Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-300)
RT HON
DOUGLAS ALEXANDER
MP, MR ANTHONY
SMITH AND
MS RACHEL
TURNER
22 APRIL 2009
Q280 Hugh Bayley: What do you hope
the spring meeting will achieve this weekend?
Mr Alexander: My hope would be
that we will be able to reinforce the urgency that we have been
speaking of, of the immediate policy measures that the Bank needs
to take to fulfil its historic obligations in these difficult
circumstances. Part of the Development Committee's job is to make
sure that the resources are flowing effectively and in a more
rapid response than at times has been the position of the Bank
in the past. As I said in an earlier answer, I think the challenge
is not to lose sight of the prize of reform where we are focusing
on the immediate resources of the crisis and in that sense I hope—I
am not certain that we will be able to deliver it but I was speaking
to other governors only this morning in trying to build a consensus
for this—we will use the opportunity of the G20 to build
some momentum around further reform of the Bank itself, and I
will be able to share with other governors our emerging thinking
on the process that Gordon will lead looking at both the IMF and
the Bank for the G20 ahead of further discussions, and we would
ideally be able to have a coincidence of reform proposals in front
of us in six months' time. The thinking in my own mind is to say
can we get to a position where the Zedillo Commission, the work
that Gordon has been charged to take forward by the G20, and our
own governor-led process can come together so that we can have
a serious and substantial discussion about reform in October ahead
of what the G20 urge that we do, which is actually make decisions
on reform in the spring meeting in 12 months' time.
Q281 Hugh Bayley: The last time you
came before this Committee you disagreed with the estimates made
by some of the NGOs about the losses to revenue in developing
countries that come about as a result of tax evasion and you said
that your Department, together with the Treasury, was studying
the problem and by implication trying to come up with a more accurate
estimate of the losses that tax evasion entails for developing
countries. What progress has been made in that work?
Mr Alexander: I cannot give you
a figure today, but I hope that I can give you comfort that real
progress has been made. If you were to look at one area where
political space has opened up for progress both around and after
the G20 it is this issue of tax havens. I would acknowledge and
pay credit to Members of this Committee but also a number of campaigners
from CSOs[7]
across the UK who have argued for this for some time. It seems
to me a classic example of where in order to make real progress
you need to build international consensus and the crisis has given
us the opportunity to secure that consensus. That is why in the
days immediately preceding the summit the Prime Minister was able
to secure the listing of countries that were adhering to OECD
guidelines and why even since the summit I understand there has
been further progress in relation to other individual countries.
In that sense there has been real progress made both in terms
of the wording that was used in the communiqué, and I will
ask Rachel to say a word or two in terms of tax havens in a moment,
but also in terms of the capacity for there to be consensus on
this issue. As I say, there are very varying figures that are
used. I know Christian Aid have published figures relatively recently
in terms of their estimation as to how much is lost to developing
countries. Frankly, it is an opportunity which I think we must
seize regardless of quite how large that figure is to be able
to ensure that more of those revenues are kept within developing
countries.
Ms Turner: On tax havens and the
summit, you will have seen the communiqué and that OECD
did publish the list of jurisdictions on the day of the summit
and there was a lot of movement before the summit with many countries
moving into a more acceptable rating. Particularly important for
us, for the developing countries as a whole, was the G20 commitment
to develop proposals by the end of 2009 to make it easier for
developing countries to secure the benefits of these agreements
on tax information exchange. The Prime Minister has now written
to the head of OECD trying to set that work in train to make sure
that we do meet that timetable. The idea that we want to make
progress on is that we develop an effective multilateral tax exchange
information system to allow the poorest countries a much easier
way to access information exchange and that is the proposal that
was made by leaders at the summit.
Q282 Hugh Bayley: I welcome very
much the emphasis which the G20 placed on tax evasion and the
leadership which our Government provided, but I am slightly alarmed
by talk about a multilateral agreement because I would not want
the best to be the enemy of the good. I suppose the critical question
is this: post-G20 are there any new sanctions that could be applied
against jurisdictions that do not meet their international obligations,
the obligations under the OECD guidelines? For instance, of the
42 countries with poor performance that were identified by the
OECD when they published the information, seven were British dependent
territories and three of those seven—Anguilla, Montserrat
and Turks and Caicos Islands—signed up to the OECD package
when it was launched in 2002 but still have not signed a single
bilateral agreement. What can be done to get movement from those
jurisdictions which are defaulting?
Ms Turner: There are two things
there. First of all you asked about sanctions and the G20 in the
side paper to the communiqué that you will have seen did
agree the principle of sanctions and actually agreed a list of
possible sanctions. In the context of the summit that was probably
very much a threat and working those up into a more formal process
of sanctions is still work that has to be done.
Q283 Hugh Bayley: Which will be led
by who?
Ms Turner: Sanctions by the OECD,
the Global Forum on Taxation. In terms of your question about
some of the smaller overseas territories, which of course have
now moved out of the very bottom tier of ranking, they are in
this middle tier that was in the OECD list of tier of countries
that have signalled their intent to get better—
Q284 Hugh Bayley: Signalled several
years ago and yet to come good on that signal.
Ms Turner: Yes. Where we are in
the UK Government is that we now do have a clear commitment and
clear work-plan from the FCO with the Revenue to work with that
group of countries to get them up to the next tier. There is a
very clear programme now to work with them to move them up to
that next level.
Q285 Hugh Bayley: If I may say so,
I have been on the receiving end of some finger wagging from colleagues,
members of parliament from other EU countries, because some of
these jurisdictions are not countries, independent states, they
are British dependent territories, and although I know that there
are very clear rules about the affairs which are matters for local
governance and the affairs which the UK has the ability to overrule
the local jurisdiction on, such as defence and security issues,
I think it is increasingly a problem for the UK that there are
countries which are sheltered by us politically which come under
our wing that are not meeting their commitments in relation to
the OECD guidelines. Either they need to do so without us taking
further powers to compel them or else we do have to open serious
negotiations with them about changing the balance in power for
things that they are responsible for locally because our good
name, the UK's good name, the good name of the City of London,
can be besmirched if we are not seen to be doing what is right
and the dependent territories doing the same.
Mr Alexander: I think you raise
an important point. The standard answer that would have been offered
by Development Secretaries in the past ahead of the summit would
have been to say, "We take these points very seriously. It
is a matter for the Treasury lead, I will communicate those points
to my colleagues in the Treasury", but I will just say having
served in the Foreign Office for a couple of years it is very
significant that we now have the FCO co-ordinating this because
they are obviously the Department with lead responsibility for
the overseas territories. The point that you have made has been
heard very clearly in Government and there is a determination,
partly reflecting the changed circumstances because it is inherent
in dealing with tax havens that you do need at one level a multilateral
response, that everybody moves together and closes off those areas
which are otherwise beyond scrutiny, but not least the Government
is very mindful of the fact that these decisions at the G20 were
taken under the Prime Minister's chairmanship and that is why
already the FCO are co-ordinating with HMRC[8],
with the Treasury and ourselves because it is an issue which because
of the development impacts we have been concerned about for some
time. My hope is that we will see real movement on the basis of
the co-ordination that the FCO are leading.
Ms Turner: I would only say that
as part of the follow-up to the summit the Prime Minister has
written to the overseas territories urging them to quickly comply.
Chairman: I am sure the Prime Minister
has been on the receiving end of the same finger wagging.
Q286 Mr Crabb: The G20 communiqué
restated international commitments to bring the Doha Round of
world trade talks to a successful conclusion. Back in December
we had an identical hope expressed after the Financing for Development
Conference and we have heard similar things before. Do you agree
that we are almost locked into a kind of Groundhog Day where we
hear UK ministers and ministers from our international partners
using the same formulation of words, recognising the importance
of the world trade talks, expressing hope to bring it to an ambitious
and quick conclusion? Can you give this Committee today any grounds
at all to be optimistic that these talks will be brought to a
conclusion in the foreseeable future?
Mr Alexander: Modesty forbids
me from saying that this weekend I will meet Ron Kirk, the new
US Trade Representative, and that in itself will herald the great
breakthrough we have been waiting for in the WTO! In all seriousness,
we are already engaged with Pascal Lamy[9]
and with others to see whether there is further scope for making
progress at the G8 meeting which is taking place in July. We worked
hard to get the language in the G20 communiqué around Doha
because something fundamental had changed, which was there was
a change of administration in Washington in January. I travelled
to Washington ahead of those elections and met with both the McCain
and Obama teams to urge them not to end up with a platform whereby
they were effectively writing themselves out of the possibility
of a group of modalities being achieved on Doha. The Americans
were true to their word in being willing to sign up to it. Candidly,
they were very clear, however, at the summit that with Ron Kirk,
who previously as a Mayor of Dallas had dealt with the NAFTA[10]
issue but beyond that not having a background in trade, with the
positions in terms of the US Trade Representative's office still
being filled, with the recent Indian elections and the prospect
of change in the European Commission, they needed some time. It
would have been open in those circumstances just to say, "Okay,
we are not going to deal with trade, we have got a new Administration
coming in", but we were nonetheless of the view that it was
important, notwithstanding the need for these people to get their
feet under the table, to reaffirm the fact that we do regard the
global trade deal as being important. I would like to give you
a date and I would like to give you the confidence that you seek,
but I can assure you we are continuing to work on it. I will meet
Ron Kirk in Washington this weekend and, as I say, we are already
engaged with the Director-General, with Pascal Lamy. Let us hope
that when there has been this pause while the Administration finds
its feet on these issues we can then see the progress on what
were the two key issues last July, one of which was around sectorals
and the other around the special safeguards mechanism.
Q287 Mr Crabb: While we wait for that
and take some encouragement from that, are there any other steps
that the UK Government can take to support trade in developing
countries? What more can you and your colleagues be doing?
Mr Alexander: If you look at the
steps that one of my colleague ministers, Gareth Thomas, took
only last week in terms of a new initiative in relation to aid
for trade for the southern corridor in Africa, if you look at
the commitments that we already have in terms of aid for trade,
or more substantively if you look at the announcement that was
made in terms of trade financing, that will have a real and material
impact coming out of the G20 in terms of the availability of these
countries to be able to secure credit to be able to trade effectively.
I mentioned earlier that I had been part of the conversations
with President Lula ahead of the summit taking place in Brasilia
and probably the single biggest thing that he identified, and
this was then reflected in other conversations with heads of government
in Chile, was the fact that as an export-led country Brazil desperately
needs to be able to access lines of credit for its trade to continue.
That is equally true of African countries. In that sense, if we
got the Global Trade Liquidity Programme up and running quickly
I think that will make a significant difference to what would
otherwise be very, very serious consequences as a result of the
loss of trade finance in developing countries.
Q288 Chairman: I just make the point
that was made to us in Tanzania when we were discussing general
trade issues. They said that there are unintended consequences,
of which aviation tax was one, and they said, "You may decide
that climate change measures are a good thing and it is a good
way of raising revenue, but if you increase the aviation tax you
deter tourists from coming to our country or you add to the problems".
I do not see anything in the Budget about aviation tax so I am
not sure whether it was indexed or increased or not. Is it a point
that has been made to you and do you think it has any relevance
to you as a Development Minister?
Mr Alexander: Actually, it has
not been a point that has been made to me directly either by President
Kikwete or by other heads of government. There are broader issues
in relation to aviation. I speak with some knowledge of these
issues as a former Transport Secretary. When I was Transport Secretary
I argued that we needed to look again at the Chicago Convention,
which is essentially the Convention that precludes the taxation
of kerosene for international aviation but was written in the
1940s in a period when there was neither any recognition of issues
of contemporary security or, indeed, of contemporary sustainability,
of climate change. I was intrigued and surprised to see there
was an editorial in The Times either yesterday or today
arguing that the Chicago Convention needed to be looked at. We
have argued for that for some time. There are broader issues because
whether it be through the kind of work that UNITAID has done in
terms of taxation on aviation tickets, or a precept on aviation
tickets to be used for financing for health expenditure, whether
it be looking ahead to Copenhagen where aviation is going to be
one of the elements and identifying sources of funding for the
global carbon market, these are all issues that are going to be
important but it has not been something which has been raised
with me specifically in relation to tourism.
Chairman: It is relevant to the other
inquiry we are doing, so we are going to come back to it. We were
specifically and explicitly lobbied.
Q289 John Battle: Could I ask a question
about public support in the downturn. As you may know, our Committee
has been out to the regions, to Leeds and Bradford, to do some
work on this and your Department has done this as well. I think
you did a survey of the impact of the downturn on public support
in February. It is a particular question that is perhaps indicative.
In the survey the percentage of respondents who categorised themselves
as concerned about global poverty encouragingly remained constant
at 74% compared with the previous survey in October 2008, but
some academics and others have expressed concern to us about the
validity of the question in gauging that support. I just wondered
whether you were aware that people felt that the question was
not a real tracking of public support and could be a little more
sophisticated. Could we look at the methodology of the model again
and sharpen it up because it is an important piece of work to
do, to track public opinion at all times on development. My view
is that there has been quite substantial support for international
development that has been built up over the years but it might
not remain there forever whether there is a downturn or not and
we have to sustain it. I just wondered whether that methodological
question has hit your Department's desk?
Mr Alexander: To be honest, the
methodological question has not and I will be interested in the
Committee's thinking when we see the report that you subsequently
publish, and in that sense if you have got recommendations in
terms of how we can improve the tracking then of course we will
give them very serious consideration. On the broader point, of
course I am worried in terms of how we sustain support for development
in the present economic circumstances. When I spoke to some of
the NGOs after the Budget Statement today and was able to confirm
that we are holding to the ODA commitments that we have made,
they said, "We are very grateful" and I said, "The
one thing you can do for me is to make sure that you urge your
supporters to continue support for this level of expenditure and
the rising level of expenditure we are seeing now and into the
future". The risk, notwithstanding the inter-dependent and
global nature of this crisis, is that people are always susceptible
at this juncture to turning inwards and thinking there is a way
that either we can secure prosperity or stability in Britain by
ignoring the rest of the world or not recognising that while our
livelihoods are at threat here in Britain, lives are at threat
and being lost in the developing world. I am very mindful that
we need to keep working at this issue.
Q290 John Battle: Maybe by building
that into the questions in some way. Something that appeared after
the Budget on the television, and again there will be controversy
about the particular detail, was I was encouraged to see two people
having a great argument about scrapping the car and getting £2,000
because it sparked off a conversation where someone said he had
got a green car and he did not get any money to buy it but, on
the other hand, tackling the environment was an important issue—should
we subsidise it or not. I think if we had a healthy debate so
that people were not thinking in boxes about the environment,
boxes about the health service and education and boxes about international
development, but if we had a broader discussion and deepened the
debate then frankly we might make more progress.
Mr Alexander: Absolutely.
Q291 Andrew Stunell: The same survey
showed a third of respondents believe that people in poor countries
are less deserving of UK tax money than people in the UK and more
than half of people think that aid to poor countries is wasted.
Your messages very often seem to be designed to go to those who
are already on-side rather than to the sceptics. Have you looked
at what messages might be appropriate for the sceptics and beyond
the message what the reality is that you could put to them?
Mr Alexander: If you look at our
coverage in recent months, we have had feature stories in the
Daily Mirror and the Sun and we featured prominently
in Comic Relief this year. We are consciously seeking to
broaden the range of outlets in which we communicate the message
that development works. It is also fair to recognise, and I am
sure the Committee would accept this point, politicians are not
always deemed the most credible or effective public communicators
these days and in that sense when, for example, I had a recent
meeting with Bill Gates and he was talking about what he could
do to support the efforts that are being made here in the United
Kingdom, I fired back that one of the first things he could do
would be to come and lend his business credibility to the premise
that aid works, because he is an individual who is rightly recognised
for a very significant series of achievements in his business
career and if he stands up and says, "Listen to what the
Gates Foundation and other exemplary donors are doing in terms
of tackling HIV or AIDS" then probably he will be given a
hearing. In that sense, we are always looking not just at what
we do ourselves, which we keep under constant review, but also
who are the other trusted third party endorsers who can make the
case that development does work and that the needs of many of
the world's poorest people do need to continue to be considered.
Q292 Andrew Stunell: You have launched
a review on building public support for development. Are you giving
us a hint of the direction in which you think that should go,
with more work with third party endorsers rather than Government
and departmental initiatives?
Mr Alexander: I do not think that
lessens our responsibility to make sure that our messages are
targeted, relevant and effective. In that sense you are right
to recognise we have this work under review. I am also encouraging
in the process of our White Paper consultation my colleague ministers
and myself to get out and about around the country. We are doing
events in pretty much every region of Britain. That gives us an
opportunity to engage and talk directly with people about the
concerns that they have. I will be in Durham tomorrow talking
to people about why development matters and that is part of a
rolling programme that all of us as ministers have in trying to
get out and about and communicate the message. Through the mass
media we are always looking at where there are opportunities to
convince those sceptics. I remember after the launch of the International
Health Partnership, which was a major effort that we had made
on behalf of the Prime Minister to build sustainable health systems
and support for sustainable health systems, we managed to get
about two columns in the Financial Times and half a column
in the Glasgow Herald and that was it in terms of coverage.
When I left the press conference with the Prime Minister, he said,
"I wonder if we need to do more around single diseases, not
because we do not need to do sustainability and health systems,
it is the right policy, but we need to look at ways that we can
capture the public imagination as well". In that sense you
are constantly trying to balance the policy objectives that many
years of practice by officials have given you with those issues
which have the capacity to engage the public's interest and win
the benefit of the doubt.
Q293 Mr Crabb: Does it bother you
that only 22% of respondents to the survey that my colleagues
have mentioned say that they have ever heard of DFID and 54% say
that they have never heard of your Department?
Mr Alexander: I have thought a
lot about this and if I am honest I am not sure that is the true
measure of our success as a Government department. The standard
answer is to say, "Well, look at what the International Development
Act says, it is about raising awareness for development, not raising
awareness for the Department for International Development".
My real objective would be to get to a place where the expenditure
that was reaffirmed today is deemed to be as central to Britain's
sense of identity as the kind of money that we spend on the BBC
or the National Health Service at the moment. I think most people
would recognise that the BBC is part of what it means to be a
British citizen and the National Health Service is equally part
of what it means to be a British citizen. I hope that in the years
to come we can build a consensus that Britain meeting its international
obligations is part of who we want to be as a people in the 21st
century. I do not think it is coincidental that neither the BBC
nor the National Health Service is called the Department of Health
or the Department of Broadcasting. You start at a certain disadvantage
in terms of people's assumptions and presumptions about a ministry
as distinct from international development, British aid, and that
is informing some of the thinking we are doing at the moment.
To give yourself the task of saying, "I want everybody in
Britain to know about my ministry" is actually a less worthy
objective than saying, "How do we build a consensus around
what this ministry is actually about", which is that the
British people year-on-year honour their international obligations,
and that is what we are giving quite a lot of thought to at the
moment.
Q294 Mr Crabb: Secretary of State,
are you saying that the question that your survey asked perhaps
is not even relevant?
Mr Alexander: No, I think it is
relevant, it partly stimulates conversations like this. It is
helpful to us to know whether there is high recognition of the
Department or not, is there high recognition of the work, how
do people feel about the work that we are doing. I am not concerned
that we get that information, but if we get that kind of information
we are able to make better decisions. One of the reasons that
I think the right goal to aim for is to say what is the best vehicle
of communicating to the British people the critical work that
we do and how central it is to Britain's sense of self because
when you look at the evidence there is not a natural emotional
attachment that people in Britain feel towards Government ministries.
You can actually build quite a strong emotional attachment towards
the work of the National Health Service, the work of the BBC or,
I believe in time, the work that Britain is doing internationally
to meet its obligations.
Q295 Mr Hendrick: As you say about
the NHS or the BBC, there is that instant recognition. When we
are criticised as a Government by the likes of Oxfam or Christian
Aid many of the public who are contributors to those organisations
take it as read that these organisations are working for good
purposes and they are the sorts of organisations that you would
support, and the recognition of DFID by so few people really puts
that into context. Married to that, when we were abroad, when
we were in Kenya and Tanzania, when we spoke to people who were
either recipients of aid or organisations using that aid, the
recognition factor was very, very small. I have never been one
for waving the flag or saying what a fantastic job we are doing,
but nevertheless maybe some branding method which stops far short
of looking like overt nationalism but gives a recognition of the
good work the Department is doing is required. I get from what
you are saying that that is the direction in which the Department
is moving. It is almost as if we are scared to talk about the
excellent work that is going on in those countries themselves
falling just about short of being ashamed that we need to do it.
Mr Alexander: I would be very
interested if the Committee made recommendations in terms of the
Aid under Pressure Inquiry on exactly this issue because I am
giving it thought at the moment. To be perfectly honest, there
has been something of an orthodoxy that said because DFID since
1997 pursued unashamedly a strategy of country-led development
and gained legitimacy and credibility both in partner countries
and with people who were aware of the Department because of the
relentless focus not on waving the flag but on doing what was
judged right in the circumstances that it was sustainable for
people not to be aware of the work of the Department. Personally,
I do not think it is. I think if we are asking the British people
to fund year-on-year rises in the budget of the Department for
International Department we do need to work harder to make sure
that the people of Britain understand not necessarily the name
of the Department but the work that the Department is doing. That
is for a few reasons. First of all, if there were to be genuine
causes of concern in terms of how money was being spent in any
of our programmes in the future you are in a far stronger position
if people have a residual sense of what the British aid programme
and development programme does before you hit the one bad bump
in the road which splatters you across every newspaper in the
country because then at least people can say, "Well, we know
you have been doing good work for a number of years and clearly
there was a problem on that country". I can assure you I
am working hard to make sure that problem does not arise on my
watch but, nonetheless, I think effective concern for the reputation
of the work of the Department means that you should work hard
to raise the profile of the work that is taken forward. Secondly,
I have to say for all that I am greatly admiring of our NGOs in
the United Kingdom they do not work very hard to publicise the
funds that are provided by the Department for International Development
to them. It would be invidious to name names, but let us say Christian
Aid or Oxfam, who we fund significantly in terms of PPA[11]
agreements, understandably do not spend a lot of time telling
their own supporters that they are receiving significant resources
from the British Government. VSO is another example. About 70%
of VSO's core funding comes from the Department for International
Development. VSO has a fabulous brand and a fabulous profile amongst
the British people and I would be quite surprised if many of them
knew that almost 70% of the funding is provided in terms of core
resources from the Department for International Development. I
think that has got to change over time. This is a challenging
area because you do not want to undermine the credibility of your
work in countries and you do not want to be in a position where
you are undermining the reputation of those organisations with
which you are working, but it is something I am giving a lot of
thought to and if the Committee had thoughts or deliberations
on it in the report it would be very timely.
Q296 Chairman: Secretary of State, this
gives us subjects of lively debate when we are pounding on through
the bush or the desert in minibuses, I can tell you. I will give
you two anecdotes from our trip in Kenya. We were in North Horr
and we saw projects being run by Solidarités, a French
charity, which pointed out that it was impossible for them to
get funding from the French Government but they were very generously
funded by DFID and they were doing very good projects. The t-shirts
said "DFID-Solidarités", so it was all on the
t-shirts, but the lady we were talking to who was a recipient
said, "I have no idea what DFID is, but I know what Solidarités
is". Similarly, when there was the Comic Relief climbing
of Kilimanjaro we were told the DFID representative went to meet
the celebrities to explain exactly what the British Government
was doing because they did not know, and why would they, that
is fair enough. What you told us when we had our first informal
meeting with you shortly after you were appointed was that you
were looking at some kind of branding idea, whether it was going
to be called British Aid, UK Aid or what have you. Do I gather
from what you are saying that you are making some progress towards
coming to a conclusion?
Mr Alexander: Yes.
Q297 Chairman: We were kind of expecting
you might be getting somewhere.
Mr Alexander: Yes, you can. In
that sense I expect that we will be able to move that forward
in the immediate months to come, but perhaps the natural opportunity
would be the White Paper and that is why if you have thoughts
on these issues they would be very timely.
Q298 Andrew Stunell: This is about
increasing awareness particularly amongst young people, of development
issues and obviously global learning is a small but very important
part of what needs to be done here. We have taken some evidence
about the Department's Community Linkage initiative which suggested
to us that it might not be particularly good value for money in
the sense that although it is glamorous and high profile there
might be better ways of spending the money on lower profile stuff
without the foreign visits and so on, which is maybe even misleading
some people about what they are seeing and giving them a not very
helpful view of what development issues are and the relationship
between ourselves and Third World countries. I would be interested
to know how you would like to respond to that, either in detail
now or perhaps write to us and give us some more information about
the Department's approach.
Mr Alexander: I will be very happy
to write to you.[12]
I know that there are some who suggest, for example, if you look
at our Platform 2 initiative whereby we are taking young people,
18-25, out to work in developing countries for 10 weeks and then
coming back and engaging in development education, that unless
there are reciprocal visits back from young people in developing
countries then we will inevitably create an expectation of some
form of dependency and it does not speak to the essential equality
that we should be about. I have to say, with respect, that I take
a different view. If we are growing a cohort of young people here
in the United Kingdom who have themselves experienced doing worthwhile
work in developing countries, have met people of their own age
and stage with whom they can engage and learn in developing countries
and then come back and share those stories and those experiences
that will be a material and significant contribution to exactly
the kind of consensus that I hope we are all united on wanting
to build amongst the British people that this is actually a sensible
thing to do. Similarly, when VSO, amongst others, approached me
and said one of the reasons that public service workers were considering
not taking up the opportunity to work in developing countries
was because of concerns about their pension contributions while
they were doing that voluntary work overseas, I worked with the
DCSF[13]
and the Department of Health to make sure that if you are a teacher,
a nurse or doctor, together we can match the pension contributions
that otherwise would be made if you were working here in the UK.
Again, that is because they have got valuable and important work
to do when they are overseas. It is also because I want local
GPs in communities across the country, nurses, doctors, teachers
and others, to be able to come back and share those experiences.
In that sense I will look with care at whatever observations you
have in terms of value for money in relation to the specific programme
that you mentioned, but I make no apology for the fact that we
are looking at ways that we can both allow people to do worthwhile
work in developing countries and then come back and engage in
describing those experiences when they return.
Q299 Andrew Stunell: So if it is a good
project would you consider expanding it to further and higher
education as well as to schools?
Mr Alexander: I am not in a position
where I am going to give a commitment on a specific project today,
but if there are recommendations the Committee would like to make
I can give thought to them.
Q300 Chairman: Thank you, Secretary
of State. It has been an interesting exchange and it is fair to
say that the Committee is certainly committed to ensuring that
the public understands and supports the aims and objectives of
our development budget, but at times of stress like this it is
particularly important that we focus on what it is about. You
and your officials have indicated that you will respond to us
in writing on some of the issues. Can I point out that on the
deadline that effectively we are working to because of your White
Paper deadline we are under some tight pressure so if we could
have those written responses as quickly as possible it would be
very helpful.
Mr Alexander: We will do it very
quickly.
Chairman: Thank you, all three of you,
very much indeed.
7 Civil Society Organisations Back
8
HM Revenue & Customs Back
9
Director-General of the World Trade Organisation Back
10
North American Free Trade Organisation Back
11
Partnership Programme Agreements Back
12
Ev 156 Back
13
Department for Children, Schools and Families Back
|
