Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
20-25)
PROFESSOR LAWRENCE
HADDAD, DR
ALISON EVANS
AND MR
SIMON MAXWELL
24 FEBRUARY 2010
Q20 Mr Evans: I do not want to be
overly cynical but I sat on the National Lottery Bill and all
the money that was raised there should have been for additional
funding of things and, of course, it was not long before that
money was poached for things that would ordinarily have been supported
by government departments. If you wanted to be cynical you could
say that if they wish to maintain the 0.7% and turn round to all
the NGOS and say, "Listen: we are still spending 0.7%",
there are ways, clearly, of not doing it and that is nuancing
the interpretations; that is number one, on to security and climate
change and goodness knows all sorts of other things, and the second
one is, "I know. Let us just not reach 0.7% because what
is the penalty?" It is a pretty weak penalty if you do not
reach 0.7%, is it not? Write a letter about what you are going
to do to achieve it next year, just keep on writing those every
year.
Mr Maxwell: That is one reason
why I propose that you might at least look at the question of
automaticity. I have had a bit of correspondence with the Treasury
which I suppose I should not share with you but there are some
interesting questions you might ask the Treasury about whether
it is a feasible option to make it automatic, which would exactly
address that question of the embarrassment factor. My view is
that it might with some creative thinking be possible to make
the Bill slightly stronger.
Chairman: Like a Rooker-Wise amendment!
Q21 Mr Evans: Lawrence, have you
got any reservations?
Professor Haddad: The embarrassment
factor has to go up, definitely.
Q22 Mr Evans: You just think that
it is not sufficiently rigorous at the moment to ensure that any
government, when they say they are going to reach 0.7%, will deliver
that, although, as you say, all the political parties are at one
on this? If we want to make sure that is delivered the Bill has
to be beefier than it currently is?
Professor Haddad: As I said in
my written testimony, I do not see what the consequence is of
not meeting it. I can see the risks but I cannot see the benefits.
On the diversion to non-poverty reducing things, I think that
temptation is always going to be there because aid is so political
domestically and internationally. The question is will a piece
of legislation, a Bill, incentivise that kind of diversion away
from poverty reduction? On the one hand it could; on the one hand
it could make it more transparent what aid is spent on, but Alison
is right: this debate is happening right now and I would urge
the Committee to encourage the Government to take a position on
the definition of aid in relation to this Bill.
Ms Evans: Just very quickly, I
mentioned, and you will probably hear about it from later witnesses,
this definition that the OECD DAC use of country programmable
aid, which is basically that percentage of total ODA which is
regarded as programmable by donors directly with countries, and
so it is that share of aid that partner countries have an opportunity
to have some influence over, if you like, so it excludes things
like debt relief and humanitarian assistance and so forth and
other cross-border flows. Currently in the UK CPA (country programmable
aid) is about 64% of total ODA. It is quite a high number. For
those countries that have already achieved 0.7% the number varies
quite a lot, so there is not necessarily any direct link between
achieving 0.7% and the share of aid that is directly programmable
with countries. It is almost that share that I would be more interested
in monitoring at this level than the total ODA level.
Q23 John Battle: I would, to get
it out of my system, resist Simon's idea that if we rush to the
courts for every definition it will be progress. I have spent
seven years arguing with a judge at tribunal over an immigration
case about whether the word "making" a deportation order
is the same as "serving" a deportation order. This is
taking seven years while a family waits, so I dread the courts
being the ultimate dictionary definition, as it were. I still
think there are rows about the definition. I would just like to
ask you this question. We are going down the road of definitions,
particularly in the poverty field. There is another Bill going
through the House of Lords which is to commit the Government to
targets of tackling poverty in Britain and I am wondering have
you done any cross-reading from the purpose, aims and predictability
of the ability of that Bill to fulfil its aims and this Bill?
Have you cross-referenced them?
Ms Evans: No.
Professor Haddad: I am completely
illiterate on poverty in the UK, I am afraid.
Mr Maxwell: I am not illiterate
but I am in first grade. There is, of course, a huge difference
between the definition of poverty in the UK and internationally.
In the UK the definition is relative and internationally it is
absolute. I do think we have an issue coming over the horizon
in development about whether or not we should start to look much
more closely at relative poverty. We have qualified a number of
countries as having moved from low-income to middle-income status
and therefore we reduce aid. That is a bit like saying that people
in the UK who have reached a certain level of income are therefore
somehow no longer of interest to us, whereas policy is driven
by the definition of Peter Townsend about relative poverty. Why
does the same not apply internationally?
Q24 John Battle: Sure, but even if
we had an agreement about the definitions in both contexts you
would still have the same problem: what happens if the Government
does not meet its poverty targets in Britain? Who do I get my
constituents to go and sue, would be the question. In other words,
it is the enforceability question, and I just wondered: there
are two Bills that seem to me to have the same kind of character
that are different from other Bills that would be going through
Parliament that set targets but do they mean anything? Do they
add up to a row of beans at the end of the day or am I being too
sceptical?
Professor Haddad: That is what
I was getting at with my earlier comment and you picked up on
the DWP. I would like to talk a little bit, if you do not mind,
about public perceptions. What will this Bill do for public perceptions
of aid? Will it wake people up to the fact that a lot of money
is being spent on international development? Will that be a good
thing or a bad thing? Will it be a good thing in the short run
or in the long run, or a bad thing in the short run or the long
run? These are questions that those of you who are more versed
in the ways of Westminster need to ask yourselves and your witnesses.
It is not at all clear to me that again it will consolidate support.
It might make it more divisive. In any case I think DFID and others
need to really strengthen their communication of the benefits
and the value and the necessity of aid. We have got the morality
question and we have got the self-interest question, but I do
not think they are communicated in ways that resonate with ordinary
people. We have been doing some research on this at IDS and I
would be happy to share some of that with you.
Q25 Chairman: You mentioned earlier
about the need for the Government to define aid more specifically
because Mr Evans has already highlighted that if you simply start
redefining things as aid in order to meet the target you have
exactly that problem of the public becoming cynical. The public
mostly think that we are siphoning all this money off to corrupt
dictatorships with Swiss bank accounts anyway half the time and
we have a difficulty. So are you saying that it might be more
important to ring-fence what we define as aid, even more important
than saying that we are going to spend 0.7% on it? Indeed, the
danger is that if you say 0.7% you dilute the credibility of the
aid you give.
Professor Haddad: I guess what
I am saying is that DFID—and I do not think they would disagree—need
to get much more sophisticated and creative about communication
around the benefits of aid and also the risks of aid.
Ms Evans: Agreed.
Professor Haddad: And that is
going to be even more important if this Bill goes through, I am
certain.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
That has been a very helpful session and we have managed to cram
a lot in. Thanks, all three of you, for coming along and sharing
your thoughts with us and for the written evidence as well.
| 
