| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 Jun 2007 : Column 7WH—continued
Given the impact that climate change is likely to have on low-lying areas of the sub-continent, it is important that we have a strategy to deal with such matters. I am glad to join the hon. Member for Stone, if I may, in paying tribute to Tearfund, to Laura Webster and to WaterAid. In India, we heard of WaterAid’s contribution. It has both rural and urban projects across India and helps to promote sanitation by targeting some of the country’s most vulnerable
communities. We heard a lot about its good work in Bangalore, and it is making an important contribution to achieving the millennium development goals in those areas.
I believe that the issues raised in this important debate go beyond even Governments, and so I want to end with a reference to development education. The vast majority of the British people are supportive of what the hon. Member for Stone has said and of the things that we want to do to provide clean water and proper sanitation. For that reason, I was proud that one of the main secondary schools in my constituency, Rosehall high school, working with a nearby primary school, St. Mary’s, has involved itself in a twinning link with a little village in Malawi. When I visited the school recently, we saw slides that showed places where water had not been provided and where people had to walk five miles to obtain it, and because of the help that the two schools have been able to give through fundraising and keeping in touch with that village, water is now provided in those areas. I am proud of the schools for that.
The challenge to us all goes further than that. Development education means that we want more schools, individuals, churches and voluntary organisations to take the view that together we can indeed give this matter a push. It is vital, for all the reasons that have been given, that we achieve the millennium development goals and more. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone on the focus that he has encouraged us to deliver on those matters in this important debate.
10.5 am
John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) in congratulating the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on securing the debate.
The hon. Member for Stone and I have had a number of discussions about water over the past few months, and when he was putting together his early-day motion, I was glad to have the honour of being one of the signatories. It is a great credit to the House that more than 200 of our Members have signed it; I only wish that 646 had. We are working on that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put his usual effort into it, as he does with most subjects. It was a pleasure not to hear the word “Europe” in his speech today, but it is early days and there is still time left. I was interested in the story about his great-great-grandfather, who drank only water and sadly died. It gives people like me, who drink alcohol, some hope that we may continue for a bit longer yet. But enough of the frivolities, as they say.
As chairman of the all-party group on Nigeria, I want to mention a couple of examples, because I believe that every Member of this House should try to go to such countries and see what it is like for people who have less than nothing. Perhaps when they came back, we would not have the problem of having only 200 signatures on an early-day motion. We would have those 646 signatures if the Members could see what some of us have seen.
I have two stories to relate from my last visit to Nigeria, which took place only last November. The
first concerns an area just outside Kano, called Wudil. It is a semi-rural region, with a population of some 200,000 people. The project is probably one of those DFID projects mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. It is an example of good housekeeping and of how the work should be done.
DFID stepped in to help that community and worked alongside partners from other countries—from Canada in particular—to ensure that the water pumps and water station were up and running and that the water was delivered to the local villages. That has increased the amount of water delivered from 500,000 litres a day to 10 million litres a day. That is 20 times what the people there received before, and it was better than anything else I had seen in Nigeria in my visits over the previous few years. To get 20 times as much water—we will even reach the stage where some in the villages receive water straight into their houses—is fantastic compared with what we have seen in the shanty towns, with their sheet metal and dirty water running in the street being siphoned off, and where young children walk two miles to fetch water, and carry their buckets, containers, pots and pans all the way back to the house to provide dirty water to cook and clean with. That is not what we want to see, and DFID should be congratulated on the work that it has done in that case.
Let us compare that community with another, Iddo Sarki, which is just outside Abuja. It has six standpipes, of which two work. The two that work have been installed for a number of years, and were put in properly. The piping was dug deep into the ground and there was not a problem. There was an improvement project, but by the time that it had been passed down from central Government to the state government, and then via local government to the local water installers—with everybody taking their skim off the top—the further piping was left lying on top of the ground. It was the type of very thin plastic piping that we would use for gutters. Needless to say, given the heat and the number of people in the village, some of whom stood on the piping, it cracked. The result was that there was no water pressure and no water. Four brand new standpipes were waiting to deliver water, but did so for what I believe was a total of only 120 minutes.
That is not good enough. Somewhere along the line, money had been given by a Government—I never did work out which one, although I do not think it was the British Government. However, by the time that that money had come down through the various channels, with various people skimming amounts off the top and the contracting company using the cheapest possible materials, it was clear that the installation would never last. As a result, a village of more than 5,000 people had only two standpipes for everybody in the village.
That is an example from just outside the Nigerian nation’s capital, which is a brand new city that is lovely to visit. It has a wonderful sports stadium and complex, yet only five miles down the road there is a problem of the type that I have described. I hope that it will have been rectified by the time that I return to Nigeria at the end of the year. I have written to new President about it, as I did to the old one; I have been in touch with various members of the Nigerian Government, and I have spoken to the high
commissioner here. If the problem is not rectified, we will have to ask ourselves how we should spend our money in such countries and how we can ensure that work such as that in Kano is repeated elsewhere.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman may recall that I produced the International Development (Anti-corruption Audit) Bill. I also exchanged a few words with the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill when his Bill was going through, and likewise with the Secretary of State. The governance issue is a central one; corruption of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has described causes death, because it prevents sanitation and water from getting to where they are needed.
John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Corruption is undoubtedly one of the major problems that Africa and other parts of the world must overcome, and achieving that is a matter of good governance. In this country, we might argue and complain that the Government are not doing this or that the Opposition are not doing that, but we are held accountable to the people whom we represent. In countries of the type we are discussing, nobody is held accountable. They do not have taxes as such, and the result is that elected representatives are not accountable to anyone. That is one of the problems in the world: that elected representatives are not accountable to the people whom they supposedly represent.
The visit to the village just outside Abuja took place in the run-up to the Nigerian elections that were held a month or so ago, and there were posters all over the place. I asked the village elder who the local councillor was—I knew what the answer was because there was a poster right beside him—and he replied that it was the man in the poster. I asked when he had last seen the man, and he said, “Oh no, we have never seen him.” On asking what he meant, I was told that the councillor sends money and food every so often when there is an election on, so that people can have a party and so that everyone will vote for him. The elder seemed to think that I was the councillor’s election agent, because he added, “By the way, we will be voting for him.” I said, “Do not vote for that man. He has done nothing for you. Look at the state of your village and of your pipes. You have no decent water. Why are you voting for him? He is supposed to deliver for you.”
The people who have to receive these facilities should realise that they have a say. That is what I told the village elder: “Keep electing somebody different until you get somebody who does something for you. Do not vote for this man.” Nevertheless, I know that the village will have voted for the same councillor, that he will have been elected and that he still will not have been to the village, which is all very sad. We have a job of education to do, and I hope that some of that education will filter down to people as a result of good governance.
There is not only bad news from Nigeria. The country has realised that elections are important. They may be corrupt and not the same as in this country, but the system is a lot better than a dictatorship and the system 10 years ago. Things are moving, albeit slowly, and as I pointed out to people there, democracy in this
country started many centuries ago and some people still do not believe that we have got it right. We are still working at it too.
Governance is very important. That is why I believe, after two or three years when I believed something completely different, that when we invest in projects such as those on water, we should oversee them from start to finish. We cannot look at every water project for years to come, but when we walk away, we should know that we have provided the best quality materials, that the best effort has been made and that people have been shown how to maintain what has been done. That is the other problem: we do not show people how to maintain the equipment that we give them. We put in expensive pumps and we do not train people in how to use them.
The good news in Wudil was that that was not the case. We are training people to look after things for themselves, so that they will be able to maintain what has been achieved. I expect that when I return at the end of the year, the system will be fully up and running, and that one of the local engineers will be in charge of running it. If that is not the case, the same thing will happen as has happened in the past; the installation will rust, break and fall into disrepair and we shall be back to standpipes in the street. I hope that that does not happen.
I have waffled on a bit, Mr. Amess, but this is an important subject, and it is important that we draw on what we have seen in order to explain what actually happens and to tell people the realities of life—or in many cases death. I have not even mentioned the hospitals that we visited. Nobody in this country would go near them, but thousands of people sit outside them, waiting for ante-natal clinics that they never had in the past and that are the result of international investment. Those investments must be overseen too.
Water and food are life’s necessities. Along with education, they are the resources that we should be giving to countries such as Nigeria, together with the rest of Africa and other third-world countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill is renowned for the work that he has done in such countries, and he knows—from personal experience and better than anyone present—how much needs to be done. I have been an MP for only six and a half years, but if I can learn about such matters in that short time, so can everyone else. One day we will have an EDM that bears every single MP’s name, and we will have a debate in the main Chamber. I hope that the Prime Minister will implore the G8 to put in more money. A target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP is a start, but that is all. It is a target that we need to reach, and afterwards we need to go further.
We must learn the lessons of 7/7. If we deny people access to life and the same rights as others, they will take matters into their own hands. Europe would not be able to cope with that kind of problem if it emerged in Africa, so it is important not just for Africans but for the rest of the world that we invest in poorer countries and raise their living standards to a reasonable level at which they can look after themselves and progress.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Stone on securing this debate. I also congratulate my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State on the work that he has done. He has done a great job, and I am sure that he will continue to do great work in this field, no matter what position he has come 27 June. I hope that it is a senior position and that he can take forward the work that he has done in the past. He will certainly have the support of the House in doing so.
10.20 am
Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on securing this vital debate.
I pass on the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who is chairing the International Development Committee and so could not be here today. He asked me to make two comments in connection with the Select Committee’s recent report. First, he wants to emphasise that sanitation should be a priority, as it has a huge effect on development. That is set out in the report and has been raised in this debate. Secondly, he wanted me to mention his belief that the core problem is partly the fact that DFID has a staff shortage and that expertise in the field may be diminishing. It is vital that expertise is kept, in some form, preferably by funding expertise and people on the ground in the places where the problems actually exist.
I shall not discuss the Select Committee’s report now but wait until a debate is arranged specifically to discuss it. Instead, I will focus on the United Nations convention on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses and on British funding of the public-private infrastructure advisory facility, which I shall refer to as PPIAF, as the name is such a mouthful.
We have heard that water is life. In Britain, thankfully, we do not have to think of it like that. We moan if there is a hosepipe ban, but elsewhere in the world water shortages literally mean life or death. Water is a fundamental human need, and access to it is a basic human right.
It is a sad reality that political tension and conflict over water often go hand in hand. Therefore, it is vital to address water supply issues not only to help people in the developing world avoid health problems, as we have heard this morning, but to avoid wars. The Government must take a lead on the issue.
The more that I learn about water, the more I think that we are, on the whole, a little weak in the area—the Secretary of State will forgive me for saying that. The main issue is not sanitation but water, which has particular relevance to developing countries. There are already examples of political tension over water that crosses boundaries. There is conflict over water access and an increasing threat of mass migration away from areas of water stress. There will be migration and influxes of people. It is essential to secure access to water and, in particular, to secure the integrity and sustainable management of rivers.
The UN convention covers non-navigational uses of watercourses shared by two or more countries. It is vital in reducing conflict over water, but I understand that the UK has not yet ratified it. WWF drew my attention to that, and to the fact that, worldwide, there are 263 rivers that cross international boundaries.
It is also my understanding that the UK sponsored the convention at the UN General Assembly in 1997. There is an urgent need for the UK to take an international lead on such matters, and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State would review ratification. Time is passing: the convention was first put into the arena 10 years ago.
The second matter that I want to discuss is the importance of getting aid in connection with water right. The Secretary of State will know that I have already been banging on about that to some extent. For those of us who have been present during past debates and oral questions on water, it will not come as a surprise that I return to the topic of PPIAFs.
Realistically, constructive partnerships between communities, non-governmental organisations, Governments and the private sector are the only way for developing nations to get sustainable water supplies. The private sector often brings vital investment and expertise, but there is a problem around the PPIAFs. For the elucidation of Members, on 28 March, I asked the Secretary of State the following question:
“Is the Secretary of State aware that Norway has withdrawn its funding for the public-private infrastructure advisory facility, because its projects involving water have so often failed and been so widely criticised? How does the Secretary of State scrutinise the use of UK taxpayers’ money? If we are unable to do so effectively, is he likely to withdraw British funding from the PPIAF?”
“The PPIAF is having a real impact, not just in relation to water but in other areas. The one example that I can think of is that it has helped to improve the availability of mobile phones in Afghanistan, which is good for helping the economy there to grow and develop. As I said a moment ago, in the end I am interested in investing money in what works. There are examples of private sector water provision that work and there are spectacular failures. There are examples of public provision that work and there are those that have been spectacular failures. The conclusion that I draw from that is that it does not matter so much whether it is one or the other, we should be putting cash, effort and time into what really makes a difference. I will assess our contribution to the PPIAF on that basis.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1481.]
I was discomfited to have a question on water answered with an example about telecoms. That demonstrates where the problem lies. I do not believe that the Government know much about the workings of the PPIAF or its effectiveness. At present, there is little or no scrutiny of it, and that is why it is allowed to continue working in the way that it does without much questioning. That is why it is allowed to continue to fail.
I am not saying that every project will be a success, but I urge the Government to assess the contribution of the PPIAF to ensure that the money that we are spending on aid and on such structures is delivering on the ground. The Secretary of State slightly evaded my question about the PPIAF.
I am sure that the Government are aware of a report called “Down the Drain”, that assessed PPIAF’s work on water since it was created in 1999. The report gives examples of failing projects and criticises the PPIAF for a lack of transparency in its activities. If the facility is to continue, we ought to be fighting for it to be more transparent, so that we can understand what our money is achieving.
As I said, the Government of Norway announced that they will no longer support the PPIAF. I urge our Government to question our support of the PPIAF’s work on water. On 23 and 24 May, the PPIAF had its programme council meeting in The Hague, and each donor had to review its funding of the facility. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could report on the view that our Government took and what conclusions were reached following the meeting.
It is questionable whether donor funding of the PPIAF’s water projects could be considered effective or appropriate expenditure. I believe that the current programme is failing. I would like the UK to review whether our aid money for water—and, for that matter, for sanitation—is being spent effectively through the PPIAF, and to cease the funding if the evidence is that that is not the case. Otherwise, we are just throwing money away.
To add grist to the mill, I was recently informed by the World Development Movement that Italy has formally withdrawn from the controversial PPIAF funding, as well as Norway. As two countries have now judged the PPIAF inadequate, it is over to the Secretary of State to consider whether he too will make that judgment. He must review the work and ensure that our money is being spent effectively.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |