Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
24 MARCH 2004
RT HON
HILARY BENN
MP, MR MATTHEW
WYATT AND
MS FELICITY
TOWNSEND
Q1 Chairman: Secretary of State, thank
you very much for making time to be with us this evening. It was
very good of you to fit the session in. If I could just say, as
much to those at the back of the kirk as to you, as a Select Committee,
we sometimes find ourselves in the rather curious position of
going on visits to countries where DFID has large bilateral programmes
but, because of the curious rules of the House, it is difficult
for us to take verbatim evidence that appears as part of the record
of the House. DFID in Kenya organised what we all thought was
an excellent seminar on the Country Assistance Plan and what NGOs
and civil society wanted to see in Kenya. We thought it was so
good that one of the ways in which, of course, what they said
could become evidence and part of the record of this House was
by our having an inquiry, and that is what we are doing. However,
I want to make it very clear that we are not seeking to second-guess
the Country Assistance Plan; we are not in a position to do that,
we do not want to do that, and we certainly do not want to set
a precedent whereby it is felt by DFID or whoever that we are
trying to look at each and every Country Assistance Plan, but
because we have been there so recently, and we were engaged in
thoughts on Kenya so recently, we thought it would be worthwhile
to do an exercise whereby at least all of it is on the record.
So thank you very much for helping us with it. There was quite
an interesting comment in the Economist a few years ago,
which was, I think, entitled "The Kenya-Donor Dance."
It said, and I quote: "Over the past few years Kenya has
performed a curious mating ritual with its aid donors. The steps
are (1) Kenya wins its yearly pledges of foreign aid; (2) the
Government begins to misbehave, backtracking on economic reform
and behaving in an authoritarian manner; (3) a new meeting of
donor countries looms, with exasperated foreign governments preparing
their sharp rebukes; (4) Kenya pulls a placatory rabbit out of
the hat; and (5) the donors are mollified and the aid is pledged
and the whole dance then starts again." Actually, one of
the things which struck us as being interesting in the seminar
that was hosted by DFID Kenya—and I think it was Andrew
who observed this—was that nobody actually asked us for
money. It is the first time we have been in a situation where
people did not have money at the top of their agenda, and indeed,
many of the participants stated that what Kenya did not need was
more money from donors. I wondered if you felt there is a sense
in which Kenya is and has had to be more self-reliant than its
neighbours over the last 10-15 years and, if so, to what extent
and how does this preference for self-reliance alter the nature
of DFID's approach to assisting Kenya?
Hilary Benn: First of all, can
I thank you, Mr Chairman, for inviting me to come and give evidence.
I probably do not need to introduce Matthew Wyatt, who you will
have met, and Felicity Townsend from the DFID team.
Q2 Chairman: We are extremely grateful
to Matthew and his team for facilitating a really good visit.
Hilary Benn: I am very glad that
is the case. Secondly, I appreciate the opportunity of what I
am sure will be a conversation about the work that we are doing
in Kenya and the process of the development of the CAP. As I understand
it, the Committee is not planning to produce a report as such,
but one thing I wanted to say right at the beginning was, if you
have any opportunity for reflection on what you have had in the
way of written evidence and the session we have today and there
are any views that you wanted to express, formally or informally,
as a Committee to us, I would be very happy to receive them, because,
having been through the consultation process on the CAP—and
the plan we have, of course, is to produce a final version, drawing
on all the sources of advice and feedback that we have had—it
would be very useful to have any of the Committee's views to contribute
to that process. I was very interested by the quote that you read
from the Economist. You said some years ago; you do not
happen to know when?
Q3 Chairman: 1995, so a few years ago.
Hilary Benn: It is a very interesting
description of a process, and I am, I suppose, relatively new
to it. Clearly, in recent years, and certainly since the election
in 2002, there has been some real progress in terms of the democratic
process in Kenya, and I think everybody recognises that. There
is the progress they have made on universal primary education,
and I was interested in what you had to say about people not having
asked you for money, but clearly, the contribution that we were
able to make alongside others to support the lifting of user fees
has resulted in a very tangible benefit, which has been the increase
in enrolment in primary education. I think there is some debate
still about the precise numbers, but it is certainly over a million,
and I think the Government is suggesting that it could be slightly
more than that. I think if one looks back at the history, corruption
has been a particular problem, but the new government has certainly
taken steps to try and address that and to change what might have
been the traditional picture, and it is interesting to look at
what Transparency International have reported, namely that according
to their urban bribery index, public institutions are being bribed
less than they were a year ago and there have been significant
judicial reforms. The private sector is doing reasonably well,
although one of the reasons why, certainly in our view, some of
the key Millennium Development Goal indicators in Kenya have worsened
in the last ten years, particularly income, health and education,
is in part due to corruption, but is simply the fact that population
growth has outstripped economic growth. We are trying to have
an open and honest relationship and dialogue with the Government
of Kenya, and to develop a CAP which reflects the priorities that
they are setting through their Economic Recovery Strategy, the
ERS, which is, of course, their version of the PRSP. If you look
at the elements of our programme, we are making a significant
contribution on HIV, on malaria—where the bed net programme
is a very tangible benefit, because we estimate so far that this
may have contributed to saving 40,000 lives, and we are looking
to extend that programme—the money we have put into education,
about which I have talked already, and other things to do with
water and sanitation, extra classrooms, and so on, and I hope
it will not be, as far as the future is concerned, a continuation
of the Kenyan dance, as the quote described it, but us working
as an important donor in the country to support the Government
in taking the country forward, recognising that in these key areas
of health and education and income, things have actually worsened
in the last 10 years, and that is why we are anxious to help,
and that is why our programme is increasing in size.
Q4 Mr Colman: Could I welcome to this
evidence session also, but not giving us evidence, the distinguished
High Commissioner from Kenya and other representatives of Kenya.
Everyone here is very much a friend of Kenya, and if our questions
sound particularly aggressive, it is that we are searching for
truth, and nothing beyond that. I think, Chair, the Kenya donor
dance stopped in 1995 and, regrettably, has now been taken up
after seven years of the dance coming to an end. I very much welcome
the fact that DFID are having this new look at the Country Assistance
Plan. If things do unravel, if things—pray God it does not
happen—go wrong, if HIV/AIDS is not sufficiently tackled,
if there are problems with the Government implementing its Economic
Recovery Strategy, how does DFID intend to track and manage these
risks so that we do not get back into the bad past, as it were,
and is there a danger in channelling too large portion of assistance
to the Government, which as yet is not able to prove its poverty
reducing credentials?
Hilary Benn: Clearly, if the bad
things that you refer to, Mr Colman, in your question were to
come to pass, this would present a very big challenge. On HIV/AIDS,
as I am sure you saw when you were in Kenya, in the last year
or two there appears to have been some stabilisation of the prevalence
rate, and that undoubtedly represents progress, although we have
expressed some concerns about the effectiveness of the arrangements
within the country for managing that process and that has been
the subject of discussion at a number of different levels. Clearly,
if those circumstances arrive, we are going to have to address
them. It is very important that we are able to manage both the
progress of the elements of our own programme and also monitor
the way in which the spending of the Government of Kenya on what
I think collectively we regard as the priority sectors actually
moves. One thing that is very striking—and it in part links
to the point that you raised about health—is the disparity
between expenditure that goes on education as opposed to health,
because education spending is a significant proportion of the
revenue budget and it has increased in recent years. In health
it is nothing like as significant a proportion and I think one
could probably argue that health has been under-funded, certainly
in comparison with the amount of money that has gone on education,
and of course, infant and maternal mortality are getting worse.
Also, an interesting statistic which I came across: I am advised
that 15% of the health budget goes on the Kenyatta Hospital and
5% of the health budget goes on preventative work in general.
That is just an example.
Q5 Mr Colman: Will you be setting benchmarks
in each of these areas?
Hilary Benn: I do not know whether
Matthew wants to say anything about how the monitoring work is
being undertaken in detail relating to the programmes.
Mr Wyatt: We are having a dialogue
with the Government on the overall nature of the budget, and within
that the Government itself has said that it feels that the expenditure
on preventative services in health is too low, so they are looking
for ways to increase that, and we are hoping that they will increase
it and we have made that very clear to them. The budget is in
June, so the process is ongoing at the moment, but that will certainly
be one of the things that we will be looking at as we develop
our partnership with them.
Q6 Mr Colman: You will be setting benchmarks
in other areas too?
Mr Wyatt: We are not setting benchmarks,
but what we will be doing when we look at the budget, and in particular,
as we are considering, as we say in the CAP, the case for providing
direct budget support, we will want to look in the round at the
budget and to see whether or not the expenditures which really
benefit poor people, of which preventative health care services
are one, are in general increasing, but we do not feel we are
in a position to set benchmarks ourselves at the micro level.
Hilary Benn: That is true; the
fact that we are not in a position currently to consider direct
budget support reflects our assessment of how things are going,
but Matthew is entirely right that, were we to get to that point,
as we do in our relationship with other countries, it is very
important if you are going to use that as a mechanism for giving
some of your development assistance that you can see very clearly,
by the decisions that the Government takes about the way in which
it allocates expenditure to poverty reduction, to health and to
education, that it is moving in the right direction. That is fundamental
to that kind of relationship.
Q7 Mr Battle: This draft Country Assistance
Plan seems very thorough, and it seems very well tied into the
ambitious Economic Recovery Strategy for wealth and employment
creation, but I wonder if I could ask you this: having read it
myself, I was left wondering what you see as the key changes that
have taken place to previous approaches. What is new in it? How
do the plans for engaging with the Government differ from previous
approaches, particularly where you have had experience in the
Department in Africa, and elsewhere in the world really, with
countries that have emerged from authoritarian regimes in the
past? How do you see it as a new direction and a new dynamic?
What is special about it that could be leading us on a new way
forward in our approach, or maybe it is not?
Hilary Benn: I think your last
comment is very pertinent. Clearly, the circumstances in the country
have changed with the election of the new government, and I alluded
to some of the consequences of that in answer to the Chairman's
original question. I happen to think that the process by which
the CAP has been drawn up and then consulted upon is a really
good model, not least because of the extent of the comments which
we have had from people in response to it, and the fact that this
then gives us an opportunity to reflect. If one just looks at
the comments that we have received, people were positive about
the emphasis on accountability; the priority we have given to
HIV/AIDS for reasons, I think, that we all understand; the need
to work both on demand from citizens—because a significant
part of the work that we do is about trying to support the political
process doing what it ought to do, which is citizens asking things
of government, because that is government's job, to respond and
to provide, but also to support the Government in improving its
ability to respond to those demands and to supply basic services;
donor harmonisation, which, of course, is a theme that runs right
across the work we are doing in a number of countries; recognising
the importance of agriculture to grow from poverty reduction—and
I know you had a submission from FARM-Africa—and being involved
with the Ministry of Finance on public financial management and
revenue. None of those I would describe as unique, but those,
if you like, are the positives. Then people have made comments
to us, asking the question, for example, whether we are spreading
ourselves too thinly. The honest answer on reflection is perhaps
we are, and I think there are two areas where we might look to
scale back, and in both cases actually to direct work towards
the World Bank because they are doing these things already—one
is on procurement and the second is on civil service reform. We
ought to do more on how we track and monitor, which was your question,
Mr Colman, and I think you are right, and we need to reflect on
that. People suggested we should do more with civil society. In
truth, we think we are doing quite a lot already, so I am not
sure that that is a criticism that we would necessarily accept.
Certainly people have said "Can you spell out more clearly
what the envisaged size of the programme will be in future?"
The revised version of the CAP will come out after the 2004 departmental
annual report is produced, and it seems to me that that is the
appropriate place to publish the figures on what the aid framework
is going to be for the next two years. I just feel, having talked
to colleagues in the office who have been working on this, that
this is good progress. Each country is unique, each set of circumstances
is unique, but I think as a process it has worked well because
it gives us a chance to reflect on what people said about the
draft and then helps us to develop our thinking. Today's hearing
is part of that process.
Q8 Mr Battle: The next question that
is in my mind, and you might tell me is just a stylistic, language
question, is Millennium Development Goals and how largely they
feature. Some of us on the Committee, about a year ago, I think,
went to America to try and lobby senators and congressmen and
women to say "Can you take Millennium Development Goals more
seriously, not just have them as aspirations but as real targets,
so that we have what is sometimes rather gloriously described
as an international narrative, where we are all joined together
and know where we are going." I thought there were very helpful
annexes on Millennium Development Goals in the paper. The targets
and the figures are there, but there is hardly a reference to
it in the main text, and there is nothing in the Economic Recovery
Strategy either. I wondered whether that was just because you
are so close to it on the ground and you are doing it anyway,
or whether we do not need to sharpen up the focus on the Millennium
Development Goals. What is your view? Is that an unfair criticism,
or am I just playing language games?
Hilary Benn: I think there is
a mixture of both, because the Millennium Development Goals are
fundamental to everything that the Department does, yet we have
been discussing, not just in relation to Kenya but more generally,
our Country Assistance Plans. My view is that I think we need
to have more focus on the progress that is or is not being made,
and then how our programme responds to that, not least because,
as you will see when the departmental annual report is published,
in the case of Africa we have 16 target countries which form part
of the PSA, and I think we have a good system for reporting using
the traffic light system. I cannot remember whether we discussed
this before at an earlier hearing. It is a very visual way of
presenting the progress that we are making or not making, and
I have certainly been encouraging the Department, looking at the
information that we are now producing on how we are doing in aggregate
across sub-Saharan Africa, which is one of the PSA groups, but
also in relation to individual countries, where we identify that
the country is not making sufficient progress towards the MDGs.
One of the questions we have to ask ourselves as a donor, as other
donors should be doing, is how we should adjust our programme.
We need to focus on this, first, because we have all signed up
to this, and second, because if you look at figures on, for example,
maternal and infant mortality, and in the case of Kenya they have
been getting worse, the question is what are we going to do collectively,
us supporting the Government, to make a difference to that? Those
are the two answers that I would give to the question that you
ask.
Q9 Mr Battle: Would it be more helpful,
if we are developing, if I can put it in these terms, a common
discourse, that the documents tied in together and worked it through,
and that everyone is aware that there is some momentum?
Hilary Benn: I hope very much
that in future, when people are looking at our Country Assistance
Plans, they will be able to see quite clearly a consistent focus
on the progress that is or is not being made against the MDGs
and what it is that we intend to do as part of our contribution
in the areas where progress is not being made.
Q10 Mr Davies: One thing that struck
me about the draft CAP was that you say very little about your
plans for education, and what is more, in the table at the back,
Millennium Development Goals in Kenya: At a Glance, under
Education you have a light colour, which means that you are satisfied
with progress, goal potentially achieved. Unfortunately, I do
not have the original colour version but I think, if I am reading
the thing right, the light colour means that. You were saying
that one of the benefits of this exercise was all the comments
you are getting back from people, and I wondered whether you had
seen the comments of Oxfam on the subject of education in Kenya.
Hilary Benn: To be honest, I have
not read all of the contributions that were made. Was there a
particular point you wanted to raise?
Q11 Mr Davies: They seemed to be a bit
disappointed, and they make a number of suggestions, including,
if I can just read some of them briefly, "The Kenyan education
policy, and donor support of Kenya's education programmes such
as DFID, must include measures to widen access to education to
cover non-formal education needs." You have, of course, already
supported the primary education programme. "In this regard
a commitment to Non-Formal Education should be reflected in a
revised Education Act," they say. "Relevant Kenyan Government
ministries, and donors supporting their programmes such as DFID,
must provide sufficient financial resources for non-formal education
to improve access, levels of teaching and curriculum standards."
How do you respond to these proposals about non-formal education
and, if you accept them, will you in the full report, when it
comes out, include proposals of this kind?
Hilary Benn: The first thing I
should say is we certainly reflect upon them in the course of
drawing up the revised plan. We have self-evidently put a particular
focus in terms of our effort in supporting the government's efforts
to get more children into primary school, and the £10 million
that I referred to earlier has made an important contribution,
and the Government has made real progress. That is not to under-value
the importance of non-formal education, but it is to value the
progress that has been made with the support that we have given
because of the priority that we give to that particular measure
of progress, and it links back to Mr Battle's question, which
is that this is one of the Millennium Development Goals that we
are all very keen that we should make progress on. Ms Townsend,
who is our education advisor, perhaps would like to say something
in answer to Mr Davies's question.
Ms Townsend: I have been away
for a week, but at the end of the week before that we, together
with the World Bank representative, were really talking about
DFID's first step into supporting the sector in a wider way than
we have up until now. The World Bank will follow but they will
be a bit slower than us. So for next year and onwards, our plans,
which have very much emerged from what the Government has prioritised,
now, informally at least, agreed with the Minister and the PS
and others, are that a fairly significant proportion of our support
should go towards easing the way for government and donor finance
to reach the providers in the non-formal schools, because the
Government recognises that it cannot do everything. Some of you
will be remembering the visit to the slums that we did in Nairobi.
You know that government schools are few and far between for urban
poor people, and that there is no early prospect of the Government
being able to provide good services in those areas and in other
areas where non-formal schools are the only possibility. We have
just come back from a visit to the North-East, where enrolment
is only 20%, and a lot of the options available to increase that
access are a combination of non-formal and government support—they
certainly want to be able to fund every child through whatever
provider. This, I think, is a major and very positive step, so
we will be working with them to get out of the bureaucratic situation
which has prevented non-formal schools registering with the Government
and therefore getting assistance, so we are going to be able to
sweep a lot of that away, while watching very carefully the accountability
issues. So the plan which we will be putting up very soon will
include this as a major element.
Q12 Mr Davies: So we are making some
progress. I sense that you share my view that the present draft
could indeed be read as I rather read it, that "We have done
education", because there is nothing very concrete or new
that is proposed in education, and secondly, that you are now
going to come up with addressing the issue of non-formal education,
which is not in the present draft. Before I leave education, can
I put to you something else that really came out of the discussion
we had in Nairobi: one of the local experts who came to see us
at our meeting—and I think I am entitled to quote her because
those were the rules of the game—Winnie Kinyua of Kenya
Private Sector Alliance—told us that really, the essential
problem in primary education is female primary education, and
if you can solve the problem of female education, you can achieve
the Millennium Development Goals. Do you sense that something
special should be done to prioritise female education, and if
so, what is the Government doing to urge the Kenyan authorities
to move in that direction or to support the Kenyan authorities
moving in that direction?
Hilary Benn: Ms Townsend may want
to comment on some of the detail. In answer to your direct question,
do I agree with the observation that was made to you, yes, I do,
for all the reasons that we understand, the fundamental importance
to everyone but particularly to girls of an education and the
prospects that it opens up for the country. Certainly, as part
of the work that we are doing, we would like to see further progress
on that front.
Ms Townsend: It is part of all
we do. I think it would be good if we could further prioritise,
and it would not just be DFID doing this; we are now getting the
Government interested. The trip that I have just mentioned to
the North-East a couple of weeks ago with the World Bank and with
the PS from education, the Director of education, and the Chief
Inspector, was the first time that any of those three have been
in that province for a very long time. They have never in 40 years
been visited by a PS, for example—any PS. That is where
enrolment is 20% and the girls' proportion of that is less than
a third. So some of the issues we were digging up and rubbing
our noses in, very deliberately, were connected with girls' education,
with Islamic issues, with issues about madrassahs and the possibility
of some integration, and that would need to include girls. We
work closely with the Aga Khan Foundation, which do a lot of good
work on the coast. Again, it is an Islamic area and girls are
lagging far behind. There are other areas in Kenya where the gender
gap is not a problem, so we have a particular set of foci to concentrate
on. We now have an arrangement with CIDA (Canada) where they are
putting funds through DFID into primary education, and we are
working closely also on the technical assistance and the needs
assessments and the specific pilots and innovations that are needed.
They have a very good track record on girls' education, similar
to ours, and I think that partnership is going to be very useful,
particularly in that area.
Q13 Mr Davies: I think one should regard
as axiomatic that nothing we do in this area can be done by DFID
alone, to address your first point. The only purpose in having
a development programme, it seems to me, is to collaborate effectively
with other donors, bilateral, multilateral, and with the local
recipient government, and to try to influence them in the direction
we think is most appropriate. In that context, I think this document
has a certain importance, because it does highlight what we consider
to be the lacunae that need to be addressed as a matter of priority.
So I hope you make some further progress there, and maybe something
on girls' education could also come into the document when it
emerges in final form. I am grateful for that. If I could just
move to a different area, where there is also a strange lack of
any reference at all that I have been able to find, to tourism.
Anybody who goes to Kenya can see there is an industry which is
flourishing and does create rather a lot of employment and can
see the enormous potential of it. So though you prioritise somewhere
the economic areas which you think most promising—I think
it is paragraph E9[1]—you
mention agriculture, land, natural resources, financial sector,
micro and small enterprises and so forth, I was rather struck
by the fact that tourism does not figure there. Does that mean
that you think that really, the potential has been exhausted?
Does that mean you do not think there is a role for explicit governmental
or donor action in that sector, or is there some other conclusion
I should draw?
Hilary Benn: No, I hope you would
not draw the conclusions that you have just postulated. In part
it is about the answer I gave to an earlier question, about the
response to the feedback we had to the CAP, which is what in the
end can we do, and do we spread ourselves too thinly? In the end,
we have to make a judgment because we cannot do everything, and
we have to recognise that.
Q14 Mr Davies: That is a perfectly respectable
answer, to say other people are doing everything, so there are
certain things we can sit back on.
Hilary Benn: Indeed. Clearly,
the tourism industry is of great importance. The EC provides some
funding through its Biodiversity Conservation Programme, so we
are contributing to that, obviously, by the contribution that
we make. We are also doing some work through our PEAK programme—Pathways
for Enhanced Environmental Governance in Kenya—which is
about trying to promote policy and legal frameworks which will
encourage sustainability in the use of forest and wildlife resources,
upon which, of course, tourism depends significantly. So that
is a modest contribution to helping the Government to deal with
some of those issues, but in other respects we have decided there
are other things that are of greater priority. That is not to
say that other donors are not working on them, or that it is not
a considerable priority for the Government of Kenya, because of
course, it certainly is.
Q15 Mr Robathan: Moving from tourism
and education to health, you mentioned HIV/AIDS and you also mentioned
in your opening remarks the difficulty of population growth. What
I particularly want to talk about is reproductive health. I cannot
quite remember the figures for economic growth compared to population
growth in Kenya, but I do recall that it was significant and actually,
to a certain extent, economic growth is eroded by the growth of
population. We have been told that population issues are invariably
dealt with by donors rather than national governments. I notice
it is set down in the Millennium Development Goals that the development
goal in maternal health is unlikely to be reached. Do you think
that DFID should be doing more about pushing the issue of population
issues and reproductive health? Is somebody else doing it? What
impact do you think population growth is having on progress towards
achieving the Millennium Development Goals? It is a rather big
question.
Hilary Benn: It is indeed, but
you are absolutely right that the extent to which population growth
has been outstripping economic growth is one of the reasons why
there has been growing poverty, and therefore it is an important
issue to address. Looking at our programme this year, as I think
I mentioned earlier, about £7 million will be going on HIV
and reproductive health. At a very practical level, we finance
the provision of condoms and other reproductive health services,
because that is a very practical contribution one can make both
to protection against acquiring HIV and also in terms of helping
to contribute to control of the population. Who do I think has
responsibility for this? Ultimately, as in all of these things,
the government of the country has responsibility; I think there
is no question about that whatsoever, but the importance that
we attach to it is reflected in the sums of money that we are
investing as part of our increasing aid programme, and I think
that the two interests, in population control and also in tackling
HIV/AIDS, obviously come together, in part in the form of the
support for reproductive health services which we make available.
So it is undoubtedly in the country's interest from both of those
points of view that the issue should be addressed, and that is
the contribution that we are making. Other donors are also doing
that.
Mr Wyatt: This is very high up
in the dialogue that we have with the Ministry of Health. We have
for some years been stepping into the breach when funds run out
or when stocks of contraceptives have run out, and so on, so year
on year we have stepped into the breach, but obviously we are
not very comfortable doing that and we would much rather see the
Government providing adequately in its budget and then making
sure that its budget is spent on those things. That is very high
on the list of things that we are talking to the Government about,
but in the mean time we have been providing a lot of things ourselves,
and we will continue to do so, particularly with the social marketing
of condoms.
Q16 Mr Robathan: Is it the case—my
memory is becoming hazy even though it is only two months on—that
population growth is outstripping economic growth in percentage
terms? It is. Yes, I seem to remember asking that in Nairobi actually.
Is the Government of Kenya aware of the issue, and is it taking
steps to address it, with your assistance? You discuss it, but
is it reacting?
Mr Wyatt: There are two sides
to that equation. I think that the Government is very much focused
on wanting to increase the rate of economic growth, and that is
really where many of the energies lie, and in fact, that is why
the Economic Recovery Strategy is called the Economic Recovery
Strategy, because it is a very top priority, and we very much
support that because, unless there is a significant increase in
the rate of economic growth, Kenya will not meet the Millennium
Development Goals. In terms of setting targets for population
growth, I am not aware that the Government has set itself targets
for that. The most recent figures for population growth in Kenya
suggest that the total fertility rate may have slightly risen
for the first time in some years, but overall, the population
growth rate in Kenya is generally rather below most of the countries
in the region and, as far as I am aware, the Government has not
targeted that as a key problem. What is a key problem, of course,
is enabling people to have access to reproductive health services
so that they can make their own choices about family size, how
many children they have and when they have them, and also the
impact that there is particularly on maternal mortality and so
on. That is very much part of the Government of Kenya's focus
and we support it, but in terms of a target for population growth
rate, I am not aware that they have that.
Hilary Benn: That, of course,
links back to the proportion of the budget which is being spent
on health in comparison, for example, to education.
Q17 Mr Colman: The Economic Recovery
Strategy envisages the creation of around 2.6 million jobs by
2007, with domestic investment the primary driver of employment
growth. How realistic do you think this is, and how does the Country
Assistance Plan help to bring this about?
Hilary Benn: It is an ambitious
target which the Government has set itself. I think if one looks
at how Kenya has performed, if one looks, for example, at the
extent of its private sector development, in one sense one could
say that it is in a stronger position than a number of other countries
in Africa, so I think that provides a foundation on which the
country can build, but it depends on a range of circumstances,
and, referring back to Mr Davies's earlier question about tourism
and the contribution that tourism makes to the industry, of course,
there have been recent difficulties in the course of the last
year which did impact upon the tourism industry, so events can
come along which can knock you off course which you cannot anticipate
at the time. In this case, the Government did respond very effectively
to the concerns that had been raised, and restoration of flights
and so on and so forth, but it did have an impact upon the economy,
and that is one example of events that can come along that can
have an impact. As it so happens, there is an investment conference,
which the Committee may well be aware of, that is scheduled and
is taking place today, which is about trying to get the business
community together. There are, however, some key measures which
we assess to be important to the prospects of achieving the objectives
that are set, and which you referred to, such as the passage of
the privatisation bill and the promulgation of a new investment
code, which are still outstanding. One of the things that we are
seeking to do is to help the private sector to build what one
might describe as a single voice for the purposes of having an
internal dialogue with the Government, and we look to support
the intensifying of that dialogue, in the terrible development
jargon—more of it—and to see what the results of the
investment conference are. But that is a step which the Government
has been taking to try and follow up the aims that have been set
for itself and for the future of the economy.
Mr Wyatt: The only thing I would
add on that is you mentioned, Secretary of State, that it is a
very challenging target. As you say, the foundation for the economy
is very good, but there is a need for some fundamental reform,
and I think the Government accepts that, and that is set out in
the Economic Recovery Strategy, and it is important, obviously,
not only to pass the legislation and the code that the Secretary
of State mentioned, but also actually to get on with implementing
some of those reforms, such as the privatisation agenda and reducing
the costs to business in particular, which that should entail.
Q18 Mr Colman: Can I move us on to trade?
The Kenyan Chamber of Commerce and Industry has called for DFID
to support Kenya's National Export Strategy 2003-07. I think we
all admire the work of Minister Kituyi in terms of getting the
Doha Round back under way and the work of ambassadress Amina Mohammed
at the WTO in Geneva, but what actually is DFID going to be doing
to help the export strategy of Kenya, particularly on agricultural
produce? Kenya has had problems in the past in getting its agricultural
exports into Europe, for instance, and also dealing with this
issue of Everything But Arms not applying to Kenya of course,
where it does apply to all its neighbours. To what extent are
you going to be helping? You mention it in E9 and you mention
it again in C6, but you are a bit short on practical steps you
are going to be taking.
Hilary Benn: Obviously, you see
the two references set out there. We had been giving some support
to the Ministry of Trade through the Africa Trade and Poverty
Project. The real key to progress, as I think we all know, is
what is going to happen in the World Trade talks, because I have
to say, in my experience, a very large number of developing country
ministers with whom I have had conversations about trade and trade
policy have a pretty clear idea—indeed, a very clear idea
in many cases—of what it is that they are looking for out
of those World Trade negotiations in order to enable their economies
to benefit. So we are giving some support in the form that I have
described and the references to which you have referred in the
Country Assistance Plan, but much more broadly—and this
is something we have discussed in previous evidence sessions—it
is the contribution that the UK and other countries can make to
opening up the world trading system, and that is all about getting
the World Trade talks back on track. So I think it is about approaching
it from both ends, supporting the building of capacity and knowledge,
and that is different for different countries, but at the same
time, making progress to unlock the opportunities which a country
like Kenya would very much like to have.
Q19 Mr Colman: But you recognise the
problem that Everything But Arms at the moment does not apply
to Kenya, which could cause major problems in export of its goods
into Europe very shortly. To what extent are you addressing this
problem, or is DFID going to be addressing this problem with the
European Union to ensure that Kenyan exports are not having this
impediment going forward?
Hilary Benn: The key to that is
the trade talks and the development round. Everything But Arms
is Everything But Arms, and that applies to the countries that
it applies to.
1 Paragraph numbers referred to throughout this oral
evidence session relate to DFID's draft Kenya: Country Assistance
Plan 2004-07, which has been reproduced in this Volume. Back
|
