Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-233)
2 MARCH 2004
MR CHRIS
MULLIN MP, MR
ANDREW LLOYD
AND MR
ANDY SPARKES
Q220 Mr Chidgey: You did
say a moment ago that you felt there were things that the G8 could
be doing. Could you give us an example? Mr Mullin:
As I say, I think there is scope for a lot of progress on trade.
I think there is scope for further progress on debt. Although
we played rather leading role on the progress on both these issues,
I think there is the scope for greater bilateral aid. The big
one, of course, where I think the G8—particularly the Americans—have
responded well is HIV/AIDS. The Americans in particular have made
enormous sums available for helping to combat HIV/AIDS and the
difficulty will be spending it, not finding the money. I think
those are areas where the G8 has—to use the American phrase—stepped
up to the plate. Q221 Mr Chidgey: I am glad you mentioned
the United States because that features in my last question. It
is interesting that you make the point that the USA has been very
generous relatively speaking in approaching HIV/AIDS. My reflection
on the meetings we had recently in South Africa did not give me
any impression that the US had much credit for doing anything
in that regard. I am sure they have done but in the sense that
we had quite a lot of criticism about our position on Iraq, it
was a mild rebuke compared to the comments that have been made
about relations with the United States. In relation to NePAD and
the way that the United States has almost been seen to abandon
the NePAD process—certainly they favour their own Millennium
Challenge rather than NePAD—I have heard American ambassadors
say that they just do not support NePAD and I wonder whether you
have a view on this. It is rather worrying actually that on the
one hand we have NePAD which is an African initiative in which
we are supporting Africa taking charge of its own issues, problems
and destiny; on the other hand the Millennium Challenge seems
to be a retrograde step where funding and finances are tied into
trade with a particular funding nation. Rather than letting Africa
free it seems to be tying Africa in to the major trading partner
in the world, the US. I think that is a retrograde step and I
wonder if you have a view on it. Mr Mullin:
I cannot speak for whoever you have spoken to, but it is not my
impression that there is any lack of enthusiasm for NePAD by the
Americans. As I say, the jury is still out. If it is seen to be
pursuing rigourously I think it will find a lot of support amongst
members of the G8, including the Americans. Q222 Mr Chidgey:
Do you have any views on the Millennium Challenge? Mr
Mullin: I cannot help you there. You will have to discuss
that with the Americans, I think. Chairman: Minister,
a key feature of our work as a Committee is the focus on the work
of your Department in South Africa and I would now like to ask
Mr Hamilton to begin and then Sir John to continue on that.
Q223 Mr Hamilton: I am always struck, when we visit any foreign
country, how good our diplomatic staff are and certainly we would
all have cause to thank our superb staff in South Africa. I notice
from the statistics that we employ 47 UK-based staff and 178 locally
engaged staff. Bearing in mind my colleague David Chidgey's previous
comments about the United States' role in South Africa, I am somewhat
surprised to learn they have 250 US-based staff and 450 locally
engaged staff. It makes me wonder what they do all day compared
with the productivity of our staff. Anyway, my question really
is, do you envisage any changes to the work that Foreign Commonwealth
Office does in South Africa in the near future, and do you expect
to maintain the current levels of staff or, indeed, increase them? Mr
Mullin: There is a review of all our operations going
on at the moment so it would be very rash of me to make too many
long-term commitments, but I do expect our staffing in South Africa
to remain broadly as it is for the foreseeable future. Q224
Mr Hamilton: That is very cautious and I can understand your
caution. I hope that in considering our work in South Africa that
you do not consider selling off the residence in Cape Town. Mr
Mullin: It is funny that you should mention that. We have
actually been awaiting the recommendation of our High Commissioner
on that issue and she has recommended that the Cape Town residence
to be sold. We have not made a decision about that, but we are
thinking about it. Q225 Mr Hamilton: Obviously I cannot
speak for the entire Committee, but certainly my view is that
it should not be sold. It is a huge asset to us there. We saw
it ourselves and we saw just what extraordinary good effect it
had and how we were able to entertain virtually half the Parliament
there as well as half the Government. Mr Mullin:
I think the Foreign Office would be very interested to hear the
Committee's views on that issue. Q226 Mr Hamilton: While
we were in Johannesburg we visited UK Trade and Investment (I
think it is Michael Mowlam who runs that) and we heard some very
positive comments while we were there about the role of UKTI and
what they are doing to encourage trade and investment in South
Africa. I wondered how the FCO intends to build on the success—I
know it is DTI as well—and strengthen the commercial ties
between Britain and South Africa. Mr Mullin:
They are already very strong and I was struck when your business
witnesses gave evidence a few weeks ago, when someone tried to
tempt them into saying that really we were not doing a very good
job, they both said that so far as trade and investment were concerned
we were doing an extremely good job. They resisted all attempts
to take them down another road. I would tend to stick with what
they say about us. Q227 Mr Hamilton: You cannot have a
better affirmation than the people who actually benefit from it. Mr
Mullin: We do have an enormous trade relationship with
South Africa. I think that of the top twenty-foreign companies
in South Africa, nine of them are British-owned. There is quite
a considerable South African investment in this country too, although
not on the same scale as we have investments there. A large part
of our operation is directed towards sustaining and expanding
that and it has been very successful up until now, as I think
is universally acknowledged. However, there is always scope for
improvement. Q228 Sir John Stanley: In the original paper
you sent to the Committee of 30 September last year, you say that
one of the areas in which Britain and South Africa are working
together is, and I quote, "A commitment to work together
on crime prevention within South Africa," and then at paragraph
11 of that paper you start by saying "High crime level negatively
affects all South Africans and are a disincentive to domestic
and foreign investment"[16]Whilst
we were in Johannesburg we sadly became aware of the veracity
of just that. There was a terrible murder of a white husband and
wife and their two children prior to their home being robbed.
We also positively saw the benefits of the partnership between
Britain and South Africa when we visited the Alexandra Township
Police Station and we saw there a senior officer from Lambeth
who had been seconded there and was being a very substantial help
to the South African Police. There are limited resources, but
that is demonstrably a highly effective way in which the British
Government can assist South Africa with this very serious particularly
robbery and violence problem. Do you see any scope for being able
to expand that sort of cooperation and partnership significantly?Mr
Mullin: Firstly, let me say you are absolutely right.
The maintenance of the rule of law is a prerequisite for stability
and economic success, particularly if you wish to attract foreign
investment. The South Africans are as well aware of that as we
are. Do I see any possibility of expanding the assistance we already
give? Modestly, I think. We are talking about capacity building
here, things like training. Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan
Police Commissioner, I know has personally taken an interest in
the Met's operation there and he is in South Africa at the moment.
At the end of the day it comes down to providing them with effective
training and resources, and perhaps bringing some of them over
here to see how we do things. I can see scope for modest expansion
but, at the end of the day it is the South Africans who are going
to have deal with this problem; it is a very serious problem.
We can just to our best to help and advise in all capacity.
Q229 Sir John Stanley: Can I go onto another specific area
which we witnessed but is not actually referred to in the detail
of the specific law and order subjects and related subjects that
we are dealing with on this partnership. When we were in the Alexandra
Police Station we visited the victim support unit and a striking
feature for all of us in contrast to what you would experience
visiting the equivalent units in our own constituencies, is that
in our own constituencies the overwhelming number of cases where
victim support units are used are invariably in relation to burglary
and theft. It was quite different in the unit we visited; virtually
all the cases they told us about were in relation to domestic
violence. When we thought about this, we could understand why,
when you have a huge township with huge quantities of what is
euphemistically called "informal housing"—which
is single or possibly double room shanty-type housing with large
numbers of people living in very close proximity—this can
produce a serious level of domestic violence, abuse of children,
abuse of women and so on. As this particular area is not mentioned,
could you give any form of undertaking to the Committee that you
will look at that area and see whether we could provide any additional
expertise and help in that particular area for the South African
Police if they should wish it? Mr Mullin: I
will look at that and I will send you a note[17]but
I have to say, at the end of the day, this is a problem of which
the South Africans are perfectly well aware and which they are
taking steps to address as you have seen for yourselves. I have
to say, speaking as former Chairman of the Home Affairs Select
Committee, that this is an area in which the British Police have
underperformed in the past, although we are gradually realising
the scale of the problem. It is still very patchy in Britain,
so there is probably some scope for a two-way exchange on the
subject.Q230 Sir John Stanley: Could I just turn to one
other area which is in this area of cooperation. In your paper,
you refer to a commitment to work in partnership to combat communicable
diseases, notably HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. I think
it was, for each member of this Committee, one of the experiences
and memories which will always remain with us when we went to
the very, very, small temporary building of the Soweto AIDS Hospice
and to see there people, including children, dying of AIDS. Clearly
the scale of the problem is enormous; we were told there are some
five million people in South Africa who are assessed as being
HIV positive, but there clearly is an enormous requirement to
provide more adequate hospice facilities and that sort of help
for those who are terminally ill dying of AIDS. I wonder again
whether you might be able to give a further note to the Committee
as to whether the British Government feels able to do more. The
very small but wonderful staff at that AIDS Hospice put to us
that they are in the process of trying to seek funds to expand
that Hospice and to create permanent buildings for it. If, in
a note to the Committee[18],
you can offer suggestions as to suitable sources of charitable
funding—possibly even government funding—that might
be available in the UK I am sure the Committee will be willing
to forward that information to the people concerned. Mr
Mullin: I am not a DfID minister and I think I would be
in trouble if I started to spend DfID's funds in front of the
Committee here. AIDS is a huge problem in Africa; of the 42 million
people in the world who are HIV/AIDS positive, 30 million are
in Africa. The problem is actually a great deal worse in some
respects in some of the other African countries because, unlike
South Africa, they lack the infrastructure to be able to cope
either with the orphans or in administering the anti-retrovirals
if and when they are available. I do not think there is a need
for me to send you a note since I can tell you now what we are
doing. Last year we spent about £30 million supporting HIV/AIDS
work in South Africa. We work with the Departments of Health,
Social Development, Education and Defence and a number of provincial
governments and, indeed, with some non-governmental organisations.
The Small Grants Scheme which is managed by the British High Commission—and
this might be the answer to the particular case that you referred
to a moment ago—focuses exclusively on supporting HIV/AIDS
non-governmental organisations in South Africa. Globally the UK
is the second largest bilateral donor for HIV/AIDS assistance.
It is not enough of course, and it is never going to be enough.
However, our assistance is substantial. The American assistance
is potentially very large indeed; it is targeted on 14 countries
including South Africa. So there is money available, but one of
the biggest problems is going to be finding the infrastructure
to make effective use of it. That will be easier in South Africa
than it will be in some of the other countries. Q231 Sir John
Stanley: Can I just follow up the point I made about accessing
charitable funds. There is clearly a deep wish—not only
by this Hospice but probably by others as well—to obtain
information about how best to access UK charitable funds and possible
charitable funds more widely to help them with the sort of projects
that I have been referring to. Do you agree that it would be most
helpful—and it is easily obtainable—if the British
High Commission had available within it lists of appropriate charitable
funds in the UK that it could at least make available to those
who are seeking access to that type of funding in this country? Mr
Mullin: I will check out that point. I agree it might
well be helpful. Q232 Mr Illsley: Following on from that,
the AIDS Hospice that we visited was not, so far as I recall,
recognised by the South African government because they will not
accept that people are dying from HIV/AIDS and so they will not
recognise the hospices, and did not recognise that one. Are we
doing enough to try to persuade South Africa to look upon this
problem with the seriousness that it really requires and to try
to persuade them that they have to do more in terms of hospice
treatment, medical treatment and anti-rectrovirals? Mr
Mullin: It is true there has been a debate in South Africa
on the extent of the AIDS problem, but it has been resolved really
in favour of recognising that there is a very serious problem
and I think all concerned now acknowledge that. I think it was
just before Christmas that the South African Government agreed
its strategy for addressing AIDS so I am not sure that it is true
to say that they do not acknowledge the problem because I am confident
that they do now acknowledge the seriousness of the problem. As
regards what we are doing, I read out a moment ago the areas in
which we are involved, the South African Government departments
with which we are involved. Given that the political will exists
in South Africa—and I hope it now does—for treating
this issue with the seriousness that it deserves, then I think
South Africa, more than most countries, stands a chance of making
inroads into it. Obviously had the problem been addressed earlier
it would not now be so great. Q233 Chairman: I have one
sweep-up question. Anyone who knows the region will recognise
in South Africa a country which works: the infrastructure is of
a high quality; the people answer telephones; it is heavily biased
to IT; there is a strong civic sub-structure on the social side
which is extremely important in terms of local democracy. Any
investment which is made will benefit not only South Africa itself
but that region which it dominates to a large extent. I hope when
we label South Africa a middle-income country with the result
that our aid is decreasing, that you can give an assurance to
the Committee that we recognise that any aid which assists South
Africa will also have repercussive effects on the region as a
whole and that aid policy should be given within that context. Mr
Mullin: A lot of our aid is regional. A lot of our overseas
aid goes towards capacity building of pan-African institutions.
We mentioned NePAD a moment ago; we mentioned SADC and, of course,
we have major aid programmes in some of the countries immediately
surrounding South Africa and that actually has a knock-one effect
in terms of limiting the flow of refugees and migration into Southern
Africa. We have major programmes in Mozambique which is one of
the poorest countries of the world and in Malawi. It is in South
Africa's interest that those countries are brought up as well
because one of the problems is that there is a huge disparity
between South Africa and its neighbours and the faster they succeed
in closing the gulf between the wealthiest and the poorest, at
the present moment they are going to suck in people from the surrounding
economies because there is no shortage of impoverished people
in that region. That is why we have to try to bring the whole
region up and not just one country. Chairman: The message
is clear: in partnership we can achieve good things in the region
of South Africa. May I, on behalf of the Committee, thank you
and thank your colleagues for a most helpful session.
16 Please refer to memorandum submitted by the FCO,
Ev 67. Back
17
Please refer to the supplementary memorandum submitted by the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ev 94. Back
18
Please refer to the supplementary memorandum submitted by the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ev 94. Back
|
