Examination of Witnesses (Question Number
120-136)
MR GARETH
THOMAS MP, MR
SAM SHARPE
AND MS
LIZZIE RATTEE
24 FEBRUARY 2010
Q120 Mr Hendrick: That is clear on
the 2002 Act now that you have this definition, but what about
the enforcement of the 0.7? What does the Bill add in terms of
strengthening the commitment to the 0.7 target if there is no
legal enforceability?
Mr Thomas: There is a clear distinction
between the ability to go to court to question whether or not
particular bits of spending are eligible under the 2002 Act and
the overall spending commitment and our overall adherence to the
international obligation, which we think constitutionally has
been up to now the preserve of Parliament and should be in this
context too.
Q121 John Battle: I am a little bit
confused about the power of the Bill. Is it a legal, enforceable
duty or not? I put it in the context of the Child Poverty Bill
that I was involved with. We had some of these pre-hearings in
my own neighbourhood, in inner city Leeds, where people were discussing
the Bill. Generally, a good idea but people said, "Is it
an aspiration or is it a legal obligation?" I asked why they
asked the question and somebody in the audience rather unhelpfully
suggested, "Yes. What this Bill means is that if we do not
get our money we can sue our MP". I was left a bit confused
about what the legal obligation was. In the context of this Bill,
what is the point of it if it is just an aspiration? Is it legally
enforceable or is there a cloudy legal area here? I have learned
there is a phrase in law, "ouster clauses", that say
it is a law but it is not really a law. Is it a law or is it not
a law? On the courts, I completely agree with the Minister. I
want to keep stuff out of the courts and have either mediation
at local level or Parliament sorting it out. People do go to court.
They could even go to court and challenge contracts on the grounds
that you say it is not working for poverty reduction and they
claim it is. I could see court cases over the definitions of poverty
reduction and even the older definition of whether they are counted
in or not, if somebody were to be minded to go down that route.
What is the clarity on the legal issue? Is it a law or is it an
aspiration?
Mr Thomas: If it is passed by
Parliament, of course it is a law. To link the question of courts
and the reporting to Parliament, I suppose you could imagine a
scenario a" la Pergau Dam where there was such a huge amount
of money spent on one particular project it was challenged in
the court, the court ruled that it was not permissible spend and
could not be therefore counted towards the ODA-GNI ratio. One
would hope that the Secretary of State would have to acknowledge
that in the report to Parliament. One would certainly assume that
Parliament in one guise or another would have the gumption to
challenge the Secretary of State over that particular court case.
I think there is a difference between this Bill and the Child
Poverty Bill. To use another bit of jargon, this is very much
about inputs, about the total spend on development assistance.
The Child Poverty Bill was about achieving a series of outcomes.
Parliament has traditionally fought for all sorts of reasons,
as Members will probably know only too well, for the right to
hold the Executive to account on spending commitments and on adherence
to international obligations. This Bill is drafted in that spirit.
Q122 John Battle: I would not like
to see government time spent with Treasury solicitors in the courts
arguing over ODA definitions in the next five years. Would you
envisage that could happen at all?
Mr Thomas: I would hope not under
any government I was part of.
Ms Rattee: There is precedent
in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was passed on 23 February
and given Royal Assent, for these ouster clauses. I think there
is a difference in that it is not trying to enforce individual
rights. What this legislation is clearly trying to do differently
from that is to provide parameters for policy development and
to ensure that there is parliamentary accountability and a focus
for parliamentary accountability. That is what this Bill is doing
as opposed to questions of fines and power which will still be
available for challenge as they would be now under the 2002 Act.
Q123 Mr Hendrick: Could I ask if
there is the right division of responsibility and power here?
It would seem to me, if the Secretary of State has to come to
Parliament to report why the Department has not met the 0.7 and
in fact there are not sufficient funds coming from the Treasury
for the Department or any other section of the government that
is contributing to ODA, how can the Secretary of State be held
responsible for what is the Treasury's responsibility?
Mr Thomas: It is the Secretary
of State's responsibility to lay the report. It is for Parliament
to decide who it wants to bring before it or how it wants to take
action in response to the report.
Q124 Chairman: The danger is he is
going to turn up and say, "The Chancellor of the Exchequer
would not let me".
Mr Thomas: There are a series
of other ways in which Parliament can hold other ministers to
account for decisions that have been taken elsewhere in government.
It is not for me to tell Parliament how to do its job in that
respect. With respect, there are a number of committees other
than just this particular Committee that could look at development
funding.
Q125 Chairman: There was, we understood,
before this Bill was published—and it was slightly later
than expected—some to-ing and fro-ing as to whether it was
going to be a DFID Bill or a Treasury Bill. You could argue that
it is more of a Treasury commitment than a DFID commitment. You
could argue that it is the wrong minister who has been made accountable
to Parliament when the minister does not hold the purse strings.
Mr Thomas: We actually moved pretty
quickly to publish draft legislation after the Prime Minister
made the particular commitment. I accept the point that this relates
in part to an area of responsibility for the Treasury but, given
it is very specifically about official development assistance,
it clearly must be the responsibility surely of the department
that leads on development assistance and for it to be our Secretary
of State who takes the responsibility for laying any report before
Parliament. It is for Parliament then to decide what it wants
to do to hold not just our Secretary of State but government in
its entirety to account for progress on 0.7 or not.
Q126 Mr Hendrick: You are saying
if the Secretary of State comes along and says, "It's not
me, guv. The Treasury would not give me the money", then
Parliament has to set about the Chancellor?
Mr Thomas: It would certainly
be an interesting conversation but that is not what I am saying,
no.
Q127 Chairman: Maybe that is not
the right language.
Mr Thomas: It would be a brave
Secretary of State who said that.
Q128 Richard Burden: One of the things
that has been put to us is that, whilst the Impact Assessment
on the draft Bill does say there will be a short-term impact on
DFID of the costs of the Bill process, there has not been a proper
cost benefit analysis in the Impact Assessment about the draft
Bill. How would you respond to that?
Mr Thomas: Let me try and give
you some more sense of what might be achievable with the extra
money that the Bill essentially flags up. We estimate that in
2008 we spent as official development assistance £6.35 billion.
That rose in 2009 to roughly £7.5 billion. That is a provisional
figure and we think we will be around £9 billion by the end
of this year if spending levels are maintained. It is very provisional.
On projections around GNI, in terms of 0.7%, if in 2013 it was
met, there would be a £12 billion budget for official development
assistance.
Q129 Chairman: Is that money of the
day or currency prices?
Mr Thomas: These are very, very
rough figures.
Q130 Chairman: It would be cash value
at the time?
Mr Thomas: Yes. That implies,
roughly speaking, an extra £3 billion being available for
development assistance. That could potentially buy an extra 400,000
classrooms in developing countries. It could potentially train
an extra three million teachers or buy an extra two billion textbooks.
That is just to use education as one particular example. On health,
it is potentially an extra 600 million bed nets, immunisation
of another 250 million children or another 500,000 lives saved
by strengthening health systems. It is not a perfect science about
the potential impact but I think it does give a flavour of the
huge potential difference that achieving 0.7% could make in developing
countries.
Q131 Chairman: Are those not the
best selling points of the Bill? Why not put them into the Impact
Assessment, even if only as examples?
Mr Thomas: I think I knew that
I was going to have the chance to appear before the Select Committee
and I wanted to save some of the best lines for this Committee.
Q132 Chairman: The starting point
was why have the Bill. The ending point is if you are to have
a Bill how are you going to sell the merits of it. What you have
just told us, that £3 billion of extra spending is delivered,
is a much more exciting outcome than increasing it from 0.52 to
0.7%. Can I suggest that politically turning it into cash and
outcomes is much better than defining it in terms of inputs.
Mr Thomas: I hear the point that
you make and I take it on-board. I hope that we will see this
Bill on the statute book because, as you quite rightly say, I
believe it will make a huge difference. There is a very strong
moral case for doing what we are proposing. I also believe there
is a very strong case that this is in Britain's self-interest
for the very reasons that you started to talk about: state building,
the sheer number of countries that do not have the type of effective
state that we have and the problems that brings in its wake, not
just for its own citizens but internationally as well. One thinks
of Afghanistan as being a classic example where it is both morally
right to do development but it is also in Britain's self-interest
to get a more effective state and to help people, for example,
move away from growing opium and poppy and finding alternative
livelihoods.
Q133 Chairman: I do not think the
Committee is going to dissent from that in principle. Our job
is to produce a report on this draft Bill and any suggestions
or recommendations that seem appropriate. What is needed is a
greater public understanding of what development is about. If
the Bill can help that, that is a positive outcome. That is why
we have had the questions about definition and accountability.
Otherwise, there is a danger that we are just increasing the money
going to dubious places with dubious outcomes. It really is pretty
important that it is not just about spending more money on overseas
aid development; it is about spending it more effectively. That
is what both the sessions this morning and this afternoon have
activated in the Committee's mind. You will see that flavour in
the report when we produce it. Is there anything you want to add?
Mr Thomas: I hope that there will
be cross-party consensus on the Committee at least to support
the Bill. There certainly has not been to date in terms of the
comments of the different political leaders. I repeat my concern
that the Leader of the Opposition said he does not think there
is a need for this particular Bill. I hope the Committee's consideration
might help to sway his particular mind as well as the minds of
any other sceptics about this Bill.
Q134 Chairman: I suppose the first
stage is for this Committee to come to some agreement on what
we think about the proposals. The wider discussion is obviously
for others to take forward. I think I can speak on behalf of the
Committee rather than the wider political circles. The Committee
would not wish to see this piece of proposed legislation become
a cause of contention on cross-party agreement that we all want
to achieve 0.7%. I am not saying it is intended as such but I
think the Committee would not wish it to become such. I certainly
hope that what we say will be reflected in our report. As you
well know, these committees have to agree their reports behind
closed doors and produce results in the end, so I cannot prejudge
it.
Mr Thomas: I respect that. I do
not believe that there is the scale of cross-party consensus on
the issue in general that you describe. I hope in the coming weeks
that changes but I do not believe it is there on the scale that
you have just described.
Q135 Mr Hendrick: Is it an issue
as to whether or not we should have legislation or is it just
on the 0.7%?
Mr Thomas: With respect, I think
that is a question for others, not for me.
Q136 Mr Hendrick: In terms of your
interpretation of what other party leaders are saying?
Mr Thomas: There is a clear quote
from the Leader of the Opposition that he does not believe the
legislation is necessary. There is also evidence that candidates
of one particular political party, 90% of them plus, do not think
the international development budget should be ring-fenced.
Chairman: To be fair, the position of
the Conservative Party, as I understand it, is that they are committed
to achieving the 0.7%.
Mr Hendrick: The leader is.
Chairman: It is not our Committee's job
to determine that. That is for other people. We can internalise
our discussions but, having said all that, thank you very much
for providing us with your views and helping us learn a little
bit more about the thinking that is behind it. We have had a couple
of very useful sessions. I hope we should be able to produce a
report that will add some value to the discussion. Thank you.
| 
