| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises an important point and, of course, the global fund addresses the questions of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as well as the other diseases to which he refers. The Department has a longstanding interest in those diseases and we have research programmes, in collaboration with medical researchers and others, to try to make greater progress. The diseases of the affluent world receive much investment of time, energy and resources to discover means of treatment, and the benefit of that work in relation to HIV/AIDS is beginning to be available to developing countries, as the price of antiretroviral drugs comes down, but my hon. Friend rightly draws attention to those other diseases.
Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble): My right hon. Friend mentioned the global fund. The UK position on the global fund has been much criticised. I recognise that we make substantial donations to combating HIV/AIDS, but I often receive documents criticising the UK position on the global fund and contrasting it with other countries, including the United States and European countries, which make larger contributions to the global fund.
Hilary Benn: The UK Government's spending on tackling HIV/AIDS has risen from £38 million in 1997 to £270 million. That is a substantial increase. We have put our money where our policy commitment is to be found. We are a strong supporter of the global fund and our commitment is now for $280 million up to 2008. That includes an additional $80 million that Baroness Amos announced in July when she attended a conference on the subject. It is a significant commitment of money and, as I mentioned earlier, we are the second largest donor on HIV/AIDS in the world, according to UNAIDS. However, everybody needs to do more and I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Enabling Africans to have access to effective HIV/AIDS treatment should be an international priority, but we need to acknowledge that the best response will involve a combination of prevention of infection and the care and treatment of infected people. It is not a question of a conflict between basic health care systems and trying to make treatments for HIV/AIDS available, as the price comes down, because developing countries are already beginning to think about what they can do, as they tackle the pandemic, to use antiretroviral treatment to help to keep people alive.
Strong leadership will also be necessary to remove the stigma of HIV/AIDS. That is why I mentioned the progress that has been made in Uganda, because its president provided strong political leadership, which has led to real progress. It shows what can be done.
The last few years have seen a major shift in African effort in seeking to address the continent's problems that I have described. Without doubt, the most important has been the New Partnership for Africa's Development, or NEPAD. It aims to tackle HIV/AIDS, to reduce poverty and to sustain long-term economic growth. It is committed to improving governance, building African peacekeeping capacity—about which I have spoken—and creating the right environment for investment in Africa. The most important aspect of NEPAD is, in the jargon of development, the emphasis on mutual accountability. In essence, it says that the international community has obligations to the people and countries of Africa to provide support, aid and progress on trade reform, but in return the African Governments and leaders recognise some responsibility for the state of their countries. The truth is that we have to work together to improve the contribution that we each make to solving the problems.
The NEPAD arrangements have some radical features. For example, the African peer review mechanism, to examine the performance of African countries in economic, social and political governance, will begin in Ghana this year. We support that unreservedly. It is about sharing experience, which allows countries to learn from each other and better understand what they need to do to make progress. The UK is committed to supporting NEPAD, and development in sub-Saharan Africa. The best evidence of that is that our development assistance for Africa will rise to £1 billion a year by 2005–06. That is an increase of more than 50 per cent. in three years. We are committed to ensuring that 50 per cent. of all new overseas development assistance commitments made by donors since Monterrey will go to sub-Saharan Africa. In that way, we can provide some of the predictability that those countries need if the resources are to be best used.
Tony Baldry (Banbury): Is it not disappointing that there has not been more mutual accountability required of Zimbabwe from South Africa and other countries? President Taylor of Liberia was indicted by the UN-authorised war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone, but the Government of Nigeria have given him asylum. Is not that even more disappointing? Nigeria and South Africa are two of the leading African nations, but they are not helping to contribute to mutual accountability.
Hilary Benn: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to acknowledge that mutual accountability cuts both ways and applies to everyone. I responded earlier about Zimbabwe—I think before the hon. Gentleman entered the Chamber—but in respect of Liberia, I would say only that I think that people would acknowledge that the decision to get Mr. Taylor out of the country was an essential precondition to making some progress there, and to allowing the ECOWAS force to go in with the support of the Americans. Now that that has happened, the position in Liberia is more stable than previously, but that does not detract from the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the importance of following through on commitments to mutual accountability.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I recognise the difficulties in connection with dealing with Charles Taylor, but has
my right hon. Friend thought about giving Nigeria some financial aid, either from British or UN funds? Nigeria is not an immensely wealthy country, but it has devoted very considerable resources to peacekeeping in west Africa.
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend knows that Britain has a substantial programme in Nigeria, but the way to make progress is by means of the EU's proposal for the peace support facility. We support that proposal in principle, although there are details to be worked through in connection with how the European development fund could be used to make it possible. If we can get it right, I think that that facility would meet the real need identified by my hon. Friend. The greater willingness that now exists to take on the sort of responsibility that he described is often blocked by lack of money.
That is also a factor when it comes to meeting the millennium development goals. Last week, I attended the high-level dialogue on financing for development in New York. The clear consensus that emerged was that we need to do more in respect of finding more resources so that we can meet those goals, and DFID is working with the Treasury to explore with other partners how best to achieve that. It is also why the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in respect of the international finance facility—which would enable us to raise more money now for development—is so important.
The amount of money is not the only thing that matters, however. The quality of aid is also important. That is why, in all this work, we must continue to align what we do with what other donors are doing. We must also harmonise the way in which we work: it is no good having loads of donors queueing up if they all want their own programmes, reporting arrangements and face-to-face meetings with representatives of developing country Governments. The impact on the capacity of recipient countries to cope with such demands is enormous, and aid is not used most effectively as a result.
It is not good enough merely to nod when people talk about harmonisation. All of us in the international community are all more or less guilty of doing that. We must do more to harmonise our actions, because that harmonisation is an expression of the multilateralism to which we are committed.
I know that several hon. Members want to contribute to the debate so I shall bring my remarks to a close. Africa is a major test for the world. We know why it matters and we understand better than we did in the past how a combination of things will really make the difference: more aid and debt relief will provide the finance to get children to school or to treat them for preventable diseases; opening up trade will enable countries to earn their way out of poverty; dealing with conflict and ensuring good governance will maximise the chances that people will want to invest in a country, thereby creating the jobs, employment and economic growth that will improve people's lives; and tackling HIV/AIDS will sustain human capacity in the face of the epidemic.
We understand better that all those things need to happen if we are really to make progress in helping the people of Africa to build a better life for themselves and
their families. After all, that is all we seek for our own children; it is what the parents of Africa seek for their children, too. It is the responsibility of us all to ensure that we help them now to succeed in realising that goal.4.15 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden): I wrote to Mr. Speaker and to the Secretary of State to explain that, unfortunately, owing to a long-standing constituency engagement I shall not be in the Chamber for the winding-up speeches, so I apologise to the House for that.
At the outset of the debate, I want to put down a marker. As the Government have winkled some time out of the Whips to spend on the subject of international development, we are disappointed that the Secretary of State did not choose to discuss Iraq. We tabled two urgent questions, because although there have been two written ministerial statements on funding for the reconstruction of Iraq there has been no opportunity to question Ministers. The House, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may think that that has nothing to do with Africa, but it does, as unfortunately the Secretary of State has been unable to persuade the Chancellor that there should be extra money for restructuring, so instead it will have to come from DFID's core funding. As a result, we do not know which projects will be cut, and in which developing countries. We have no guarantee that the countries will not be in Africa, so we are concerned that we have missed an opportunity to clear up that matter.
The challenge of Africa remains vast, as the Secretary of State eloquently outlined. The continent is home to 34 of the world's 48 least-developed countries, and the gap between Africa and the rest of the world is growing. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) described Africa as a failing continent. Her phrase has the power to shock, but I instinctively recoil from the judgment implied in it. It sounds as though new Labour is writing off Africa, which I am sure is not what the Government intend.
No one can deny that Africa has particular problems, but what is wrong with the statement is that it masks the real progress that is being made—the kind of progress to which the Secretary of State referred. What is also wrong is that it contains no flicker of recognition of where we have made matters worse. The effect is to exonerate ourselves from blame and to remove the moral obligation to help. Nowhere is that more true than in Zimbabwe.
Conflict, corruption and terrible sickness hold back many African countries, and, together, they contribute to the whole of sub-Saharan Africa being hopelessly off-target to meet the millennium development goals. Is a whole continent to stand condemned for having failed to meet some internationally agreed benchmark of improvement? Should we blame developing countries for not meeting those targets when we could have done more?
By far and away the biggest problem facing Africa is the HIV/AIDS pandemic. I am sorry that it was only fourth in the Secretary of State's list; for me, it comes first. The proportions of the pandemic defy imagination,
but that does not mean that we should be beaten by it. We should fight it. Seventy per cent. of the world's HIV/AIDS sufferers live in southern, sub-Saharan Africa. In Kenya, one person dies from AIDS every minute.In Malawi, I had the privilege of meeting a man who cares personally for 78 orphans and the same number of widows. I thought that community orphanages were local institutions to house orphans, until I visited the country and found out that they amount only to occasional visits to children who still live in the huts where their parents died.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, however, there are examples of real progress, and Botswana's network of AIDS clinics is surely an example of best practice. AIDS is not just a health issue; it is a development issue. The disease is wiping out the most economically active people. It is attacking the very roots of society. Africa is becoming a continent of grandparents raising their grandchildren, or orphans fighting for survival.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |