UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 404-iiHouse of COMMONSMINUTES OF EVIDENCETAKEN BEFOREINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
DRAFT INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT(OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TARGET) BILL
|
|
1. |
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
|
|
2. |
Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
|
|
3. |
Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
|
|
4. |
Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
|
|
5. |
Transcribed by the Official Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament: W B Gurney & Sons LLP, Hope House, Telephone Number: 020 7233 1935
|
Oral Evidence
Taken before the International Development Committee
on
Members present
Malcolm Bruce, in the Chair
John Battle
Richard Burden
Mr Nigel Evans
Mr Mark Hendrick
Mr Mark Lancaster
Mr Virendra Sharma
Andrew Stunell
________________
Witnesses: Mr Gareth Thomas MP, Minister of State, and Mr Sam Sharpe, Director, Finance and Corporate Performance Division, Department for International Development; and Ms Lizzie Rattee, Treasury Solicitor, gave evidence.
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
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 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 drafted, 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 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.
Q80 Mr Hendrick: Apart from our commitment to 0.7% and the fact that we want to put it into legislation, is the aim of this to act as a spur to other governments and other countries to legislate in a similar way, or is it the fact that some countries have met the target without legislation and is it that we just feel the need to do it in order to show our commitment?
Mr Thomas: I think there is a particularly significant international moment coming up in September when the Millennium Development Goals are reviewed in terms of the progress made. There is no question that there is a series of other countries who are off-track on their commitments to meeting the 0.7%, so I think that, as well as locking in ourselves to trying to achieve progress towards 0.7%, it would send a very powerful signal to other countries around the globe, other rich countries, to do more to enable more progress more quickly to meet the Millennium Development Goals.
Q81 Mr Hendrick: Do you think the fact that it might not actually result in legislation on the statute book would in any way make our efforts seem a bit feeble?
Mr Thomas: I do not think so. I think that, if you put it in context of the leadership that our current Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister have shown on development, if you add in the progress in terms of the legislation that has already gone through, I think people will see it as a progression, as a further indication of the journey of renewed commitment to international development that this current Government has initiated.
Q82 Mr Lancaster: One of the stated advantages of this Bill is that it helps underline the degree of predictability for aid, which of course we would all support, but of course, in practice, when you begin to unpack that slightly, because of the fluctuations in gross national income on an annual basis and indeed the fluctuations in the value of the pound, there is still going to be some unpredictability in aid, so how effective a tool is it, in reality, to delivering the predictability of aid?
Mr Thomas: Well, you are right, there
would be some unpredictability still, but what, in reality, you would have is
that developing countries would have a lot more confidence in the overall size
of the funding envelope, to use the jargon, that is available for development
spending by the
Q83 Andrew Stunell: Just picking that up, if I am sitting in the Finance Ministry in Nepal and looking at the UK aid programme, can you say something about the benefits there will be in terms of predictability, say, to the Government of Nepal in terms of the passage of this Bill?
Mr Thomas: Well, if you forgive me, I do not want to use the example of Nepal because I do not have direct responsibility for our aid programme in Nepal and it is some time since I did, but essentially, if this commitment were to get on to the statute book and we were to follow through as a country in terms of the funding commitment to achieve it, there would be significant additional aid available, for example, to help us to fund more teachers on the ground, to invest in better health systems, perhaps to get more bed nets to those who might otherwise be at risk of being infected by malaria. There is still a huge job of work to do in terms of the level of need in terms of the numbers living in poverty and we would be able to clearly do more with the extra resource that was available as a result of this Bill and the political will that it would imply being available by Government.
Q84 Andrew Stunell: Well, at the moment, say, about two-thirds of ODA goes to country programmes. Would you see that proportion increasing or reducing? It was put to us this morning that there might be a risk, though perhaps 'risk' is the wrong word, but there might be an alternative of using a rapid increase more to support multilateral programmes than country programmes. I wonder if you would like to comment on that and perhaps say whether you think the Bill might have a provision in it that a certain proportion ought to be for country programmes or not less than a certain proportion should be for country programmes.
Mr Thomas: I would not want to have specific amendments to the Bill to say that a particular percentage of our aid should go to country programmes or a particular percentage should go to multilateral programmes. I think we have to make judgments as ministers, and obviously the Select Committee and others will test the quality of those judgments, about the merits of spending through particular country programmes or spending through particular multilaterals. It will chart the effectiveness of multilaterals, we evaluate the quality of our own country programmes and then we make judgments as a result about where to allocate our money, depending on where we think it is most effective. I think being prescriptive now about the particular balance of spend would be the wrong thing and would be the wrong approach to take. I think we do need to allow the Department to take a view, which clearly should be tested as we get a better sense of what the particular multilaterals can do or what the particular need is and what the particular political situation is in particular countries.
Q85 Andrew Stunell: So, taking that at its face value, this will not actually increase the predictability in the Ministry of Finance in Nepal because it will still be the range of decisions outwith the statutory which will affect the amount of aid that they get from the UK?
Mr Thomas: I do not think that is a fair characterisation of the answer I have given, although I understand why you say that. There would be a series of reasons why we might not want to increase aid or we might not even be able to follow through on the particular long-term agreement that we had with particular countries, which potentially could relate to the level of commitment to poverty reduction in the particular country, concerns about human rights in that country or concerns about corruption in that country, so, notwithstanding the balance of spend, there could be a series of reasons for not wanting to follow through, but, if the overall funding envelope increases, then we would be in a position to do more longer-term agreements and to give more longer-term predictability as a result to developing countries. What I do not think we should be prescriptive about is the exact balance between multilateral and bilateral and between funding through civil society organisations either. I think you do have to make a judgment on the circumstances at the time, as you see fit, and clearly be willing to be held to account for those decisions.
Q86 John Battle: I think we would accept that you need the flexibility and that must be there, but, if I can put it to you in these terms, I think one of the really good things that DFID has done is to have developed country programmes with partner governments and to work out exactly what predictability and what programmes they could support in the past, and 65% of our ODA goes to those programmes now. My point following Andrew's would be that it would put extra pressure on those programmes, I hope, for the people working up those programmes to absorb more money. Otherwise, there would be a fear, and I put it in these terms, that, if you get a big dollop of extra money coming along and you have not worked on the country programmes, the easiest and quickest way to get rid of it is to shove it into the multilaterals without thinking about it and saying, "Well, it will be our contribution to the World Bank or the World Food Programme or whatever", and it is just whether the Department is working with the partner countries to actually say, "Well, actually, if we can meet these targets and we ramp up the aid budget in these terms, we would be working harder with you and we will actually be putting more people and resources into working up the country programmes", so that means they will be intensifying the work in-country. Is that the way that the Department is approaching it?
Mr Thomas: No, I do not think so. I think what we would want to do is actually
to look at the level of need in particular countries, and we, as you know, have
a focus on low-income countries and want to continue, as we said in the last
White Paper, to direct more of our aid, in particular, to those countries that
are most fragile in terms of low-income countries. What we also want to do is to sit down with
the other donor players in the developing countries concerned and look at each
other's comparative strengths, whether they are a multilateral or another
bilateral, look at the needs of the particular countries there and then make decisions
about how each of our aid programmes should be spent. I think there is also a judgment to be made
about the particular effectiveness of particular multilaterals in particular
countries, and we have a process for evaluating the effectiveness of our
multilaterals, but let us take the issue, if we may, Mr Bruce, of the
particular country we were discussing yesterday,
Q87 John Battle: I welcome that, but, if I could lead back then to my colleague Mark Hendrick's questions, I would push to say that, if you then you were in Zimbabwe, or let us take Malawi as a slightly less difficult case in a way, if Britain were able to ramp up its country programme in Malawi and we were doing it in conversations with the other donors, quite a few of those other donors ought also to be ramping up their contribution because they should be increasing their targets. Can we use that conversation to put leverage on them to honour their commitments to 0.7% as well because a lot of them are a long way behind us, otherwise, it is us putting all the money in and them doing nothing? Do you see it as sharpening up that conversation so that, as well as the lobby at the EU end or internationally, we are lobbying in-country?
Mr Thomas: There are already discussions that take place at country level about levels of aid which particular bilaterals or indeed particular multilaterals are going to be able to put in to help that country, so, in that sense, those conversations already take place. We speak to our country heads of office about the levels of need in particular countries and we make judgments collectively as a result as to where ministers should put pressure on multilaterals perhaps to do more or on the types of conversations we should have with bilateral donors. Perhaps I could just add in response to Mr Battle's question that I attended what is a regular meeting of European development ministers under the Spanish Presidency this time last week and there was considerable interest in this Bill from the Commission and indeed from other Member States and there was a series of interventions about people being off-track in terms of their commitments, so I think, in that sense, there has already been merit in this Bill being published.
Q88 Chairman: I think we welcome that, but the other issue we have had discussions about this morning is how you define ODA because of course, under our own International Development Acts, we have defined it strictly more narrowly than does the DAC, and I think this Committee certainly recognises that, but is there not a danger that enshrining the 0.7% commitment might lead to an attempt to define in a broader way what ODA is? From the Government's point of view, do you actually believe that the definitions, as agreed by the DAC, should be revisited? The evidence we had this morning was that they had not changed and there was no current drive to change them, so does the Government have a view about that?
Mr Thomas: Well, my understanding, and I have not read the evidence that you took from the OECD-DAC this morning, but my understanding is that the DAC are seeking to renew their guidance in a series of areas at the moment, and we will obviously have to reflect on that guidance when it eventually emerges.
Q89 Chairman: Well, perhaps I could put it the other way round: if that is the case, would it be the British Government's input to make it tighter and more robust, or is the pressure the other way? Presumably, the UK Government is in quite a strong position in the OECD in that we are legislating ahead of the game compared with other countries who are not meeting their targets or falling away and might want to loosen the definition of ODA to make it easier for them to improve their performance.
Mr Thomas: No, I think we would want continuing progress to make the definitions as robust as is possible. You ask me more broadly about the question of definitions and we have deliberately not included any definitional clauses in the draft Bill precisely because I think it would certainly dramatically complicate this particular piece of legislation. Also, we have no intention of moving away from the existing commitment we have made in terms of use of the OECD-DAC's guidance for the definition of ODA or that the Department for International Development's spend should be predominantly focused on poverty reduction.
Q90 Andrew Stunell: In the passage of time, there are going to be changes in the priorities that any government has and, perhaps looking at the aid and development climate in a country, it might be that it would be expedient and maybe even good for some of these definitions to be changed, and one could think about security and fragile states and clearly there are issues about policing. There are a number of topics which at the moment are outside the current DFID legislative framework here which it might be convenient to include in the future. Do you think that there is in fact quite a risk that, if we have a much increased, rapidly increased aid budget, there will be some temptation by other departments to look at ways of using this money for purposes outside the current definitions?
Mr Thomas: I am not going to speculate on what might happen in the future or the types of conversations that take place between ministers and officials in future governments. In terms of security expenditure or this debate about the militarisation of aid, which I think has motivated some of the concerns in this area, I think it is a bit of a bogus debate. I think we are very clear that spending around enforcement in terms of security does not count as ODA, but, for example, human rights work, election monitoring and police training within UN missions, which some might see as security, I see as perfectly reasonable spending under our definition of overseas development assistance and it is perfectly legitimate that it should be included in ODA figures. What, I think, is important actually is that we do not see a substantial change in the definition of ODA, and let me be clear: that is not what the OECD is working on. What they are working on is how you report your ODA and trying to clarify, as I understand it, guidance for Member States in terms of the reporting of their ODA going forward, so it is that type of conversation to get the reporting as robust as is possible and as consistent as is possible which I think is an important piece of work internationally.
Andrew Stunell: So, if I take another topic which would be climate change, I think there has already been evidence, and I think you perhaps were the Minister who gave it to us, where we had to take a double-take on whether some of the money announced for climate change was or was not inside the existing aid budget. There are clearly some grey areas. How do you see that being approached in the future?
Q91 Chairman: Just for the record, I think it was your colleague Mike Foster.
Mr Thomas: I certainly do not remember being scrutinised on that particular issue! I think we said in the White Paper last year that we would bring in from 2013 a 10% cap on ODA spending as climate finance. I think there is a clear overlap between, for example, the work to tackle and prevent deforestation in developing countries and the fact that, when you tackle deforestation, you are actually helping the very poorest people in those developing countries too, so I think it is perfectly reasonable that some ODA should be right to be counted as for climate finance too. What everybody in Government is also clear about is that we will need additional finance both in the comparatively short and long term to meet all the needs that there are for climate issues. Again, I think the DAC are looking at how climate finance should be reported and I welcome the fact that they are doing so.
Q92 Mr Hendrick: Could I just add on that then that, if you are saying that climate finance is becoming more and more effective in helping to deal with poverty reduction, then why have the 10% cap at all and why not look at raising that cap? Do you think there is any possibility that a future government might actually choose to get to the 0.7% by throwing in things, such as climate change, and actually taking that money from, say, DECC where climate change is obviously one of its responsibilities?
Mr Thomas: Well, I do not know, Mr Bruce, whether you are likely to ask me questions about the extent to which other government departments' spending is counted as ODA.
Q93 Chairman: Yes, we will be coming to that.
Mr Thomas: I sort of feared that that might be the next direction of travel. Some of the spending that certainly DECC has is countable as ODA, as is spending by a number of other government departments, of which the FCO will be the least surprising to the Committee. Quite what the balance will be between departments going forward, I cannot speculate on, but I think the vast majority of ODA, certainly under this Government, will continue to be spent by the Department for International Development.
Q94 Chairman: Well, can I press you on that question then. The 2008 figure we had was that 88.1% of ODA was through DFID and 11.9% was through other departments, so the first question is: does the International Development Act apply to ODA spending by departments other than the Department for International Development?
Mr Thomas: Forgive me, Mr Bruce, my attention was slightly elsewhere.
Q95 Chairman: Well, 11.9% of UK ODA, as defined and agreed by the DAC, is spent by departments other than DFID. Does the International Development Act apply to spending on ODA by departments other than DFID?
Mr Thomas: Well, we would expect this draft Bill and the commitment to 0.7% to require us to count up all ODA spending, whether it is by the Department or by other government departments, in that calculation.
Q96 Chairman: Perhaps I can ask the Treasury solicitor if she might answer that. There is an important point in law: does the Act apply to spending by other departments?
Mr Thomas: Are you referring to the 2002 Act or to the draft Bill that we have before us?
Q97 Chairman: No, the 2002 Act, in other words, the Poverty Reduction Bill.
Mr Thomas: The 2002 Act refers to DFID, to the Department only.
Q98 Chairman: Well, that is where the problem arises because, if that is the case, then is there not a danger that money can be transferred out of the Department in order to avoid that?
Mr Thomas: Well, this Bill is not about the challenge to one particular Department, it is about the challenge to Government as a whole and I think it is right that it should be, with respect.
Chairman: I am not trying to be difficult. What we are trying to explore is the danger which could arise with this piece of legislation that, in order to meet the targets, there will be some temptation to finesse funding accordingly to areas where it will meet this legislation, but where it might undermine previous legislation.
Mr Hendrick: And the work of other departments.
Q99 John Battle: I tell you how I look at it, and there are two ways of looking at it. One is to say that we want to keep development spending purely for poverty reduction, and that was partly that Act, in other words, and anything extraneous, such as building hotels, energy plants that were not absolutely vital, that kind of infrastructure which was not seen as essentially necessarily poverty reduction, by and large, was not. Now, I do not see the difficulty in protecting the budget of DFID as being purely for poverty reduction. I think in a situation where this Bill, in the best of all worlds, got through, whatever government is in power, and we agree on the 0.7%, if I were in the Health Department or in the Social Security Department, I would want to raid the budget of DFID because yours would be the only one growing and, if I were a minister there, I would be after your budget to get a slice of it because my budget is contracting and yours is growing, so I would be pulling things across to my Department and claiming that they are ODA and that would allow the Government as a whole to wrap them all around and to say, 'We've met the target". How do you actually ensure that spending by other departments is genuine money spent on poverty reduction in line with that original 2002 Act?
Mr Thomas: Well, government departments have got to have those robust conversations with each other, come what may. What there is is a clear definition in terms of overseas development assistance and we have the DAC trying to clarify guidance so that there is a more robust and consistent process of reporting what counts as ODA. I think it is important to be clear that what this Bill is focusing on is the commitment to achieving 0.7% of ODA as a part of GNI. The exact balance of how ODA is spent and whether or not it is spent purely on poverty reduction through the Department for International Development is of course a conversation that government departments will have to have and will no doubt continue to have going forward. There are departments, the Department of Health is one, some of whose international spend can legitimately be counted as ODA, but simply because the Department of Health, if you were a minister, might want to try and count some of its spending as ODA does not mean that it could do so because there is a clear definition available for judging that through the Development Assistance Committee, the DAC, and they monitor how governments meet the commitment. The other crucial thing perhaps, in order to give further confidence to the Committee, is that the ODA-GNI ratio is about to become a national statistic, so the Office for National Statistics, which is obviously independent of Government, will also be able to do its own scrutiny of whether or not the definition has been properly adhered to.
Q100 John Battle: That is one of the reasons why poverty reduction was built in so hard and the whole thing about tied aid was of course that there had been discussions in the past and there were reports from this Committee on the CDC which went for major infrastructure development. On the economic development front, there were hard cases that are in the grey area that Mark refers to where people could say that other departments were legitimately helping and were making a contribution because they were going into tourism or energy development or infrastructure and roads, and actually, "We're claiming a bit of your budget", and I am speaking to you as a Minister in DFID, and then you find that that is added into the 0.7% and it is without that hard definition that you can get them under your banner and we would actually see the erosion of the target, and that is what I am actually trying to put.
Mr Thomas: Well, that is why I think it is important work that the DAC are doing at the moment to clarify how you report and also why, I think, it is significant that the Office for National Statistics will be able to do their own scrutiny of our figures for ODA-GNI and whether they stack up.
Richard Burden: I wonder if I could just follow up on the last question that Mark Hendrick asked you and it is on the same subject. As far as DFID's spend is concerned, the 2002 Act is relatively clear around the poverty reduction focus and, as far as other government spend is concerned, the DAC criteria apply with greater clarity, hopefully, on what that means and that will be made robust and the Office for National Statistics will help there as well. Given the fact that we started these questions today with issues around the fact that it is important that there is a kind of cross-party consensus around issues of definitions of aid and ODA and what counts and so on, have there been any discussions or any indications from other parties about whether they share the robustness of this Government's definition around poverty reduction and indeed whether they would accept the need to tighten up or reclarify the DAC criteria you have mentioned?
Q101 Chairman: Just on that, in the briefing note there is reference to an article in The Guardian which said, "When international attention landed on Yemen's links with Al-Qaeda at Christmas, who at the Whitehall roundtable had a budget line which could pay for 'state-building'? DFID. It puts a whole new light on the Conservatives' oft-repeated pledge not to cut DFID funding", and I think that is a bit unfair because it could also apply to almost any government. "Given that the accepted DFID analysis is that the single biggest determinant of long-term poverty reduction is political stability, then all manner of interventions to secure that stability can be justified as reducing poverty." Now, let us not be party-political specifically, but just generally is that not a danger, unless you have a very clear definition and a very clear understanding?
Mr Thomas: Well, as I have said, I think we have had a robust definition for the work of the Department, and the vast majority of ODA is spent through the Department. We have been continuing to use our influence in the OECD-DAC to press for greater clarity in terms of the reporting of ODA, and I like to think that that is beginning to bear fruit. In terms of conversations with other parties, no, there have not been conversations with other parties. I am aware that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he does not think there is a need for legislation, and he said that in one of his questioning sessions at a meeting in Hammersmith, as I understand it, so I do not know whether that is significant in terms of the context of definitions, but perhaps it is certainly significant in the context of whether or not there would be genuine cross-party support or consensus for this legislation.
Q102 Mr Lancaster: I want to look at the accountability measures. Minister, in your opening statement, you talked about how this draft Bill builds on the 2002 and 2006 Acts, although a number of the recent submissions suggest that the references to the economic, fiscal and external factors should be removed from the Bill as they risk making it more difficult to hold the Government to account, and in fact this morning Patrick Watt from Save the Children actually said that he feared it may result in a weakening of the 2006 Act, so can I simply ask why the Government did decide to include these references to economic, fiscal and external circumstances? Was it because it actually weakened the 2006 Act?
Mr Thomas: No, I do not think it does weaken the Act. If the 0.7% target were not to be met, with the requirement that ministers are very clear about why the target has not been meet and, if it is because of economic reasons, that they are particularly clear about those reasons, I think it is a perfectly reasonable ask to make. It also reflects the other most recent piece of legislation which focuses on inputs, if you like, as opposed to outputs, which is the fiscal responsibility that also makes a similar reference. Obviously, I did not hear the particular evidence from Save the Children, but, if, and I have no reason to doubt it, you are accurate in the way that their comments were reported, I think they have misunderstood the effect of the Bill.
Q103 Mr Lancaster: Mr Sharpe was sitting in this morning, so perhaps he would like to comment.
Mr Sharpe: I think he argued that taking out the clause from the 2006 Act which required reporting on the year in which the Government will meet the target weakened the Act, and I think that is a purely technical change in the 2006 Act because, once we have met the target, how can there be a requirement on the Government to report the year in which it intends to meet it, so I think that was one of the things he was saying certainly and I think that was not correct. The reason those clauses are in is to make it very clear the type of demonstration, the type of report the Secretary of State would need to make to Parliament in the event that the target were not met. Obviously, one scenario the Treasury have asked us to consider is what would happen if there were a surge in GNI during the course of a year, and that is one scenario that might need to be thought about, for example.
Q104 Mr Lancaster: Thank you, Mr Sharpe. I did not want you to think that we did not spot you there this morning! Can I then ask what other accountability measures, apart from these, you considered including in the Bill? What else was on the list and then turned down?
Mr Thomas: Well, I think we have got a very clear mechanism for doing so. I suppose the other device that you might consider would be the use of the courts to hold the Government to account for this particular piece of legislation. I do not think the courts are the appropriate approach as there is a clear parliamentary or constitutional convention that Parliament is responsible for holding to account the Executive for spending commitments and for the progress on international commitments and I think it is right, therefore, that we have focused on Parliament as the institution to hold Government to account on whether the 0.7% is met or not.
Q105 Mr Lancaster: I think we will come on to some of the legality later. The other area of concern which was expressed to us by the NGOs was really about the sanctions if Government fails to meet this 0.7% target, and indeed Mr Lawson from Oxfam this morning said, and Mr Sharpe can confirm this as he was there, that the Government was effectively trying to have its cake and eat it by putting the Bill in place, but actually, if it does not fulfil the requirement, the sanction is to make a report to Parliament, which is not really much of a sanction, so what examples did you draw on when you decided that this would be the process for that sanction?
Mr Thomas: I do not think, with respect, that it is not much of a sanction, a report to Parliament. What Parliament chooses to do with that report or what it chooses to do if 0.7% is not met is clearly a matter for Parliament. As a Minister, I have to say, I would not want to come and have to explain why a commitment to 0.7% had not been met, so, in that way, I think it is a significant sanction and I do not support, with respect, the demeaning of Parliament in the way that your question apparently suggests.
Q106 Mr Lancaster: Well, I am sorry that is what you think I am suggesting. What I am really saying to you is that, effectively, it means that you might be caused a bit of embarrassment, so okay, the Minister will be caused a bit of embarrassment, but what, in effect, would Government be forced to do to rectify the situation? Should there be something in the Bill which outlines that?
Mr Thomas: For my Party, not achieving the 0.7% would be of significant concern to us. That may not be the case for other parties and I cannot comment on that, but the sanction is Parliament taking up the opportunity to hold ministers to account for not having met the target and the reporting to Parliament is the opportunity for Parliament to start to force that conversation and that process of accountability to take place.
Q107 Richard Burden: Could we perhaps move one stage on from the event of the target not being met and the sanction being deployed to what actually would be done to rectify the situation in the future. Now, the draft Bill, as it stands, says that the Government should "describe the steps taken to ensure the target will be met", so the implication there is that what is already going on will be described, which is good stuff, but presumably, if the target has not been met, something rather more than the steps which have already been taken may be required. A number of the NGOs have been saying should there not be some sort of obligation in the Bill to produce some kind of action plan to ensure that the target is met in the coming period, and has the Government looked at that? For instance, it seemed to be a bit weaker than, say, in the Child Poverty Bill where the Government is actually required to publish strategies of what should be done to meet the target in the future.
Mr Thomas: Well, there is an obligation each year from 2013 to deliver on 0.7%, so, in a sense, the requirement to publish a separate action plan is obviated by the existing duty to meet the commitment to 0.7%, so I think, in a sense, you would just be publishing a report when the requirement is already there the following year to make progress, so that is why I do not see an action plan as being necessary.
Q108 Richard Burden: But could the same thing not be said about the child poverty legislation, and yet in that one it is said that regulations need to be published to put into effect the steps the Government is going to be taking?
Mr Thomas: I would have to look at the exact wording of the Child Poverty Act, but, as I say, I think the fact that there is that requirement year on year from 2013 to deliver the 0.7% commitment means that that requirement is already there to make the progress that is required.
Chairman: I think we were told this morning that in one or two of the countries in which you have met the target it is kind of inbuilt in the budget process that you start with that commitment and you start by saying, "That's our projection for GNI and, therefore, that's our
development budget".
Q109 Mr Hendrick: Mr Sharpe made the point that you could get a spike in GNI for whatever reason and, therefore, even if you put it in the budget process, you still might fall foul of the law, but I see this as analogous to the Government setting the inflation target. If the Bank of England did not meet that inflation target, then obviously the Governor would have to write a letter to the Chancellor, explaining what he is going to do about it. Now, this strikes me as perhaps one of the first opportunities by putting the ball in the court of Parliament to say that it then has to answer to Parliament to take it above and beyond necessarily the traditional situation where the whips have some sway over what their party members do to say, "Look, the Government has fallen foul of its own law here" and, therefore, Parliament itself, rather than necessarily individual political parties, will have the say on how it should deal with it, so I would not be too prescriptive in what goes in the Bill because, if Parliament has the say, then this should be above party politics and an issue which all parties could agree on.
Mr Thomas: As I am sitting here as a representative of the Executive, I am not sure it is for me to comment on what Parliament should or should not do.
Q110 Chairman: We have a few votes over the next week or two to change that.
Mr Thomas: We will see.
Q111 Richard Burden: On the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, even with some of the votes that are coming up in the coming weeks, we are not always collectively - Parliament as a whole - that great at scrutinising detail, therefore we need to hone down particular institutions to enable close scrutiny to go on. One of the institutions in parliamentary terms that could play a role in that could be us, the International Development Committee. Is there a case in relation to this legislation, as well as in a sense leaving it up to the International Development Committee to have an inquiry or not to have an inquiry on monitoring the 0.7 per cent year-on-year, where something is formally built in so that there would be an ongoing annual scrutiny of the Department's performance, on the Government's performance, on that issue? Would that be something that you think might be useful?
Mr Thomas: As a Minister, I have never felt under-scrutinised by this Committee or by Parliament in general. I do not recognise the scenario that you paint. If the Committee decides it thinks there should be a clear amendment that references the International Development Select Committee, if this legislation is still my responsibility after the election, then, as I always do when the Committee makes a recommendation, I will consider it very seriously. I do not see why such an amendment would be necessary. I would have thought the Committee is of strong enough character to make sure it is part of the process to hold us to account as Government for meeting the 0.7 per cent target or not, but I would happily look at the justification the Committee made if that is indeed one of your recommendations.
Q112 Chairman: That proposal has come from evidence to us, not from within the Committee.
Mr Sharpe: Could I just make one technical point about the reference to the report saying what action the Secretary of State has taken? By the time the final statistic is published and the Secretary of State has made his report to Parliament, we will already be well into the subsequent year. If the Secretary of State has not already taken action by that point - that is what the draft is meant to capture - it will be too late for the Secretary of State then to come with an action plan about what would be done in future. The Secretary of State will need to be reporting about what action has already been taken to achieve it in the year that we are already in.
Mr Thomas: The basis for that being that ODA GNI is calculated on a calendar year. ODA GNI figures are published so that approximately in April the first provisional ones are verified and we publish them usually towards the end of June, early July.
Q113 Richard Burden: That description of action taken means the assumption would be this would be a list of, in the very literal sense, actions that have been taken - we have increased the budget here or there - and it would also be assumed that one of the actions taken would be plans that have been adopted by the Government but not necessarily yet enacted to meet that 0.7 per cent.
Mr Thomas: Possibly. It would depend on what circumstances there are at the time. We are speculating about a failure to achieve 0.7. The particular political party that I represent is determined to achieve 0.7 per cent.
Chairman: Yes, but the point of passing a law presumably is to ensure that it is followed through and enforceable.
Q114 Mr Hendrick: You mentioned the possibility of court action being taken. What is your view on this? Do you believe that it should be legally enforceable?
Mr Thomas: I do not believe it requires courts to have a particular duty in this regard. The Bill does not create individual rights, for example, in which the courts would traditionally in many circumstances have a role in terms of seeing whether they have been adhered to or not. The Bill relates very particularly to our spending commitment and an international commitment. It is the constitutional convention that that is Parliament's responsibility to hold the Executive to account in that area. What the Bill does not stop is the situation where the courts might look at particular spending decisions, particular projects that have been funded and whether or not they met the definitions in other Acts of Parliament. Perhaps the classic case where courts have been involved is around a particular spending decision, the Pergau Dam affair. Courts are not precluded by the absence of reference in this legislation from still looking at particular projects and whether or not they meet the definitions. Given that this is about a clear spending commitment and an international commitment, I think it is right that it is Parliament that holds the Executive to account.
Q115 Mr Hendrick: Let us use the example you were highlighting. Let us say there was a degree of miniaturisation, some operations were undertaken which cost a certain amount and that was included in the 0.7 per cent. Somebody might challenge that and say that that really does not meet the definition and the criteria for which it was intended and take that to court. Do you see that as a possible scenario?
Mr Thomas: I believe that it would be possible for such a court action to take place under the existing legislation.
Ms Rattee: Yes. This Bill does not amend the 2002 Act. The powers to challenge decisions of the Secretary of State to spend in accordance with the requirements of that Act are still in place. It does not do anything to change those.
Q116 Mr Hendrick: In terms of meeting the 0.7, if that was included as part of the 0.7?
Ms Rattee: It would have to meet the definition, including the reduction of poverty, in the 2002 Act.
Richard Burden: As far as DFID is concerned, not as far as all of the 0.7.
Q117 Mr Hendrick: This point was made and, with respect, nobody has answered it. The Chairman quoted from The Guardian this idea of state building which can be loosely regarded as reducing poverty. Is that the case or not?
Mr Thomas: Yes, absolutely.
Q118 Mr Hendrick: That means any amount of military spend that contributes to that?
Mr Thomas: Absolutely not. The OECD DAC has clarified that, if you like, the enforcement activity of spending in developing countries or elsewhere could not be counted as ODA. Other types of state building were, such as training police, funding civil servants, such as, as we described yesterday, the technical assistance that is given to the Ministry of Finance or other ministries in Zimbabwe and, indeed, in a whole series of other countries, which is state building surely. It is perfectly proper development assistance. Indeed, I personally would see trying to build up the capacity of the state to operate in a way that is transparent, protects human rights and helps to deliver basic services for all the people in the country as a key purpose of development spending. I do not have any compunction in saying that state building is a hugely important part of what we do as a Department.
Q119 Mr Hendrick: And poverty reduction?
Mr Thomas: Absolutely. It is clearly important in terms of poverty
reduction. When we do not have
confidence in the people who are in power in a particular state, then we do not
work through those mechanisms of the state.
That is the situation we face in
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 à 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 overseas 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 overseas 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 nine 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 overseas 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 per cent. 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 onboard. 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, 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 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 an Act of condition on cross-party agreement that we all want to achieve 0.7 per cent. 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 per cent 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 per cent.
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.