Examination of Witnesses (Question Number
61-79)
MR GARETH
THOMAS MP, MR
SAM SHARPE
AND MS
LIZZIE RATTEE
24 FEBRUARY 2010
Q61 Chairman: Good afternoon again, Minister,
it is good to see you here. Could you introduce your team for
the record.
Mr Thomas: On my right is Sam
Sharpe, who is the Director of Finance from the Department, and
on my left is Lizzie Rattee, who is a Treasury solicitor.
Q62 Chairman: A Treasury solicitor
might well have been relevant to some of the discussions we have
already had! As you know, we took evidence this morning from a
number of different panels, including, you might say, think-tank
commentators, NGOs and also OECD-DAC on the ODA criteria, but
we would ask you the same question that we were testing on them,
which is: what is the purpose behind this Bill? What is the point
of bringing forward a Bill in draft form at this stage of Parliament,
and it might be otherwise, but when it would appear to have no
chance of becoming law this side of a General Election?
Mr Thomas: Well, the intention
of the Bill is to put beyond doubt the UK's determination to deliver
on the 0.7% commitment that we have made. We would be the first
G8 country to not only deliver on that 0.7% commitment when we
achieve it in 2013, but we will also be the first G8 country to
have put a commitment in legislative form on the statute book.
I think there are two other points in terms of the significance
of the Bill. Firstly, it builds on two previous Acts of Parliament
in relation to international development, the 2002 Act and Tom
Clarke's private Member's Bill in 2006 and, perhaps most importantly
of all, there will be a review conference on progress towards
meeting the Millennium Development Goals in September at the United
Nations. If this Bill could reach the statute book by the summer
recess, and I recognise there is an `if' to this, I think it would
send a huge signal to the rest of the international community
about following through on the promises that were made at Gleneagles.
Q63 Chairman: So why not, given it
is a very simple measure to say that we are committed to 0.7%,
simply introduce the Bill and have a day in Parliament next week?
Mr Thomas: Well, I recognise that
there is a whole series of other legislative commitments that
we have pledged in the Queen's Speech. We did not know, and we
still do not know, when the General Election is going to be held.
Q64 Chairman: But we know by which
date it has got to be held though.
Mr Thomas: Well, we do know that.
I think even the fact that we were able to secure a draft Bill
is important, and I hope that the scrutiny session that we are
having today and the other sessions that you have had on this
would enable a Bill to get safe passage through both the Commons
and the Lords early in the first session of a new Government and
a new Parliament. Clearly, I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee
that that would happen in a new Parliament, but I hope that the
scrutiny sessions we are having would make it easier to do that,
and the fact that we have published the draft Bill will also make
it easier to do that.
Q65 Chairman: The Prime Minister
made great play at the Party Conference of the fact that this
Bill was going to be introduced and it was not at that time implied
that it was going to be a draft Bill, and indeed the NGOs this
morning expressed disappointment that that was the case. They
were supportive of the Bill and they were hopeful, as you are,
that it would actually become law, but they expressed some disappointment
that you were not actually legislating before the end of this
Parliament. Is there anything you wish to add to what you have
said on that basis?
Mr Thomas: I would be very surprised
if they were not always pushing us to do more; I think that is
their role and it is entirely proper that they should be pushing
parliamentarians, all of us in that sense, to get the draft legislation
on to the statute book, but I think the reason why it is a draft
Bill is as I have already set out.
Chairman: Okay. Well, let us move on
to the Bill itself.
Q66 Mr Evans: You clearly think,
Minister, that it is an important Bill to have as a piece of legislation
and, as the Chairman said, the NGOs this morning said that they
were disappointed that it was draft legislation, and I am sure
you were there at the Party Conference when the Prime Minister
announced that this was going to be legislation and promised that
it would be on the statute book. When did you first know that
it was not going to be legislation, but draft legislation?
Mr Thomas: To be honest with you,
I would have to check back the notes of discussions that we had
at the time, and I am happy to do that, but what I would say to
you, Mr Evans, is that I think the key thing here is the fact
that it does build on two previous Acts of Parliament and it does
build on substantial progress towards 0.7%. If all political parties
want to give this Bill a fair wind in the first session of a new
Parliament, then I see no reason why it could not be on the statute
book, and that is a challenge to my Party as much as it is a challenge
to your Party.
Q67 Mr Evans: Well, I will come to
that in a second, but I just want to know who told you that it
was going to be draft legislation, not legislation?
Mr Thomas: It is not a question
of being told. There would have been a series of discussions,
as I say, the exact details of which I cannot recollect, and you
discuss whether or not you can get legislation into the Queen's
Speech, be it as draft legislation or as full-on legislation.
You will recollect that over recent years there has been a series
of important Bills that have started out as draft Bills with pre-legislative
scrutiny like this, which is deliberately designed obviously to
help speed the passage of Bills when they come before the House.
Q68 Mr Evans: But you did not lobby
for draft legislation, did you? You lobbied for legislation on
this, and that is important.
Mr Thomas: I lobbied for legislation
on this, which is important, but I accept that you can have legislation
in a number of ways and over a number of timescales. The fact
that we have done it as a draft Bill I do not think detracts at
all from the commitment that we made.
Q69 Mr Evans: So, when you were told
that it was a draft Bill, not a Bill, you did not lobby to change
that at all? You said, "Okay, we'll have a draft Bill then"?
Mr Thomas: There is a series of
discussions which take place within the Cabinet across Government
about the priorities that the Government has and what it is to
put on the statute book. My Department was party to those discussions.
As I say, given that we did not know the date of the election,
frankly, I think it is a credit to this Government that we have
brought forward a draft Bill at this stage and I hope that we
would get the full Bill through Parliament very soon after the
election.
Q70 Mr Evans: So you are just telling
us that you cannot remember whether you lobbied for a Bill or
not?
Mr Thomas: We lobbied for legislation
and we have got legislation.
Q71 Mr Evans: Well, no, you have
not, you have got a draft Bill.
Mr Thomas: Well, we have got draft
legislation.
Q72 Mr Evans: Can you remember whether
you did say, "This isn't good enough, Prime Minister. You
promised this as legislation and now it's draft legislation"?
You cannot remember whether you did or did not?
Mr Thomas: There is a whole series
of conversations that ministers and MPs have with Government about
legislation. We have got a whole series of priorities and we want
to get as many of them through as we can do. The view that we
took collectively was that it was appropriate to bring this Bill
forward in draft form first.
Q73 Mr Evans: But you are going to
look at your papers and perhaps send the Chairman a letter?
Mr Thomas: Perhaps I will check.
Q74 Mr Evans: You say you do not
know when the General Election is and no, we do not, but I do
know that this piece of legislation actually has the support of
all the parties, we all want to see the 0.7% and, if you were
to bring it forward, you could get this legislation through in
one day. I will give you an example: last Friday 5 February, there
were two Bills that went through, private Member's Bills, that
actually went through in one day, so why, with all this goodwill
that you have got here, do we not just do it in one day?
Mr Thomas: Well, when we committed
to bring forward legislation, there certainly was not clarity
with respect to your Party's intentions in terms of the legislation
and there has not been until very recently. By that time, we had
decided to move forward on a draft Bill and to bring the legislation
forward, and I think it is appropriate that we have continued
in the way that we have done.
Q75 Mr Evans: Why do you not have
a word with the Prime Minister and say, "There is now sufficient
goodwill that we can actually get this as a piece of legislation
prior to the General Election"?
Mr Thomas: Well, with respect,
I think you should talk to your party leadership and get your
party leadership to make that offer to my party leadership or
get the usual channels to talk.
Mr Evans: All right. Well, I think that
is something solid that we can get on the table, and I will tell
you why: the NGOs we had this morning said that they did not want
this to be a short-term thing as that would create a political
dividing line between all the political parties at the General
Election. We now have an opportunity to actually get this as an
Act prior to the General Election in one day.
John Battle: No, Nigel, that is not true.
Q76 Mr Evans: Could you come to the
point then that the NGOs made this morning that they think that
this might be a ruse to divide the political parties prior to
the General Election?
Mr Thomas: I do not think it is
a ruse. We have brought forward draft legislation and, as I say,
it builds on two previous Acts of Parliament. There is certainly
absolutely no doubt that there is a difference in history in terms
of commitment to international development and, I suspect, a difference
in substance in terms of the attitude of those who are going to
stand at the General Election. Surveys of Conservative candidates
have suggested a very different approach to international development
from people in my particular political Party, but in terms of
this particular Bill, no, it is not a ruse and it builds on previous
legislation and previous commitments that we have made.
Q77 Mr Evans: Can you think of another
instance whereby the Prime Minister announces legislation, it
then goes from legislation into draft legislation and then a campaign
is built around it to get the draft legislation made into legislation?
Mr Thomas: Well, there has been
a series of Bills that have been published in draft form where
there has been strong support for them to be turned into legislation.
I am happy to provide you with a list, though I suspect members
of the Committee could do their own research quite easily and
discover how many Bills have been done as drafts first and gone
through pre-legislative scrutiny. This is not a new process, with
respect.
Chairman: In the spirit of this being
a cross-party Bill, I think the point has been made, although
I will allow John Battle to speak.
Q78 John Battle: I put it in a question
because I think we should try and keep together on this. I have
been on Bills that have been a draft, the Climate Change Bill
was one, and in all of these matters, and I am thinking particularly
of Tom Clarke's Bill, we had to build a consensus around it and,
with no disrespect, Minister, I think we had consensus on the
figure of 0.7% because I campaigned on that, but I do not think
there was consensus where all parties agreed that we should actually
put a Bill before Parliament to build it into law, but we are
still, I think, working on building the consensus around that
which is why I welcome this approach. However, I just put it to
you that, if there were more work quicker to build that consensus,
then maybe there is a real chance that this could be on the statute
book very quickly, so you could make representation to the usual
channels and the Whips to make sure that it happens because, if
we could get it as far through this Committee and if we move quickly
as a Committee and held the consensus together, could we get a
Bill through the House and get it done?
Mr Thomas: Well, it would be fantastic
if we could. It does not just depend on our Party, Mr Battle,
as you quite rightly alluded to, but it depends on other political
parties making the offer and being serious.
Chairman: I think we accept that it cannot
be determined by this Committee, although we can make a contribution
towards it, but I think, to be honest, it would better if we moved
on to the other questions.
Q79 Mr Hendrick: Can I sort of be
the devil's advocate in the sense that this focus on the 0.7%,
a number of countries, admittedly not in the G8, have managed
to meet the 0.7% without legislation. Does focusing the debate
on the actual quantity, this magic figure of 0.7%, detract from
the aim which should be to ensure that the aid is quality? We
have heard stories in the past that millions have been thrown
at the World Food Programme so that we meet targets and we meet
budgetary allocations for international development, but should
it be about quality and not just about the 0.7%?
Mr Thomas: Well, I think it is
right that we put the commitment to 0.7% on the statute book.
I think the concerns about the quality of aid which have been
discussed in many fora over many years, we have robust procedures
in place to ensure that the aid is well-spent and delivers good
results, and we will continue to have those processes in place
and are always looking to learn lessons, be it from other countries
or be it from our own programmes, to ensure that the quality of
our aid continues to rise in its effectiveness.
| 
