Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-68)
RT HON
HILARY BENN
MP, MR STEPHEN
PICKFORD, MR
GAVIN MCGILLIVRAY
AND MR
GRAHAM STEGMANN
18 OCTOBER 2005
Q60 Chairman: Thank you, Secretary
of State. May I say that this debate started with the government's
campaign for debt relief and it has proceeded not to a conclusion
but a satisfactory stage. Are you able to add anything to what
you have said to us in the past about the queue of countries that
are applying debt relief but have not met the relevant conditions?
Are you able to give us any update information on that?
Hilary Benn: There are obviously
the 18 countries that have reached completion point. There are
the ten that have reached decision point. There are other countries
that are in the queue—the Central African Republic, Comoros,
the Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Lao PDR, Liberia,
Somalia, Sudan and Togo. In some of those, as we know, conflict
is the obstacle to making progress. There are the potential new
HIPCs and that is a long list which I will be very happy to read
out but I will let you have a note[7].
That is going to be finalised in early 2006. There are also then
the four countries that are currently getting the Multilateral
Debt Relief Initiative from Britain, where we are paying ten per
cent of the cost. That is Armenia, Mongolia, Vietnam and Sri Lanka.
Nepal would qualify if it were not for the government's problems,
and there are other countries that potentially could join the
Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative but that is subject to them
demonstrating that they have got good management and the things
that we have said a country needs to demonstrate in order to qualify
for the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative. The finalisation
of the list, and somebody will correct me if I have got this wrong,
for those who could potentially become part of HIPC, is to do
with the sunset clause that countries might join. Is that correct?
Mr Pickford: There will be a review,
based I think on end-2004 data, of the eligible list of HIPCs
but at the moment there are 42 that have been declared as eligible.
There are certain conditions, such as income per capita levels
and debt ratios, which determine whether they are eligible, so
there will be a review of other potentially eligible countries
to decide whether they meet the criteria of HIPC status.
Q61 Chairman: I wonder if I could
turn to the UN Summit. We are aware of all these multinational
agencies but it is to bring them all together which is essential
to delivering results. We are not on track for the Millennium
Development Goals. I know that the Chancellor has said that we
could still live up to that, to meet them, but the prospects do
not look very good at the moment. What do you think the World
Bank can do both to track how well we are doing and obviously
therefore inform the debate as to what we need to do to bring
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals back on track?
One of the arguments is that we do not even know exactly what
is happening with them.
Hilary Benn: The principal responsibility
for measuring and recording and reporting to us the progress towards
the MDGs rests with the UN and a number of reports have been produced
that give us very good information about what is happening and
the lack of progress that has been made, and I think that is where
it rightly rests. The key now, particularly in relation to Africa,
is how we are going to bring together all of the commitments that
have been made, both by the donor partners and from within Africa,
and then make sure that people do the things that they have promised.
2005 has been the year of real progress on commitments, and the
new AIDS target is one example, the increase in aid is another,
debt cancellation is another, but are people going to follow it
through? We had the recent meeting of the Africa Partnership Forum
in London and following the G8, where the G8 and the African heads
of state and heads of government agreed that there should now
be a joint plan, the African Partnership Forum agreed that they
were going to take that forward. We will have a first draft of
a joint plan when we meet next April. The Africa Partnership Forum
I think represents the one body that does bring together all of
the partners from Africa and the rest of the world and then collectively
hold everybody to account for what they have done. The Archbishop
of Capetown has also put forward a proposal for what I think is
called an African Monitor, which is bringing civil society together
in Africa to hold donors and African governments to account for
what they have done. I welcome both of these things because we
need to sustain the political momentum and support that enabled
2005 to achieve what it did and carry that forward to make sure
that people do what they promise on both sides of the partnership.
Q62 Chairman: But some of the charities
and NGOs have actually said that the World Bank and IMF targets
are undermining all the achievements of the Millennium Development
Goals. How satisfied are you that the Bank that now says it is
achieving those goals is going to put in place the mechanisms
to ensure that the policies which will be implemented are not
working against that?
Hilary Benn: For example, that
is why the decision that the Bank and the Fund to support the
debt cancellation agreement was so important, because on its own
that releases resources of what could be between one billion dollars
and $1.7 billion per year, which will no longer then have to be
paid in debt and can be used for the purposes of enabling countries
to make faster progress towards the MDGs. That is one very practical
consequence. The second, with the larger IDA, is to increase the
support that has been given. The World Bank has set up this Africa
Catalytic Fund. The first country to contribute to that was the
UK. That then links to voice, which we have not talked about,
but voice and conditionality are very closely linked. Indeed,
I think the changes we have made on conditionality have probably
done more to advance voice than a lot of discussions about structural
changes on the World Bank board where, frankly, things are stuck
and that is why no progress has been made. The Africa Catalytic
Fund, in support of the World Bank's new policy for Africa, which
we agreed and which I greatly welcome, is saying that it will
be informed in its decisions by priorities identified by Africa
and the African Partnership Forum. If we can link the priorities
that individual countries are setting, what Africa collectively
is saying on infrastructure, for example—and one other thing
that has happened is that we convened a couple of weeks ago the
first meeting of the Infrastructure Consortium, which brings together
the Bank, the EC, the Japanese and the African Development Bank
(Donald Kaberuka has just taken over there)—we can say,
"Look: all of us are working on infrastructure. It is clearly
a hugely important issue. We are going to have more resources
available. How can we make sure what we have got currently shifts
out effectively so that infrastructure gets built?"—and
that has been an issue for the African Development Bank—"and
how can we harness this to make sure that it meets the priorities
which have been identified in this case in relation to Africa?"
Those are a number of things that have been done that include
the Bank but also others to try and make sure that we build on
the opportunity we have got to make faster progress. It is a big
challenge and in countries where there is conflict, until you
sort the conflict out there is not going to be progress towards
the MDGs as we know.
Q63 Chairman: You have mentioned
infrastructure. In the previous discussions there was agreement
that the infrastructure budget was going to increase generally
and that everybody recognised that, but we have been told that
DFID were only going through other agencies rather than its own
programmes. Are you satisfied that you can control what you have
just said without having programmes of your own, in other words
through the agencies you are dealing with?
Hilary Benn: I think that is the
right route because the multilateral bodies can shift large amounts
of money to support infrastructure investment. It is a very good
example of where we can harmonise, and if we can be effective
in bringing together all of this commitment to meet the priorities
that have been identified by the countries and the regions—it
is not just about countries; it is also about regional economic
development, again particularly in Africa because there is big
potential there, going back to your earlier question,—to
improve the capacity of Africa to participate more effectively
in the global economy, then yes, I think it is the right route
and I think what we have put in place through the Infrastructure
Consortium will help. We are also doing a lot of work on technical
assistance to help make that happen.
Q64 Joan Ruddock: Specifically on
MDG3, on gender equality, one of the key targets there is to eliminate
the differentials between gender in primary and secondary education,
preferably, the wording said, by 2005. At the UN Summit 2005 it
was not mentioned and we know that many developing countries have
failed to reach that 2005 target. What measures do you think are
now necessary and what can DFID do to ensure that the 2015 target
is met?
Hilary Benn: That is the first
target and we are going to miss it because we know that the majority
of the 104 million children who are not in schools yet in developing
countries are girls. A number of things need to happen. What are
we doing? The investment we are putting into education in supporting
primary education programmes in developing countries that are
partners of ours do focus very particularly on investment in girls'
education. I can think of one example, the programme that we are
now developing with UNICEF in Nigeria, and northern Nigeria in
particular as I recollect, that is focusing particularly on girls,
including practical things like buying uniforms so that they can
go, including getting people to come and knock on the door in
the morning and say, "Come on: we are off to school".
The second issue is that of fees because school fees prevent poor
families from sending their children to school and if they have
got a bit of money the sad truth is they might send the son to
school before they send the daughter, and therefore getting rid
of fees would be a big step forward. The very current practical
result of that is in Burundi where you see the connection between
some political stability—they have just had a successful
election and one of the manifesto commitments of the President
who won was to abolish school fees, and I think 500,000 additional
people turned up to go to school in Burundi. They have got the
same number of teachers, the same number of classrooms. A couple
of weeks ago we gave them—they have a modest programme there—an
additional two million pounds to try and support them in building
their capacity so that the class sizes do not rise. I would say
the third thing is water because we know that providing clean
water enables more girls to go to school. One of the great mysteries
is why have donors in the last decade done less on water and why
have a number of developing countries done less on water? I am
very keen that we should change that because it is the key not
just to getting more girls into school; it is also the key to
fewer children dying needlessly of diarrhoeal diseases before
the age of five. I suppose the fourth thing is to try and integrate
this very important perspective into the plans that developing
countries themselves are drawing up, so how aware are they of
gender inequality in their country, how much political pressure
is there to do something about it, are the voices of women being
heard sufficiently, because if you can get it into their politics
or their decisions that is when you are really going to see progress
made.
Chairman: That is a classic comment.
The observation on teaching Africa is that the role women play
economically is of vital importance and yet that political influence
is much reduced and yet have we the right to tell them what to
do? That is the cultural implication. It seems to me that encapsulates
in itself the exact dilemma of getting aid and yet respecting
the culture of the country you are aiming it at. I know Joan will
return to this.
Joan Ruddock: I think we could have a
great debate on what respect for culture means and what giving
women what they want means.
Chairman: I said I was sure that Joan
would return to this on every possible occasion and I think it
is quite right that she should.
Q65 John Bercow: Secretary of State,
I have one final, I think, crucial theme and that is the theme
of security in development and specifically the agreement of the
UN Summit to the creation of an international Peacebuilding Commission
and to the recognition of the responsibility to protect. What
I suppose I would like to know from you, Secretary of State, is
how the government intends to ensure that the Peacebuilding Commission
is mandated, structured and resourced in such a way as to play
an effective role in post-conflict peacebuilding.
Hilary Benn: I think those were
two really important decisions. When people looked to the Millennium
Review Summit and said, "What did development get out of
it?", I would say two things. One is that if it had not been
for the prospect of a summit I do not think there would have been
the same political pressure to achieve what was achieved earlier
in the year, so it is part of the constellation of 2005 which
has helped us to make progress. Secondly, since we know a lot
of poor people live in countries which are failed and failing
states where there is insecurity, if we cannot tackle the insecurity
we are not going to make progress in those countries towards the
MDGs and that is why I hugely welcome those two decisions. With
regard to the Peacebuilding Commission, the as yet unresolved
issue is to which bit of the UN will it work, will it be the UN
Security Council or will it be the General Assembly, and that
has got to be taken forward. There is now going to be work done
to try and answer the second question you have asked, which is
about how will the Commission work, will it have a fund to support
its activities? We are keen to contribute to that because I see
this as hugely important. On the responsibility to protect, I
welcome what the UN has done but the issue remains: taking the
decision in relation to individual cases and then crucially, if
you take the decision, who is going to do the work? We are discussing
the Sudan in the not too distant future and that is one country
where this is a very live issue, not least in view of the developments
in the last month and a bit.
Q66 John Bercow: Secretary of State,
I am sure that structure and resources are very important but
it does seem to me that mandate is absolutely the overriding issue.
What some of us who are enthusiasts for the creation of a Peacebuilding
Commission are concerned about is that at the moment it looks
as though the UN is at best lukewarm about and at worst hostile
to the idea that the Peacebuilding Commission should be able to
intervene and prevent conflict. It is all very well picking up
the pieces afterwards but would it not be better to be able to
prevent conflict? Otherwise, in a very literal sense—and
I am not being just a semantic pedant; I am being explicit and
specific—that responsibility to protect is, to put it brutally,
a responsibility to protect those who are left after the oppressors
have done their ill work and that ain't good enough, is it?
Hilary Benn: I agree with you
entirely. I think that by agreeing both of those things the UN
has potentially given itself the means both to try and prevent
the crisis happening in the first place and to help pick up the
pieces if the crisis occurs. I think decisions on intervention
properly fall within the responsibility to protect bit of the
UN system but, just based on my experience, it seems to me that
the obstacles up until now have been clarity about whose job it
is and, assuming a decision is taken, who is going to do the work.
The world has traditionally looked to a relatively small number
of countries for particular forms of intervention when things
are really bad and that is why I think we need to increase the
capacity of the world to respond and that is why we have strongly
supported the African Union force in Darfur, but if you ask the
question how successful have we been there, the answer is that
a lot of people have died. Look at Rwanda. The question is, have
we learned the lessons? Is there the will but is there also the
means? I think building the means to do something about it is
going to be a very important part of answering the question you
properly ask.
Q67 John Bercow: Secretary of State,
I entirely agree that there is an issue about who should act but
in a sense a prior question which is at least as important is
whether action can take place at all and that, of course, comes
down to the issue of the use of the veto or self-restraint in
not exercising it. Would you agree with me, or would you be prepared
at least to consider the issue and concepts that Jack Straw put,
that retention of the right to veto in cases of genocide is, frankly,
not on?
Hilary Benn: We are strong supporters
of the veto power, including for ourselves, but the veto power
should not be there to stop people being saved in those circumstances
and in the end it falls to each individual country to exercise
its veto in a responsible way to ensure that people are protected.
Q68 John Bercow: But you will seek
to put the issue on the agenda, will you not?
Hilary Benn: And I am sure you
will too.
Chairman: Thank you, Secretary of State,
and your colleagues for coming here and answering our questions.
We look forward to seeing you again.
7 Ev 44 Back
|
