| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
EU Development Work
4. Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): If she will make a statement on progress in reforming the EU's development work. [123173]
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We have been working since 1997 to try to improve the very poor quality of EU development efforts, which take up one third of my budget. I welcome the commitment of the new European Commission to reform. A statement of overall EC development policy and an action plan to implement the reform process are now being negotiated, but the impact of the promised reform has yet to be felt on the ground and there is, as yet, no plan for implementation.
Mr. Savidge: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it true that over the past 10 years, the European Union has reduced spending on the poorest countries? If so, can that be explained or justified?
Clare Short: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right: 75 per cent. of EU aid went to the poorest countries in 1987, whereas the proportion is now 51 per cent. That cannot possibly be justified. It arises from a fractured decision-making structure and lots of gesture spending, whereby large amounts are announced--often without any analysis of how the money will be spent or how it will promote development--in response to the political concerns of the day. That leads to extremely poor
development assistance, as has been demonstrated by all the evaluations that we have requested. We have a well argued reform agenda, but there is a long way to go.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent): Does the Secretary of State agree that to those of us who are glad to be members of the EU and proud of much of what it has achieved, its total failure to manage its aid budget is an obstacle to our support? Will she commit herself to doing her best either to ensure that the EU has the resources to put in place the administration necessary for the swift disbursement of aid, or to repatriate a large proportion of the budget that we provide?
Clare Short: I completely agree that such failures bring the EU into disrepute. The Commission and member states together provide 60 per cent. of worldwide overseas development aid and comprise the world's biggest single donor. If Europe had a clear vision of how to promote development in the poorest countries, it could be a major force for good--more powerful than any individual European country could be, because it could gather critical mass and exploit the international reach of all the countries of Europe. However, the EU's current performance is not good enough. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are working hard on a reform agenda. Chris Patten said recently that if Europe cannot do better in the next few years, it should be less ambitious in what it asks member states to provide, perform well on that basis and then build up again. In that way, we might achieve a better quality effort.
Mozambique
5. Mr. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green): In which areas of Mozambique the main British aid effort is concentrated. [123174]
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working at national level to support Mozambique's impressive commitment to reform. We are supporting customs reform, health and education reform and providing budgetary aid. I am happy to tell the House that I have recently decided that Mozambique should have a further £40 million in budgetary aid. Our provincial focus is in Zambezia province, which is one of the poorest areas of Mozambique and was a major centre of fighting during the civil war. We are focusing there on de-mining, land reform, rural roads and micro-finance.
Mr. McCabe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that before the floods, Mozambique was almost a model in Africa for progress in its economy and efforts to heal the divisions following the brutal civil war? What progress is the country making in recovering from the devastating effect of the floods?
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right; Mozambique is a star. After years of war and bad economic management, it raised its economic growth to 9 per cent. a year. That is the kind of level that countries in Africa need to move the economy forward and reduce poverty. Mozambique is a country of desperate poverty, but with a very powerful commitment to reform and making great progress. The floods set it back, and this year's economic growth
will probably be 5 per cent.--but still positive. The expectation of all donors in the international financial institutions is that Mozambique will recover and get back on its path of growth and reform.
Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon): Will the Secretary of State confirm that her departmental report this year includes a cut of £24 million in spending on Mozambique over the next three years? Is that not a reflection of the fact that under Labour the British aid budget expressed as a percentage of gross national product has fallen from 0.27 per cent. in 1997 to 0.23 per cent. in 2000? Will she confirm that that is a clear breach of the manifesto commitment that she gave to increase the aid budget expressed as a percentage of GNP?
Clare Short: No, I cannot confirm that. The hon. Gentleman's questions confirm the fact that he has serious numeracy problems. There has been no cut in our aid programme. This year, there has been the biggest increase in aid spending in one year--an all-time record in the British aid programme. Because the OECD development administration committee in Paris counts in calendar rather than financial years, there is a technical flaw in the figures, as it says in its announcement. The hon. Gentleman needs to go back to school for some arithmetic lessons.
Mr. Streeter: The Secretary of State's excuses simply will not do. She used to attack us on the basis of the GNP figures, and she must accept those figures herself. She cannot confirm my points--though she is wrong--so will she confirm that she is presiding over the lowest GNP spend on aid for 30 years? Will she confirm that for the first time in a decade, despite all her spin and hype, the British aid spend is less than the average of OECD countries? Will she confirm that even according to her Department's figures, the average GNP spend on aid over this Parliament will be less than that over the previous Parliament? She said that under Labour, GNP spend would go up; it has gone down. Is it any wonder that the British people are beginning to reject this Labour Government?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman has got serious problems with any attachment to accuracy and truth. It is the job of Oppositions to oppose, but it is also their job to accept facts as facts. I have just told the hon. Gentleman that, after years and years under the Government of whom he was a member--in a junior capacity, admittedly--there was decline and decline in Britain's aid budget. That has been reversed. This year there is the largest ever increase in a single year. There is a technical measure in the OECD development administration committee's announcement, but it adds that that is a technical measure, and that Britain's programme is going up. So, no: the hon. Gentleman is wrong, wrong, wrong, not attached to the truth, and has real numeracy problems.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): Does not the Government's record on aid to Mozambique underline their policy of helping countries that show positive signs, as Mozambique has done since the end of its civil war? The fact that so much has been done to overcome the disastrous floods shows that the Government have
responded in a positive way. Does not Mozambique send out a positive signal to Angola, on the other side of Africa, about what could happen if it got over its civil war and went forward in a positive way?
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Important studies have recently been conducted on where aid is effective. It is effective where there are reformers, and big resource transfers come behind them to leverage and speed up economic reform, and then reform in education and health care. We are moving away from the gesture spending of the European Commission and the previous Government and towards backing reformers. That says to any country that if it goes down that road we will be behind it, and it can have fast economic growth and improved social programmes. We are beginning to get reformers setting good examples for others. [Interruption.]
Zimbabwe
6. Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): If she will make a statement on aid to Zimbabwe. [123175]
7. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): If she will make a statement on her Department's activities in Zimbabwe. [123176]
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I apologise for being slow in responding to these questions, Madam Speaker, but I could not hear for all the noise.
Our country strategy paper for Zimbabwe was published in April 1999. It outlines the case for economic reform and land redistribution in order to improve the life opportunities of poor Zimbabweans, and makes clear our willingness to provide resources of up to £36 million for that purpose. Unfortunately, there has been no such reform and the economic and political situation, as everybody knows, has deteriorated very badly indeed. Our programme is therefore limited and focused on HIV-AIDS, water and rural livelihoods. Our spending is £12 million. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. It is very noisy. No wonder the Secretary of State cannot hear, and neither can I. The House is so noisy that I could not even hear whether she is taking Questions 6 and 7 together. I understand that she is. Let us have a little less noise.
Mr. Leigh: With a country such as Zimbabwe, whose economy has been so ruined by corruption and cronyism, is not the lever of British aid a significant one? Has sufficient weight been applied to that lever, or is the truth that, with their policy of appeasement of the dictator Mugabe, the Secretary of State and her colleague are the Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax of the situation? They are dithering while our passport holders are being ethnically cleansed, humiliated and driven from the country.
Clare Short: President Mugabe has made it clear, repeatedly and on the record, that he had a much more friendly relationship with the previous Government than with the current Government, and found them much more helpful. There has been no appeasement by the
Government. The situation in Zimbabwe is an absolute tragedy. The economy is shrinking, inflation is at 80 per cent. and there is political thuggery, killing and intimidation to prevent people from standing for election. We have not appeased Zimbabwe in any way. The House, the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members should not do exactly what Mugabe wants, which would allow him to go back to his heyday and pretend that he was fighting the defenders of the white regime in Zimbabwe. That is what he wants, because he is in so much difficulty with his people. We should stand up for what is right and let the people of Zimbabwe control their future.
Mr. Robathan: The right hon. Lady will know that I support her projects for fighting AIDS and HIV, and the water purification projects, but although she has referred to the dreadful Government-inspired campaign of intimidation, violence and murder, she has not mentioned the fact that the Mugabe Government are spending millions each week on a war in Congo that is all about lining the pockets of Mugabe and his cronies. Does she accept that the people of Zimbabwe will perceive our aid programme as support of the Government, even though that perception may be wrong? Would it not be better to stop all our aid programme until this dreadful man is thrown out of office?
Clare Short: I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman says, except his underestimation of the intelligence of the people of Zimbabwe. Their President has told them clearly what he thinks of the UK Government and their view of his policies. For us to withdraw from programmes that are trying to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS--in a country where one in four of the adult population has the infection--would do nothing to hurt President Mugabe. We have that problem in many other badly governed countries. To withdraw completely would not help those who are being oppressed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of what is taking place in Zimbabwe, but to withdraw from preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS and the provision of water and sanitation to very poor people would not hurt President Mugabe.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |