Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, with regard to the 47 counties, what percentage of China is that? Are we talking about, say, half the parish council of Scunthorpe or the whole of China?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, my pronunciation is not too good and neither is my maths, so I cannot give the noble Lord an immediate answer. It is clearly a substantial number. The crucial point is not so much
the number but the fact that UNFPA's involvement produces significant improvements in all the areas that have been raised in the debate.We stand by our support for those bodies. Indeed, we are convinced that it is essential to maintain the ability of bodies such as UNFPA to engage in policy dialogue with countries where reform is so much needed, as in China. No one denies that coercion takes place in China. The point is that reform and change will take time. UNFPA's engagement in the process is an important force in promoting that change.
To undermine UNFPA's work would be to seriously damage the ability of the international community to protect the reproductive rights of women around the world. UNFPA's work means that many millions of women are able to choose when to have children and to deliver them more safely. The fund also supports a wide programme of activities to tackle maternal mortality through the training of midwives. It supports female education and equips health facilities with drugs and essential supplies.
Another aspect to which I should refer briefly is that the amendment would also damage the vital global effort against the spread of HIV and AIDS. UNFPA works at present on HIV and AIDS in about 140 countries world wide, and spends about a quarter of its budget on HIV prevention activities. The United Kingdom's support for all those activities would come to a halt if the amendment were accepted.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as one of the proposers of the amendment, I ask him to look at Amendment No. 2, which refers to
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the amendment needs to be dealt with as it stands. Its effect would be as I have described, which I have done as accurately as possible. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he be kind enough to answer my question? Is coercive population control legal in this country? If not, why should taxpayers' money be spent on that practice overseas?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, that is precisely my point. Of course it is illegal in this country. We are totally opposed to it wherever it occurs. The effect of the amendment would be to make it more difficult to assist in those countries where this form of coercion takes place.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he accept that his advice to the House on this occasion has been based on rather general evidence? It contrasts quite strongly with the evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has made a powerful case based on experience in the United States. Is it possible for the department to present a detailed reply, whatever the outcome of the vote?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the information provided by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was powerful--but it was powerful in spelling out the consequences of a coercive policy, to which the Government, like everyone else, are totally opposed. The position of the United States is not that different in crucial respects. The United States still funds the UNFPA. This year it increased its funding from 25 million dollars to 39 million dollars. Again, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the Minister turns into a yo-yo, I congratulate him on my first encounter with him at the Dispatch Box and thank him for doing an honest job of trying to make a circle into a square.
The Minister has told us that 47 counties have done away with birth quotas, although neither he nor we know what small percentage of the surface of Chinese soil that represents. The continued failure of the UNFPA to moderate China's coercive policy was exposed only last month, when the US-based Population Research Institute sent a team to observe China's so-called voluntary programme and interview women and officials in the counties where the UNFPA is active. The institute found the statements to be misleading, because, although the quotas were said to be removed, the policy persisted.
In March this year, a report entitled Torture in China--a growing scourge in China: Time for action said:
I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that a fine is economic coercion, but a grant is an economic inducement. The amendment is aimed at coercion and fines. The policy ought to be aimed at grants and inducements. The report goes on:
I must give your Lordships one more example to bring into the focus of actuality what we are talking about. We are not talking about mere statistics.
Hearing of 1 million children being abandoned is so horrific that one cannot take it into cognisance. Let us look at a report about one child:
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is no good saying "nonsense". The annual reports and accounts of these organisations show that the money goes to those two bodies, which are the effective arms for enforcement of that policy. It is there for Deloitte and Touche or anyone else to go and illuminate. Our simple request is that there should be in statute a disincentive for the Government to subscribe to that. The Minister has said that the amendment would prevent good bodies from doing good work elsewhere in the world. They can remove that disability themselves by ceasing to support the policy in China.
It is not a small thing that I am asking your Lordships to do. If there is any defect in the drafting of the amendment, your Lordships should remember that we are the first House to scrutinise the Bill. I am minded to divide the House and I hope that the Government will be forced to accept the amendment. When they bring the Bill to the other place in its new form, the representatives of the taxpayers who are paying the money that the Government are giving away will have their say and I very much hope that they support your Lordships.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 149.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.47 p.m.
Clause 20 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page