Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-56)
RT HON
HILARY BENN
MP, MR GRAHAM
STEGMANN AND
MS MELANIE
SPEIGHT
19 JULY 2005
Q40 John Bercow: So, for the avoidance
of doubt, there is no prospect of or purpose in having an agreement
around—call it development or call it blue cheese—unless
there is an end-date? So the Secretary of State then says not
just an end-date is desirable but an end-date is essential, without
which an agreement is not worth the paper on which it is written?
Hilary Benn: I do not see how
an agreement could be reached, bearing in mind it takes all the
countries to agree at the WTO, if as part of that there was not
an end-date agreed for export subsidies.
Q41 John Bercow: Following on from
Ann McKechin's enquiry, what is the strategy as far as the UK
Government is concerned for securing progress on this matter to
maximise the chance that by December, a period of less than six
months from the failure to set a date, a date will be set?
Hilary Benn: Principally, it is
a question of political momentum, frankly, because when the negotiators
gather in Hong Kong at the end of the year, in the same way that
in relation to the G8 there was a very clear focus on aid and
debt relief and, also, trade (although there was not the progress
that some people hoped for, for the reasons that I outlined),
there is a clear expectation on the part of all of those who are
looking at those negotiations that this is going to be part of
what is done. In the end, it is a question of will, and it was
political will that led Europe a year ago to agree the framework
agreement that said for the first time "Yes, we undertake
that we now will have to set an end-date for export subsidies."
It is political momentum and pressure that led President Bush
to say what he said, but it is going to be part of a negotiated
settlement. I just think we all have to be very clear that we
have to get a move on; people have to start demonstrating where
they are prepared to move on particular issues and, as far as
Europe is concerned, the British Government having said 2010 is
the end-date that we would like to see happen, argue the case
with our European colleagues in support of that, recognising that
the trade negotiations are, of course, the responsibility of the
Commission. I think that is the best way of achieving it because
if you had said two years ago: "What are the chances of an
extra $25 billion a year in aid for Africa? What are the chances
of a debt cancellation agreement? What are the chances of a debt
deal for Nigeria?" you would have had very few people who
would have thought it was possible. What changed was, in the end,
enough people said: "We have got to do this". I think,
in the end, that is what is going to deliver a deal, but nothing
is certain and it depends on what people choose to do when they
get there, and in the preparation.
Q42 John Bercow: The difference,
Secretary of State, I put it to you is that the effectiveness
of campaigning and communication on the issues of aid and debt
relief are vastly greater than in relation, so far, to trade.
In other words, put it this way: there is a general agreement
that trade distorting subsidies to Western agricultural production
are damaging, that they prevent the developing world having a
chance to compete and grow, that it is all very disgraceful, and
so on and so forth. However, when it gets down to the specifics,
things that will actually hurt decision-makers in developed countries,
requiring them to explain themselves to powerful vested interests,
the initial resolve seems quite quickly to be weakened. I would
like to put it to you that there are two very specific and rather
different tasks here. One is to recognise that very often in trade
policy things, Chairman, are not what they seem. For example,
when there is a commitment to phase out subsidies that distort
trade, when you look at the detail you very often find that actually
what developed countries have in mind is shifting subsidies from
one category to another. So I would like to ask you whether you
agree that the Green Box category of subsidies needs to be fundamentally
reviewed. Would the British Government press, for example, for
the World Bank to look at that whole set of issues and satisfy
themselves on the subject—in other words, satisfy themselves
either that those subsidies are not substantially trade distorting
or that, if they are, countries cannot be allowed to get away
with claiming that they are doing a good job and they are improving
performance and they are reducing trade-distorting subsidies when,
in fact, all they are doing is replacing one form of trade distortion
with another. What is the harm in the British Government, very
up-front, very dynamic and very forward looking, saying: "This
is something that needs to be looked at; let there be an independent
review and, obviously, it has got to be done well in time for
the possibility of reaching an agreement in December"?
Hilary Benn: There are two points
you make. One is, quite rightly, about the political difficulty
of countries moving on this. Seventy per cent of the European
budget was spent on the CAP in years gone by; it is now down to
40% and that has been the result of a process of change and adaptation.
It is difficult, and it is more difficult for some countries than
others, but you have one form of political pressure which is domestic
and you have another form of political pressure which says: "In
the interests of development across the globe and, particularly,
in Africa, if we are serious about Africa meeting the MDGs, and
if we are serious about them building a better life for their
people then this is something that we have to do." It is
what the balance of force is between that. Secondly, there is
no point in reaching agreement to get rid of the export subsidies
if it does not actually have that effect. As part of the negotiations
there is obviously lots of technical detail that has to be gone
into but it is important that people are satisfied, as part of
those negotiations, that people have done what they have said
they are going to do. I think developing countries will be in
the best position, as they look at what is being proposed, to
satisfy themselves that what is being offered will actually have
the beneficial consequence that they are looking for. Therefore,
my view is that we should look at all of the changes and ensure
that they are, in fact, going to enable—the purpose of all
this is to enable developing countries to participate more in
the global economy, to export more to us and to improve the lives
of their people. We should look at the means of doing it, whatever
they are.
Q43 John Bercow: Let us be clear,
then, on my second point, Secretary of State, that it is, after
all, not accidental that living standards are being damaged and
that there is not a proper supply of public services in the developing
countries as a whole; albeit they are not homogenous and there
are great differences between them, there is a broad theme here
that it is the knowing, deliberate and calculated policy of the
richest governments on earth to bolster their trade at the expense
of others. Are you broadly in agreement with that proposition,
that there is a quite deliberate process in which we think it
is more important to subsidise our agricultural exports because
of the satisfaction that it provides to a certain sector in our
own countries than it is to stop the deliberate deterioration
in the living standards of people in sub-Saharan Africa?
Hilary Benn: That has undoubtedly
been the case in the past but we are in the middle of a process
of change. If you had said 10 years ago: "What are the chances
of Europe saying `We are going to set an end-date for export subsidies'?"
you would not have found very many people who would have thought
it was possible, yet that is what happened last July. Now, when
that date is going to be is what the negotiations are about, but
what I think that demonstrates is how this political argument
and process is moving. Have we got a long way to go? Yes, we have,
but have we moved from where we were before—as is the basis
of your question—yes, we have moved.
John Bercow: Let us go a bit further
then, Secretary of State, because this is really rather a curious
case, in the sense that if you champion the cause of an end-date
and if you very explicitly set out to the reluctant parties in
this matter, for example, France and the United States, the devastating
consequences of failing to stop this damaging behaviour, it is
not in any sense a doubled-edged sword for H Benn; you will be
even more popular, Secretary of State, in the country than you
currently are because people will say: "Hilary Benn, the
Secretary of State, is setting it out in terms; he is being quite
explicit, and he is saying if there is not an end-date and if
the French insist on behaving in a way that satisfies a particular
sector in their own economy but worsens living standards this
is how many people in the developing world will continue to suffer;
this is the quantifiable extent to which resources available for
the public services in sub-Saharan Africa will be reduced."
It is not actually all that difficult to envisage; you could do,
as a department—and you would probably find it would satisfy
government advertising requirements—a magnificent score-sheet,
could you not, of what will be the consequences for the developing
world if other countries do sign up, and what will be the consequences
for the developing world if they do not? What I am getting at
here, Secretary of State, is that although the detail is complex—and
I readily accept that and there is much negotiation to be undertaken—the
moral imperative is overriding, and it is possible, is it not,
in broad terms to quantify both the benefits of reform and the
desperate damage of failing to achieve it? You could do that in
very explicit terms. The French probably would not like it but
the French do not have a vote in Leeds Central.
Q44 Chairman: You cannot resist the
blandishments of John Bercow's style of populism, can you, Secretary
of State?
Hilary Benn: Well, I can. The
passion evident in putting that question in support of trade as
a means of enabling Africa to earn its way out of poverty is one
I would not disagree with. It is not about anybody's popularity,
if I may humbly say; the case is self-evident. I think there is
a greater focus on trade now than there was in the past, and I
welcome that. It goes back to the point I made earlier about telling
the full story. The answer is that even with more open trade,
if one takes Darfur (a subject about which I know Mr Bercow you
feel extremely passionately), without political progress and without
peace and stability it does not matter what happens in Hong Kong;
it does not matter what happens on aid and debt relief. Therefore,
all of these things have to be in place, but there is no doubt
whatsoever that enabling developing countries to participate on
a more fair and equitable basis in the global economy—in
the end, enabling them to raise their own financing for development
because that is what we want in the end. People say: "Where
are the resources going to come from for aid in 10 to 15 years'
time?" Well, if this works, if there is peace and stability
and good governance and people come and invest in Africa, that
is what we want, because you have got to have something to sell.
There are agricultural products but you have got to have other
things to sell, and Africa's tragedy has been that people have
not come to invest in Africa. Forty per cent of the wealth it
generates itself every year flees the continent. As someone put
it: "If Africa cannot hang on to half of its own money, or
just under half, how does it expect anyone else to come in and
invest?" Now, with investment, with peace and stability,
with good governance, with creating a climate in which economic
development can take place, enabling the continent of Africa to
trade on a more fair and equitable basis is the long-term key
to changing people's lives. Aid and debt relief help, and they
are very important along the way, but this is where we can really
make progress. That is why the talks matter so much. I do think
the world understands that better now. Is a good outcome guaranteed?
No, it is not. You are asking me can I say with certainty an end-date
will be reached. I cannot tell you that, but what I can say is
if we are serious about making progress this is one of the things
that we have to do.
Q45 John Bercow: We are, nevertheless,
extremely grateful to you for pressing for 2010. Very briefly,
on the other side of the equation we all accept that if liberalisation
goes ahead there will be some losers. Would you not agree, further
to what you were saying earlier about special and differential
treatment, that it would be perfectly fitting for money saved
in agricultural support subsidies (by this country and others)
to be used to bolster special and differential treatment for the
nations that in the short and medium term will lose out?
Hilary Benn: Whether the money
comes from that source or from other sources, and we have a rising
aid budget, I think it is very important that, going back to Ann
McKechin's point, when it comes to managing transition (and you
are right, change to a different type of economy does involve
winners and losers, and that is another thing we have to be honest
about), in the end it is for countries to determine how they want
to deal with that change and do they want to go down that road,
but I think it is important that we provide support for those
countries that are going to be affected by that transition so
that it can manage it in as effective a way as possible. We have
seen in the groupings that have come together in developing countries
that people are beginning to understand better now that there
are different interests. In the past, people have thought: "Well,
all developing countries have the same interests". They do
not. That is why the devil is indeed in the detail, because it
depends how those different interests are taken into account and
on that will depend whether, in the end, a deal can be done—alongside
all the other things that we have discussed.
John Bercow: I am very grateful, Secretary
of State. Thank you.
Q46 Mr Singh: Secretary of State,
you mentioned the importance of peace and stability just a few
moments ago.
Hilary Benn: Yes.
Q47 Mr Singh: You will obviously
agree that conflict seriously undermines development and governance
in Africa. Are you disappointed that the G8 did not deal properly
with the issues of arms proliferation?
Hilary Benn: We got a form of
words in the Communiqué. As you know, Britain (Jack Straw
made his speech in the Autumn) wants to get the world to agree
a new Arms Trade Treaty. It is going to be difficult—let
us be honest, it is going to be difficult—but I think it
is the right thing to do because arms, combined with people who
decide in their heads that they want to fight, are the cause of
a great deal of under-development. Africa has had more than its
fair share of conflict. Different countries take different views,
I think, but we have got to try and do this because unless we
are more effective at controlling the flow of arms then we are
denying ourselves one of the means, but it is only one of the
means, of dealing with the conflict that has caused that under-development
and meant that a number of countries in Africa have not been able
to progress. It is an important part but you also need a political
process and you need people to deal with their differences not
by fighting but by coming together and reaching agreement. I hope
we can make progress, but it is going to be hard going.
Q48 Mr Singh: What are the chances
of, say, India, Russia, China and the USA changing their stance
on an international arms trade treaty? I understand they are quite
opposed to any concept of that at the moment.
Hilary Benn: They are in a position
to answer that question rather than I. All I can say is that the
UK Government is going to push this. A bit like the discussion
we have just had in relation to trade, it is about persuading
people that this is something that we ought to do if we are serious
about dealing with one of the sets of conditions that give rise
to under-development. I think we just have to argue the case.
As with the last question, do I know what the outcome is going
to be? No, I do not, but I think it is worth making the effort,
in exactly the same way as we have made the effort on aid and
debt relief in the run-up to the G8 summit.
Q49 Mr Singh: There is a review conference,
I think, in 2006 of the UN programme of action on small arms.
Is there any chance of any progress being made on this issue before
then?
Hilary Benn: I do not know is
the short answer. Can I think about it and drop the Committee
a note[10]?
Is that all right? Can I just say, on small arms, we have been
strong advocates of what has been known as the transfer control
initiative, which has been trying to address this problem of small
arms and light weapons, because most of the people who have been
killed in the conflicts in Asia and in Africa have been killed
by, bluntly, the wash of Kalashnikovs and other weapons that have
come out of the former Soviet Union and which are in very easy
and free supply. Part of what we are doing is trying to have more
effective control of that and part of what we are doing through
our aid programme and other things through the conflict pools
is when peace processes come to succeed, obviously, to take the
weapons off people, and that is why work on DDR[11]
is so important. First of all, you have to disarm people's minds—that
is stage one—and then you take the weapons off them and
give them a different way of living their lives. We have to make
progress on all of that, but, yes, small arms are responsible
for most of the people who get killed.
Q50 Mr Singh: Is it something that you
will pursue during our Presidency of the European Union?
Hilary Benn: We have a number
of priorities. Clearly, the position that Europe takes in relation
to that is going to be important. I am very helpfully advised
that we hope to start a formal negotiating process in the UN in
the second half of 2006. One of the things I hope we can make
progress on in Europe out of our Presidency is the EU/Africa strategy
which Louis Michel has promised, I think, to publish in draft
in October. That is going to be about the contribution that Europe
can make to helping Africa to progress. I think one of the issues
that Europe is going to have to look at is where can Europe make
a particular contribution? That will go alongside the new development
policy statement that has just been published and which we will
be discussing, and, also, the new development instrument about
which there is a lot of argument and debate.
Q51 Mr Singh: Is there any linkage,
Secretary of State, between debt relief, aid and African defence
budgets? Are any conditions imposed? For example, if debts are
being removed entirely—100% for some countries—how
can the world be guaranteed that the money saved by those nations
will not be spent on arms?
Hilary Benn: One has to take as
the starting point in all of this that countries have the right
to acquire the means to defend themselves. That sets the framework
for the Export Control Act and the arrangements we already have
in place from the UK. When we take decisions as the UK, when it
comes to how we give our aid, then, of course, one of the things
that we look at is what is happening to trends in public expenditure.
Going back to the earlier point I made: if we are giving aid people
are going to want to see that expenditure on the things that really
tackle poverty—health and education—are increasing.
We take decisions about the way in which we give our aid. I suppose
I should have mentioned in answer to the earlier discussions we
were having, raised particularly by Mr Davies, that we have a
range of aid instruments. At one end, Zimbabwe, we do not give
any money to the government at all but we do have a significant
AIDS programme. Why? Because AIDS is a big problem in Zimbabwe.
We do it through NGOs and others. That is one end of the spectrum.
Direct budget support is the other end of the spectrum and there
is a range of methods that we can use in between. That is how
we form a judgement about where the country is going, what priorities
it has set out and then we adjust the aid instruments that we
have got accordingly to deal with the issue that you have raised.
Q52 John Barrett: If I can turn to
the link between investment, poverty reduction and the improvement
in governance in countries, we have all heard people describe
aid as "poor people in rich countries giving to rich people
in poor countries", and earlier today you gave examples of
how, in relation to Uganda and Sierra Leone, action had to be
taken for a variety of reasons to make sure that aid was being
efficiently delivered. What more can DFID do, without infringing
on the sovereignty of these countries, to make sure that the developing
countries themselves actually improve their governance so that
aid is efficiently spent and goes where we and other donor countries
would like to see it ending?
Hilary Benn: As I indicated in
answer to Mr Davies earlier, I think this is going to become the
source of increasing debate. I welcome that, actually, because
it is an issue not just for us as donors but, of course, it is
an issue in the countries themselves. There is a fine balance
to be struck here because, in the end, a developing country government
should be responsible to their own people—not to us as donors.
You could conceive of a system where you put all sorts of controls
in place; you would end up with the money that donors were giving,
in effect, being the government of the country taking those decisions,
and that is not in the end where we want to end up. Where we do
want to end up is where people give their own governments a hard
time, just as you give me a hard time. That is one of the things
that was so striking about the bit of research work done by the
Commission for Africa. I think we popped some questions on the
end of an omnibus survey done in a number of African countries
and one of the questions was: "Who do you hold responsible
for the state of your country?" and the majority answer in
every case was "The Government". I found that very reassuring
because it shows whoever is in government gets the blame, wherever
it is they happen to be. It is both about capacity, which we have
talked about, but it is also about building the expectation on
the part of people that governments should be doing something
for them; that people should be asking questions: "What have
you done with the money? Why are you spending this much on defence
as opposed to this much on health?" How do we do that? In
part by the aid instruments that we use, as I indicated to Mr
Singh a moment ago, partly in the nature of the relationship that
we have got by encouraging our developing country partners to
set out what they themselves are trying to do to improve governance,
and to make that part of the aid relationship. So, if setting
up an anti-corruption commission is part of that, then that is
something that we can take into account in deciding if we have
a "performance related" element to our budget support;
to say: "Well, you have not made as much progress as you
said you were going to make" and apply a bit of incentive
in that way. I have to be honest: this is quite a difficult process
because we have got to get the balance right. I must say, I am
very open to what I hope is going to be a lively debate, which
I am sure the Select Committee will participate in, on exactly
how we do this. Have we got it absolutely right now? I am not
entirely sure, but we need to find mechanisms that do not result
in us, in the end, being a former colonial power that is trying
to run the country, and we have to find mechanisms that really
enable people in those countries to hold their own governments
to account. We have got to find the right way of doing that.
Q53 Hugh Bayley: I agree with you,
Secretary of State, that some very major steps forward in terms
of policy and commitments by G8 countries were made at the G8
summit and at the preparatory meetings leading up to it, and that
those commitments would not have been made if the UK Government
had not given the priority to Africa which it gave to Africa.
What needs to happen now is a programme of work that ensures that
those commitments are met. How will the implementation of the
promises made at Gleneagles be monitored and by whom? Will you,
Secretary of State, consider the proposal made by Professor Nkuhlu,
the Head of the NEPAD Secretariat, at a speech to the ODI earlier
this month, where he proposed that there might be some process
of peer review and mutual accountability that applies to donor
countries and not just to recipients of aid, where as you know
there is a peer review process as part of NEPAD?
Hilary Benn: In relation to donors,
there is the existing DAC peer review process, as you know, Mr
Bayley. This is the big question. The body where this is going
to happen, the monitoring commitment, is going to be the Africa
Partnership Forum, because up until now the G8 has been monitoring,
in preparation for its commitments on Africa, through the G8 Africa
Action Plan. One of the most important things that came out of
Gleneagles on this issue was recognition that there now needed
to be a joint plan because, in the spirit of partnership, "Why
is this happening?" "Because Africa is taking a lead
in helping itself". That is one of the reasons politically
why we were able to make progress, because people could see not
only this was morally the right thing to do but now is the time
to do it because of change that is happening in Africa. What the
G8 agreed, and it is certainly my view, is we need a joint plan
that is jointly monitored. The Africa Partnership Forum is the
mechanism to do it. There are some things about the way it is
constituted currently, including the level of representation of
people who come to it, that need to change, because I think we
need more senior representation at the Africa Partnership Forum.
I know from talking to many colleagues in Africa how much importance
they attach to it and what we need is a body which is able to,
first of all, chart what all the commitments are and to monitor
progress in implementing them but, crucially, where commitments
are not being implemented—if things are getting along, great—has
the power and the authority to make sure that those who are not
doing what they promised to do jolly well get on and do it. We
have some way to go in ensuring that that is the case. In part,
it is about sustaining the political pressure that got us to Gleneagles
and the outcome that was achieved, I think, does represent significant
progress, and it is how we sustain that politically, because that
is how we achieved this. That would be the best means of ensuring
that people do the things that they promised they are going to
do.
Q54 Hugh Bayley: Just two quick supplementaries:
will you publish in advance the dates of the Africa Partnership
Forum? Will you publish the reports which are made to those meetings
and the outcomes from them? You mentioned the OECD: I wonder,
Secretary of State, if you could say what is the timetable for
action on the OECD's Development Effectiveness Agenda?
Hilary Benn: The answer to the
first question is yes, 4 and 5 October—the first meeting.
The answer to the second question is yes, they are published in
the papers, and if you are talking about the follow-up to Paris,
which I think you are referring to, then we aim to agree by September.
We left a number of square boxes, as I am sure you know, at that
rather interesting meeting, and the aim is to agree by September
the numbers that are going to go in to fill the boxes to demonstrate
that we are not just talking about co-ordination and harmonisation,
we have actually set some targets, which we will work to deliver.
I hope that is helpful.
Q55 Chairman: Thank you, Secretary
of State. Just one final point: we have the Presidency of the
EU as well. Some of our EU partners—I mentioned Belgium,
but there are others—do not quite share exactly the same
perspective as the UK. Can you say what we will be doing during
our Presidency, perhaps, to increase the contribution of the EU
to Africa and perhaps ensure that their concern—the understandable
concern—with the near-abroad does not actually conflict
with that?
Hilary Benn: This balance of argument,
the different interests that different bits of Europe have got,
has been with us for quite sometime. Of course, with the accession
states, they brought with them a whole new near-abroad. I think
one really has to pay tribute to Europe, because that agreement
reached, in the discussion we had at the dinner on the Monday
night and confirmed at the meeting on the Tuesday, to set this
EU/ODA/GNI target for the 15 Member States of 0.56% with a floor
for each one of the 15 of 0.51 if they have not reached it, and
the commitment of those 15 to undertake to reach the 0.7% by 2015—was,
in one sense, extraordinary. Very few people thought it was going
to happen. Therefore, I think Europe deserves enormous credit.
I think this was Europe at its best and, at a time when there
is a big debate going on about Europe, its purpose and what it
should be trying to do, here really is an example of Europe coming
together and saying, "Hey, we are going to do this".
That one decision will deliver two-thirds of the additional $25
billion a year in aid for Africa that the Commission for Africa
recommended and Europe did at one fell swoop. So I think Europe
has done a lot already with that, but I think the place where
these debates are going to be played out will be (1) in the Development
Policy Statement, which we will come to discuss, (2) in the EU/Africa
Strategy, which we hope to bring to the Council in December and,
the third, when it comes to the way in which we do things, will
be around the development instrument. The European Parliament
has some very serious reservations, as I am sure you know, about
the draft which the Commission has currently produced, and we
are going to be working to try and find a way forward. I discussed
that with the Development Committee of the European Parliament
when I was there last week. Europe is making an important contribution.
The final point I would make is that the process of reform at
the EC's own development programmes, which has gone some way,
still has some way to go; we have got to keep working on it.
Q56 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. I am sure we will have many of these exchanges, but thank
you very much for giving us your time today.
Hilary Benn: Thank you. I look
forward to it.
10 Ev 41 Back
11
Demobilization, Disarmament and Reintegration Back
|
