Examination of witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
TUESDAY 28 APRIL 1998
MR J VEREKER,
MR R MANNING
and MR G STEGMANN
Mr Canavan
60. Are there any plans to use mixed credits
in any DFID programme or project?
(Mr Vereker) The White Paper indicates the circumstances
under which mixed credits might be contemplated. No such plans
are in hand at present.
61. The White Paper introduced the concept
of development partnerships with low-income countries. What progress
has been made in the establishment of such partnerships and with
what countries?
(Mr Vereker) Our concept of a partnership is not
a black and white one: it is not one in which there is either
a partnership or not a partnership. It is very much more in terms
of what kind of partnership we are building and how effective
it is going to be. The vehicle for building and defining the nature
of that partnership and indeed for displaying it to Parliament
will be the country strategy papers. In the process of discussing
country strategy papers with recipient governments we will be
talking to each one of them about the kind of partnership we are
going to have, how effective it is going to be, how open it is
going to be and the plans we are going to lay for it.
Mrs Kingham
62. In the White Paper it said we would
not have partnerships with unscrupulous regimes or regimes which
indulge in activities we could not support. Presumably the breaking
of a UN resolution would be the kind of activity we would frown
upon and therefore not want to engage in a partnership, that is
transferring funds bilaterally directly through that government.
I notice in here for example that Morocco last year received about
£351,000 of aid. Is that direct through the Moroccan Government
or is that through NGOs? If it is through the Moroccan Government,
they have been in contravention of a UN resolution because they
are still illegally occupying western Sahara. Would that not be
the kind of partnership we would frown upon?
(Mr Vereker) The general answer to the question
is that our Secretary of State would want to be cautious about
establishing too many criteria as a result of which there would
be no partnership, no aid. I would describe her general approach
as constructive rather than punitive, that is to say in these
difficult cases she would want to ask first how we can help overcome
whatever the problem is and build some kind of a dialogue and
some kind of a partnership which would be productive rather than
first to say they had done something wrong therefore they are
cut off without a penny. Of course there are one or two examples,
and I suppose Nigeria is the current most obvious example, where
it is very difficult indeed to build much of a partnership with
the government itself and where we will try to look for other
routes, other partners within the country. The case of Morocco
I have to confess I am not at all familiar with. I do not know
whether either of my colleagues can say whether this £300,000
is genuinely bilateral as it appears to be from the table. We
are going to have to check and see.
63. Could you? Would DFID not agree that
the invasion and illegal occupation of a country against international
law and UN resolutions is moving on to fairly extreme ground in
terms of whether we would set up a partnership with a country
or not?
(Mr Vereker) I think I am going to refrain from
commenting because I do not know enough about it.
64. May I request that you find out because
it has actually been around for 23 years?
(Mr Vereker) I am very reluctant to assert that
we cannot have any kind of programme in countries which are engaged
in territorial disputes or which have gone against UN resolutions.
I am cautious about that kind of generalisation. Perhaps we could
let you have a note about Morocco.
65. Yes and about the principle. I should
be quite interested in following that too. I understood that in
those kinds of circumstances we would work through NGOs. That
is what we were told by the Secretary of State and that is the
understanding I certainly had from the White Paper where there
was such major flouting of human rights and good practice. For
example, I sincerely hope we would not have worked directly with
Iraq when they invaded Kuwait and this is a parallel situation.
I should like more information.
(Mr Vereker) That is a good example. In countries
such as Iraq or Nigeria, where the record of governance in human
rights and the overall environment is such that it is extremely
difficult to build an effective partnership with the government
then we would look for other ways in which we could provide assistance
to vulnerable groups. We might work with civil society organisations,
we might work with local authorities, we would certainly try to
work with development partners and international institutions.
As a general principle that would be our approach. We will have
to let you have a note about Morocco.[10]
Mr Canavan
66. On page 79 there is a pie chart which
indicates that 80 per cent of DFID's funding for 1996-97 went
to low income countries. Is that definition of low income countries
the same as the definition of the least developed countries?
(Mr Manning) No, it is not. There are important
differences between the two. The least developed country definition,
for example, is based on certain criteria which exclude India,
China, Indonesia and a number of other large countries which do
fall into the low income bracket. We could easily let you have
a breakdown showing which proportion is going to the least developed.[11]
67. Could you also tell us what the criteria
are and how it is calculated or assessed whether a country falls
into that category of low income?
(Mr Manning) There are three criteria: one is
per capita income, one is literacy and one is degree of industrialisation.
Mr Grant
68. Is there a list of all these different
categorisations of country?
(Mr Manning) We can easily send one to the Committee.
69. Could you let us have that because it
is a big country?
(Mr Manning) It certainly is.
Ann Clwyd
70. I am looking at section 3 of the report
on page 7 where you talk about consistency of policies. You say,
"We shall ... Give particular attention to human rights,
transparent and accountable government and core labour standards,
building on the Government's ethical approach to international
relations". Then on page 13 you say, "Poverty elimination
depends on the promotion of sustainable livelihoods for poor people
... Poor people need a voice so that their interests are considered.
Sustainable livelihoods cannot be achieved without the realisation
of human rights—which include social and economic as well
as political and civil rights". I should like to ask you
in which countries DFID has altered or reduced its activity because
of human rights concerns?
(Mr Vereker) The answer that my Secretary of State
would give if she were here is in all of them because, as the
very first panel of all in our White Paper displays, the approach
of the new Government is very much to take a more comprehensive
definition of human rights to include the right to an adequate
standard of living. It is, in the jargon, a rights-based approach
to development. I think my Secretary of State would argue that
in every country now we are informed in our approach by our understanding
that among the human rights which we are there to protect, enhance,
develop, are these development rights, these rights to an adequate
standard of living. Obviously there is a hard edge to this as
well in that I could give you examples of countries where human
rights both more broadly and more narrowly defined have since
the election changed our approach. For instance, this approach
has led us into an enhanced support for human rights monitors
in Rwanda. One of the Secretary of State's first perceptions was,
again consistent with a constructive rather than a punitive approach
to human rights, that if there is a problem with observing human
rights post genocide in Rwanda, then let us increase the number
of human rights monitors.
71. Can we take somewhere where there is
a little more controversy at the moment over your policy? Indonesia,
China, Nigeria. Let us take Indonesia as an example. What is the
difference in the Government's approach to Indonesia as compared
to the previous administration? The Foreign Secretary has said,
supported by the Secretary of State for International Development,
that we will not sell arms to countries which might use them for
internal repression or external aggression. Clearly we are still
selling arms to Indonesia which are being used for internal repression.
(Mr Vereker) Our policy towards Indonesia has
changed. Our support for the Indonesian police ended last year
and this Government will not renew it. We are looking at ways
of targeting our programme more directly on assisting poor and
marginalised people in Indonesia and our future programme will
concentrate largely on forestry management, on Indonesian trade
unions and in helping NGO activities in East Timor. Indonesia
is a rather good example of ways in which the programme has substantially
changed.
72. Then why are the human rights campaigners
for Indonesia saying that the situation is worse than at any time
since 1970? There is no improvement in human rights and they call
for a shift of emphasis away from supporting efforts to bail out
the Suharto regime, acknowledging that the Indonesian economy,
where of course we have seen people getting poorer rather than
richer in Indonesia, will not improve while Suharto and his friends
remain in control. We have just gone along with the IMF bailout
for Indonesia. We had the Chancellor here the other week along
with your Secretary of State and they were supporting the bailout
for Indonesia whereas other people may argue that in fact in the
short term, if a bailout did not take place, then things might
get worse for the poor in Indonesia but in the long term they
will get better because Suharto would fall. I just cannot see
the consistency in policies which you claim.
(Mr Vereker) All I am arguing in answer to your
question about what has changed as a result of the new Government's
approach to human rights is that the nature of our programme in
Indonesia has substantially changed, as a result of the change
in government here, as a result of our Government's concern for
human rights in Indonesia. The wider questions surrounding Indonesia's
development, the financial crisis, you did discuss with the Chancellor
and my Secretary of State. We are bound to be concerned at the
possibility of a large increase in the number of poor people as
a result of the financial crisis and of course we are keeping
an eye on it.
73. I am putting it to you that rather than
claiming consistency in policies there is in fact an inconsistency
in policies across government departments. It is not possible
to claim that consistency when the situation in Indonesia, as
far as human rights is concerned, is said to be worse than at
any time since 1970.
(Mr Vereker) I hear what you say but I am not
sure that I would accept that there is any inconsistency in government
policy here. My Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary have
both made their concern about human rights in Indonesia very plain.
Mr Cook discussed his concern about human rights with Indonesian
Ministers, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, in August and Clare
Short's views on human rights in Indonesia are well known. I do
not believe there is any inconsistency in government policy here.
74. I suggest to you that those are just
warm words. If you look at the facts they do not bear out what
you say. I cannot see how you can claim this consistency when
the facts do not bear it out.
(Mr Vereker) The only fact I am claiming is that
our programme has changed. It has changed in the respects I have
identified. We are no longer supporting the police, we are targeting
the poor, we are worrying about the environment, we are helping
the trade unions, we are helping with East Timor. Those facts
are consistent with our concern for human rights in Indonesia.
75. How can you say you are helping the
trade unions? There is a ban on rallies, there is a ban on meetings,
any demonstration on the streets is actually met with the response
of water canons spraying toxic liquid on the people who demonstrate,
water cannons supplied by Britain. If you look at what is actually
happening in that country I put it to you again that it is not
possible to claim an improvement.
(Mr Vereker) The fact that deplorable things happen
in a country is surely a reason for taking a constructive approach
and trying to do something about it.
Mr Canavan: Provided
we are not making a deplorable situation worse.
Mrs Kingham
76. In those three countries which have
been mentioned, in Nigeria, Indonesia or China, are we working
through the governments in those countries? Is any of our development
aid money going via the governments or parastatal organisations
in Nigeria, Indonesia or China? I want to come back to this issue
about which governments we work with bilaterally and which ones
we do not. I know you said it is a movable feast in terms of keeping
doors open and negotiating to improve situations in countries
which may have impressive regimes but I understood from the White
Paper that we were making a very clear commitment that where there
was very obvious long-term evidence that the regime of a country
was repressive then we would not be working bilaterally.
(Mr Vereker) In the case of Nigeria we are working
through local civilian authorities, through civil society organisations
including NGOs and through community based groups. We are predominantly
working in social sectors, health, education and water and this
approach meets the criteria which are contained in the common
European Union position on Nigeria. Nigeria in this respect is
a bit of an outlier. I do not see the position in China as being
similar. We do have good relations with the Government of China.
There are of course concerns about human rights issues and in
September a senior member of my staff, together with a senior
diplomat, went to Beijing to talk to the Chinese administration
about human rights issues. Again, constructive engagements, areas
of possible cooperation so as to improve the situation rather
than the punitive approach. I myself went to China shortly afterwards
and had a similar discussion which also embraced the future of
the ATP scheme, bringing that to an end. We do have good relations
with the Chinese Government and we want to work with them as far
as possible. China contains 1.2 billion of the world's poor, some
such figure; a very, very large number. It would be irresponsible
on our part to walk away from that problem rather than try to
engage constructively with it. That is the view my Secretary of
State takes.
77. Can you answer about Indonesia, please,
but also on China, surely there are other ways of working rather
than directly through government. How much of our money is actually
going directly through the government structures and how much
is going to other civil society organisations or NGOs working
in the area?
(Mr Vereker) We are endeavouring to shift the
balance a little bit towards working directly in the poorer provinces
in China. The poorer provinces are the ones away from the coast.
That is quite difficult. They are difficult to get to, they are
difficult to understand, we do not have a lot of Chinese speakers,
all the usual problems. The shift will not be quick but that is
what we are endeavouring to do. The balance of the programme at
the moment does engage the Chinese administration. China is a
rather centralised government; it is unavoidable.
78. What about Indonesia?
(Mr Vereker) The question on Indonesia being?
79. How much of our aid budget on Indonesia
actually goes through government structures or do we only work
with independent NGOs in Indonesia?
(Mr Vereker) No, some of it would go with parastatal
organisations: the Forestry Department for instance.
10 See Evidence, pp. 24-25. Back
11
Note by witness: This information is not currently held
centrally in DFID. However, DFID is in the process of compiling
the information which will be made available as soon as the data
base is reasonably complete. Back
| 
