Examination of Witnesses (Questions 44-59)
DR SARAH
COOK, DR
GERRY BLOOM
AND MR
DAVID DANIELS
21 MAY 2008
Q44 Chairman: Good afternoon and thank
you very much for coming in. We are having a slightly intensive
China day, having had evidence this morning, but this morning
was about China's engagement in Africa. This afternoon we are
looking at DFID's engagement within China in terms of poverty
reduction and we do appreciate your coming in to share your expertise
and knowledge with us. I will say the same as I did this morning:
that we were intending and were scheduled to be going to China
the week after next, but because of the earthquake (because we
were actually going to Chengdu, or some of us were), we have postponed
it until autumn because clearly the important thing for the key
players in China is to deal with that crisis, for which we have
extended our sympathies as well as our appreciation of the way
they are dealing with it. Nevertheless, we are going and this
information will obviously be on record and be helpful to us,
but it is not quite as immediate as was originally intended. For
the record, I wonder if you could introduce yourselves just for
the benefit of the shorthand writer.
Dr Bloom: I am
Gerry Bloom. I am based at the Institute of Development Studies.
Perhaps I should say for the purposes of this discussion, I was
on the core supervision team of a DFID- World Bank-Government
of China project for about ten years and I co-chair the China
Health Development Forum.
Dr Cook: My name is Sarah Cook.
I am also a Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies and
I have lived and worked extensively in China and my own research
is focused on China's economic and social development.
Mr Daniels: My name is David Daniels
and I work for a company called YozuMannion, and in terms of personal
involvement with DFID, I was involved in the design of the HPSP
project, the Health Policy Support Project, some years back and
I followed that through the last few years.
Q45 Chairman: Thank you very much
for that introduction. As you know, China has now been designated
as a middle income country and on the basis of that DFID has said
its bilateral programme will end by 2011 in accordance with the
current 90:10 split. I think particularly in the context of China,
I suppose the first question is, does this middle income classification
and its rather rigid application apply appropriately, given that
there is still a huge number of people living in very basic poverty,
indeed more in China than in the whole of Africa, and obviously
the significant variations across China as to where the poverty
applies. Do you have a view as to whether or not saying it is
now a middle income country and that we should be disengaging
is an appropriate application?
Dr Cook: Let me start. I think
obviously at an aggregate level looking at figures you get China
as being a middle income country. But clearly there are huge issues
of poverty that I think we are aware of, and I think from that
point of view it is problematic if we really want to keep poverty
reduction as our core focus for DFID and for our engagement. But
it also means that China does have resources. China, we know,
is so huge with so much variation that it does have the capacity
and the resources to address its internal poverty and development
issues from a financial point of view. So in terms of DFID or
development assistance and financial assistance, resource assistance,
I think there is probably some justification in saying that it
is beyond the stage where we need to put huge resources into it,
but there is a lot we can do to assist China in reducing its own
poverty and in promoting a more equitable development. I think
it depends on the nature of the role that international development
assistance would play rather than the absolute resources.
Q46 Chairman: Even now, our contribution
to China in aid and development is about a tenth of what we are
putting into India, so it is not on the same scale.
Dr Bloom: Yes. I think you have
got to separate, let us say, the size of the budget and the commitment,
the Chinese Government is committed to health reform, but they
certainly do not have the answers. For instance, I was involved
in a World Bank project. The Chinese Government has designed a
second one. They are having to borrow money from the World Bank
at commercial rates. DFID is part of that project, but I think
it has a very, very modest budget. So you have to ask, why does
China want to have such a project? I think there are several reasons
why they want it. One is, if they borrow this money they can have
innovative ways of using money that are not determined by their
government resource management systems. They can enable people
to experiment and test things, so it gives people room in a situation
where they do not really have the answer. The other clear thing
as to why they would want the World Bank and DFID is that I think
it is because they want to find a channel for getting access to
international and British experience. So in the sense of a country
which is still really just developing its social structure, if
they want to engage with DFID I think there are good grounds for
engagement. I think then the question is, how much money comes
from the British taxpayers and how much from the Chinese Government?
It should be negotiated.
Mr Daniels: I would concur with
much of what has been said. I think we are dealing with a country
where numbers are huge. That is the first thing to remember there.
I think also the government of China has huge capacities. It has
financial resources to tackle many of the challenges and in fact
in their own development plans, the 11 and 5 year plan for instance,
they actually highlight very clearly the need for making progress
on environmental, economic and social equality issues. So these
are very much in their own planning. I think again there are clearly
challenges which they have identified, challenges around the western
provinces being left behind, challenges of an ageing population,
challenges of huge migrating populations. These are all very difficult
issues which the government now is very conscious they have to
make progress on. So I think there is a role, bringing international
best practice into this, and I think that is why the Chinese Government
is still interested in a dialogue with DFID or with the UK as
a whole, as well as other donors. Just one of the things that
I would say is that the scope and direction of DFID's work and
the UK's inputs to China mainland is really supporting the development
of effective strategies to tackle those issues. It is not about
money, it is about ideas, and I think importantly it is not so
much about perhaps what DFID still thinks in its country plan,
donor/recipient type language. I think that has to go, and it
is about what are the interesting experiences which can be brought
in from the UK and the European Union, and elsewhere.
Q47 Chairman: We might want to explore
that a bit more, but just on this section, in that context, given
it is a relatively small budget, £33 million or something,
do you think DFID in its current programme is focusing enough
on poverty reduction, first of all on the basis that that is the
UK Government's stated priority, but presumably in that context
that is not a problem—it presumably also is a significant
part of China's priority. From what you have all said, there might
be a temptation to actually use almost the cover of development
to be engaged in something different, which might be where it
ought to go, but right now do you think they really are focusing
on poverty reduction as the prime responsibility?
Dr Bloom: From what I have seen,
it is focused upon poverty reduction. I think actually what happened,
certainly in the project in which I was involved, is that DFID
supported the Chinese experts and the project managers in implementing
change. Let us say 80% of their effort was in helping people to
solve problems and in giving people room to test new things. But
very early on DFID said that it had a focus on poverty reduction
and was perceived that way. There was therefore some flexibility
to test things which particularly focused on meeting the needs
of the poor, or I guess in that project particularly how you would
measure it, how you would assess your success. So I think the
engagement has to be around those aspects of Chinese Government
policy which are focusing on the poor and then to say that there
is a particular interest where people are looking at particularly
vulnerable populations or particular poverty-related problems,
if it might provide more support. I think that is how it has to
be, and then you are talking about the earthquake. The more that
one is engaged with projects like the health project, the more
possible it is for the Ministry of Health then to seek support
for specific crises or a specific issue as it arises. I think
the main thing is to keep in the agreement the focus on poverty.
Q48 Mr Singh: I think, Mr Daniels,
you mentioned that DFID should be moving towards a different relationship
with China so far as development strategy is concerned in 2011,
that is only two and a half years away, three years away. If they
are not doing it already in terms of changing that relationship,
what is stopping them? Why are they not working on that exit strategy
and preparing for a new one now?
Mr Daniels: I think what you say
is right. What I feel when I listen to DFID or read their papers
is that we are looking at the winding down of the aid programme
to 2011 and it sort of has a negative connotation to it. You are
sort of stopping things. The programmes are coming to an end,
we have done the last round of disbursements and programming,
at the very time when our Prime Minister has gone in there saying
that we are ushering in a new era of collaboration, and those
two things for me are just not quite right at the moment. Whether
it is DFID or DFID plus a wider departmental approach, I think
it needs to be more positive. There are things which DFID can
do now, and is doing, and I think it very much is quality-focused
and it brings that dimension to debate and dialogue with government,
and I think it is good and is actually having some interesting
effects on the way some of the Chinese Government is thinking.
Having said that, why finish in 2011? There will still be a number
of issues which are outstanding after 2011, we know that, and
still DFID with its experience, international experience, can
bring that to bear on some of these major issues, whether it be
migration or other issues to do with poverty reduction. So I would
say that in a way it is the intention and the way that dialogue
can be brought forward into a more positive forward looking approach
rather than this concentration on, "We need to finish the
aid programme by 2011," because people say, "Why?"
and "What is next?" because there are so many things
we are talking about at the moment. There are so many interesting
elements to the programme which we have, and there are so many
more things that could be done, whether it is looking at performance
frameworks for the new policies on social care issues.
Q49 Mr Singh: One of the reasons,
I think, why China goes to the World Bank for loans is not necessarily
to borrow the money from them but that along with that comes a
package of expertise?
Dr Bloom: Certainly what I saw
in China was that early on DFID was valued for a certain amount
of money in the project, but they are putting a very small amount
of money into the new World Bank project. It is not for the money
they are valued, the government can afford that. I think what
is valued is the capacity of DFID now in China to interact with
government officials in a supportive way and bring in expertise
when useful. So it is more a management capacity and a capacity
to form a bridge than it is as a source of large amounts of money.
I think that is the perspective which has to be changed. Now,
whether DFID is the right agency or someone else is the right
agency to carry out that function, I think that has to be decided,
although ten years of experience is important.
Q50 Mr Singh: But other donors are
beginning to disengage as well, so I would have thought there
needs to be some coordination between them. If we all disengage
at once and go without any kind of proper exit strategy, there
will be a vacuum.
Dr Cook: I think all of this goes
back to the middle income question. There are reasons why countries
specifically cannot continue to put so many domestic resources
in through bilateral programmes, and many countries are facing
those pressures, but the engagement around ideas—I think
if you look across the range of donor programmes there are very
different focuses. DFID has been the key one which has really
had a strong poverty reduction focus, and I while think we might
question quite how far that has gone, I agree that it has actually
been very strong, particularly at the policy level and in the
selection of the areas in which it works. I think those relationships
which are built up are then with particular sectors, water, sanitation,
health, education, et cetera. The question then is, what is the
role of one agency like DFID within the UK Government to build
on those relationships, or does it really have to be that health
sectors, education sectors, get involved to keep that relationship?
I think in this transition process for DFID they really have been
trying to create a sort of longer term transitional role. We do
not see it on a very large scale because they do not have that
many resources to devote to it, but their attempts to start that
dialogue, learning from China, the role of China in Africa, I
think that is all part of engaging with different parts of the
Chinese Government bureaucracy around development issues and climate
change issues on the sort of global development agenda, not just
on the internal development agenda. So I see that there is part
of the transition process in their thinking, but how far can one
government agency take that, or does it have to be part of a broader
initiative by the UK Government, and what would that look like,
I think is probably a question for that transition process.
Dr Bloom: There is one other thing
you may want to think about. The first question was, is there
still poverty in China? The fact is, there is, but the other thing
you should think about is that over the past ten years probably
the biggest single major development initiative was the western
China development, the Chinese western China development, and
it may well still be the case for the next five to ten years that
that is where the biggest investment is going to be, of course,
of Chinese money. If we want to engage with China in terms of
the lessons they are learning from western China development and
how they want to act as donors, the best way to do it is to be
engaged in the western China development. I think, though, the
question is, if they are middle income how many pounds should
be allocated to that? Certainly what I am seeing is that it does
not require large amounts of money, it requires what Dr Daniels
said is a change of perspective of what we think the value added
of DFID working with the Chinese Government departments is. I
think it is more their expertise in certain management issues
and it is access to expertise.
Chairman: Thank you for that.
We will in a minute want to explore a bit further the post-2011
relationship. It is my fault, I have slightly taken the questions
out of order.
Q51 Ann McKechin: I think we have
all been struck by the comparison of the reaction of the Chinese
authorities to last week's earthquake in contrast with the pathetic
response of the Burmese authorities to the cyclone, but it also
has been an unprecedented opportunity, I think, for the Chinese
public to voice criticism of the Chinese authorities in terms
of the structure of buildings and corruption, et cetera. I just
wonder from your own experience what you think the major challenges
are for the Chinese Government in rebuilding the basic services
in that province but also the wider issues about clearly a constituency
which now actually wants a greater say in decision-making.
Dr Cook: Obviously, China is huge.
I think it is hard for us, when we hear the numbers involved,
just the scale of rebuilding five million homes, the resources,
the infrastructure, the conflicts which are going to arise. Some
of the areas of social tensions are things around land use. People
have lost their livelihoods, their homes, everything, so there
is that challenge of rebuilding. I think the reality in China
is that what they are good at doing is precisely those kinds of
things. They can mobilise resources on a massive scale. They have
a construction industry which is just unbelievable. So while it
is a huge challenge and they will need support and will need resources,
they have the ability to manage it. I think the tensions will
come because it is going to take time and because people have
to be moved, re-settled, houses built, schools, the infrastructure.
I think there are going to be a lot of questions asked, as you
say, about the quality of construction and how one improves it
and how one makes those processes more transparent and accountable.
So there is scope within that process for dissatisfaction, unrest.
There have already been a lot of experiments in China's policy-making
process about public hearings for things, accountability mechanisms,
more openness. They have got a new openness of information law
which has just been put in place. These things do not necessarily
work very well until they are made to work, and it may be that
this provides an opportunity to make them work. It may be that
given the sort of tensions and urgency of the task, that actually
there is not time to really pay attention to those issues, which
may lead to further tensions. We do not know, but maybe these
are issues which would require some dialogue.
Q52 Ann McKechin: Are these issues
which you think in any way the UK, as a partner, can try to influence
based on its own experience? Do you have anyone from the international
aid community even to provide that type of advice or help?
Dr Bloom: I do not know the answer
but I think the answer, though, is coming back to what is the
role of DFID? If DFID has formed good relationships with the Ministry
of Health it can have discussions now about what is going to happen
to the emergency health funds. If there are good relations with
the Ministry of Education, it can participate in the discussions
of rebuilding and obviously about the design of schools. If it
has good relations with the Ministry of Civil Affairs, which is
the poverty relief agency, it can engage with them. I think then
the question is, if DFID or the British Government wants to be
involved, how does one signal to those agencies a willingness
to listen to the problems and bring expertise from British experience
in other emergencies and reconstruction efforts? I suspect if
that engagement went well, there would be opportunities to basically
say, "Okay, we have done this in a sector, now how do we
apply the lessons in this emergency situation?" I think that
relationship is how to explore it.
Mr Daniels: Can I just say that
I think out of this terrible tragedy which has happened, it will
bring to the fore some of the shortcomings which exist and it
will bring forward in time a lot of the challenges now confronting
the government. What we have seen, I think, is an unprecedented
reaction, an incredibly efficient first wave of support and very
much an openness, which I think has surprised people from Europe
and wider afield on the invitation to come and help. That is one
thing, but it also brings to the fore all the social challenges,
the lack of some of the infrastructure and the robustness of that
infrastructure, and what will happen now is that because that
has to be replaced, there will be the demand to replace that with
quality services which will cover the population, perhaps in a
rather different way from what is happening in some of the western
provinces at the moment, where that is recognised but it is a
longer term process of building. So that whole issue of quality
of infrastructure, quality of services and things will be brought
to the fore and the timescale will change, and I think DFID should
reflect on how it can bring to bear some of those issues of looking
at quality management, quality control issues, which will be really
helpful. I think also we are seeing already the government beginning
to look into issues of governance and other areas where it recognises
that things have to be done properly in order to provide good
public services. That is being talked about, I think, a lot as
well.
Dr Cook: Can I just add one thing
on that? I think, as we have said before, DFID needs to build
on the experience it already has, the kinds of areas which have
been mentioned. The area of more accountability, governance, civil
society voice, et cetera, is not something which DFID has really
done a lot of work on. It comes in through programmes but it is
not very direct and there are other agencies and institutions
and donors which have done much more work on that, so I think
it is also a question of donor coordination and knowing what other
donors have done and where the comparative advantage is.
Q53 Mr Crabb: I would like to ask
you about the role played by economic growth in terms of poverty
reduction in China and ask you specifically what your view is
of the trajectory of Chinese economic growth and the extent to
which it constitutes genuine pro-poor growth as having a genuine
impact on tackling poverty and what you think is going to happen
in the future. How safely can we assume, for example, that Chinese
economic growth will continue to be very strong and that it will
have a strong poverty reduction impact, and what do you see as
some of the risks to that growth?
Mr Daniels: I think we all know
the figures and we have seen very, very strong growth over many
years in China. That has brought with it considerable resources.
It has increased its position in the world considerably as well.
I think one of the things which it is interesting to reflect upon
in answering that is that it has also created a lot of wealth
but there are also areas which have been left behind. That is
quite clear and it is recognised and it is quite openly discussed.
I think one of the things about the development plans within China
is that we have to look also at their strategies for providing
balance in the system. They have these five balances which they
talk about a lot in the context of development of the country,
and that is looking at the urban/rural disparities, which is very
clear, the disparities between different provinces and regions,
it is looking at the whole issue of economic and social imbalance
and the need to actually move much more towards a people-centred
approach rather than just the economic growth model which has
been there previously. So all of these things I think are things
which are beginning to come to the fore. At the moment, of course,
there is very strong economic growth, but whether that is going
to be self-limiting through natural resources, the environment
and these other problems which are being brought up more and more
now, that is one side of it. The second is, how does it actually
then start making sure that there is a much more even distribution
of that wealth across the country? Those are the major challenges.
Dr Bloom: You do not have an economist
here. We cannot make growth projections. I do not think any of
us can and no one predicted what happened in China. I think what
is clear is that I just think in a very practical way the places
I visited remind me so much of my history, where a couple is working
in the city, the grandparents are looking after the children and
they visit maybe once a year. People are making enormous personal
sacrifices to earn a living, to save money and to educate their
children, and I think that is the basic ethos now in China and
as long as growth continues that will be extremely successful.
Of course, if there is a divergence from the growth path, then
there is going to be a lot of adjustment and one cannot predict
that adjustment, but I must say what one sees is extremely hard
working people basically preparing for their children in a very
systematic way, so I cannot predict.
Dr Cook: There are a few issues.
There was the first phase of growth where poverty was reduced,
but whether it would be technically pro-poor in the sense of higher
growth rates or at least equal growth rates benefiting the poorest
population I think is questionable. The second phase of growth
actually left a lot of people behind and the widening inequality,
I think, rather than poverty is what really is going to entrench
some problems, and it is the social tensions which arise from
that inequality. That is what the government is having a much
harder time addressing and I think there has been a real effort
in the last decade, certainly in the last five or so years, through
revising the fiscal transfer system, et cetera, to address those
issues, but the extent to which it is succeeding is ultimately
a political issue and I think those kinds of very structural fiscal
systemic reform issues are still things which the government is
having a hard time really reforming. There has been much more
emphasis on the development of the manufacturing sector and those
kinds of issues which lead to obviously the growth you need to
be able to redistribute anything and the government does have
the resources now, but it is only now beginning to really face
the challenges of how to allocate those fiscal revenues in ways
which are pro-poor.
Q54 Mr Crabb: So if there was an
abrupt diversion from the growth path, for example, through a
sharp fall in demand for the consumption of goods in the OECD
countries and that had a knock-on shock impact on China, to what
extent is there social protection for the hardworking Chinese
family which you have described, Dr Cook?
Dr Cook: The system is being built
and from the late nineties until now you have seen a basic minimum
living standard through a safety net programme, which fundamentally
recognises that people cannot guarantee their own livelihood through
employment. So it recognises that this is an issue. There are
low income workers or unemployed workers, so more people needing
assistance, and this is now being rolled out to rural areas with
new health systems put in place. They are all in the early stages.
They need a lot more resources and they need to be strengthened,
but there is a sort of basis for a social protection system which
is being put in place. There is still the coverage issue, do migrants
get covered when they move, things like that are still very problematic,
but it is being built at the moment and the government has put
a huge amount of emphasis on these issues in the last five years.
Q55 Sir Robert Smith: We have already
discussed the post-2011 relationship and I think you confirm generally
this morning's witnesses' view that to maximise the exchange of
views about development in Africa or elsewhere in the development
relationship, the DFID presence in China is desirable. You also,
Mr Daniels, in your submission talked about how the recent controversy
surrounding Tibet and the Olympics mean we probably need a more
clearly articulated and more formal and transparent framework.
Is the current one somewhat ad hoc?
Mr Daniels: No, I think the current
framework for DFID based around their country assistance plans
is fairly clear. What I would say is that it is still very much
talking the language of donor/recipient. That comes through to
me anyway when I read the current CAP.1[10]
That is the sort of language which is being used. I actually think
that we need to move on from that, at the same time as DFID doing
pro-poor work, and it is very much based upon DFID's remit in
addressing poverty around the world. There is a lot more we should
be talking about in terms of cooperation with China, with that
huge resource of scientific people, resources and capacity that
is there, and we should be working in a forward looking way, looking
at some of the solutions not just for China but for the world,
whether that be in the health sector or other sectors. I think
that is the sort of language we need to look at. I think within
the relationship you are going to have areas where we are very
clear and there is a very good basis for cooperation. I think
there are also some other issues which we need to be very careful
about how we discuss them, what those issues are and the sort
of language we want to use. So I think that is where we need to
move to.
Q56 Chairman: There is also talk about
obviously various UK departments, not just DFID involved, there
is DEFRA and BERR. Obviously we have got an embassy representing
the British Government, but do we need some kind of cross-departmental
government office?
Mr Daniels: I think it needs to
be one which can represent that wider departmental expertise and
interest. For instance, the Department of Health, as an example,
has superb experience in providing a health system to our population
here and we need to have that expertise as well. It is not necessarily
DFID's job to bring that voice in, I think it is the Department
of Health's job, and DEFRA is the same and probably several other
departments which are dealing with things like climate change
and other things. So I would say that a DFID office could be at
the core for now, but why not bring in a whole range of other
departmental specialists and interlocutors who can actually build
that relationship, which Gordon Brown has so clearly articulated
during his visit there in January.
Q57 Chairman: Would it be appropriate
or inappropriate for it to be led by DFID? In other words, do
you think the track record of DFID makes it the natural leader,
even if it is drawing on other departments, or do you think logically
it should move to the Foreign Office or a collection of departments.
Mr Daniels: I do not think it
really matters. It will be a UK office, will it not? DFID has
got experience, it has got good networks and it has got a very
good reputation, so DFID should be there and it should be there
as a strong presence and continue its work both in terms of the
work linked to poverty and the work linked to, for instance, the
China-Africa issue and cooperation internationally, but bring
into that office in a perhaps stronger way some of the other departments
which you have in Whitehall.
Dr Bloom: I think you have to
build on the strength of DFID and the DFID relationship is about
poverty reduction. I think the value of building normal relationships
between several government departments and Chinese government
departments goes beyond poverty reduction and it goes beyond having
effective development in Africa. There are British Government
interests in developing normal relationships, and normal relationships
not at the highest diplomatic level but in health. There are obvious
issues around drug regulation, around surveillance and disease
control, around research, long term research, different kinds
of interventions where it is very valuable to have inter-governmental
relations in the same way that we want to normalise relations
between private companies or research institutes. I think we need
to think about a process by which we normalise relationships at
all sorts of levels between British institutions and Chinese institutions,
and DFID has made a start because we have defined that relationship.
At the moment we have focused on the poverty reduction, but I
think we cannot limit it to that, or it would be a mistake to
limit it to that.
Dr Cook: I think we need to also
ask how the Chinese Government, administration and bureaucracy,
interact. At the moment the DFID relationship is with one particular
government department. Then it can build relationships with health,
and other ministries, through programmes. But in terms of actually
having direct access or a stronger relationship with multiple
government ministries, I think then you would need to be looking
at the different departments on the UK side. Then the question
is, should those be channelled through the DFID counterpart in
Beijing to those other ministries, which probably is not the best
way of doing it. You have got a sort of gatekeeper there.
Q58 Hugh Bayley: I am a party-pooper.
So far you have convinced me this whole narrative is created within
the aid lobby to justify its presence and I am just not convinced
at all. Yes, of course the UK needs strong diplomatic, commercial,
educational links with China, but if you want to talk about regulating
pharmaceuticals, we have a Department of Health. You do not need
to mediate that discussion through a department whose focus on
the specialism is something completely different, and why on earth
are we so arrogant to believe that even big donors—if you
get all the donor community's money together it is 0.1% of China's
GDP and our contribution is, what, 2% of that? The idea that our
presence has any impact on poverty reduction in strategic terms—yes,
we could put together some case studies, or on improving welfare—is
monumental arrogance. Why on earth are we there? Here is a country
with a bigger GDP than ours, with a space programme, with nuclear
bombs and a gigantic army. They may need to cooperate with us
and get expertise, but surely they should buy it on a consultancy
basis? Why do we not have a completely different model where we
say, with a partner like this, "Let's have a partnership".
If they really want our expertise, they should buy it? Why are
we diverting money from the DRC, from Nigeria, and handing it
out to people who do not need the money? Everybody agrees they
do not need the money. Why do we not set up a commercial office
to sell them a local livelihoods consultancy and advice if they
want to buy it?
Mr Daniels: It is a forcefully
put point. What I am saying is that we do need to bring in the
non-DFID parts of the UK, and that is very important.
Q59 Hugh Bayley: But who is "we"?
"We" is the British Government, not DFID.
Mr Daniels: No, I mean the UK.
I think one should also look at the relatively small proportion
of the UK aid programme which is also going to contract, but that
is still pretty small as well, and there are some interesting
areas for debate and dialogue which I think would probably justify
that level of funding. But I think my point has been that we need
to change from a DFID-focused approach in China to one which brings
in a different relationship, which in fact, whether it is the
actual mechanisms you mentioned or others, brings in the other
parts of the UK's set-up to actually work with the Chinese on
a different basis. I would agree with that.
10 Country Assistance Plan Back
|
