Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 175)
TUESDAY 9 MAY 2000
SIR JOHN
VEREKER, MR
BARRIE IRETON
AND MR
PETER FREEMAN
Mr Worthington
160. Can you take us through your thinking about
how you decide to increase the expenditure on some countries rather
than others? We have the figures here that DFID's programme in
Rwanda is going up very considerably and I assume that reflects
the better domestic circumstances in Rwanda. Do you attract criticism
sometimes when you seem to be cutting expenditure to Mozambique
recently or Angola? Is it just simply an evaluation of what is
going on in the country and that it is a waste of time spending,
particularly, development aid — you keep going with humanitarian
aid — in a circumstance where the Government is incompetent
or the political situation is so volatile? What have been the
difficult decisions you have had to make in this area?
(Sir John Vereker) It is difficult to generalise about
what causes some of these things. In some ways it is easier to
look at individual countries. In the case of Rwanda, for instance,
the figures reflect the ever increasing intensity of our relationship
with Rwanda, an ever increasing confidence that they are doing
the right thing, and an ever increasing importance to be attached
to getting stability at the heart of the Great Lakes. It is a
reflection of that fact, that my Secretary of State is in Kigali
as we speak. Some of the allocations that have gone in the other
direction reflect, to our sorrow, worse performance, as in the
case of one or two countries, or could easily reflect lower need,
as in the case of Mozambique, where I know the world was puzzled
that it appeared that we were allocating less money to a country
which was suffering a natural disaster. I am sorry that the world
was puzzled, but it reflects our determination to be transparent
in our allocations. The truth is that we concluded, with no disagreement
from the Government of Mozambique, that their budget did not need
the resources that we were otherwise planning. I know that the
Committee has been to Mozambique and knows this and would not
want us to put resources where they were not needed. I will be
happy to try and help you with any particular ones that you or
your colleagues find puzzling.
161. The part that interested me is that you
have, rightly, this poverty focus, and if you look at the poorest
countries in the world, they are overwhelmingly affected by past
or present conflict. They have wars going on. Is there not a dilution
of the poverty focus almost inevitably by the fact that you cannot
get to the poor people in those countries because of the government
or lack of government that there is there?
(Sir John Vereker) Yes, as is tragically illustrated
in the case of Sierra Leone today. That is absolutely right. It
is that analysis which draws us ever more closely into looking
at the conflict issues. It would be an answer if there was a budget
that DFID, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the
Treasury shared, so that we did not spend precious hours deciding
who was going to pay for something, although I think Whitehall
is getting better at that in the case of Sierra Leone. I do think
that that is absolutely right, and I should say to the Committee
that the analysis draws us into activities which are higher risk.
You must expect, I think, that if we make investment in trying
to prevent conflict happening, if we fund a disarmament programme,
it is not always going to work.
Mr Worthington: I have been to Sierra
Leone and I am full of praise for the adventurousness of your
programme there. Things are looking bad today, but it could look
better again tomorrow, and we are well placed to go ahead.
Mr Khabra
162. Can I ask about Pakistan? Since 1997 it
has been sensibly decreased and now it has come to a very low
point for the next two years. Can you elaborate the reasons for
that? I know that a particular reason is the recent political
situation in Pakistan, but prior to this the budget has been decreasing
year by year. Why did the Department actually take a decision
to decrease it year by year?
(Sir John Vereker) What we had been planning was £28
million a year for Pakistan before the military coup. I am not
aware that we have been planning a significant reduction in real
terms, and it certainly did not reflect the kind of increase that
we were able to plan in other countries. Again, leaving aside
the military coup, I think our concerns in Pakistan were quite
simply the difficulty of doing useful things there. Whether governments
were civilian or military, Pakistan has suffered, for a very long
period with governments who have not been as committed as we would
want them to be. Since the military coup we offered bilateral
support through non-government channels at the rate of £10
million a year. We have the rest of our frozen programme under
regular review.
Chairman: Let us hope they can get that
right. Can we move to Barbara Follett to discuss the aid for Zimbabwe?
Barbara Follett
163. The Foreign Secretary has set out aid to
Zimbabwe. He suggested that £36 million, representing the
difference between the high and low case scenarios from 2000 to
2002, would be available to Zimbabwe, "if it was willing
to behave reasonably." What discussions have there been between
the Department and the Foreign Office on aid to Zimbabwe, and
what action would be required by Zimbabwe to make it eligible
for £36 million in the high case scenario?
(Sir John Vereker) The discussions between the two
departments have been intense and daily for the last several weeks,
and there is no difference between us and our Foreign Office colleagues
in our concern for what is going on in Zimbabwe and our determination,
frankly, not to put money into a failing economy. The £36
million to which you referred is the difference between the low
scenario figures of 12 this year and 10 next, and the high scenario
figure of 28 this year and 30 next, which are annexed to our country
strategy papers. Zimbabwe can have another 16 this year and 20
next year if they get back on track. What do we mean by that?
We made it clear that the criteria for moving to the high scenario
figures in this paper relate to embarking upon an economic programme
that is going to help poor people and relate to improvement in
the quality of government and the running of a free and fair election.
I am bound to say that the paper also makes it clear that if the
Government fails to address the political crisis and fails to
run the country in a sensible way and runs a more directive economic
policy, they will stay on the low case scenario. I should make
it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that this £36 million
is available for support for the long-term development of Zimbabwe
in all sectors, including, but not confined to, land reform. So
a part of that will be available for land reform, but this is
not £36 million for land.
164. DFID has reportedly frozen £8.4 million
to supply Land Rovers to the Zimbabwean police. Was that accounted
for in the planning figure for Zimbabwe?
(Sir John Vereker) The Secretary of State has announced
the suspension of the grant agreement which supports the ATP project
for the Land Rovers, so it is outside these figures.
Chairman
165. Is it an old ATP project?
(Sir John Vereker) It is an old ATP project. We consulted
ministers at the time of the change of government and they agreed
that existing ATP projects would be allowed to run on, but there
were unlikely to be any new ones. But there is provision in the
grant agreement to suspend in the event of the conditions being
broken, and one of the conditions was that they act in accordance
with the Charter, and the Secretary of State ruled that they were
not.
166. I notice from your Zimbabwe country paper,
which I see you have in front of you, and which I have read, that
a large amount of your aid is actually being put through government
agencies and/or local government agencies and, therefore, has
to be categorised as being given to the government, yet you see
a residual programme of still quite a considerable sum of money.
Is this because you are going to continue giving government and
local government money to carry out programmes which you briefly
continued? Could that not be described as supporting the current
Zimbabwean Government?
(Sir John Vereker) The Secretary of State has said
that she will keep this under review and she will apply them where
she believes that these activities will generally benefit poor
Zimbabweans.
167. There is a lot of education and health
in that programme which I can see being continued with. Is it
not going to support what can only be described before long, if
not now, as an illegitimate government?
(Mr Ireton) Chairman, I could give you a flavour of
the sort of things we are supporting. We have committed, in recent
times, about £25 million to sexual health programmes. As
you know, HIV and AIDS is a most serious issue facing Zimbabwe,
notwithstanding the present crisis. We feel this is a very important
issue and we should continue support, including modest amounts
for social marketing of condoms. We are also working in the field
of empowerment of farm worker communities, explaining, through
NGOs, the changes in laws on inheritance. Women's civic education
has £1 million. We have a substantial commitment to the Rural
District Council Development Programme, and we tried to build
up the capacity in local level to help poor people. We have over
£10 million committed to that and a number of other things
in relation to helping the poor. We also have a programme currently
to do with agricultural services and management, focussing again
on poor rural people, and a number of other minor things to do
with credit and so forth, and those are issues that our Secretary
of State, so far, has felt that we should continue with. We have
suspended the Land Rover project. We have been assisting the police
in Zimbabwe and that is now being confined to a little amount
of work in the human rights and community policing area, but other
support has been curtailed and the Land Rover contract has been
suspended.
168. I hope you will continue to offer help.
I understand that Sir John was referring to holding a free and
fair election. As I think we are all aware, the voters' register
is well and truly out of date and capable of being seriously manipulated
if not brought up to date and I hope you will be willing to continue
to support the bringing up to date of that electoral register.
(Sir John Vereker) We have talked about this to our
Foreign Office colleagues and they have a budget which is appropriate
for this kind of thing. It is very likely that they will want
to be active in this area. I think for us there will be a decision
as to whether to take a more strategic approach to these elections,
given that there are some reservations at the moment about the
ability of anybody to ensure that they are free and fair. This
is a continuing discussion.
Chairman: Yes, I think it needs very
serious consideration.
Mr Worthington
169. Can I ask you a separate question about
the Challenge Fund? Last year you switched some groups from joint
funding to challenge funding and this had an impact on reproductive
health organisation. NGOs, instead of having 100 per cent funding,
were going to be switched to a joint funding base and the Secretary
of State changed that and did a phasing in. Have you had a chance
to evaluate how that was working? Here is a priority, reproductive
health, cutting maternal mortality and so on, and the Government
is going to provide less money and the public have to provide
more. What is your evaluation of how that is working?
(Sir John Vereker) The short answer, Mr Worthington,
is that we do not have an evaluation yet. Of course, in the year
2000-2001 we are still providing up to 85 per cent. We are only
a few weeks into a year in which only 15 per cent has to be raised.
Our Secretary of State is rather determined that this move does
take place and she has been content to make the phasing in up
to 2002-2003, but I will be surprised if she will want to revisit
it. However, of course, the Department will be very happy to hear
from NGOs working in this area, the extent to which they are having
success in finding these matching resources, but my guess would
be that it will not be until 2002 or 2003 that the issues start
to arise since we do not imagine that there will be too much difficulty
with the 15 per cent in year one or in year two.
170. If a project is a three-year or five-year
project, would they get 85 per cent funding for that project or
is it new projects in successive years?
(Sir John Vereker) I believe it is on a commitment
basis.
171. When the project is approved it will be
85 per cent or is there phasing in for that year?
(Sir John Vereker) Yes, I believe that is the case.
172. Reproductive health issues is an area to
which the Department has been commendably committed to helping.
What are you going to do to make sure that the amount of money
does not drop for those activities?
(Sir John Vereker) The basis for the
matching fund scheme means that the amount of money actually increases
because our total budget is the same, but the civil society organisation
concerned will put more money in.
173. Unless they cannot find the money.
(Sir John Vereker) Which we very much hope they will.
174. The point is that the Secretary of State
has been very committed to this area and it would be very odd
if, in fact, we were to collectively put in less money in the
future because of the change in the system of funding. Are you
keeping a very close eye on that?
(Sir John Vereker) You are tempting me to ask whether
there is anything so special about reproductive health care projects
as compared with other projects, that they should find it less
easy to raise matching funds. I think the Secretary of State's
view is that they ought to find it no less easy to raise matching
funds than other organisations manage.
175. Will I see you in Clydebank town centre
with a collecting can for condoms then?
(Sir John Vereker) I shall, I hope, be at the Dell
in Southampton watching Wimbledon survive in the premier league.
I will take a bucket.
Chairman: There are a number of questions
on our list here, Sir John, which we have not asked you. Perhaps
we can put them in writing and then consider them.[7]
I would like to thank you and also Barrie Ireton and Peter Freeman
for coming to help us interpret and understand the Annual Report.
It is a very useful session that we have had and we have covered
a great deal of ground. Admittedly, we have only skated over the
ground, but it has been a very useful session to us. Thank you
for your time and the effort in preparing yourself for this session.
Thank you very much indeed.
7 See Evidence pp. 55-59. Back
|
