Mr.
Lancaster: So, just to be clear, the Minister is not
concerned that the most disadvantaged are no longer the focus of EU
aid.
Mr.
Malik: I have said exactly the opposite, and, much as the
hon. Gentleman may want to reinterpret my remarks, I repeat that the
beauty of the Lisbon treaty is that it allows us primarily to focus on
poverty, which is hugely beneficial. It also ensures that aid is used
solely in the context of poverty and not for any wider agenda. If the
hon. Gentleman speaks to people who are leading the fight against
poverty in the developing world, he will find that they concur with
what I have
said.
The
Chairman: If no more hon. Members want to ask questions,
we shall proceed to the
debate. Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That
this Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 8403/08 and
Addenda 1 to 5, Commission Communication, The EU—a Global
Partner for Development—speeding up progress towards the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); and welcomes the progress being
made.—[Mr.
Malik.] 5.12
pm
Mr.
Lancaster: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate,
and I thank the Minister for his opening statement and for answering
the questions. I was trying to be helpful earlier by pointing out that
the forecast timetable for official development assistance as a
percentage of gross national income is on page 25. I appreciate,
however, that, as we have seen, it is not always easy to pinpoint an
exact table in such a large
document. Much
of what I was going to say has been covered in the questions, so rather
than repeating myself, I shall focus on “The Millennium
Development Goals: State of Play”, which forms part of the
papers before the Committee and which was mentioned by the hon. Member
for South Ribble. We have just passed the halfway stage in attempting
to reach the MDGs. It is perhaps worth focusing on the fact that even
if we were to achieve what is set out, we would, for example, have only
got halfway to eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. If we run
through the eight MDGs, we can have a quick look at where we have got
to. There is some good news, which is welcome, but it is also clear
that we have an awfully long way to
go. The
aim of MDG1 is
to “Eradicate
extreme poverty and
hunger”. There
is still some hope that the extreme poverty target can be achieved
globally, and sub-Saharan Africa is the only region not on track to
achieve the goal. Sadly, however, the hunger target is unlikely to be
reached. The objective of MDG2 is to “achieve universal primary
education”. Although 72 million children are still out of
full-time education, recent increases in child education mean that 88
per cent. of the target has been achieved. Once again, that is
encouraging news, although it is unfortunately unlikely that
sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia will meet the goal. That is a
recurring theme, at least when it comes to sub-Saharan Africa, and it
is clear as we run through the goals where the focus needs to
be. MDG3
is
to “Promote
gender equality and empower
women”. Good
work is being done on that goal, as I saw for myself recently in
Malawi, but we are still a long way from achieving it, especially in
Africa. Progress is hard to quantify, and gains in equality of access
to remunerative labour markets remain modest, so more work needs to be
done on
that. MDG4
concerns reducing child mortality. Although south Asia is on track to
reach the goal, having reduced under-five mortality by 35 per cent.,
sub-Saharan Africa has reduced under-five mortality by only 10 per
cent., which is far behind the required rate of progress. MDG5 concerns
improving maternal health. With more than 500,000 women dying of
treatable or preventable complications during pregnancy or childbirth,
much still needs to be done to achieve the target of reducing the
maternal mortality ratio by three quarters between 1990 and
2015. MDG6
is about combating HIV/AIDS. At the end of 2006, an estimated 39.5
million people worldwide were living with HIV, up from 32.9 million in
2001. Once again, most of those people live in sub-Saharan Africa, as I
saw for myself during my recent trip to Malawi and South Africa. Much
more needs to be done. The number of people dying of HIV/AIDS increased
from 2.2 million in 2001 to 2.6 million in 2006, so it could be argued
that we are almost going backwards when it comes to achieving that
goal. Progress
is being made on MDG7, ensuring environmental stability, but it is
painfully slow and can be controversial, as other hon. Members
mentioned during earlier questions. MDG8, which concerns developing a
global partnership for development, is covered at length on page 141 of
the document, so I shall not go into too much detail about
that. To
be fair, there are some good points about EU delivery of aid. Progress
has been made, so I do not want to stand here being entirely negative.
The EU remains the leading donor in world aid, providing
€93 per European per year. The EU is at the forefront
of policy coherence and is focusing particularly on the effects of
European policies in 12 key areas on developing countries and the MDGs.
There is no question but that there are enormous effort and good will
in that area, as we heard
in a statement from the Prime Minister last year, but there is a sense
in this debate that words are simply no longer enough. Rhetoric is one
thing, but action is something else entirely. Direct aid
from the EU to Africa has been increased. That is just as well, because
it is clear from the list showing progress made on the MDGs that for
the majority of them, it is in Africa that the least progress is being
made and the most work has still to be done. To give credit to DFID, it
is on track to deliver both trade-related commitments. The first, made
in 2005, is to increase trade-related assistance to £100
million; the second, which refers to infrastructure, is to increase aid
for trade, as the Minister said in his opening statement, to
£409 million by 2010.
The
Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member
for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) said during the Lisbon trade
debates: “A
powerful example of that is the difference that the Commission is
making in India...The Commission is helping to develop an
education system capable of offering eight years of quality elementary
schooling to all children. As a result, between 2001 and 2006 the
number of children between six and 14 who are not at school has fallen
from some 25 million to about 14 million.”—[Official
Report, 25 February 2008; Vol. 472, c.
833.] That is
a good example of our doing the right thing. The EU should be
complimented on its
work. I
want to point out some of our concerns without returning to the Lisbon
treaty debate of a few months ago. I am not sure whether the Minister
was present for that debate. I do not think that he was—another
Minister made the winding-up speech—so it may be beneficial if I
highlight our concerns that, as a result of the Lisbon treaty, we are
going backwards when it comes to delivering aid
effectively. We
feel that the treaty misses the opportunity to support open markets and
significantly rejuvenate the EU’s aid programme, which
unfortunately, despite recent improvements, is still underperforming, a
fact that even the Minister admitted in his opening statement. Good
will is one thing, but action is another.
Perhaps I
will be forgiven for saying that I was not entirely convinced by the
Minister’s reply, but we simply do not understand why those who
drafted the Lisbon treaty felt the need to remove the reference to the
“most disadvantaged” developing countries as a focus of
EU development co-operation policy—a point I have already
mentioned. If we are attempting to have an impact and make the biggest
difference, surely it is right to look at the areas where we have the
biggest problems. How will the EU achieve its end of the deal on the
MDGs if it simply focuses more of its aid on countries that are
geographically closer, rather than those whose needs are greatest? I
hope that the Minister will be able to address that point specifically.
Is it right that the focus of the EU’s aid is based on geography
rather than on helping the most disadvantaged? I do not think
so. It
is interesting that the Under-Secretary of State for International
Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West said:
“EC
aid is still not sufficiently focused on meeting the millennium
development goals...Europe spends nearly $100 in aid for every
poor person in Asia, which is, alongside Africa, the key battleground
for the achievement of the millennium development goals...Why is a
child in Egypt worth 100 times more than a child in
Bangladesh?”
I agree, but with the
greatest respect to the Minister, I am not sure from his response that
he agrees with his hon. Friend. Although the EU should take into
account its comparative advantage in assisting developing nations that
are geographically closer, we believe that if the EU and Britain are
serious about achieving the MDGs rather than just getting good press
releases, our aid must be channelled to those whose need is greatest.
That is why we are so concerned about that aspect of the Lisbon
treaty.
We are
concerned about the possible politicisation of aid as a result of the
Lisbon treaty. Moving the EU’s development responsibilities into
the remit of the European external action service is, in our opinion at
least, a retrograde step that runs the risk of aid becoming a political
tool that would effectively remove the focus on achieving the MDGs as a
key aim. Labour members of the Committee should agree with that,
because in 1947, 1964, 1974 and 1997 the incoming Labour Governments of
the day moved the role of development away from the Foreign Office. On
each occasion it was to stop aid being used for political gains, so
perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government are now happy for
that position to be reversed under the Lisbon treaty. Why the sudden
change of
heart? We
are concerned at the move in the Lisbon treaty to enshrine qualified
majority voting on all development aid spending. Once again, we think
that might have an adverse impact on delivering aid more effectively.
For instance, Britain and a few other countries refused to fund
directly the Hamas Authority in Palestine and instead opted to fund
NGOs, which was absolutely right. However, under qualified majority
voting, we could be forced to fund authorities against our will. During
negotiations on the Lisbon treaty, the right hon. Member for Neath
(Mr. Hain), argued:
“Macro-financial
assistance has been agreed urgently when
required”. He
argued that moving to qualified majority voting was therefore
unnecessary. As that was his position when arguing for the treaty, why
when we had the debate did the Government suddenly perform yet another
U-turn and have a complete change of
heart. Finally,
one of my other principal concerns about the EU in this regard is that
it is pretty inefficient at delivering aid. A recent survey by Oxfam
found, for example, that about one fifth of all EU aid arrives more
than a year late. DFID, by contrast, is much more efficient. Rather
than DFID learning lessons from Europe, perhaps Europe should be
learning lessons from DFID, which is a Department of which the Minister
can rightly be proud.
With regard
to corruption, EU aid programmes account for 21 per cent. of all fraud
investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office—OLAF.
That remains a major problem, so as we move forward and attempt to do
more to make greater progress towards the MDGs, it is absolutely vital
that we look carefully at the issue for fear that some of our money may
not end up where we hope. I hope the Minister will be able to address
some of the points I have raised when he winds
up.
5.25
pm
Mr.
Borrow: I begin by recalling a few comments that my hon.
Friend the Minister made at a meeting in my constituency on Thursday
when we were discussing international development. He said that
politicians who are in favour of international development and
increasing the 0.7 per cent. of gross national product being spent on
international development aid, should remember that the people out
there need to continue voting for politicians who are prepared to spend
money on that area. We need to win that
argument.
I want to say
a little about the sustainability of the international aid budget in
the years to come. In some areas, money spent now on developing wells
and putting in water systems and infrastructure will not have been
wasted, even if that level of development is not going ahead in 10
years’ time. There may be ups and downs in the level of
international development aid that is going to the poorer parts of the
world, but there are areas where if we do not sustain that investment,
year on year, there will be really grotesque consequences, particularly
in relation to health budgets. The sixth of the millennium goals
concerns HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and talks about bringing about a
reduction in the spread of those diseases by 2015. In order to achieve
that we need to invest a lot of money in health systems and disease
eradication
programmes. Last
week, I was at the launch by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for International Development of the Government’s HIV
strategy document. It pledges to put in £6 billion between now
and 2015, as well as £1 billion for the global fund,
to seek to eradicate HIV and AIDS and also to provide access to
treatment programmes, which I want to talk about in
particular.
A couple of
years ago, I went to Botswana where nearly everybody who needed access
to treatment programmes for HIV/AIDS could get them. Last year, I went
to South Africa where many of the big businesses are bringing in
similar programmes. As a result many people who would have died are now
surviving.
When the
millennium development goals were decided, the idea that it was
possible to bring in drug schemes and make drugs available generally
across sub-Saharan Africa was not really on the agenda. If it is put on
the agenda—as is now happening—and if the global fund and
all the other bilateral investments are successful, millions of people
will be kept alive in sub-Saharan Africa as a result of drug treatment
programmes. Those
drug treatment programmes need to be sustained. In 10 years’
time, people will not still be on the same drugs they are taking now.
New drugs will be developed and people will need to move on to them. As
the number of people with HIV/AIDS continues to grow, the number of
people who need to be on those drug treatment programmes will increase.
As the pool of infection increases, the pattern of the disease in
sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the developing world will follow
the pattern in the developed world, where the incidence of new
infections dropped in the 1990s. Once the drug treatment programmes
kicked in more people were kept alive, but there came a point when the
drop in the number of new infections stopped and new infections
increased.
As we look
past 2015, we see a danger that we in the rich part of the world will
be sustaining health care systems in the poor part of the world,
keeping millions
of people alive as a result of drug treatment programmes, which we
cannot, with any conscience, stop funding. The funding will increase.
Spending 0.7 per cent. of GDP on helping the poor part of the world may
or may not be right, but we in the rich part of the world have an
obligation to be honest with ourselves about the commitment we make to
such programmes, because once we have put in place programmes that keep
alive people with long-term illnesses, we cannot turn off the funding.
We cannot say that there is a recession in the UK, the US or the
eurozone so we are cutting our development budget by 20 per cent. this
year. We cannot say that we are sorry, but money will not be provided
for the drug treatment programmes in Botswana, South Africa, Malawi or
wherever. We cannot do that, because we would be switching off the life
support systems for tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of
people. We
need to recognise that having high ambitions is one thing, but
realising the long-term funding consequences of some of the programmes
is equally important. That ties in with another development goal, which
has to do with pharmaceutical companies and the
TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property
rights—agreement. There could be a long-term problem if we
cannot ensure that future drug treatments are available on a similar
cost basis to those that exist at present. Developments take place. For
example, people with HIV/AIDS can now take once a day a pill containing
various drugs that will keep them alive. In western Europe and north
America, those pills are very expensive. They are used in certain parts
of sub-Saharan Africa, but not widely. We have to ask ourselves whether
we can obtain those drugs at a reasonable price and continue to obtain
newly developed drugs at a reasonable price for the developing
world. I
am making a few points that are not critical but which I wanted to flag
up as things we need to be aware of in the years ahead. I am
particularly looking beyond 2015. The Government have committed
themselves to a lot of funding and a big increase in funding between
now and 2015, but that is not the end of it. There are long-term
commitments that we and other countries in the rich part of the world
need to make beyond
2015. 5.31
pm Mr.
Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD):
The hon. Member for South Ribble has made a powerful case about the
need for sustainability in funding. I hope that the Minister will
address that head-on and pick up the questions asked earlier about the
underlying assumptions on economic growth in this country and
throughout the European Union, so that we can understand the extent to
which there is risk between the stated economic growth figures and the
ones that we are beginning to come to terms with as a result of the
economic downturn. As the hon. Member for South Ribble has said, if, at
this critical phase of our work towards achieving the millennium
development goals, there were a suggestion that we would reduce the
funding or that some of it was at risk, that would send out the
opposite signal to all the efforts this
year. This
is a hugely important year, because we are past the mid-point as we
look to 2015 and achievement of the millennium development goals. As
the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes has set out, we are
failing pretty badly on the MDGs. It is important that not only at the
European summit in a couple of weeks’
time but at the September UN summit and all the other major gatherings
between now and then, all Governments, particularly in the wealthy
western world, are focused on what has to be done to achieve the
goals. As the hon.
Gentleman has said, we must not lose sight of the fact that the targets
are pretty modest. For example, they involve halving the percentage of
people who live on less than $1 a day, halving the number of people who
are hungry, and halting and beginning to reverse the spread of AIDS and
other serious diseases. In 2015, even if we catch up to where we should
be, the job will not be done, as the hon. Gentleman has said, and the
cost of failure is something that we surely cannot contemplate, for all
sorts of reasons that I do not need to stress
now. It
is right that Europe should work together to tackle the problems that
we have analysed and debated this afternoon. We are the wealthiest
economic bloc in the world and, collectively, the largest international
donor—we give more than 50 per cent. of official development
assistance. Europe has played an important role in developing the
global political momentum towards achieving the millennium development
goals and in finally recognising a timetable for achieving the 0.7 per
cent. target, which was debated for decades. That target was agreed
three years ago at the General Affairs and External Relations Council,
and there is no doubt that it gave important impetus to the G8 meeting
in July of that year, where hugely ambitious targets were set for aid
to Africa and to other developing regions and countries. Again, we need
to see evidence that we are on track to achieve those targets. Thus
far, the information suggests that, sadly, we are far from
it.
The European
consensus on development was a breakthrough in recognising the
importance of poverty alleviation as the central focus of European
development policy. As the Minister has said, that is at the centre of
the Lisbon treaty, which allows us to focus on the actions that flow
from that
commitment. The
hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes takes a different view from me
on what the treaty means for international development policies more
generally. As he has said, we rehearsed the arguments in the debate on
the Lisbon treaty a couple of months ago in the Chamber. I agree with
him that in an ideal world the reference to the most disadvantage
countries would still be there, but—perhaps he cannot be
persuaded on this point—the location of poverty alleviation at
the core of the European Union’s international development
objectives is a major step
forward. I
also suggest to the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes that
occasionally we have perfectly legitimate reasons for supporting
countries that are nearer to home, some of which have very important
links to European countries. Where the development of such countries
goes off track, it can lead to significant consequences for
Europe—I thinking of Kosovo, which will not hit the top of any
league tables on poverty or other indicators. I hope that the hon.
Gentleman agrees that it is essential that Europe collectively makes a
long-term commitment to supporting Kosovo’s economy and to
helping its development.
| 
