| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I have three brief questions for the noble Lord on the report. First, is the noble Lord aware there is a factual error in the report? Paragraph 9 states that the House has established a "Constitutional Affairs Committee". It has not; it has created a Constitution Committee. The House of Commons has created a Constitutional Affairs Committee and it is important that the two are not confused.
Secondly, does the noble Lord agree that the report constitutes something of a lost opportunity? It appears far more concerned with means than with ends. The report concludes by saying that for a committee to be established,
What are the criteria that will determine whether a case is compelling?
Thirdly, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I appreciate why Paragraph 8 is included: it deprecates the submission of long lists of Peers in support of establishing a new committee. Would it not be a good idea to make clear that, in future, adding one's name to such a list will demonstrate a willingness to serve on such a committee? Would that not help to solve some of the problems identified in the report?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I must admit I had thought that most of the House would be grateful that the Liaison Committee had agreed to set up a committee on the BBC Charter. Nevertheless, I know one cannot please a lot of people all the time. On the question of the timing of the committee, it is not just a matter of resources, although the work involved in establishing a committee—issuing a call for evidence and acknowledging written evidence received—should not be under-estimated. The Liaison Committee did consider this extremely carefully and we were keen to ensure that the inquiry was focused and did not duplicate existing work. Therefore, a call for evidence which was issued before the Green Paper was published might not address key areas or might ask for information that was not, in the event, particularly relevant.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, acknowledged that I have been in correspondence with him. He asked what would happen if the committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill went on longer than was predicted at the moment. I did say in my letter that, should it become apparent that that committee would not finish when it was expected to, then the Liaison Committee would indeed revisit the question of resources for the committee on the BBC Charter to enable it to make a timely report. I really do not think that I can go any further at this stage. I would have thought that that would satisfy the House. The noble Lord also referred to Paragraph 9 of the report on the question of new committees, as did the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. The committee did look carefully at this proposal. If one looks at Paragraph 9, one sees the enormous expansion of committee activity that has taken place in only a few years. We had a
9 Jun 2004 : Column 276
Committee Office staff of 29 in 2000, and four years later it has almost doubled to 46. That is just an indication of the increase in activity.
I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in that we have named one of the committees wrongly. Nevertheless, it is a very important committee and involves not only staff but also Peer resources. They are not always easy to find. I am sure everybody who wants a committee would say, "Oh, we can easily find people to serve on these committees," but judging by my discussions with the usual channels I am not sure that it is necessarily always that easy. That was the considered conclusion of the Liaison Committee. The Liaison Committee is set-up by this House to deal with exactly that kind of thing and I hope the House will therefore approve its report.
A criticism was made by the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Norton of Louth—and, I believe somebody else as well—of Paragraph 8 of the report which is a very restrained criticism of the practice of collecting signatures. Of course we cannot stop people collecting signatures—people can go round collecting as many signatures as they like. Personally I tend to sign anything which is put in front of me in order to make people go away. I am sure a lot of noble Lords would do exactly the same.
If people wish to put up a proposal for a Select Committee, what I hope we would achieve on those occasions is a carefully considered letter from the proposer of that committee, signed by perhaps one representative from all sides of the House—perhaps four or five signatures on it in all. Then it would be up to the Liaison Committee to decide whether to agree to this committee. The proponents of the committee would, of course, be invited to come in and make their case before the Liaison Committee. That is, I think, the best way of doing it.
I have never been in the House of Commons, unlike the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Fowler, so I have never taken part in EDMs. However, if one looks at some of the EDMs that take place in the House of Commons, one does slightly question whether we want to go down that particular route. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the report of this committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Department for International Development
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to call attention to international development and the departmental report 2004 of the Department for International Development; and to move for papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful that we are holding this debate today on international development and on the 2004 report of the DfID. I am particularly grateful to all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. I am delighted we can for a few moments focus on these crucial development issues. I welcome the departmental report 2004, and commend it to those seeking to understand the UK's
9 Jun 2004 : Column 277
very sound development record over many years—and not just the last seven. For almost eight years, I have battled away to get greater resources for development because I have always believed that developed nations are nations that work at peace with their neighbours and with all their contacts. Today I can congratulate the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, and the right honourable Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, on the dramatic increase in resources—a 93 per cent improvement from when I left office.
However, with additional resources come additional responsibilities. It is on that aspect that I want to concentrate, rather than picking out parts of the report—which reads well as a whole, but probably less well if I try to paraphrase it.
By 2005–06, we shall have a total UK aid budget of £4.5 billion, of which £833 million will be allocated as our contribution to the European Union Development Programme. That means that more emphasis will be needed to ensure that the EU development budget is better spent and properly accounted for, both in decision making in Brussels and through the offices of the European Union in developing countries. If we are to get the best value for money from every pound available for the developing world, we must look outwards at what our agents are doing with our taxpayers' money.
Inevitably, there are gaps in such a major departmental report. Not everything can be written down. I shall concentrate on what is probably a lack of emphasis—rather than a lack of action—on the co-ordination between donors in the field and on capacity building and institution building in the countries that we seek to assist. They are important aspects of the way in which we spend money to which we do not always give sufficient attention. In other words, we should place more emphasis on the contributions that are made, particularly those that private sector partners can make to development. All those themes are interconnected, and I believe that they are fundamental to successful and sustainable international development.
I shall declare my personal interests. My work for Africa continues through the World Bank and through my company, Africa Matters Ltd, which seeks to bring business and governments together through investment in Africa. In the wider world, my directorships bring me into close contact with developments throughout all continents.
My commitments in business have also allowed me to seek assistance for development through corporate social responsibility programmes and through skill exchanges to improve the delivery of the moneys that are available to the developing world. I am glad that the DfID report focuses, rightly, on the eight millennium development goals, with their 18 targets. It is a small section of the whole, but it is well worth taking to heart. If we could make them work, we would be a long way down the track to bringing peace and stability to the developing world.
9 Jun 2004 : Column 278
I am not sure, however, whether the report addresses how we achieve the millennium development goals. It goes without saying that the developed world must help to reduce the appalling levels of poverty and deal with the lack and inadequacy of education and improve access to safe drinking water and healthcare, but they are also a central mission for every nation. They are not tasks for governments alone; they are responsibilities best delivered by partnership, as the report rightly points out. There is no doubt in my mind that achieving the millennium development goals depends on better donor co-ordination and the pooling of resources through all types of partnership. That is where there is much more work to be done. It is not just a question of spending; it is a question of sharing know-how across the board, if we are to meet the needs of countries in the developing world.
The reality is that, in 2005—the first milestone for the millennium development goals—the vast majority of developing countries will not be on track to achieve those goals. Worse still, a few countries will, effectively, have gone into reverse. That is a situation that we are bound to address. I know that the international finance facility that the UK Government are bringing forward is there to help front-load—to use the jargon—the aid that is available to stimulate governments to work towards meeting the millennium development goals. However, for any real chance of success through the initiative and of further success in debt reduction, we must see faster practical action and better donor co-ordination in-country. Such matters are probably a little small for the G8 nations to address at the present time, but those of us who work in the G8 nations must make sure that such measures are delivered.
The Government's leadership in reducing EU agricultural subsidies and removing trade barriers must also step up a gear, as does training for developing countries in putting their case in the successor Doha round. I hope that the Minister will comment in particular on trade access, the removal of trade barriers and the reduction of subsidies.
International development is best delivered by seizing opportunities for genuine partnerships. It is about capacity building at every level. However, without genuine national and local commitment to the programmes in the developing world and without ownership of the implementation plans, our external assistance will not help as well as it can or should. I know that some in the House may express concern about the size of donor support these days. The amounts given are very important, but the way in which the money is spent and the programmes delivered is even more important. That is why I have always concentrated on trying to give value for money: it is as valuable for the recipient as it is for the donor country.
Too often, the detailed "how" is not well enough understood by those implementing programmes, let alone being agreed with the government concerned. That holds back the maximum value for money. In some countries, we face too much donor competition. That is something that we should tackle together with the recipient countries. Although I welcome the increase in aid from developed to developing nations, I am concerned that the lack of co-ordination is leading to
9 Jun 2004 : Column 279
duplication. That does not mean best value for money. Value for money cannot be achieved without thorough capacity building. Budgetary support, which is the way in which we give much of our aid these days, is valid only when it has attached to it the capacity building that means that the money is used efficiently.
A lack of sufficient skilled people in management in government institutions, especially in spending departments, is seriously hindering sustainable growth in many developing countries. One way to tackle that is mentoring. Many private sector companies are prepared to do such mentoring, if only we could get our mind round that sort of partnership. The overseas development fellowship scheme, which has run for over 40 years, gives young postgraduate economists the opportunity to work in the public sector in developing countries in the Commonwealth. The scheme was recently extended to Rwanda, where the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning benefited greatly from it. There are similar schemes in other countries. Local empowerment can also be helped directly by the private sector. In post-conflict Sierra Leone, de Beers has helped the Government Gold and Diamond Office of the Ministry of Mineral Resources and assisted the Government there generally to raise their ability to assess their exports accurately.
Capacity building is also needed for entrepreneurship, to help to build to a thriving private sector, particularly small micro and medium enterprises, some of which are now getting support from the corporate sector. In Ghana, Unilever has set up the Foundation for Education and Development. That foundation provides business education for local entrepreneurs. To date, 75 small-scale entrepreneurs have benefited from the workshops run by the foundation. Sharing training, particularly training in science and technology, can help to stimulate local industries to become suppliers to main investors. Active investment in a factory or an agricultural production process produces real multipliers. Often, for every person employed, a family of 10 is supported. That money then feeds back into the local economy.
Just as, in the developed world, private sector development leads to the emergence of a professional middle class, that, in turn, brings benefits to society in the developing world and can help to reduce the risks of autocracy. That is why I call on DfID to support real partnerships between recipient government countries and the corporate world, so that the private sector can play its part to strengthen those governments and to become a real engine of growth in the countries concerned.
In South Africa one of my own NGOs, the British Executive Service Overseas, has been instrumental in helping to set up a social impact programme called SIPSA which particularly assists SME development. That is an example of how a well co-ordinated partnership of business and NGOs with government can raise funds from both the public and private sectors, and bring forward the technical skills that are so often missing and the management expertise that can make all the difference.
9 Jun 2004 : Column 280
It is often said of Africa that it is a continent led by personalities. We know leadership is vital, but the structures for a fully functioning and stable democracy need to be put in place too, and people trained to work in them, so that those institutions endure and the country is not at the mercy of those in power at any given time. Only in this way will future generations benefit from socio-economic development. That is why I hope the Government will do more to build sound institutions to help win the many fights faced in the developing world, particularly the fight against corruption, which remains a major constraint to nation-building and business development—there is simply no point in investing in a country where corruption is rife.
Good governance is an absolute must, and I hope DfID will continue to place emphasis on transparency and accountability, but also give more practical training to help governments to make their anti-corruption policies work effectively. In Kenya President Kibaki is going to great lengths to reform their judicial system, and his anti-corruption commission is becoming successful in promoting better governance and removing officials who abuse power. In Ghana President Kufuor has worked significantly to reduce the extent of the corruption that he inherited over three years ago. All these efforts are only the beginning. There is so much more to be done.
I place on record my thanks to all those businesses helping in the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Their role is vital and cannot be underestimated.
The developing world has a great human and business potential too often overlooked by the developed world. I will not dwell on the size of markets or the great potential for investment—it is all there for anybody to read. Suffice to say that good returns on investment in Africa, as well as in Asia and Latin America, mean that no business should refuse to investigate the growth potential. Investment climates are becoming more stable and secure, even if there are still a few well documented places to hold back on just now. Above all, greater access to the world's markets and to business partnerships will accelerate the positive trend. More governments are showing belief in the developing world, so that it may be enabled to play a greater part in world economic growth. I beg to move for Papers.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |