Select Committee on International Development Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)




  1. Good morning, welcome. Thank you very much for coming. What we thought we would do is go through Monterrey, what follows on from Monterrey and then we should like to look at the effectiveness and accountability of development aid, both from the point of view of recipients and donors. Perhaps I could start us off by referring to the Budget Red Book, which this year, as in previous years, actually has some extremely useful commentary on promoting international poverty reduction. There is one of these boxes and it is highlighted in pink because it is important. It talks about Monterrey and it says that governments at the conference pledged significant increases in official development assistance to the poorest countries. Following the publication of a UK paper on the case for aid, European Union Member States agreed collectively to raise their aid budgets by an estimated $7 billion a year by 2006. The US also pledged additional aid volumes of $10 billion between 2004 and 2006 and an additional $5 billion thereafter. We then come to what seems to me the crunch sentence. Whilst these increases represent real progress, they still fall short of the aid levels necessary to achieve the Millennium Development Goals which the World Bank estimates will require $40 billion to $60 billion each year. In November 2001 the Chancellor proposed an international development trust fund to pool contributions and leverage private sector finance to deliver the level of funding needed to meet the MDGs. I am slightly confused about all of this and I have a number of questions which, if I give them all to you at one go you can answer in the round. Firstly, would you agree with the Chancellor's assessment that in addition to the money the United States and the EU have pledged, the developed world has pledged, we are going to need an extra $40 billion to $60 billion a year to meet the goal of 2015? How is that going to be done? What is the point of the new international development trust fund? Why not simply go for everyone trying to meet their 0.7 per cent target? Why invent something new? What do you see as the subsequent process for ensuring that this shortfall is met? Hopefully that is a useful lead-in.
  (Ms Vazquez) Before the World Bank the UN released a report called the Zedillo report and this was the first attempt at costing the MDGs. The benchmark was an extra $50 billion a year from now until 2015. The World Bank just validated this amount. As you can imagine, it is quite difficult for NGOs to get into the debate on whether this figure is accurate or is too little or too much. What is important now for us is that the money is made available as soon as possible. We have a deadline of 2015. We have spent 18 months negotiating for Monterrey and this means a year less in the countdown towards 2015. What is worrying is that Monterrey has not provided the solution to secure the resources needed. If we combine the US and EU pledges for additional funding, this gives us an extra $17 billion, which is 20 per cent of what is required. You know Monterrey has not set time frames for meeting the 0.7 per cent target. We appreciate what the Chancellor announced, the new trust fund for international co-operation, and I think what was behind this proposal, although we do not know the details of how this will work in practice, was a recognition that the amount needed is so huge that the only way of raising all this money was through the global effort of all donors. That is the advantage of such a proposal to set up an international trust fund from my point of view.
  (Ms Ross) One of the other things to mention is that the commitments made are very short term and only go half way towards the 2015 target. A lot of donors are of the opinion that having made this pledge for this short period of time, over three years, the debate on aid quantity should now be closed down and we should be talking more about quality and effectiveness and means of disbursing aid. It is not that NGOs do not think that aid needs to be distributed effectively or that quality of aid is not important, but that the debate would be much healthier if that $50 billion had been pledged in the first place. The pledges which have been made are still subject to parliamentary approval and congressional approval and are obviously conditional, particularly US aid[12].

  2. There is no ambiguity about what the Chancellor is saying in the Red Book. The Treasury is saying that the amount pledged at Monterrey falls short of the aid levels necessary to achieve Millennium Development Goals. There is nothing about quality of approach or effectiveness of aid. The other thing about the international development trust fund is that the Chancellor seems almost to be suggesting with this inclusion of private sector finance—I am not wishing to caricature it but—a private finance initiative for international development. Did you gather any more about this initiative at Monterrey or from Treasury officials or from others? What do you understand about the international development trust fund?
  (Ms Ross) We have not been involved in intense consultation with the Treasury or with DFID on this proposal at all. Although it may be a useful political device for trying to leverage the additional funds which are necessary, most NGOs would think that the 0.7 per cent target, although perhaps less catchy, should be sufficient for countries to meet their commitments made in 1970. We do not have any additional information we can give you and when the Chancellor comes in we would benefit from any information you could get.

  Chairman: Clearly that is something we need to discover some more about.

Mr Battle

  3. Could you give us your view on the outcomes of Monterrey? What were the strengths of Monterrey, but more significantly the weaknesses?
  (Ms Ross) May I talk about the consensus and then Belen can say a few words about the aid commitments which were made? Most people who followed the Monterrey process from the beginning to the end were quite disappointed by the final document, given that the Zedillo report contained a lot of innovative proposals which would potentially have led to the raising of the $50 billion. We feel that the Monterrey process helped to put development back on the agenda and created a political debate, partially due to the Chancellor taking up some of the ideas in the Zedillo report and the $50 billion benchmark figure. A lot of G77 and middle income countries were very disappointed that the debate on debt relief, reform of the international financial institutions and also fair trade did not become a core part of the Monterrey discussions. That was primarily due to a reluctance on the part of donor countries to get into that debate because there is no consensus there. It was also felt that a UN conference was not the appropriate venue to discuss trade when there is the World Trade Organisation and the reform of the World Bank and IMF should be discussed in those arenas. There was a general disappointment both on the part of developing countries and NGOs at the final consensus document though the process generated a lot of interest and innovative ideas that might be picked up and taken on elsewhere.

  4. May I press you a little further on the downsides and the weaknesses? We are not at the point of writing it off as a talking shop. Are there links with other conferences? Could the document from Monterrey be linked to previous conferences and taken forward to the sustainable development conference in Rio perhaps? Do you see it as a series rather than a failure?
  (Ms Ross) Obviously we are very disappointed but we hope that the dialogue will continue. There were no explicit references in the Monterrey consensus document to sustainable development, although the Secretary General has made the links from Doha to Monterrey and through to Johannesburg. The UN is trying to promote this idea that the dialogue will continue, but it is difficult to know. Within the implementation section of the WSSD a lot of the ideas which were discussed at Monterrey are out on the table again and it will be interesting to see whether any of them survive the US negotiators this time round. A lot of the ideas will carry through but Monterrey was supposed to settle some of these discussions. The discussion around global public goods and innovative sources of finance in particular will become quite key in the implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
  (Ms Vazquez) On the failures and successes, one of the merits of FfD has been to reactivate the old debate on aid levels. It would have been unthinkable just a year ago to have had the aid volume issue on the UN agenda. That has been a merit and FfD has created a momentum around the aid volumes debate. However, the aid pledges fall too short, so we are disappointed. In addition, what the EU/US bilateral aid announcement has highlighted is a lack of consensus among major donors on the quantity and frequency of additional aid funding. In our view, those announcements should have been built into the consensus if we are really talking about a consensus. If we look at the documents of the Monterrey consensus, what we see is a re-affirmation of old commitments. The UN's 0.7 per cent target is thirty-two years old. The commitment to the MDGs was made two years ago at the UN Millennium Summit by all governments. There is nothing new and what the Monterrey consensus lacks is a plan of action to implement those commitments which have already been adopted by governments. This is the point where we feel really disappointed. As far as I know, there is no indication that at the WSSD summit donor governments will make available a plan of action to implement them.
  (Ms Ross) The other point is that a similar process is going on in the NEPAD discussions as well. There are discussions about new plans of action but a reluctance on the part of G8 donors to commit any financing to that, saying that Financing For Development covered financing issues. The financing issue is not finished. The US negotiators throughout the negotiating process objected to any reference to the 0.7 per cent target, objected to any reference to the Millennium Development Goals. The text is littered with strange ways of getting round saying Millennium Development Goals and ways of trying not to say 0.7 per cent target. This process is being repeated at the World Summit for Sustainable Development where US negotiators are making it very difficult for the EU and G77 countries to make any positive proposals at multi-lateral fora.
  (Mr German) May I expand a little bit on this issue of whether FfD is part of a process. If you look at all the summits which took place in the 1990s which were on development related themes, aid was rather the ghost at the table in the sense that it was point 46 out of a 50-point document at the end. FfD did bring into sharp focus the fact that donors had willed the end, which is the achievement of Millennium Development Goals and even if we take the $15 billion extra which was pledged over and on top of existing resources, in 2006 that would still leave us $35 billion short of the $50 billion extra that everybody agrees is wanted. It brings into very sharp political focus what the gap is between aspirations and what people are committed to and it does set part of a firm agenda of making sure that financing which has been off the agenda at so many summits must be on the agenda of WSSD. Just as important, it must be built very strongly into the review process for the social summit. We have the ten-year anniversary of the social summit coming up in 2005 and it was at the social summit that world leaders for the first time admitted that poverty eradication was possible. Before that it had always been seen as being not possible. It is very helpful to see it as part of a process.
  (Ms Randel) The amounts of money we are talking about are only the development assistance. The bulk of the funding for the Millennium Development Goals will come from developing countries. The assumption is that around 90 per cent, I think, the vast bulk of the money for meeting the goals comes from developing countries' own resources and that is not focused on at all.

Tony Worthington

  5. What puzzles me about this is that I had assumed Monterrey was an encyclopaedic conference, it was about all that was needed, all the resources that were needed in order to end poverty. I must admit I am a bit disappointed with the NGO response in that you are being critical of governments of the world for just focusing on aid and yet in the BOND report it says "Many heavyweight NGOs and NGO networks decided early not to invest in the FfD process, assuming their views would have little chance of influencing the official proceedings"[13]. You are really criticising other people for doing what you did.

  (Ms Ross) There is a difference. There is a different burden of responsibility between governments and NGOs and we are often criticised by governments for spending huge amounts of money travelling to conferences and prepcoms. We do not have huge budgets to spend on investing in processes where it seems that US negotiators are ruling the show. Because the agenda of Monterrey was so broad and NGOs often have specific sectoral interests, it was decided to pool resources and work through co-ordination mechanisms which is a progressive step and a useful step, because we are directing our efforts. There was an NGO presence but it was done through co-ordinating bodies rather than through individual NGOs. NGOs were present at all of the prepcoms and were present at the conference. It is just that they were disappointed with the influence and the process as it developed.

  6. Being blunt about it, the impact of that is that we have three papers which give the impression that if only we increased the aid to 0.7 per cent it would be all right. It comes across as "If only you give money to NGOs we'll solve this problem", because you are lobbying for aid. You are not arguing in proportion to what is needed for Financing for Development. Is that too unfair?
  (Ms Ross) I think it is. Part of the reason why you have received responses on 0.7 per cent is because that was one of the main questions. There were obviously other people who have concentrated on trade, who have concentrated on debt. There are NGO networks working on those issues. They have not sent in submissions perhaps because they were not actively involved directly, they were involved through these co-ordinating mechanisms. Also, there was no specific question in your Financing for Development press release asking about those issues. People could have sent in submissions but that is not a fair representation of where NGOs are lobbying. The strongest lobbying at the moment is on trade and debt. I do not think that is a fair reflection at all. We are working on aid, but we are also working on trade, debt, reform of international financial institutions.

  7. You do criticise the conference for being too narrow.
  (Ms Vazquez) I followed the process. I was in a number of prepcoms. I should say that aid only became prominent because of the lack of progress on other areas. Let us take trade. Developing countries were not ready to accept a re-opening of the trade agenda just a few months after Doha. Let us take reform of the international financial architecture, an issue supported by Latin American countries especially. Developed countries thought that a UN conference was not the appropriate forum for discussion of these issues. Let us take debt relief. The same thing. As we progressed in the process ODA became the only issue left for progress. This is why it became prominent, regardless of NGOs' involvement or not. I do not know whether you know that Latin American countries originated this conference. They approached the UN Secretary General with the idea of holding for the first time a UN conference on global economic governance but in the process the UN Secretary General also added what I would call UN recurrent topics or issues such as ODA and the Millennium Development Goals. As a result, the conference agenda was so broad that it represented a challenge, not only for NGOs but for governments. The issues ranged from ODA and debt relief to trade to innovative sources for finance, global economic governance, etc. If you think about it, within a government there must be a least three full ministries sharing decisions: Trade, Foreign Affairs, Development. Governments faced a challenge to identify the right individuals with sufficient expertise and knowledge to provide input and have a global consolidated position on these issues. NGOs faced the same challenge. Very few NGOs have the expertise to provide input. This is why we worked in coalitions to try to combine that expertise. The UN Secretary General made it very clear from the beginning that he wanted Finance Ministers to attend this conference as opposed to diplomats or senior officials who are the ones who usually go to UN conferences. He made a special effort to convince Finance Ministers from the North and from the South they should attend the conference. What I saw in Monterrey was that Finance Ministers did attend but especially Finance Ministers from developing countries. I can say that EU the level of Heads of State representation from the EU was very low. We had Mr Aznar, because he held the EU Presidency and Mr Chirac and that was the highest level of EU representation at the conference. I do not know whether I have answered your question: a broad agenda, difficult and complex issues and different interests.

Ann Clwyd

  8. You mentioned at the beginning that if the figure 0.7 per cent appeared in the documents the US protested about that. What was the big threat they had over you all?
  (Ms Randel) The US has never signed up to 0.7 per cent so if it goes into the documents that starts to create a commitment that they then have to meet, so they are always very resistant to 0.7 per cent being included. I do not know whether that was the specific reason in Monterrey, but that is a barrier.
  (Ms Ross) Yes, that was the reason.

  9. Could you not put brackets, "(with the exception of the US)", make the point in that way? I just wondered what threat they had that caused you, who presumably were the majority, to leave it out at their request.
  (Ms Vazquez) Technically they have never signed up to 0.7 per cent.


  10. Maybe you can help us with this; maybe not today but with a paper. You say that the United States have not signed up to the Millennium Development Goals, you say they have not signed up to 0.7 per cent, you say that there is a fairly convoluted negotiation with the United States now. Some of us individually are going to Washington fairly shortly to talk to fellow members of Congress. The Committee as a whole is hoping to go to the United States, to New York and Washington, later in the year to talk with colleagues. We would find it very helpful to have an idiots' guide to the politics of development aid so far as the United States are concerned because frankly my teenagers keep telling me that I have lost the plot, but I have completely lost the plot on this row going on between the replenishment of ODA and grants and loans and all of that. I understand, a bit like I understand algebra, for five minutes, but what is the US approach on all this? What should we be seeking to try to persuade our colleagues in the US to do? We as a Committee would be very grateful if BOND and the other NGOs could do a private briefing note to us on how you see the politics of all this so far as the US is concerned and where we should be applying or seeking to apply pressure with our interlocutors. I think you said 0.7 per cent is 33 years old now, maybe more.

   (Ms Ross) Thirty-two years

  11. Maybe we ought to have a birthday party each year and put on another candle. It is not long to 2015; it is actually very close. Is it worth our continuing to bang on about 0.7 per cent? If we are not going to bang on about 0.7 per cent should we not be doing so with a lot more urgency so that if 0.7 per cent is going to have any meaning in relation to 2015, it really has to be achieved by 2007 or something of that kind, otherwise it just becomes a piece of international development shorthand? What are your thoughts on that?
  (Ms Vazquez) I agree with you on the sense of urgency. This sense of urgency was in the Monterrey document but it was taken out during the last prepcom. Let me go back a little bit to the process of the conference. The negotiations started well, the first document was a very good document, the Zedillo report, but you must remember that it was unfortunate that at the time of the third prepcom in the middle of the negotiations we had the unfortunate incidents on 11 September. The third prepcom took place within weeks of the attack in New York and we saw a radical change in the position of the American delegation who made it clear that this conference was not a priority for them any more.

  12. Why?
  (Ms Vazquez) Because at that moment in the US Financing for Development was not going to be a priority any more. This was when the whole thing started, that they would not accept reference to the 0.7 per cent in documents, that they would not accept reference to the Millennium Development Goals in the documents, that they as a country did not feel ready to have a conference to agree to all these commitments, it was not right for them at the moment. Then we saw the EU also changing its strategy. The EU had had quite a broad position showing openness on the different issues, but it then became clear that for them the priority was to keep the US on board. I remember at the third prepcom the US negotiator left the room several times in protest at issues like the 0.7 per cent, so the EU changed its strategy as they had to keep the US on board if they wanted this conference to happen. I should also say that they gave up on certain issues which they were interested in, such as global public goods for instance. We need this money urgently but we need a multilateral effort to reach this huge amount of money. We are talking about doubling current world aid; we are talking about $50 billion and we are talking about $100 billion if 0.7 per cent were to be met.

  13. I do not know whether you have access to or could share with us in a briefing note copies of US position papers, public position papers, which would help us with the political shorthand . I for one am at a complete loss to understand why after 11 September the Americans would turn their back on Financing for Development, I should have thought exactly the opposite. Could we perhaps go back to the question of the 0.7 per cent? Is this a campaign which is still worth running? If it is, how do we get a sense of urgency? If we cannot get a sense of urgency, maybe we ought to be going with the flow and having a go at the International Development Trust Fund or other things of that kind.
  (Mr German) Absolutely it is a question of urgency. To go back to an earlier question, the question about whether NGOs could have been more enthusiastic about some aspects of participating in the FfD buildup, the answer is yes. The answer as to why they were not is to some extent that expectations of what was politically possible on aid volume had been so screwed down during the 1990s by the overriding need to cut budget deficits that every donor talked about, that NGOs simply lost confidence and that was partly reflected in what NGOs were asking for before the recent general election, when they were actually asking for something that in hindsight was way too low. The political significance of what the Chancellor said at the Fed in Washington before Christmas is that a serving G7 Finance Minister is saying "This is not cloud cuckoo land. This is not naive NGOs talking. This is possible. I think it is a good idea". It is very important, with at least a step towards reversing aid in the United States and some progress within Europe, that the UK takes a role in underlining the urgency and meeting the 0.7 per cent target.

  14. May I ask about NEPAD and "initiativitis"? Do you think sometimes there may be too many initiatives? If you are saying in relation to NEPAD that donor countries are simply saying the money for NEPAD is all wrapped up in the money for Monterrey, do initiatives like NEPAD build on or can they become a distraction? How many initiatives can the international community cope with at any one time?
  (Ms Randel) I feel quite optimistic about NEPAD because I do feel that it is a different sort of initiative. To take up the points earlier about the broadness of the agenda, it is a very broad agenda which covers governance and trade and accountability and a whole set of relationships between developed countries and Africa. It has lots of potential to deliver stronger poverty reduction than just aid so I would not necessarily see it as being one of the series of failed initiatives. It is of course true that developing countries are littered with failed initiatives; they are often a distraction and there is a major danger that we will move too much off the quantity of aid debate into discussing modalities and initiatives on modalities which will be a distraction. I would not myself include NEPAD in that category but I do not know whether colleagues would agree.
  (Ms Ross) NEPAD is a step forward in that it is a partnership between the G8 and African countries and that is to be welcomed. If the input of the G8 does not include some commitment, if it contains just more recommendations and no financing to implement those recommendations, then it is perhaps going to follow the same pattern.

Hugh Bayley

  15. It is clear to me that without substantially more money the development goals will not be met. Equally, with Zedillo's amount of money, the development goals may well not be met because money is not the only component necessary. I should like to start by asking a general question. What are the responsibilities of developing countries in relation both to their own spending and in relation to their co-operation with donors?
  (Ms Randel) Do you mean the responsibilities technically in the context of the Millennium Development Goals, what has been set out as developing countries' responsibilities, or do you mean in a more general sense?

  16. If you look over the last ten or even 20 years the donor countries used to give more aid than they do now, yet some countries, not all, have made remarkable progress in the last 20 years and others, despite large volumes of aid, are poorer now than they were then. It is not just aid that achieves progress towards development goals and targets, it is what happens in the countries themselves. What are the responsibilities of all parties, business, political elites, NGOs, communities?
  (Ms Randel) One of the interesting things which has happened over the last couple of years is the focus on accountable governance in developing countries which encompasses a whole range of things, not only the traditional area of governance to do with the state, but also to do with how civil society can hold the state accountable for what it delivers and to do with the regulation of trade and the regulatory environment for finance. I think donors are focusing a lot more now on the nub of accountable governance and developing countries are too. You can see that in the NEPAD proposals. That is quite an encouraging thing. I also think there is a lot more confidence about what sort of aid is effective. We have not really tried long-term, predictable, transparent, adequate finance for human development given through a relatively accountable government for very long. You can think of maybe two or three countries where that is now happening and Uganda would be the main example that the UK will cite. There are very encouraging signs about the combination of the focus on accountability and effective aid in that context. The other thing to say on the aid effectiveness side is that what we do know fairly conclusively is that investment in human development is actually effective, it does deliver. Investment in public health, investment in education, are extremely effective ways of spending money but we spend a tiny, tiny amount of the aid budget on that. We spend two per cent of aid on basic health and 1.5 per cent of aid on basic education globally. We have not really invested that much in the things that work in the context we think they are likely to work.
  (Mr German) This question of accountability and transparency is two sides of the same coin. If you look at the review that the Development Assistance Committee of OECD did in Mali, some of the public opinion work that was done in Mali about what ordinary Malians knew about aid, the answer was that they knew nothing about aid. They did not know where it came from, they did not know where it went to. That is why the question is of building in, not a whole plethora of conditions, which in many ways will only undercut the accountability one is expecting of developing governments, but building in basic participation and governance criteria which can mean that aid becomes a much more transparent process and needs to be a two-way process. In fact we do not publish exactly what aid is spent on in that much detail, so it is quite difficult to get information on aid. It is better than it was but there is still a long way to go at both ends of the aid debate. The spender and recipient both need to make the process a lot more transparent so that ordinary people can know how much they are supposed to be receiving, what it is supposed to be spent on and whether it is being spent on it.

  17. What is the consensus amongst NGOs about what makes a good donor and what makes a good recipient of aid, if by good you mean one that produces good cost-effective results in terms of development progress? What makes for a good donor and is DFID a good donor relatively or not? What makes a good recipient?
  (Ms Vazquez) May I refer back to the Monterrey consensus and developing countries? In the Monterrey consensus there is a wide agreement that developing countries are responsible for their own development and they have accepted this responsibility. The consensus says that they are responsible for their own development. They are also responsible for creating the conditions for high growth and poverty reduction and they have acknowledged this responsibility, it is in the consensus. What makes a good donor? A good donor is a donor that accepts responsibilities in the process. The responsibilities of the donor are to provide sufficient aid, timely aid and aid of good quality. It is two-way. If we want to create a new partnership for development—this is the trendy phrase now in newspapers and speeches of heads of state—then a partnership is something where partners have mutual obligations and are accountable to each other. What I feel the partnership has reflected is that the partnership is not equal. Donors have tried to ignore their responsibilities to provide sufficient aid and provide enough good quality aid.

  18. How would you enforce accountability? You say developing countries must be responsible for their own development and I do not think anybody would disagree with that, but from that also comes the ghastly truth that many developing countries must be responsible for their own under-development and backsliding; it must be the case. What form of accountability should we require in a developing country before we create the kind of long-term, well-funded, transparent development partnership—you mentioned one country but we could mention a few countries? What should we require and how should we as donors be accountable and to whom? To the British people? Should we be accountable to other people? Some aid projects have been equally responsible for grotesque wrecking of development potential in countries. How do we build in that accountability? Given that we know that we are unlikely to get that transparency and accountability in some areas, would we not do better to target aid in areas where we are going to have the outcome we want to see lifting people out of poverty? Perhaps they would be beacons to other parts for their need for change in terms of good governance, transparency and so on.
  (Ms Randel) There is a queue of people wanting to engage in the debate without answers but I shall start off. Eveline Herfkens, the Development Minister for the Netherlands has been very interesting recently in talking about mutual accountability. There is a general interest around this idea of mutual accountability by the partners in the development process, whoever they may be, but they clearly include the developing country government and the donors. It goes beyond the idea that people should simply be accountable for the aid relationship, but to issues like what is the accountability of Britain in enabling the development of an African country? Is it to address issues of agricultural subsidy, is it to address trade relationships, is it to address governance of the IFIs, all these sorts of things which may be part of our responsibility, if we are serious about commitments to eradication of poverty? On the other side there are things about spending the money transparently and efficiently, but there are also things about creating accountable governments within the developing country which can make poverty reduction more likely. That is quite an encouraging line of debate. Talking to officials within developing countries, that creates a framework where people can work together on a shared agenda and fits in with the idea of developing countries writing the plan; there are all sorts of problems about that too, but that is the principle. Against that trend, and something which I think is a dilemma and is also dangerous, is the idea that you only spend your money in the good policy countries, because what do you then do if you are serious about eradicating poverty? Do we say we are going to spend our money in 20 countries where we think policy is good enough to achieve X level of effectiveness—and I am sure the Bank has given a very precise definition on that—or do we have to find ways of working with the uphill countries, which is the term used? If we are serious about eradication of poverty then we do and then that is a much more complex set of relationships to have accountability and a way of making progress between donor and recipient.

  19. Could you draw a distinction between work on meeting basic human needs on primary health care, on primary education, clean water, sanitation, which clearly can do some good if done at local level, even where you have a most inflexible, incompetent, out of touch government?
  (Ms Randel) That would be the prize, would it not?

12   See Ev 26 and Ev 27 for further information. Back

13   Ev 7. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 24 July 2002