| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir George Young: I know that the Minister is being as helpful as he can. Having made inquiries on what county councils charge, what does he regard as a reasonable charge? Would legislation to deal with the issue necessarily be retrospective? If the residents of Newtown common decide not to pay the 6 per cent.--or whatever the fee is--but to sit tight, and if legislation is introduced in due course that gives people rights on common land, there will be no need for the retrospective element that the Minister deplores.
Mr. Mullin: I cannot say off the top of my head what I regard as a reasonable charge. There are other examples. We have referred to a couple of them. The right hon. Gentleman can look at them and see for himself what is considered elsewhere to be a reasonable charge. I shall consider his points about getting round the retrospection, but I cannot give any commitment today.
As matters stand, I regret that I cannot see a way in which the Government could assist the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, but I am willing to meet him to discuss the matter further if he thinks that that would be useful.
Sir George Young:
The Minister said that the behaviour of Bakewell, although legal, was difficult to defend morally. If a private Member's Bill got round the problem, would he be minded to support it?
Mr. Mullin:
The right hon. Gentleman has occupied various posts in the Department that I now have the honour to represent. Because he is so much more experienced than I am, he will realise that he is pushing his luck by asking me to say on the spot that I shall support such legislation. The Government are clear on that. We cannot give a commitment on legislation. However, I assure him that we shall look carefully at any sensible proposals that anyone, particularly the right hon. Gentleman, comes up with.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.
For the borough constituency of Kensington and Chelsea, in the room of the right hon. Alan Kenneth McKenzie Clark, deceased.--[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
1. Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie):
What assessment she has made of the likely impact of the new challenge fund on the activities of development organisations concerned with supporting her reproductive health policy. [95580]
7. Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold):
For what reason funding for family planning and reproductive health in the civil society challenge fund has been reduced to 50 per cent. matched funding. [95586]
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short):
Our new civil society challenge fund is designed to engage a wide range of organisations in the UK in the development of a strong civil society, speaking up for the poor in developing countries. This replaces the old joint funding scheme which predominately financed service delivery by development non-governmental organisations. Our health programme is a more effective instrument for building countrywide access to reproductive health care and NGOs are frequently involved in this work. To help reproductive health care organisations adjust to the new arrangements, I have decided to phase in this change by offering 85 per cent. funding for year 1 of the new fund and 70 per cent. for year 2, reaching 50 per cent. in year 3.
Mr. Worthington:
I welcome the decision by my right hon. Friend to phase in the changes. She will be well aware that organisations such as Marie Stopes International and Population Concern received 100 per cent. funding because of the sheer difficulty of raising funds for matters such as the sexual education of the young. Will my right hon. Friend keep an eye on this matter--I know of her commitment to it--so that we ensure that we meet our Cairo targets and that the work increases in the coming years?
Clare Short: The Department tried to find out why those NGOs were given 100 per cent. funding, unlike everyone else. To be honest, we could not get to the root of it, although what my hon. Friend has mentioned is alleged to be the reason. I am pleased to phase in the change, but my hon. Friend may like to know that we have doubled our commitment to £80 million, and that lots of NGOs are involved. The old joint funding scheme was worth £3 million. This is not the only route to giving people access to control over their fertility, and NGOs are involved in the much larger-scale work that we do.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the NGOs involved in reproductive and sexual health are regarded as among the best in the world? There is a fear among them that, if the matched funding is reduced from 100 to 85 per cent. in year 1, and then to
Ms Chris McCafferty (Calder Valley):
I commend my right hon. Friend for her recognition that access to sexual and reproductive health services plays such an important part in the promotion of sustainable development and the elimination of poverty. Does she agree that, if all donor countries met their United Nations targets, 150 million people who want access to family planning would have it? The United Kingdom Government are paying more than their dues in this respect, and I commend her for that.
I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for recognising the difficulty that UK NGOs working on sexual and reproductive health have in raising funds. Will she do what she can to encourage British companies and foundations to support and make a fuller contribution to those NGOs, which do such a good job in raising awareness of the issues and providing services to people both here and in developing countries?
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are committed to a human rights-based approach to development. All human beings, without exception, should have the chance to control their fertility, to have healthy children, to have those children educated and to see their families become better off. This work is part of giving people that freedom and improvement in their quality of life. I promise that we will continue to work with NGOs that are committed to those objectives.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Further to what the Secretary of State has just told the House, can she confirm that her Department funds no birth control policies abroad that would be unacceptable in the United Kingdom?
Clare Short: I can absolutely confirm that. The Cairo principles represented a great breakthrough after all the argument in the international system about population control by compulsion and the bad example that was set in the past in India and China. The great achievement of Cairo was to establish that there should be freedom of choice with no compulsion or pressure on people. We work absolutely according to those principles. There is much misreporting of our around £17 million a year support to the United Nations Population Fund, which is working in China to get away from compulsion and towards freedom of choice. We strongly support that.
2. Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney):
What progress has been made in securing international agreement on debt relief for poorer countries. [95581]
4. Mr. Ivan Lewis (Bury, South):
If she will make a statement on debt relief following the World bank-International Monetary Fund annual meetings in Washington. [95583]
6. Mr. Alan W. Williams (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr):
If she will make a statement on progress made by the World bank and the International Monetary Fund on relieving third world debt. [95585]
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short):
Agreement on a substantial revision to the heavily indebted poor countries initiative was reached at the annual meetings of the World bank and the IMF at the end of September. The new framework will deliver deeper debt relief and provide it more quickly and to more countries. The debt relief will be strongly focused on supporting poverty reduction strategies. A comprehensive financial package is still being worked out.
I made an additional pledge in Washington of $50 million towards the costs, helping to leverage further pledges from other countries and bringing the UK's total commitment to $221 million, or approximately £135 million. We are pressing the European Commission to firm up its proposals to a contribution of at least 1 billion euro. If that is agreed, the UK contribution to the trust fund will rise to $400 million.
Mr. Blizzard:
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and congratulate her on her work in achieving that historic agreement, which shows that the Government are leading the world. Does she agree that, alongside the debt reduction initiative, in the new World Trade Organisation round starting in Seattle this month, it will be important for the agenda to include international development targets so that poorer countries benefit from world trade agreements? Will she ensure that the Government's negotiating position includes that commitment?
Clare Short: At the World bank annual meeting, we made a commitment to supporting developing countries in advancing their trading rights and therefore their economic position in the next trade round. The Government have made a strong commitment to work for a trade round that brings real benefits to developing countries. It is both morally right and will give us a more stable global economy if the poorest countries can speed up their economic growth and the reduction of poverty.
Mr. Lewis:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the agreement that she and others have brokered is something of which Labour Members can be incredibly proud? It differentiates us from the Conservative party, which was unable to broker such agreements in government. It demonstrates how, if Britain is once again respected in the world, it can make a real difference in working for
Mr. Williams:
I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor and the Jubilee 2000 campaign on their excellent work over the past few years and especially this summer. Will the money come from the Department for International Development budget or from the Treasury, and what are the annual recurrent costs? I am delighted that the agreements have been reached, but how will we pay for them?
Clare Short: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, because the funding package that we need to implement Cologne is not firmly in place. We must firm up the EU pledge, and the pledge made by the United States of America has not yet been supported by Congress. The US Administration are working hard to get that support, but, if they fail, the HIPC trust fund will be in difficulty. The funding comes partly from the IMF, partly from the World bank and partly from export credit departments, but we need a trust fund to make up the difference that cannot come from those pockets. Our contributions to that trust fund come mostly from my Department's budget, although the Treasury and my Department will share the cost of the additional commitments made in Washington. Debt relief must help the poor, because otherwise it would mean that aid money was taken away from equally poor countries without large debts--and that would not be fair.
Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon):
The Secretary of State will know that the Opposition support much of the progress made in the past 12 months on debt relief, building on the success of the Conservative years. Given that US Treasury officials have now confirmed that President Clinton's initiative of 100 per cent. bilateral debt write-off for the world's poorest countries will include debts that arose after the cut-off date in each case, will the Secretary of State clarify whether the Government's write-off will also include post-cut-off-date debt--yes or no?
Clare Short: Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman that President Clinton--who is the master of spin--has not yet been able to persuade Congress fully to fund the USA's commitment. He said that his Government will consider going beyond the 90 per cent. debt write-off--at least for all export credit debt, which is part of the new package--to 100 per cent., case by case, if the countries involved are focused on poverty reduction. We hope that
Mr. Streeter:
I am sorry, but that simply will not do. The Secretary of State is keen to take the credit for some of the breakthroughs, but she is not prepared to take the responsibility. If the US Government matches the 100 per cent. write-off that President Clinton has spoken about, will the Government match it--yes or no? The Secretary of State has already answered that question because she has written to every Labour Member, saying that the Government will match President Clinton's offer. She even included a model press release for Members to send to her constituents setting out the good news even further. Labour's internal document claims that Labour leads on debt relief and that the Government have agreed to a write-off of 100 per cent. of UK loans. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will match President Clinton's offer? If they will not, is not that another case of Labour saying one thing and doing another?
Clare Short: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman shows that his grasp of the issues is about the same as that of Miss Ann Pettifor. Given her political background, one might say that the two make strange bed fellows.
The question is interesting, but it is not the most important. The most important achievement made at Cologne, and then in Washington, is that debt relief is now faster and deeper, and is focused on a leveraging policy that systematically reduces poverty. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is something of a side show, given that the funding and agreement to implement what was agreed at Cologne have not yet been secured. President Clinton has not yet got the funding to meet his contribution to the HIPC trust fund. We hope that he will get that additional money.
As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman should take the matter up with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that the most important consideration for the poor is to implement the package that we have got.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet):
I welcome the initiatives that the Government have taken, which follow on from those taken by the previous Conservative Government. However, does the Secretary of State agree that one of the problems is that the programme has moved too slowly? So far, only four of the 36 qualifying countries have received debt reductions. That is the result of what many people consider to be unrealistically stringent economic conditions imposed by the
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |