How has this happened? As I am sure noble Lords will know, in 1966, just after independence, De Beers discovered diamonds in Botswana. Instead of allowing this huge multinational company to exploit Botswana's riches and line its own pockets, the government went into a 50:50 partnership with De Beers, forming the company Debswana. The arrangement should be looked at as a model for other developing countries. It has given Botswana a head start over everyone else; 70 to 80 per cent of its export earnings have come from Debswana, and the public services and infrastructure have been enjoyed by all people as a consequence.
However, dependence on one industry is not ideal. The Government of Botswana seek to diversify in their "Vision 2016" development plan. Tourism, financial services, subsistence farming and beef cattle farming are due to be encouraged, as well as further mining in other areas. It would be a tragedy if this development plan failed. The Government of Botswana face huge problems. In common with many sub-Saharan African countries, the population is over 25 per cent HIV positive, which affects skilled workers, professionals and, indeed, the business plans of all companies working in the country. This is being tackled by another partnership with a multinational company and the Bill Gates foundation—which my noble friend Lord Jones of Cheltenham wishes to speak about later, so I will not go into detail on that either, to save time. There is high unemployment—24 per cent in 2004—which is why the government want to encourage investment in and expansion of other sectors to provide more jobs.
Unfortunately, the government are being attacked, and investment hindered, by an NGO campaign from this country to discredit Botswana and its government. Survival International, a British NGO, has been waging war against the Government of Botswana over their treatment of the San people, the Basarwa, known commonly as the Bushmen of the Kalahari. When the Central Kalahari Game Reserve was established around 1961, there were a few thousand Bushmen still in that area. They were hunter-gatherers, with ancient tracking and water-detection skills, killing animals with primitive bows and arrows—on our visit we saw some of them in action. It is very romantic stuff and sounds absolutely wonderful—the stuff of boy scouts. Great if you are a successful Bushman, maybe, but not
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1058
so great for the Bushwomen and Bushchildren, who have a right to healthcare and education and who may not want to stay in the stone age with their families; they may want an opportunity for another life. In fact, one Basarwa female student has just gained a PhD at a university, which shows what can be done and what aspirations they may have if given the opportunity.
In recent years, the Bushmen have started hunting with guns, often on horseback or even in old 4 x 4 vehicles. They also demand the right to herd cattle and keep livestock in the Kalahari, which sometimes get eaten by wild animals. The domestic animals not only disturb the ecology of the Kalahari but, when they get eaten by wild animals, the Bushmen also demand compensation from the government. It was impossible for the government to provide education and health services, which the people have a right to, in this terrain and it was very difficult to recruit staff to work in those areas.
It is worth remembering that the Central Kalahari Game Reserve is 50,300 square kilometres, which is about 40 per cent of the size of England—we are talking about a huge area. Consultation took place between the government and the Bushmen. The majority opted to move to the edge of the game reserve—to New Xade and Kaudwane—where they were given houses, water, schools, relocation allowances and livestock to earn a living. A few Bushmen remained in the game reserve on condition that they pursued their traditional way of live, which they did not. Over time, they brought in livestock and hunted game with guns. These few people, backed by Survival International, are now holding the Government of Botswana to ransom, and a court case is proceeding for the restitution of their land in the Kalahari. The sustainable development of the game reserve, with its fragile ecology, is being help up and the international community is beginning to worry about investment in Botswana. Tourism, which the government wish to encourage, is suffering.
Survival International has alleged cruelty toward the remaining Bushmen, which has not been substantiated—the allegation has been thoroughly investigated. It has also alleged that De Beers wants to mine the area. Investigations have taken place and De Beers has said that there are no substantial diamonds worth mining in the game reserve. But, even if it did at a future date decide that it was worth doing that, we are talking about a mine that would occupy a very small area, compared with the whole of the game reserve. Nevertheless, De Beers is being targeted by Survival International quite unfairly, especially when we must remember that the company was the instigator of the Kimberley agreement to stamp out conflict diamonds.
Survival International is using hysterical language to whip up international support. The director, Stephen Cory, said that the relocation of Bushmen is "tantamount to genocide". That is a bit much. He refers to,
These tactics and this language have been condemned even by Botswanan NGOs. BOCONGO—a wonderful acronym; it stands for the Botswanan Council of Non-Governmental Organisations—which includes a lot of human rights organisations, has told Survival International to stay out of it and that it would rather deal with the matter.
I do not wish to deny that there is a problem here, not just for Bushmen, but for indigenous people in many parts of the world where development has fallen way behind that of Homo sapiens generally. But some sort of balance has to be struck to try to provide for their needs. The UN has produced a draft resolution on their rights, but we must consider the rights of women and children and of those Bushmen who maybe want to choose education and development. We must also consider the rights of the rest of the people in Botswana to prosper and to use their country's resources for the good of the whole county, which Botswana has tried to do ever since independence. It would be a tragedy if this vindictive campaign succeeded in derailing the progress of one of the few successful countries in Africa. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that Botswana can count on the support of this Government.
7.54 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |