Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-52)
RT HON
DOUGLAS ALEXANDER
MP, MR MARK
CANNING AND
MS SUE
WARDELL
9 July 2008
Q40 John Bercow: I mention it, Sue,
Chair and Secretary of State, only because I am advised that initially
SWAN was told by DFID that it, DFID, could advance payment but
was subsequently and finally told that if organisations require
advance payment, they will need to register with the Thai authorities
and open a suitable bank account. I am advised that it is simply
not possible for SWAN to register with the Thai authorities. So
we would not want that to be a block on the disbursement of DFID
funds, which is otherwise (a) a new development and (b) a very
positive one.
Ms Wardell: I have just been told
that basically it is to do with our accounting rules. What we
will have to do is talk to our accounts department and then talk
to the Treasury, because our accounts rules are based on the Treasury
rules, as to whether or not we can get any flexibility in those
rules. The current accounts department's rules which come from
Treasury do not allow us to pay in advance in the context of their
banking arrangements. We will certainly see what we can do.
Q41 John Bercow: What I say, Chair,
you will not be surprised to know, is that where there is an impassioned
and driving force from the very top of the Department, which is
certainly the case in the Department for International Development,
these objections would appear merely to be footling and they can
be overcome by inspiration and leadership. Will that be forthcoming?
Mr Alexander: I do not think it
is footling to require an organisation to have a bank account
before we pay British taxpayers' money into that organisation.
In that sense, I think it is perhaps a disservice to the impassioned
and knowledgeable bearing that the honourable gentleman has to
suggest that we should not take the trouble to make sure that
an organisation has a bank account before making advance payment.
Q42 John Bercow: But you will find
a way through if you possibly can?
Mr Alexander: Of course.
Q43 Sir Robert Smith: I wondered
what were the specific outcomes of your review on better training
and employment opportunities for assistance to refugees—the
DFID review on support to refugees. In your analysis, what is
the outcome for improving the training and employment opportunities
for refugees?
Ms Wardell: It is limited at the
moment because of the position of the Royal Thai Government that
will not allow the refugees to seek employment or gain employment
in Thailand. They are being a bit more flexible on the training
side. There is a likelihood of being able to get some access for
vocational training.
Q44 Sir Robert Smith: Is the UK pressing
the Royal Thai Government on employment?
Ms Wardell: We now have the review.
We also have the Commission's review; they have come at the same
time. There is going to be a demarche by the donor ambassadors
in September to the Royal Thai Government to take up a range of
issues from those two reviews in terms of trying to move forward
the situation. We decided that it would be better to go as a group
rather than have lots of individuals going and having bilateral
discussions.
Mr Alexander: It is also fair
to recognise that the Commission are very significantly larger
funders than we are at the camps and in that sense to maximise
the effectiveness of that demarche it is better to do it together.
Q45 Sir Robert Smith: The UNHCR is
telling us that about 40 % of the refugees are working illegally
and therefore getting only 65p to 95p a day and facing the need
to pay bribes to the police and so on.
Ms Wardell: As you will understand,
refugee situations are very sensitive for any host governments.
We have to negotiate this very carefully with the Royal Thai Government,
I think we are in a position now that we have some facts and evidence
to be able to go and start to have that discussion.
Q46 Sir Robert Smith: In your evidence
to us you say that you have not noticed that the cyclone or the
problems with the referendum have increased flows of refugees
yet into the camps. What sort of evidence base is there for that
and what are your expectations possibly in the longer term, as
the cyclone may not be properly addressed in the country, of having
to prepare for a build up of refugees?
Ms Wardell: The evidence base
is the reports we are getting from the camps themselves, from
people who are based there, that there has not been a massive
increase. We do not actually anticipate one because the cyclone-affected
areas are at a distance from the camps and different situations
are pushing those refugees into the camps. It is a very different
context. The Ambassador might want to say more about this. The
sense I have is that most of the people in the cyclone-affected
areas just want to get on with their lives again.
Chairman: We are going to have a vote
shortly and we have more or less reached the end of our questions.
We will ask a couple of quick questions so that we do not have
to reconvene.
Q47 Mr Singh: One of the things we
recommended in our report was greater sharing of information with
NGOs and community groups. Is that now happening?
Mr Alexander: It is. In January
2008 I took the opportunity to visit and I am glad to say that
even prior to my visit there was that level of co-operation that
had been anticipated. Staff from Rangoon and London have visited
Thailand on 10 separate occasions. Those discussions have involved
Thai-based exile groups, non-governmental organisations, political
groups and other donors. That figure of 10 separate occasions
compares with about two annual visits for such discussions before
September. There has been a very significant increase in the extent
to which there is a greater number of meetings that are taking
place.
Q48 Mr Singh: I think we wanted more
support for civil society in Burma and among the IDPs.[10]
I understand you have a £3 million programme over three years.
Would you like to tell us a little bit more about that?
Ms Wardell: Basically it is a
programme which works with local civil society organisations to
help them work with communities to address some initial basic
needs, but also as a way of trying to get those groups to become
more active. One programme we are looking at is for forest user
groups. We are trying to support the different forest user groups
in networking more together so that they can become more of a
powerful lobby group. Obviously in Burma you have to be very careful
how you do this, and so we are trying to do it in small ways but
building this up. One of the programmes we funded under it was
to do with cyclone relief. We had a group that was able to move
in and do some cyclone relief under that programme.
Mr Alexander: We are also supporting
another five that are undertaking cyclone work.
Q49 Hugh Bayley: In your draft of
evidence to us at paragraph 17 you note the importance of China
and India as neighbours and you say: "Since the cyclone,
we [the Government] have sought to persuade both governments to
provide increased support to the relief effort and to put pressure
on the Burmese regime to allow ... . international aid workers
and relief supplies." Then you add the comment: "The
Secretary of state has been in personal contact with the Chinese
Ambassador here in London." I wonder whether you have had
similar personal conversations with the Indian High Commissioner.
Mr Alexander: I have not in the
sense that there was a division of responsibility at the time
in terms of calls that were being made. If I recollect, the point
when I spoke to the Chinese Ambassador—I spoke to her on
a couple of occasions—was a point at which the Foreign Secretary
had not managed a call yet with the Chinese Foreign Minister because
there was a matter of days in between of further ministerial contact.
In terms of India, our Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister
Singh and I think that level of access is probably more than adequate.
Q50 John Bercow: Chair, certainly
pages 10 and 12 of the DFID review document are missing from my
copy. I am not a conspiracy theorist and I do not want to make
a fuss about that but I wonder, Chair, on the back of the question
that has just been asked, if I could ask the Secretary of State
more widely but very briefly about engagement with the other borders.
He will know, I am sure, that the IDC did recommend that DFID
explore the possibility of providing cross-border aid across the
India-Burma border through groups such as the Chin Backpack Health
Worker Programme and the Women's League of Chinland. I declare
an interest in that I went to the India-Burma border last September
and met those organisations. There was to be a fact-finding visit.
I think somewhere I saw that it might have had to be postponed
because of Cyclone Nargis, and I entirely understand that, but
is there going to be some progress and would the Secretary of
State at least acknowledge that at this early point in the process,
the Chin state is generally regarded I think as the poorest state
in Burma; it has suffered a largely unreported but massive famine.
It would be a very good candidate for British taxpayers' funds
at an appropriate point.
Mr Alexander: We are already supporting
work that is taking place within the Chin state through the UNDP11
programme, but you are right in recognising that we had anticipated
that from the Burma side of the border we would be able to explore
further possibilities. Given the extent to which the Burma office
has been overwhelmed, appropriately, by the requirement to respond
immediately to the cyclone, I think Sue made the judgment, which
I supported, which was that we should take forward this work from
the India side of the border. In that sense, there is going to
be an official travelling there, but it will be one of our India
staff members rather than Burma staff members, given their continuing
work on Cyclone Nargis.
Q51 Chairman: One of the things that
emerged during these months was the rather stormy relationship
between the United Nations and Burma with the expulsion of Charles
Petrie, his replacement and then engagement over the back of Cyclone
Nargis. What is your assessment at the moment of the UN's relationship
with Burma? Has the engagement over the cyclone made it better
or worse or is that uncertain?
Mr Alexander: I will let Mark
say a word or two in terms of the presidential statements that
we secured. As I say, I travelled to Rangoon at the request of
the Secretary-General and had the opportunity to spend almost
an hour with him in Bangkok the day before, and then travel back
on the plane with him to Bangkok after the meeting. Because we
sat together on the plane back, he was able to be fairly extensive
in his description of the discussions he had with
11 UN Development Programme
Than Shwe the senior general. I have to say that
I welcome the fact that he had wide-ranging and extensive conversations
with Than Shwe ahead of the meeting that took place in Rangoon.
He assured me privately, as he has now stated publicly, of his
intention to return to Burma, and we are supportive of the Secretary-General's
continuing engagement. We are also strongly encouraging the regime
to allow access to the Secretary-General's Special Representative
Dr Gambari, who we hope will be able to visit next month or later
this month. In that sense, I have a strong sense from the Secretary-General
personally that there is a continued willingness to engage not
simply on humanitarian issues but more broadly in terms of the
need for political reform and reconciliation within Burma.
Q52 Chairman: I suppose as a kind
of closing question because it relates to DFID and indeed the
Foreign Office too: has this experience, painful as it has been,
created any sort of new channels of communications with the regime.
In other words, they could respond by saying, "This was a
terribly embarrassing situation and we do not really want to have
all these foreigners here again but we were under pressure",
or they could say, "actually, we have been able to find ways
of accommodating them" which of course we have to accept
does not support or sustain the regime. Is it RT
HON DOUGLAS
ALEXANDER MP, MR
MARK CANNING
AND MS
SUE WARDELL
going to make delivering aid and development better
or worse?
Mr Alexander: I think it at least
holds out that possibility. It is hard to over-state the extent
to which these ministers have been isolated from contact with
the international community up until now, but I would defer to
Mark, who lives there on a daily basis, to speak for himself on
this,
Mr Canning: The bottom line is
that it is always going to be hard to progress this subject, but
we have more to work with than we did, say, in April; we have
the personal engagement of the UN Secretary-General and also of
ASEAN working together effectively on the ground. We have a little
more to work with than we did before.
John Bercow: As usual, I understated
the position. Purely for the record, in fact pages 4, 6, 8, 10,
12, 14 and 16 are missing from the DFID document and I cannot
wait to see them.
Chairman: We will soon have a division.
I want to thank you, Secretary of State and your colleagues, for
being here. I hope you feel that this was a valuable and worthwhile
exchange. We do and I think it was timely. I appreciate that it
has caused some pressure within the Department but I hope you
understand that the committee believed it was justified and necessary.
Thank you very much.
10 Internally displaced people Back
| 
