House of Commons
Thursday 30 June 2005
The House met at half-past Ten o'clock
Prayers
Mr Speaker in the Chair
Oral Answers to Questions
Treasury
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
Borrowing Forecast
The National Audit Office independently audits key forecast assumptions on trend, growth, unemployment, interest rates, equity prices, value-added tax, price indices, composition of growth domestic product, debt funding, oil prices, tobacco proceeds and privatisation proceeds. With the new fiscal framework, average borrowing has been not worse but better than forecast, on average by 0.2 per cent. of GDP for the first two years forecast and 0.4 per cent. of GDP for one year ahead.
That sounds an interesting improvement. Back in 2001, the Government forecast that they would borrow £16 billion, but in practice they borrowed £91.3 billion. All forecasts are inaccurate, but what steps is the Chancellor taking to try to improve the forecasting model in the Treasury?
The forecasting model has improved. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what happened during the last world downturn under the last Conservative Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked if we could improve the forecast. I am telling him that we have improved it. At the time of the last world recession, the last Government's forecast was 4 per cent. out—that is £40 billion. Then it was 6 per cent. out two years on—£60 billion. Then it was 5.4 per cent. out—£54 billion. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says about this Government, the Conservative Government's record of incompetence is something about which he should be ashamed. He should also know that we have a lower deficit and lower debt than all our major competitors. Instead of criticising us, he should be congratulating us.
The Government's record on debt is indeed remarkable and the forecasting mechanisms have been reasonably accurate, but can the Chancellor tell us whether the methodologies have been amended to reflect the amendment that has now been made? Private finance initiative debt is increasingly appearing on the Government's balance sheet, which is where it should always have been.
PFI debt does increasingly appear on the Government's balance sheet—and even with that, debt as a proportion of national income, which was 44 per cent. of GDP when we came to office, is now 35 per cent. of GDP. That contrasts with America, where the figure is 44 per cent., France, where it is 46 per cent., Germany, where it is 55 per cent., Japan, where it is 84 per cent., and Italy, where it is 100 per cent. Let me tell Conservative Members that not only is debt as a share of GDP lower than that of our major competitors—and it will remain so—but so are our deficits. Again, that shows that the economy is being prudently managed.
Has it occurred to the Chancellor that he would not have to borrow so much if he had not lost more than £1 billion of taxpayers' savings by selling half of Britain's gold reserves at a price almost $200 an ounce lower than the price today? He then compounded that folly by reinvesting the proceeds in, of all things, the euro. If he were a professional fund manager in the City, he would have been sacked long ago for that.
Inconveniently for the hon. Gentleman, who cannot resist getting Europe into any question, the value of the euro has risen and therefore the value of our reserves is higher.
According to the Office for National Statistics, VAT receipts were down by 1.8 per cent. last month. Was that in line with the Chancellor's forecast, and what effect will it have on borrowing?
We gave our forecast in the Budget. We forecast that consumer spending would rise and that the rate of growth would be slower than last year's, but would continue to be a rate of growth and not decline. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that that is borne out by events. I will give the next forecast in the pre-Budget report, but if I were him I would not believe all the stories I read in the newspapers.
Will the Chancellor spell out the implications for his spending and borrowing assumptions of the commitments that the Home Secretary has made over the past two days? The initial commitment was to cap the cost of identity cards at under £100, but yesterday we were told that they should be given away free in the event of compulsion. The scheme is conservatively estimated to cost £6 billion—that is the Government's assumption—which is the equivalent of two years' investment in the NHS, but it is independently estimated to cost as much as £19 billion, the equivalent of four years' spending on overseas development. Why has the Chancellor agreed to this massive expansion of spending and borrowing potential?
This is just about the only area in which the Liberal Democrats do not want to spend more money.
What the Home Secretary actually said was that he would make a statement to the House before the Identity Cards Bill left the House of Commons for the other place. I think that the hon. Gentleman should wait for that statement.
In view of the Chancellor's poor record of forecasting his own borrowing, does he now agree that we need an independent body to take over fiscal forecasting? Testing his declared net borrowing for the past five financial years against his original 2001 estimate of such borrowing reveals that that estimate was a little out—by some £100 billion, in fact. Is he not a bit embarrassed at having been so wide of the mark?
As I said at the beginning, it is this Government—the hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged this point—who independently audit the major assumptions affecting fiscal policy. None of that happened before 1997. The previous Conservative Government simply put in a figure for privatisation proceeds, put in a figure for VAT receipts and put in an assumption about unemployment. There was no independent auditing, so the Conservatives should be praising us for introducing it.
On this Government's forecasting record, I have just pointed out to the hon. Gentleman how much better it is than that of the Conservative Government. I have also pointed out to him that on average, borrowing has been lower—I repeat, lower—since the new fiscal rules were introduced, not higher, a fact on which he should again congratulate us. On new rules and the fiscal position, I ask the Conservatives to consider that the right place to take decisions on fiscal policy, public spending and taxation is in this House. I do not propose to make fiscal policy independent of government.
Tax Credits
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written statement that I made to the House on 26 May. I set out a number of specific measures to improve the administration of tax credits, with particular regard to how Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs communicates with families about their tax credit award, to reduce the risk of errors adding to the number of overpayments, and to improve procedures for recovering overpayments.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that answer, but surely the tax credit system is now as complex as the Schleswig-Holstein question, which was understood by only three people. One of them died, the second went mad and the third forgot what the answer to the question was. I put it to the Paymaster General that such complexity inevitably increases the number of errors, and that simplicity would tend to reduce their incidence. In those circumstances, is it not better to overhaul the entire tax and benefits system and to put in place a mechanism for helping the needy that is simple, transparent and fair?
Regrettably, the hon. Gentleman seems not to understand the facts about the system. In its first year, take-up reached 80 per cent.—some 5.7 million families, which is a very high figure. Each year, that figure is rising and it is now 6.1 million. In addition, the system's flexibility has contributed significantly to the Government's objective of ensuring that we reduce and then eradicate child poverty, and it has ensured that people can balance their family responsibilities with their desire to have paid employment. Tax credits have delivered everything that they were intended to deliver for those claiming them. They have removed stigma, introduced flexibility and helped families to plan care for their children and to return to paid employment.
Some 8,000 families in my constituency have benefited from the tax credit system and I experienced many positive reactions on the doorstep during the election. However, it appears that on the occasions when overpayments have been made and other difficulties have occurred, the main criticism has been Government officials' slowness in responding to complaints. Can the Paymaster General assure me that this issue will be sorted out and that people with legitimate complaints will have them addressed quickly?
As my hon. Friend will know, the policy on overpayments is set out in code of practice 26, which points out that a claimant will not be asked to pay back an overpayment if it arose because Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs made a mistake, and if the claimant could reasonably think that they were being paid the right amount. This is an attempt to strike the right balance between fairness to the claimant and to the taxpayer. Of course, the reasonableness test—my hon. Friend alluded to this process—has been in place since the early days of tax credits. However, as I told the House in my written statement of 26 May, HMRC is currently reviewing the operation of the code of practice, including the reasonableness test. I will make a statement soon on its future application.
In addition, I remind the House that HMRC is taking steps to ensure that where an overpayment is disputed, recovery will be suspended until the dispute is resolved. In that way, I hope to meet the points that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members have repeatedly made in debates over the past week.
According to the parliamentary ombudsman, many families hit hardest by the chaotic administration of the Chancellor's tax credits are running up credit card debts to pay for child care costs, buy food and get to work. Will the Paymaster General confirm that the Inland Revenue is advising families faced with hefty repayments to borrow money on credit cards or from loan companies, and does she believe that that is good advice for low-income families?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the parliamentary ombudsman said in her opening remarks that her report does not suggest that the new tax credit system is in general disarray. On the contrary, it recognises that, given the scale of the undertaking, its introduction has been broadly successful. I have said on a number of occasions—and, indeed, a few moments ago in answer to the previous question—that in the code of practice, the Revenue advises claimants on the process for recovery and explains what they can do about disputed overpayments. There are provisions for additional payments to be made under the current system. I have already told the House today that I have asked the Revenue to consider suspending the recovery of overpayments where they are disputed until that dispute has been resolved. That is how to deal with this matter.
I am afraid that the Paymaster General did not answer my question, so I shall have to repeat it. Citizens Advice reports that the Revenue is advising people to borrow money on credit cards to repay their debts. Does she approve of that advice? I certainly do not and I do not think that anyone who wants to keep low-income families out of a spiral of debt would give that advice—[Interruption.] The Chancellor sits in his place muttering to the Paymaster General, but when is he going to get up and take responsibility for the tax credit system that he introduced? He sends his junior Minister to pick up the pieces and he sends the Prime Minister to apologise. When is he going to take the rap?
The hon. Gentleman clearly approaches each Question Time as though he has no responsibility for anything that either he or his party said in the past. I remind him that his party claims to support the tax credit system—[Interruption.]
Order. Hon. Members are out of order.
I remind the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) of my comments today and in previous debates and, to help his understanding, I will send him a copy of the code of practice so that he can see precisely what HMRC is doing in these circumstances.
The Minister may know that I signed a letter in the past few months for a lone parent constituent with three children who is getting £13,500 in tax credits. Presumably, that is the reason why all parties agree with the concept of tax credits. If newspapers are to be believed this morning, some Opposition politicians are taking advantage of the Chancellor's munificence by claiming tax credits. Is not the key issue the human judgment element of those who work with tax credits? If we can get that right, we can ensure a smooth interface between the Department and those who find themselves in debt.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding Opposition Members that the Conservative party has said that it wants families to receive the tax credits and that it supports the system. Indeed, Liberal Democrat Members also support the system as a means of assisting families and eradicating poverty. Those who work on tax credits in HMRC are doing a splendid job. They are doing everything they can at every opportunity to get the money through to the families. Following reports that we have seen and in the light of statements that I have previously made to the House, it is right to consider again how best to improve the interface.
My constituent was told that she had been overpaid £33,000, when the correct figure was £6.78. Deductions of £200 a month are still being made because the Revenue says that the computer system cannot be stopped. My constituent cannot afford that. The Chancellor hides behind his junior Ministers, but when will he come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for a system that was badly designed and appallingly—
Order. The question is to the Paymaster General.
No, it is not. The Order Paper—[Interruption.]
Order. The Minister is replying on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to be picky about what I say, as I do not think that he will win.
I cannot comment on the case that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) raises as I do not have the details before me. However, the legislation introducing tax credits was not opposed by any party as it went through this House. It had overwhelming and all-party support, and that included support for the details of how the flexibility would work. The issues that need to be taken forward are the ones that I identified in my statement of 26 May. I reported to the House again in another statement only last week and I will continue to keep the House informed about the improvements to the system.
The child care tax credit has been very important for many hundreds of working women in my constituency, especially those who are lone parents. It has given them their first chance to go to work, although some of the problems associated with it have caused difficulties. I am organising a special surgery on tax credits. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and go through some of the cases with my constituents, so that their experiences can be taken into account in the review aimed at improving the operation of the system?
I certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that I will extend to her the courtesy that I have extended to other hon. Members. I am prepared to meet any hon. Member who has detailed questions about the operation of the tax credit system.
Taxation
The Government's macro-economic framework has consistently delivered stability with strong growth and low inflation, thus establishing a track record that has been acknowledged internationally. The Government's approach to taxation balances the need to finance better quality public services, deliver fairness and promote sustainable development, while ensuring that the UK benefits from the advantages of being a lightly taxed economy.
One of my constituents is a road sweeper of 18 years' service. He attracts no benefits or tax credits, so will the Minister undertake to explain to him the justice of his payslip, which he showed me recently? On gross earnings of £542 per fortnight, he pays £161 in tax and £86 in national insurance. On top of that, he has to find a further £50 for council tax. Does the Minister think that that is fair? The Government have raised the overall burden of taxation over the past eight years. Is it right that that burden should fall disproportionately on the poorest fifth of the population, who now pay almost 40 per cent. of their income in tax?
If the hon. Gentleman is unable to explain to his constituent how the tax system is structured, I shall of course be happy to assist him. However, I have two observations that he may care to pass on. First, I am not aware that his party is proposing to change any element of the tax structure. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has championed getting more investment for care of the elderly, especially in his constituency. Will he explain to his constituent how that would reduce the tax burden? Will he also explain how a fair tax burden delivers appropriate and better public services?
Is my hon. Friend aware that over the past eight years, the state of the economy and the level of taxation have caused unemployment in Bolsover to fall from more than 10 per cent. to less than 4 per cent.? That has happened because Treasury money has been used to improve the pit sites and turn them into industrial estates where people have been able to go back to work. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) should be more worried about the state of the economy at The Spectator. He has resorted to spreading graffiti around Parliament in an attempt to get people to buy it. Such is the state of those who went to Eton—they are educated beyond their intelligence.
I approach the Dispatch Box to answer that question with some difficulty, in the sense that I cannot match my hon. Friend's ability to put his finger on the pulse of the issue. He has in his constituency living evidence of the improvement in ordinary people's lives as a result of our investment not only in public services, but principally in the new deal, which was funded by a form of taxation that the Conservatives opposed. That may have been because of their ideological education in public schools, but I have no idea about that.
When the Chief Secretary turns his attention from the economy in Bolsover to the international economic scene, something that the Chancellor has considered quite a lot lately, he may notice the well-documented and strong correlation between lower taxes and higher rates of economic growth. What conclusions has he drawn from that about the consequences for Britain's long-term prosperity of the Chancellor's policy of increasing taxes by a further 2.3 per cent. of gross domestic product over the next five years?
The hon. Gentleman is aware that since the turn of the century our growth rate has been equal to the best growth rates in the world, including the US growth rate. I am interested in, and follow carefully, the shadow Chancellor's consideration of the international scene, and I am aware that he has recently been to Estonia. No doubt at some stage he will be able to explain how Estonia provides an analogous model for the British economy. I am also interested in his comments that there has to be much more to our response to global economic change than just reducing tax, and that a tax policy is not a substitute for a proper economic policy. This Government have a proper economic policy and an appropriate tax policy, so to that extent I agree with the shadow Chancellor.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just the level of taxation that is important, but what we spend that taxation on? In the past eight years it has been spent on investing in skills, schools, education and our universities, and that is why we have such a successful economy. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could consider the tax affairs of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), because he has several incomes and probably a very—
Order. The question is not about the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson).
I shall restrict my answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question. He is right that the investment of taxation is now beginning to pay significant dividends in all our communities. However, it is not only communities that have benefited from the tax and benefit measures introduced by this Government. In real terms since 1997, households will be on average £900 a year better off; families with children £1,400 a year better off; importantly, families with children in the poorest fifth of the population £3,200 a year better off; and pensioner households £1,500 a year better off. This is a Labour Government who deliver for the community and for the individual.
Part of the justification for the huge increases in taxation and, in particular, national insurance contributions is the Government's so-called investment in the national health service. Perhaps the Minister could correlate that investment with the 100-week wait for an MRI scan in my constituency.
The hon. Gentleman touched on that issue in the context of his own local election campaign, where he appeared to argue for more investment—more money—in the national health service. Of course, he will have to explain to his hon. Friends, including those who sit on the Front Bench, how that is consistent with the Conservative party's general policy of cutting investment in public services. However, the point that he makes about an ambition to reduce the waiting times of individuals in the NHS is, of course, important, and it is just that progression that our investment is delivering.
Immunisation
Britain hopes to secure approval soon from the European statistical authorities for the creation of an international finance facility for immunisation. With the front-loading of aid that that would involve, if implemented, the international facility could save 5 million children's lives by 2015. I am confident also that our proposal for an international finance facility will help us to lock in the doubling of European aid and enable us to front-load its use, and we hope to make announcements on that in the next few days.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pushing immunisation to the top of the agenda. It is vital to eliminate diseases that exacerbate poverty and affect people's lives. He referred to the work planned and carried out by this Labour Government and the Gates Foundation in front-loading investment from the capital markets to pay for vaccination. Has he made any assessment of what benefits that will provide?
I hope to meet Mr. Gates, when he is in the country in the next few days, to discuss the progress of the international finance facility for immunisation. Over the past few years, 50 million people have been vaccinated as a result of the work of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation. If we could raise the additional money, as we propose with the international facility, partnered with the Gates Foundation, a number of countries believe that 5 million lives could be saved by 2015, and another 5 million in the 10 years after that.
The advances now being made in the technologies and medical cures for malaria and strains of tuberculosis, as well as action on HIV/AIDS, make it necessary for the international community to come together to consider what advance purchase agreements we can put in place to cut the cost of those drugs for the poorest countries, to make them available at a price that they can afford and to enable us to use modern medical technologies to avoid the 1 million deaths that are caused by malaria each year and the deaths caused by tuberculosis. So, over the next few days we hope to make further announcements on those matters, too.
The Chancellor will know that he has the support of the whole House both on the international finance facility for immunisation and on the international finance facility itself. What we are all keen to see now, though, is the detail. We have been waiting for the detail for a very long time. Will he give an undertaking that he will make a written statement on the detail, so that we can see where the money is coming from, whom it is coming from and where it will be spent? Does the reference in his answer to the European Union mean that he has given up hope of the United States and other key G8 players supporting those initiatives?
No, but the discussions are taking place at the moment. The reference to the EU was that our proposal about the treatment of the international finance facility for public expenditure purposes must—for the purposes of the involvement of France, Germany and Italy, as well as Britain—go before the European statistical authorities, and we expect them to give us their verdict in the next few days.I believe that we will set up an international finance facility for immunisation very quickly. I think that we are in position, working with France, Germany and Italy, to create an international finance facility. We are prepared to hypothecate some of our air ticket levies to do so and other countries are considering what they might do. I will certainly do what the hon. Gentleman suggests and make a written statement to the House on the progress that we make in the next few days.
Yesterday, my son asked me a question. He said, "Daddy, are you going to the G8 summit this weekend—you run the country, don't you?" I said, "No, son, but I know one or two people who do." Bless him, he is only six, but they have been talking about this during school assembly. May I ask my right hon. Friend—especially in relation to immunisation, HIV, malaria and TB, which are both major causes and symptoms of poverty—what he will do at the G8 summit this weekend to ensure that people throughout the land, including children in school assemblies, come away from this weekend's summit with a feeling of hope that something will be done to address those problems, rather than with a feeling of disappointment?
My hon. Friend is right that there is enormous interest in what will happen at the G8 next Wednesday and Thursday. I understand that there have been 25 million hits on the Make Poverty History campaign and organisations such as Oxfam and Christian Aid have more than a million subscribers each. There has been a tremendous growth in public opinion about the need to take action on those matters. A combination of debt relief, aid and trade justice and a demand for transparency and proper governance in the countries that we are talking about will make for both a successful communiqué and the action in Africa that is necessary to relieve poverty.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, we wholly support the Government's efforts to increase aid and debt relief for the poorest countries in the world. Like tens of thousands of people who will be taking part in Live 8 this weekend, we wish the Prime Minister and the Chancellor every success at Gleneagles. As we said at the first Treasury Question Time of the Parliament, an international finance facility for immunisation would of course be welcome and could, as the Chancellor said, save millions of lives. May I press him on the broader international finance facility? He said that he would make a statement in the next few days—to the House of Commons, I hope. What does he think the chances are of getting non-European members of the G8 to sign up to the IFF and will he confirm that, even if they do not sign up, we can still proceed, during the British presidency, with setting up an IFF?
The hon. Gentleman's first point was about other countries and we, of course, continue to talk to them. On the facility for immunisation, South Africa, China, Canada, Brazil and many other countries outside the EU have expressed an interest. We are continuing our discussions about the IFF with EU members and, as he rightly said, the finance facility can go ahead if a number of countries are willing to contribute to it. There is discussion about the use of air ticket levies as a contribution to that fund. We already have such a levy, which could be hypothecated for it.
The advantage of an international finance facility is that it could front-load aid, as I described in relation to immunisation. By front-loading $4 billion of aid the vaccinations and immunisations that are possible could be done. I am grateful for all-party support. I believe that the Liberals and other parties in the House, as well as the Conservatives, support it, and I hope that we can agree a funding mechanism in the next few days. I shall certainly make a written statement to the House in the run-up to the G7, if there is a chance to do so, or afterwards, and I should be happy to answer questions on it either at a Select Committee or to the House.
Global Poverty
The European Union has made a commitment to reach the 0.7 per cent. aid target by 2015, and to double aid by 2010. We are also seeking agreement to further proposals on innovative financial mechanisms, but those measures are aligned to the progress we are seeking on trade, transparency and the attack on corruption.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the money freed up from debt relief and debt interest could be well used in improving health and developing education programmes in heavily indebted countries, and that that would lead to greater life expectancy and the wherewithal to improve, in particular, the education of girls and women? That has been shown to be a key factor in helping developing countries become economically independent and thus making poverty history.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in these matters. If she had been in Kenya, as I was a few months ago, she could have seen the school that I visited in Kebira, a slum outside Nairobi in one of the poorest areas, where, as a result of free education, because of aid and debt relief, a million more children had turned up for school in one week. That situation is repeated in Uganda, where debt relief has increased the number of people in education from 2 million to 6 million, and in Tanzania and Mozambique where the debt relief agreements that we signed are increasing the amount of expenditure on education and the number of pupils going to school. People who say that aid does not work must look at that success in getting more children into education and then look at what we still have to do to get 100 million children who have no education into school, two thirds of them girls.
I do not know how often my right hon. Friend watches television, but last Sunday he might have seen the Richard Curtis docudrama about the G8 summit which, as well as relocating the summit to Reykjavik, painted a very pessimistic picture of the G8 commitment to reduce world poverty by 2015. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will do everything at Gleneagles to ensure that the G8 makes every genuine effort to meet the 2015 target, thus preventing life mirroring art and making the girl in the café unnecessary?
If that is the interpretation that my hon. Friend takes from the film, it is clearly fiction, because enormous progress has been made in the past few months. All major countries in the G7 have committed themselves to 100 per cent. debt relief, which is the first time that the world has agreed to 100 per cent. debt relief. Some $55 billion will be written off, with $40 billion written off immediately. Twenty-eight countries will benefit—the number will rise to 38 in time—and we in Britain are making the same offer to another 30 countries. Anyone who says that public pressure and Government action, which I acknowledge has had all-party support, have not worked is wrong because 100 per cent. debt relief has been agreed.
The European Union has agreed to double aid, but that was inconceivable a few months ago. In the 30 years since the Pearson committee, none of the major European powers had agreed to a 0.7 per cent. target, but now 13 countries in Europe have agreed to it. France, Spain, Germany, Italy and Britain, as well as Ireland, Belgium and Finland, have made that decision, some of them in only the past few weeks, which is a result of the changing opinion in the world about what must be done. However, everyone knows that debt relief and aid must be accompanied by action on trade, action on transparency, tacking corruption and opening up economic development, so I believe that that comprehensive agenda will be discussed at Gleneagles. We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go.
The Chancellor's commitment to the reduction of poverty in the world, especially in Africa, is hugely admired and his views are shared by every party in the House. However, does he accept that, at the G8 in Gleneagles, the problems created in Africa by the brutal tyrant, Robert Mugabe, could have an adverse influence on people's views about giving more assistance to Africa? Will he try to overcome that, because I believe that we have a greater commitment to tackling poverty in the world as a whole, especially in Africa, although clearly I hope that pressure will be brought upon President Mbeki of South Africa?
The hon. Gentleman takes a huge interest in Commonwealth affairs and especially Zimbabwe. No Government international aid is going to the Zimbabwean Government. Any help for the people of Zimbabwe goes through Churches, voluntary groups or charities and I think that there would be all-party support for that policy. All parties assumed 20 or 30 years ago that a modernising Government might be a strong Government in Africa, but we now realise that having transparency, participation in democracy and accountability is the only sure way to achieve results through both aid and economic development. That is the why the emphasis of the Gleneagles summit will be on not simply aid, trade and debt relief, but creating transparent structures of government in Africa so that the rulers are properly accountable to the people.
I am aware that the Chancellor agrees that it is vital to attach conditions to aid to encourage anti-corruption measures. Does he also agree that reform in the developing world needs to go deeper than that to ensure that it has functioning property, legal and contract systems, which are essential for enterprise and economic growth? If he does agree, will he explain how we can encourage the developing world to reform those systems without looking as though we would like the sun to rise on a new British empire in Africa?
I am happy to agree with the hon. Lady. I was privileged to give the UNICEF annual lecture yesterday in which I referred to the need for proper legal systems, for economic stability as the foundation for growth in the continent of Africa, for both private and public investment and for support for the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which is bringing Governments in Africa into a process through which democracy, transparency and accountability are enhanced. There is all-party agreement on that position, but she would agree that it must be accompanied by an offer from the richest countries of the world to help the poorest countries to develop their education and health care systems We will give them some hope that, if they make the reforms, we will support them. The announcement that I hope to be able to make later today on debt relief for Nigeria represents exactly that—us backing the people who are prepared to make reforms.
I congratulate the Chancellor on the progress that he has made so far in tackling poverty, which is more than we have seen under any Government.
I recently visited Burtonwood primary school in my constituency and the children were making "buddies" to be sent to the leaders at the G8 summit. I urge my right hon. Friend to persuade those leaders to display the same knowledge of the moral imperatives of tackling poverty in the third world that those young children displayed. If those leaders will not recognise the need to meet the millennium development goals on health and education, may I urge on my right hon. Friend the argument that it is essential for the stability of the whole world that we tackle those problems of poverty that lead to instability?
My hon. Friend has done a great deal to publicise both the cause of debt relief and aid and also the need for Governments around the world to support the programme that will be discussed at Gleneagles. She will also know that hundreds of schools in the United Kingdom are linking up with African schools. That project has the support of the Government. It involves school teachers and school pupils, and is having a huge effect on the opinions of young people for the better. Equally, she will know that the BBC ran an "Africa Lives" week, and I saw an exhibition of 12,000 postcards written by young children which again publicised the direct links that exist between Britain and Africa. Anything we can do to make the new generation of young people aware of the challenges ahead and the links that we have across the continents is beneficial.
Debt Relief
Last month, G7 Finance Ministers agreed a detailed plan to match 100 per cent. bilateral debt relief with 100 per cent. write-off of multilateral debt cancellation for 38 countries. Eighteen countries will have their debts cancelled immediately at a cost of $40 billion.
I can also announce to the House today that the Paris Club has agreed in principle a further debt write-off of $18 billion of Nigerian debt which, with a buy-back of debt by the Nigerian authorities, will mean that there is 100 per cent. debt relief for Nigeria possible over the next six months. The Paris Club is now in negotiations with the Nigerians, and I believe that this is a significant advance, where we are backing reformers in Nigeria, writing off debt and enabling expenditures to go to health and education in that country.
I thank the Chancellor for that detailed answer and welcome any progress. He will know that some of the countries that have qualified for debt relief have had a bad track record in the realm of human rights. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that those countries that qualify for debt relief are also improving human rights for all their citizens?
Under the conditions that have to be met as part of the heavily indebted poor countries deal, countries have to prove that money is being used properly and that they are acting to make the economic reforms that are necessary. The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a new interest in human rights. There have been difficulties in, for example, Nigeria. We want to send out a message that those people who are prepared to tackle corruption, make economic reforms and go for economic development will be supported. That is why the deal that we are announcing today is important. In addition to the cancellation of debt for 18, and perhaps 38, countries that are part of the HIPC initiative, Nigeria, which is not a HIPC country—it is an International Development Association-only country—will also have its debts written off. The deal will give Nigeria and the reformers there 100 per cent. debt relief.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and commend his work on tackling poverty throughout the developing world. He is aware that Nigeria has had no new loans from the Paris Club since 1992 and has repaid $8 billion. Despite that and his welcome announcement, Nigeria owes $14 billion more than it did in 1992. Given the statement that he just made, will he continue to do all he can to convince both the G8 and our European partners that a fair deal for Nigeria is desperately needed?
I have just received the statement that has been issued by the Paris Club in the last few minutes, in which it announces that it is proposing to write off $18 billion of Nigeria's debt. Nigeria will then buy back the rest of its debt using its oil revenues, which will enable it to make progress. Detailed negotiations will still have to take place with the Nigerians, but I believe that this proposal represents significant progress from the position where Nigerian debt was rising. Its debt to the institutions that I have been talking about will now be reduced to zero.
As one who wholly approves of what the Chancellor has done and proposes to do, may I ask him what sanctions he has in mind if corruption should rear its ugly head again?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We wish to bind the countries with which we are engaging to international rules, embodied in codes and standards, that will be accepted by rich and poor countries alike. At the centre of that process is transparency. He will know from his experience with the Inter-Parliamentary Union that, when there are effective Parliaments to monitor public expenditure, rather than rulers who refuse to disclose information about the use of money, we can make progress. I believe that rich countries, as well as poor countries, should accept the codes and standards of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. That would ensure a level of transparency that, to be honest, we never demanded 10 or 20 years ago. It is now right to demand it, however, and to enforce it. I believe that that is the best way forward and any work that can be done between parliamentarians across the world will make a huge difference as well. I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House.
Employment
There are 28.6 million people employed in the United Kingdom—the highest number on record—and we now have the highest employment rate of any of the G7 countries, and one of the highest in the European Union. Under this Government, employment has grown by 2.2 million in an economy that has seen the longest-ever sustained period of economic growth.
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will be welcomed by the whole country. Will he make a statement about the effects of the new deal in my constituency? Having looked at the UK economy, I should like to concentrate on West Lancashire.
The new deal has helped nearly 5,000 people in West Lancashire. Unemployment has come down by 43 per cent., and long-term unemployment by 56 per cent., in my hon. Friend's constituency since 1997. Nationally, more than 500,000 young people have been helped from welfare into work through the new deal. Every hon. Member knows the difference that this has made to the well-being of individuals, families and entire communities. Only 12 years ago, unemployment stood at 3 million, and we were told by the Conservatives that Britain could never have low inflation and low unemployment. Now they want to scrap the new deal. They might have a new generation of leaders, but they have the same old Tory values, without question—
I visited the mental health resource centre in my constituency a few weeks ago. It is there to help people who suffer from mental illness to get back into work by giving them four hours work a week. Is the Minister aware that the rise in the minimum wage is affecting the ability of those people to work for four hours a week because it affects their benefits? Will he and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions look into this issue to ensure that this unintended consequence of the rise in the minimum wage is eased for those people?
Of course we will consider the issue in detail. However, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the best way to support people with mental health problems and reintegrate them into the community is to abolish either the minimum wage or the new deal, he is on a different planet from the rest of us.
The unemployment rate in my constituency is below 2 per cent., which is as close to full employment as we are likely to get. This has caused a problem for many employers, because there is now a labour shortage in Aberdeen. What action will the Treasury take to encourage those who are presently economically inactive to get back into the workplace?
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Chancellor has made it clear that one of the priorities at the beginning of our third term is to look at people on incapacity benefit who are more than capable of re-entering the labour market. With support from the relevant agencies in local communities, it is possible to put together a package that will enable those individuals to have the confidence and skills to be able to re-enter the labour market. That is another reason why, instead of abolishing the new deal, we are extending it with the new deal for skills.
Does the Minister agree that an endemic problem in the British economy is low and now declining productivity growth? Is it not important, if we wish to make sure that we avoid increases in unemployment, that on-costs are kept to a minimum? As the new face at the Treasury, will he be assiduous in reminding his colleague of the relevance of the overall tax burden and the effective marginal rates of taxation?
I usually agree with the hon. Gentleman on most issues, but productivity is rising in this country—it only went down under the Conservative Government. If the argument about the consequences of the burden of taxation were true, why do we have the lowest inflation, the lowest unemployment and the most stable interest rates in the history of our country?
Research and Development
We have introduced a range of measures to encourage UK businesses to invest more in R and D, including schemes run by the regional development agencies in England, the technology strategy of the Department of Trade and Industry and the higher education innovation fund. We have also introduced R and D tax credits, and I can tell the House that national statistics published this morning confirm that the value of the small firms tax credit last year was £259 million. Overall, the total cost of support claimed under the tax credits is an estimated £1.3 billion, so there is big investment under a Labour Government to try to boost the levels of innovation in the economy.
I praise the Government for their efforts to promote research and development along with science and technology. Compared with the situation when the Opposition were in power, that is greatly to their credit. On Teesside, we have two great centres of excellence—the Teesside technology centre for the steel industry and the Wilton centre for research to benefit the chemical industry—both of which are supported by large companies. What effort is my hon. Friend making to promote the tax credits that he mentioned to small and medium-sized industrial businesses, because we must ensure that they follow the policies that he outlined?
I have had the privilege of visiting the Wilton centre, and I was impressed by its work. My hon. Friend knows that it does not just work for big companies but provides specialist support for small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups—the very companies about which he is concerned. He is anxious about small firms' knowledge and take-up of the R and D tax credit. There is in fact high take-up among eligible companies and he may be interested to know that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, together with the Small Business Service, recently published a guide to try to help small companies with their applications for R and D tax credits. I will send him a copy, and he may wish to share it with small companies in his constituency.
Will my hon. Friend encourage the Small Business Service to do more work with regional development agencies to encourage small companies to take up research and development tax credits? Does he agree that the Small Business Service would be less well placed to encourage small firms to benefit from the Government's support for research and development if it were abolished, as proposed by the Opposition?
One feature of the Opposition's proposals before the election was their lack of support for the levels of investment in many things that are in place to secure the country's long-term growth and prosperity, including support for business through the Business Link service. As for the R and D tax credit, Business Link services run by the regional development agencies often provide specialist support for companies with R and D requirements. My hon. Friend will know from the performance of Yorkshire Forward, which offers the same service as One North East does in the north-east, that the R and D tax credit is a vital part—but only one part—of the measures that we are putting in place to support greater innovation, research and development and prosperity for our regional companies, all of which are essential for future growth. He will also know that figures published yesterday show that, as well as foreign direct investment into the UK almost trebling, there was an increase of almost a quarter in research and development projects, and of almost two thirds in software projects.
European Single Currency
Since the members of the European single currency do not have the ability to vary national interest rates and the nominal exchange rate between the euro area countries no longer exists, there is an additional premium in flexibility in capital, product and labour markets in the euro area. Consequently, to be fully equipped for the global economy, Europe must become more open and outward-looking, more flexible and competitive and more committed to reform to compete worldwide and move to full employment. It is against this background that the Government have set out an agenda for European economic reform during their presidency of the European Union.
Have any minuted discussions taken place in his Department that have specifically considered and assessed the likelihood of one or more members of the euro zone reintroducing national currencies in the medium and long term?
I am unable to be precise in my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question because without notice of such a question, I cannot at the Dispatch Box be absolutely certain that I have seen every single piece of paper in the Treasury. What I can say to him is that I have taken part in no such discussions.
Business of the House
May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 4 July—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on local taxation followed by a debate on Government regulation. Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Tuesday 5 July—Second Reading of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.
Wednesday 6 July—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Thursday 7 July— A debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 8 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after will be:
Monday 11 July—Remaining stages of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
Tuesday 12 July—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 13 July—Motion to approve the membership of Select Committees and other House motions.
Thursday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Consumer Credit Bill.
Friday 15 July—The House will not be sitting.
The House may wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the summer recess at the end of business on Thursday 21 July and return on Monday 10 October.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 14 and 21 July will be:
Thursday 14 July—A debate on elite sports.
Thursday 21 July—A debate on the work of the social exclusion unit.
Although, as we know, the Foreign Secretary is making a statement immediately after business questions on the Government's plans for their presidency of the European Union, as is right and proper, will the Leader of the House provide an early opportunity for the House to debate in detail the contents of the Foreign Secretary's statement and the Government's plans? I personally congratulate the Government on apparently accepting what the Opposition have been saying for years—that Europe needs major change—but the issues that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have raised in the past few days, and the slight ambiguity over the rebate as set out in Prime Minister's questions yesterday, mean that it is essential that Members have the chance to debate these issues quickly.
Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming back to this place my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack)? Will he work to ensure that the private Member's Bill proposed by my hon. Friend to address the unfortunate events in his constituency has the chance to pass through the House and into law? What has happened has revealed an alarming loophole in electoral law. We have seen how an election can be disrupted by an individual tragic death, but there is also the risk of a general election campaign, and, indeed, an incoming Government, being disrupted by, for example, a targeted terrorist campaign against minor party candidates. That loophole must be closed quickly.
Will the Leader of the House re-examine the programming of the Identity Cards Bill? I am aware that the programme motion was passed on Tuesday, but he knows that the Bill's timetabling has caused concern on both sides of the House. I know that he is committed to and has a long-term interest in providing sufficient time for debate: will he re-examine the programming of the Bill and make sure that debate is not curtailed on that important issue?
The proceedings of the current court case involving Railtrack are sub judice and cannot currently be debated in this House. Given the seriousness of some of the information that is emerging in court, however, will the Leader of the House provide an opportunity for hon. Members to debate the information that has emerged from the Government when the case is complete?
Why is the Foreign Office so reluctant to make a statement on Zimbabwe, particularly given yesterday's comments by the Prime Minister? On Monday, we heard from the Home Office on immigration issues in relation to Zimbabwe, and today's debate on Africa is too important for it to become a proxy for a statement on Zimbabwe. Can we have a detailed analysis from the Foreign Office of what is happening and what it is doing?
We recently debated the European Union. I shall respond in kind to the hon. Gentleman's observations about changes in the EU: his party supported a series of changes in the EU—Britain's accession, the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty—but now it has abandoned change in the EU, which is a curious state of affairs.
I am delighted to welcome the return of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and have already taken the opportunity to welcome him personally. We will carefully examine his private Member's Bill, which concerns unfinished business from the general election. My attention has been drawn to Lord Ashcroft's concerns about the Conservative party's position:
"The belief that the Conservative party was on the verge of winning an election seemed implausible, blinkered and naive."
I do not know whether the hon. Member for South Staffordshire counted himself among those who thought that the Conservative party could win the election, but I am delighted that he has won his election.
The programme motion for the Identity Cards Bill affords significant opportunities for the House to debate the details of that important legislation.
I will examine the position on Railtrack once the case has concluded, but it would not be appropriate to make a commitment at this stage.
As I have said a number of times in this House, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary closely follows the disturbing developments in Zimbabwe. I assure hon. Members that a statement will be made, as and when it is appropriate.
Hon. Members will have noticed that the Leader of the House has announced that a statement will be made on 13 July about the nomination of Select Committees. Will he share with the House his proposals on the structure of the Domestic Committees?
Certainly; there has been a good deal of discussion over a long period about the appropriate structure for Domestic Committees. The matter is ultimately for the House, but I anticipate that some streamlining of the arrangements for Domestic Committees will be proposed in order more properly to allow hon. Members a say in how the House is administered.
In a week in which we have celebrated the Royal Navy with the superlative fleet review—I congratulate all concerned—and in a year in which we remember the 60th anniversary of the end of the war, is it not time for hon. Members to debate the position of people who have suffered hearing loss as a result of service in the armed forces and who are not properly compensated through the armed forces compensation scheme? Early-day motion 306 sets out the case for those veterans.
[That this House expresses concern that many ex-servicemen and women who have suffered substantial hearing loss as a result of their service in the armed forces are being denied compensation through the armed forces Compensation Scheme; notes that a service person has to suffer a hearing loss of 50 decibels before being compensated, a level often only experienced naturally by elderly people; further notes that this is not the case across the European Union and the Commonwealth, where the qualifying level of hearing loss is much lower; further notes that criteria for compensation ignore the fact that noise-induced hearing loss associated with service brings forward the age at which an individual will experience severe difficulties in everyday communication and social participation; therefore believes that the Government's criteria for assessing compensation for deafened veterans is failing to deliver sufficient recognition for those who have made great sacrifices for their country; and therefore joins RNID and ex-service organisations in calling upon the Government to lower the qualifying level of hearing loss in order to ensure that all those who have served in the armed forces are compensated appropriately for any disability, and that those currently serving their country are not let down when their service ends.]
Every week, a No. 10 briefing takes place after Prime Minister's questions. As an innovation, will the Leader of the House allow something similar to happen in the House? He could explain what some of the Prime Minister's replies mean. He could explain why in two consecutive weeks the Prime Minister completely contradicted the Paymaster General on tax credits; why, until Hansard helpfully amended it, he said that there was no question of moving to a compulsory identity card; and what he meant by saying that he wanted to scrap rather than reform the common agricultural policy.
May we have a debate on university science courses? Since 1997, one in three physics courses have closed. Sir Howard Newby, the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council, has, in a masterpiece of complacency, dismissed physics, maths and chemistry as 19th-century disciplines. How myopic can it be to lose this country's science base through a lack of university teaching?
Lastly, could we have a debate on the subject of Home Office procurement of IT and databases, of which there has been some discussion this week? I remind the Leader of the House of section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which required the establishment of a national firearms register. Eight years later, after the expenditure of £5.4 million, we have no working national firearms register. What does that tell us about the ability of the Home Office to run a sensible database?
As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the long list of subjects that he would like debated. I begin, however, by joining him in paying tribute to the Royal Navy—particularly to the work of the First Sea Lord, who was responsible for organising the tremendous event on Tuesday, which I had the privilege of joining, albeit at a distance and consistent with my responsibility to the House in returning to vote at 10 o'clock on Tuesday evening, as I forecast would be possible when I was asked about the matter recently.
I recognise the importance of the House being able to debate those who have suffered not only hearing loss but other injuries as a result of their service in the armed forces. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are frequent defence debates, and I am sure that he will have the opportunity to raise such issues on one of those occasions.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is of course always a model of absolute clarity, and I would not expect to have any occasion or requirement to seek to clarify his observations in any way. He has never contradicted the words of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, nor she his. The Government are always a model of clarity on these occasions.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of science. I have indicated on previous occasions the importance that the Government attach to scientific research and the necessity of our maintaining a strong science base so that the United Kingdom can continue to compete successfully in an increasingly global economy.
As for the Home Office and databases, the hon. Gentleman rightly refers to the recent debate in which that was an issue. It has arisen on other occasions. I hope that the Liberal Democrats are not adopting the conservative—with a small c—tendency of suggesting that because there are sometimes problems in the development of any computer programme we should not invest in computer technology at all. That seems a rather short-sighted view from a party that is supposed to be radical and to believe in change—but perhaps the Liberal Democrats are adopting a more conservative philosophy.
May I raise with the Leader of the House the appalling pay and conditions of the cleaners who, day after day, clean the House of Commons? Should not we be concerned that they receive only £5 an hour, no sick pay, no pension, and very limited holidays, and contrast all that with what Ministers, Back Benchers and Officers of the House get? Is not there a very strong case for telling the contractors—I do not know why we have contractors in any case—that it is totally unacceptable and that conditions must quickly improve? We are Labour MPs, and we should not tolerate this situation.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. The position is slightly more complex than he has set out, in that those who are full-time employees of the House are clearly properly remunerated. There is an issue in relation to the rate of pay for contractors, which I can assure him is being examined as a matter of some urgency and with appropriate seriousness. I hope that he will accept that I should not comment further at this stage on those negotiations
In Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable has just announced the closure of 17 police stations. The marching season in Northern Ireland is always a solemn and serious time, and that news has come as a blow to everyone. Will the Leader of the House impress on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the need to come to the House and make a statement on this disturbing matter?
I have had the privilege of meeting the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland on a number of occasions, and I know how seriously he views his responsibilities and recognises how important it is to provide appropriate security for the people of Northern Ireland. I also know that operational matters are for chief constables. Certainly, however, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern on this question.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that next Wednesday, 6 July, the International Olympic Committee will take its decision on the siting of the 2012 Olympic games. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will want to wish London's bid well, as it is good for London and the United Kingdom. I am sure that there will be lots of celebrations when we win. Will he celebrate in the House by introducing the Olympics Bill before the summer recess?
Do not tempt fate yet.
I am warned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from a sedentary position that I should not tempt fate, and he is right that we should not anticipate the result of the important decision to be announced next Wednesday in Singapore. I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who has led the bid, and to the noble Lord Coe, who has worked extraordinarily hard to put the United Kingdom in a position in which the games could come to London. Obviously, every last effort has been made and will continue to be made before the result is announced. If the bid is successful, the Government are determined to bring the Bill before the House as soon as possible to allow the necessary work to take place to host a hugely successful games in London in 2012.
Can we please have a debate entitled, "Can we believe a word that the Prime Minister ever says about emissions?" The Leader of the House will no doubt have noticed that the Prime Minister is in the habit of causing enormous traffic jams, and emissions, in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament, owing to his usual arrogance in insisting on being swept through the traffic. Would it not be a better example, which might cause us to believe what he says on the subject, were he to walk from Downing street and Whitehall, in the course of which he might meet the odd real person?
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman takes that view. He will know, as I know, that the Metropolitan police, who are responsible for security in the immediate vicinity of the House, have always protected Prime Ministers in the light of the security threat then prevailing. It is obviously important, as has always been made clear, that right hon. and hon. Members should have the absolute right to come to proceedings of the House, and I assure him that I will investigate whether there have been circumstances in which their access has been unreasonably prevented.
While there has been a lot of controversy about the BBC weather forecast and the change in the graphics, the Leader of the House may not be aware that some restructuring is proposed for the Met Office, which might include the closure of the Aberdeen Met Office. Aberdeen has built up world expertise, particularly in marine forecasting, and since that office took over the shipping forecast last year, accuracy has increased. Obviously, good, accurate weather forecasts are important for fishing and the offshore oil and gas industry. Will he find time to debate the work of the Met Office some time soon?
As I have told the House before, one of the more unlikely responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Defence is responsibility for the Met Office. I had the privilege of visiting its facilities on a number of occasions, notably its new facility in Exeter—a magnificent new building where its excellent work continues. I will, however, ensure that my hon. Friend's anxieties about the Aberdeen facility are communicated to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who will no doubt take a particular and local interest.
Could time be made for us to debate a serious matter affecting a number of my constituents who have been employed at the APW plant in Chandlers Ford? Their pension scheme recently suffered a substantial reduction. In some cases pensionable benefit has been cut by as much as 77 per cent., and sadly the scheme falls between the financial assistance scheme and the pension protection fund. I gather that a number of other Members' constituents are subject to schemes that are in the same category. I think it important for us to have time to discuss the problem, and I think that the Leader of the House should convey to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the seriousness with which we view it.
The Government have of course addressed the major problems arising from shortfalls in pension schemes. There will always be schemes that fall outside the provision that has been made. I am sure that the commission established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will be able to examine the circumstances, but obviously we must provide a proper decent pension for all members of society, and that is the Government's ambition.
Tickets for the Australian test match at Edgbaston in early August are currently trading at about twice their face value on the internet. Increasing use of the internet makes it difficult for sport organisations to control the resale of tickets in the interests of public order. The Football Association currently has power to prohibit the resale of tickets in the case of designated matches. Is it not time we gave similar powers to those in charge of cricket and rugby matches, especially as, if the London bid succeeds, we shall have to change legislation this year in any case?
That important issue has arisen in connection with a number of prominent events lately. It causes a great deal of irritation, aggravation and anger to those with a legitimate interest in a sport or event who are unable to secure tickets at a fair and reasonable price. I assure my hon. Friend that I will take it up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks earlier. If I am fortunate enough to obtain leave of the House to introduce a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act in respect of deceased candidates, will he meet me, and sponsors from all the major parties in the House, to discuss the framing of a Bill that will be acceptable and can be enacted quickly?
I should be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the Bill, although the matter is not as straightforward as has sometimes been suggested. Clearly it will be in the interests of the political parties represented at any given election to have the opportunity of putting up a candidate. The hon. Gentleman did, of course, have the privilege of spending even more time in a beautiful part of the country before his recent election. Now that he is back with us, I should, as I say, be delighted to meet him to discuss his proposal.
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 314?
[That this House welcomes the Crossrail project as an opportunity to deliver crucial economic and transport benefits to the nation that must not be missed; notes that Crossrail's business case is a strong one and that Crossrail enjoys overwhelming support from business, the unions and the public; notes, in addition to many transport and regeneration bodies, recent research by the Centre for Economic and Business Research indicating that Crossrail will add £23.7 billion to the UK's Gross Domestic Product by 2023 and support thousands of jobs in manufacturing and services in every region that would not otherwise exist; calls for the Crossrail Bill, without which the scheme cannot be built, be considered as a top priority; looks forward to a constructive debate on the issue of funding; celebrates the hard work and expertise of those responsible for developing the scheme; pledges to scrutinise the effect of the construction on the different communities along the line; and calls on the Government to bring forward the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill and do all it can to make the Crossrail scheme and its benefits a reality to the public at the earliest opportunity.]
When will we debate Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill? First Reading took place in the last Parliament, and the matter is of some importance not just to my constituents but to many other Members who support Crossrail in the all-party group on the subject.
My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is keen to see progress, as are the Government, and I realise that the issue is vital not just for my hon. Friend's constituents but for those of Members throughout the capital. At this stage all I can say is that we will debate Second Reading soon.
When can we have a full day's debate in Government time on the state of our agriculture industry and reform of the common agricultural policy—about which the Government are not clear, despite what the right hon. Gentleman said in an earlier exchange—the shambolic introduction of the single farm payment, and the many hill farmers in my constituency whose livelihoods have been decimated by recent flooding? It may be the case that we shall have Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions next week, but it is about time we had a full day's debate in Government time on these important matters.
It is important for us, on behalf of the United Kingdom taxpayer but also on behalf of United Kingdom farmers, to continue the process of reforming the CAP. That is in the interest of UK farming. The hon. Gentleman will certainly have an opportunity to debate the issues, not only in the context of the European Union during the UK's presidency, but as he said, at the forthcoming DEFRA questions.
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 417?
[That this House expresses its concern that today nearly half of all cash machines charge a fee for withdrawal; notes that five years ago almost all cash machines in the UK were free, and believes that this trend represents a real and current threat to the UK's network of free cash machines; recognises that if current trends continue, fee-charging machines will outnumber free ones by the end of this year; further notes that those on low incomes are hit disproportionately hard by charges and that the loss of free ATMs could cost UK consumers £2 billion per annum in charges; welcomes Nationwide Building Society's Free ATM campaign; and calls on the Government to track and publish trends on the growth of fee-charging ATMs to ensure customers are not routinely charged to access their own money.]
This is the third occasion on which I have raised the subject of ATMs that charge a fee, and the third occasion on which I ask for a statement and possibly a debate. Nearly 50 per cent. of ATMs now charge about £2 a time, and the charge is directed at those who can least afford it, the elderly and people in remote areas. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it constitutes a tax on those people, and is it not time we did something about it?
I know that this irritates people throughout the country. It certainly irritates me. I use my ability as a consumer to select only ATMs that do not invite me to pay for the privilege of gaining access to my own money, but I realise that ATMs are sometimes located in remote places to provide facilities that would not otherwise be there, and I understand why in those circumstances banks contemplate charging. Nevertheless, the issue is important and I know that Members will raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
May we have a debate as soon as possible, in Government time, on fuel poverty in Northern Ireland? It is a very serious issue. Recent figures that I have obtained reveal that nearly 55,000 households in Northern Ireland where there are children are in fuel poverty, as are some 102,000 households in which the head of household is over 60. Those are atrocious figures in this day and age. Good work has been done with the introduction of the warm homes scheme—introduced by Democratic Unionist Ministers in the last Northern Ireland Assembly—but a debate would enable us to consider what more can be done. One possibility is the introduction of a free central heating system, which has already happened in Scotland, to tackle the serious problem of deaths from cold-related illnesses as a result of fuel poverty.
The hon. Gentleman is right. It is an important issue, and I share his concern. I am a little anxious about his statistics, given the significant sums that the Government have provided for, in particular, those of retirement age: £200 or £300 a year, as appropriate. Those large amounts should contribute to the costs of securing a warm home. I will, however, invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to respond to the hon. Gentleman's statistics and the concern that he has expressed.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday our hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) secured a Westminster Hall debate on council housing? Is he aware that so many Members turned up wanting to speak that it was impossible to hear all their views? The debate followed the publication of two reports, from the Audit Commission and from the parliamentary council housing group. In the light of those facts, and of the fact that we are due to receive a report on the future financing of arm's-length management organisations, and of the strength of feeling not just in the House but throughout the country about the future of council housing, is it not time we were allowed to debate the subject in the Chamber, in Government time?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. If there were such a debate, he would doubtless recognise the enormous progress that has been made, not least in the provision of decent housing. Some 1 million homes have been improved under this Government, thereby enormously improving the circumstances of people who live in publicly owned accommodation. The Government—and, I am sure, my hon. Friend—are rightly proud of that.
The Leader of the House has announced a debate on Wednesday week on the setting up of Select Committees, which will be too late to enable the Liaison Committee to get up and running, and to meet the Prime Minister before the House rises. However, such Committees can meet in August. Will the Leader of the House inquire as to the Prime Minister's availability during that month, and if he draws a blank, may we have an absolute assurance that the Prime Minister will meet the Liaison Committee in the autumn, and that we will not miss the summer Session entirely?
As I have made clear on previous occasions, the Prime Minister is keen to meet the Liaison Committee at the earliest opportunity. Whether every single member of it will be equally available in August is an issue that the right hon. Gentleman, as their shop steward, might wish to investigate. I await with interest the details with which he can provide me, but I can assure him that the Prime Minister is keen to meet the Liaison Committee, as and when it is established.
The Prime Minister told us yesterday that the Government will listen to Members before making any decisions on replacing Trident. I realise that we will have a debate on defence in the world on 7 July, but is there not a powerful case for having in due course a focused debate on the Trident nuclear deterrent, with background papers provided by the Government, and a vote on whether we want to replace it?
My hon. Friend slyly dismisses the prospect of next week's debate on defence in the world, but it is surely a perfect opportunity for him to spend a Thursday afternoon in the House debating these vital matters. I look forward to reading his speech in detail, although I anticipate that I will not be surprised by its content. Nevertheless, that debate will be the start of the discussion of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear is an important issue for the United Kingdom, and for the future of its armed forces.
It is clear from today's business statement that the pressure on the Government's legislative timetable is not huge; otherwise, there would not be so many Opposition Supply days being granted. During another very popular debate—I am grateful to you for granting it, Mr. Speaker—on the Licensing Act 2003 in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago, real concern was expressed about that Act's impact on village halls and shops. Moreover, earlier this week I met the Minister responsible for this issue to discuss the Act's impact on circuses, and the point was made that there is a lack of parliamentary time for amending legislation. May we therefore use this clearly relaxed period in the Government's timetable to produce a Bill that commands consensus throughout the House, and which amends a well-meaning Act to ensure that it does not have a devastating impact on certain well-loved English institutions?
We cannot win, can we? If there had been no Opposition days, the hon. Gentleman would have complained vociferously. However, because we are fulfilling our obligation to allow proper debate in the House—I assume that the hon. Gentleman is fairly keen on that—by providing such days, we are told that the situation must therefore be relaxed. If he visited those in my office responsible for organising the legislative programme, he would discover that they are far from relaxed. Nevertheless, he raises an important point about the issue of licensing, which I have addressed before. The Government are keen to have licensing arrangements that allow village halls, parish halls and other very important parts of our rural communities to secure licences much more easily and speedily, and more generally, than in the past.
Will my right hon. Friend speak personally to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and stress the desire in all parts of the House for an early debate on, and early action on, the tiny number of pension schemes wound up last year that fall between the financial assistance scheme and the Pension Protection Fund? South Hampshire-based APW's scheme has devastated the lives of many people approaching retirement, or who have retired in the past few months. Those pensioners will not go away and nor will the MPs who represent them. It would be good to have some early action on this issue.
My right hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising this issue. As I said earlier, I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions looks carefully at the observations that have been made.
I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) that I fully support his request for a debate on the importance of local authorities retaining responsibility for the provision of council housing. The hon. Gentleman is coming to my constituency to address a "tenants against transfer" meeting, at which I shall also be present. I want also to weigh in with my support for the call by the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), for a debate on Zimbabwe, in Government time, in this Chamber. Zimbabwe could affect Africa's entire future progress and prosperity, and it will feature in the G8. Until we can get a solution to the barbaric and brutal behaviour of the tyrant Robert Mugabe, we will be unable to make the progress on debt relief and poverty relief in Africa that we all want to see.
On council housing, what is important about publicly funded accommodation is not necessarily who owns or administers it, but its quality and standard. The hon. Gentleman is a fair man, and he will accept that there has been a huge improvement since 1997 in the quality of available public accommodation. As I said earlier, some 1 million homes have been improved to an acceptable standard. I have made it clear how seriously my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—he has arrived, on cue—views the situation in Zimbabwe, and how energetically the Government have been working to make appropriate representations. My right hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Gentleman's observations on the importance of a future statement or debate on this issue.
The House is due to rise on 21 July, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister could decide to make its statement on the future of the neighbourhood renewal fund before the beginning of the recess. In that case, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on urban regeneration? The future of the neighbourhood renewal fund is vital to those constituencies that contain wards with the severest levels of deprivation. It is of particular importance to local authorities such as mine, which were previously denied access to the fund but now, because of the latest data on deprivation, published in last year's index of multiple deprivation, have a much stronger case for eligibility. Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate this issue, and is it not so serious that we should have an annual debate on the future of our cities and urban regeneration?
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is of acute interest to my constituents, so I will be following it very carefully. But if he will allow me, it would seem appropriate to respond to his substantive point once the future of the neighbourhood renewal fund has been decided.
I wonder whether the Leader of the House can find time to debate the growing impact of quangos on our local communities. I draw his attention to early-day motions 340 and 423, in which English Heritage and the Arts Council of England are featured, along with the East of England Development Company.
[That this House places great importance on the protection of Sites of Scheduled Ancient Monuments; believes that sites so designated should not be built on; is alarmed that some developers and public bodies seek to circumvent the scheduling, including pressurising English Heritage to grant consents to enable developments to take place; calls on English Heritage to resist and to publicise every occasion when such pressure is attempted; urges the Government to publish an annual register giving details of every application made for consents to develop Sites of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, and the decision made in each case; and further urges the Government to introduce legislation so that in cases where there is objection to proposed development of a Site of Scheduled Ancient Monument there is a public inquiry.]
Such quangos are taking decisions that affect communities, and residents have no say and no way of challenging those decisions. The situation is made worse when quangos are in league with councils. They are in league with Tory-controlled Colchester borough council, which is manipulating the planning system by submitting planning applications on which it then decides. The community has been disenfranchised. Surely it is time that we had a debate on the role of quangos in local life today.
The hon. Gentleman has the facility, which I have noticed in the past, of making what are perfectly harmless and innocuous organisations—they are often staffed by volunteers and others, who give of their time freely—distinctly sinister. I can understand his concern when they are alleged to be in league with the Conservative-run councils, although I should perhaps reflect on that issue on a future occasion. It is vital that we recognise the enormously important work that such organisations do. Simply saying that they are quangos does not make them somehow sinister, or lacking in merit.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Office to issue a statement of its consideration on the way in which the police issue fixed penalty fines? That would give the Home Office the opportunity to consider a case that occurred in my constituency recently where a young lady accused a young man, falsely and maliciously, of rape. After wasting a considerable amount of both police and medical experts' time, she admitted that her claim was malicious and false, yet her only penalty—hardly likely to deter others from making similarly obnoxious claims—was an £80 fixed penalty ticket imposed by Essex police.
The hon. Gentleman has made his point effectively, but I do not think that it is appropriate for me to comment further on the details of a particular case.
European Union
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the European Union. Earlier today, I published a White Paper on prospects for the European Union covering the next six months when the United Kingdom will hold the presidency. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
Let me first comment on the current situation in the EU, before coming to the priorities of our presidency. The EU's historic success is centred on three major achievements. It has cemented peace on a continent whose history has been one of rivalry and bloody conflict. It has helped to heal the divisions of the cold war and to entrench liberal democratic institutions in countries emerging from dictatorship. It has created the world's largest international single market of 450 million consumers. All that has brought greater prosperity to businesses and citizens across Europe, while safeguarding the strong attachment to social justice that is common to all Europe's differing economic models. The United Kingdom has benefited greatly from this unique collaboration between nations.
Yet the EU must adapt both to survive and to prosper in a world quite changed from when it was founded some 50 years ago. It needs, first, better to respond to the sense among European citizens that the EU is remote from the concerns of their daily lives. That was brought into sharp relief by the no votes on the EU constitution by two of its founder members. Compounding that sense of unease is the fact that Europe's economies face greatly increased global competition. Soon, 50 per cent. of all manufacturing exports will come from developing countries. China's overseas trade is doubling every three years and China and India between them are producing 4 million graduates a year, competing with European firms in the highest-skilled sectors.
The EU must deal with such competition by becoming more dynamic and by investing more in training and innovation. It has to tackle more effectively new threats to our security from terrorism, proliferation and international crime and to respond to the moral and political imperative of improving living standards and well-being in the world's poorest nations.
Europe's nations are now beginning an important debate on meeting those challenges. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Brussels last week, the United Kingdom as presidency will seek to conduct that debate in an open and inclusive way, putting our own views strongly, but respectful of the views of others.
Alongside the wider questions of the EU's future direction and priorities, there is much specific business to be done during our presidency. Let me take four key areas of the agenda in turn. The first is future financing. As the House is well aware, the European Council could not reach agreement two weeks ago on the EU's next "Financial Perspective", its revenue-raising and spending plans for 2007–2013. For five member states, including the UK, the proposals then on the table were unacceptable and other member states also had difficulties with them.
Discussions on future financing will continue under the UK's presidency. Any new financial perspective must, at the very least, set out a process that leads to a more rational budget, shaping the second half of the perspective up to 2013. We recognise our responsibilities as EU presidency and we will work hard to reach agreement on future financing by the end of the year.
Secondly, there is economic reform. At issue here is not a choice between prosperity or social justice, but what combination of policies can best deliver prosperity and social justice in today's European Union. In that context, we will continue to work for more effective European regulation. The EU will launch in October a major new programme to reduce the volume and complexity of EU legislation in order to ease the burden on business. We will also be looking to improve the policy-making processes with better consultation and impact assessments.
Meanwhile, we will pursue discussions on the services directive. We will continue work on financial services and on resolving the difficulties over the working time directive in a way that preserves the freedom of individuals to work the hours they choose and that maintains the Government's ability to deliver high-quality health and public services. We will also pursue discussions on the review of the EU's sustainable development strategy.
Thirdly, there is external relations. Over the next six months, we will chair EU summits with India, China, Russia, Ukraine and Canada, and host a summit jointly with Spain to mark the 10th anniversary of the Euromed process. We will pursue EU work on key foreign policy issues such as the middle east peace process, Iran and EU support for Iraq. The UK will represent the EU at the United Nations millennium review summit in September and follow up Europe's welcome new commitments on increasing aid and on developing a stronger action plan for Africa. We will also be pursuing progress on climate change.
Mr. Speaker, freer and fairer world trade offers major benefits, not least to Africa. As presidency, and with the European Commission, we will be steering preparations within the EU for this December's meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Hong Kong. Linked to that objective, we will also aim to conclude the discussions on modernising the EU's sugar regime—an important part of the continuing reform of the common agricultural policy.
The fourth key area of work for our presidency is pursuing the EU's commitments on enlargement. Bulgaria and Romania signed a joint accession treaty with the EU on 25 April this year and are scheduled to join in January 2007. Both still have much to do to implement the commitments that they have made and the European Commission will report on their readiness this autumn.
Last December, the EU agreed to open accession negotiations with Turkey on 3 October this year—a decision that was reconfirmed by the European Council two weeks ago. Turkish membership of the European Union is a controversial issue for public opinion in parts of Europe, but the British Government remain strongly committed to Turkey joining the EU and I believe that we can draw on the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The European Commission yesterday published a draft framework for Turkey's accession negotiations. The EU and Turkey alike stand to gain greatly from a democratic and prosperous Turkey anchored in Europe and from a demonstration that Islam is compatible with the values of liberal democracy, which form the bedrock of the European Union.
The EU also stands ready to open negotiations with Croatia, provided that it co-operates fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We strongly support the membership aspirations of the other countries of the western Balkans, but they must, like all other EU applicants, meet the necessary requirements.
The White Paper sets out the responsibilities involved in holding the EU presidency and a calendar of the main meetings. Alongside the formal meetings, there will be at least 12 informal meetings of EU Ministers, and many other conferences, meetings and events will take place throughout the UK. Today's White Paper, like those before it, is aimed at providing information and material for public and parliamentary debate on the EU . The House will, as usual, have regular opportunities throughout our presidency to discuss the issues and the European Union as a whole.
The European Union remains central to the UK's prosperity and to its influence in the world. Throughout our presidency and beyond, the Government will maintain Britain's place as a leading European power, helping to shape the EU's future direction in our interests and in the interests of the European Union as a whole.
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving us a copy in advance.
The rejection of the constitution by the French and Dutch voters presented the leaders of the European Union with a chance genuinely to reform how Europe works. This statement today was the British Government's chance to show leadership in that debate.
There are, of course, things in the document that we welcome, such as the pursuit of the services directive, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and the talks that have begun with Turkey. We also welcome the process of bringing the Balkan states closer to the EU. However, this presidency was the chance to start real reform. Real reform would mean restructuring existing institutions and changing the distribution of powers. That would include bringing powers back from Brussels to the people of Europe.
Real reform would also mean a radical overhaul of the common agricultural policy, and an end to the assumption that the budget could move only in an upward direction. Real reform requires substance: in contrast, the prospectus set out by the Foreign Secretary is full of rhetoric, contradictions and platitudes. Yet again, the Government are trying to breathe life into the moribund Lisbon agenda. When will they realise that, although the EU can exacerbate economic problems—for example, through the social chapter and over regulation—real reform in the European economy can occur only when member states adopt the sort of supply-side reforms that Conservative Governments in the 1980s introduced in the UK? The Foreign Secretary fought those reforms tooth and nail.
It is not better regulation that Europe requires, but less regulation. What do we get in the document? Paragraph 26 states:
"The Commission has requested that Member States draft a brief Lisbon National Reform Programme . . . This will be a high-level political document identifying key national actions to secure progress towards Lisbon objectives. These Programmes will be subject to regular peer review—so that all Member States can work together to share best practice."
What does all that mean? Does it mean that our economic performance will be reviewed by those continental member states with 19 million unemployed? Perhaps the Prime Minister looks forward to his pep talk from President Chirac, but we know already what best practice is, and we know what works—lower taxes, and less regulation, legislation and government.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned climate change, and the document's rhetoric continues, stating:
"Urgent action is needed to tackle climate change at a global level. National or even regional action . . . will not be sufficient."
He can say that again, because carbon dioxide emissions in this country have increased since the Government came to power. The document is all talk and posturing.
What about the CAP reform to which the Prime Minister has so recently—and conveniently—been converted? Only the sugar regime gets a mention. So for all the hype we get no idea about the Government's proposals. Do they want to scrap the CAP, or simply move to a rules-based system that is compatible with the World Trade Organisation? Or is it to be a land-management, without production support? Where are the substance and the detail? How much should be funded by national Governments, and how much by the EU, for example?
The position on the rebate is also unclear. Is it on the table, or not? If it is, what level of reform would trigger its discussion?
On foreign policy, we are treated to platitudes. On Zimbabwe, the document states:
"The EU will continue . . . its policy of pressure on the Government of Zimbabwe to respect good governance, the rule of law and human rights."
Is that all that the Government or the EU can say? Is that what passes for leadership, at a time when the Mugabe regime has all but declared war on its own population? Is that the best that our Government can manage? We must do more to help those who have been left cold, hungry and destitute by a vicious regime.
On China, the document states:
"Member States will continue the review of the EU Arms Embargo on China."
Again, where is the leadership? Does the Foreign Secretary not understand the profound damage that dropping the embargo could do to British defence interests, or American strategic interests, in the Pacific rim?
Far too much of the document is unambitious, complacent, lowest-common-denominator Eurospeak. We have to ask several questions. Are our Government serious about budget reforms? No, because those reforms will end up costing British taxpayers more, not less. Are they serious about economic reform? No, because all we get is a reheating of Lisbon, with peer review and best practice. Are they serious about institutional reform? No, because instead of powers coming back from Brussels to member states, we get more new bodies and powers. I am sure that the House will be delighted to know that, on top of the bodies that we have at the moment, the proposals mean that we will get the fundamental rights agency and the European gender institute.
I am afraid that today's document reads like a cut-and-paste exercise. A few new paragraphs make it sound as though the EU has taken notice of what happened in France and the Netherlands, but nothing has really changed. Was the Prime Minister right to say that the constitution represented a sensible set of rules for the future, or was Germany's Europe Minister right to describe it as the birth certificate for the united states of Europe?
Despite all the talk, all we have had today is the same old centralising direction, with a bit of new rhetoric. This is a momentous time for the EU. For all their talk, our Government have failed in the task of leadership. What a wasted opportunity.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was obviously unaware of last Thursday's brilliant speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It was written up across Europe as providing the leadership for which Europe had waited for very many years. That is also reflected in this document.
The phrase "all talk and posturing" is a very good description of the Opposition spokesman's contribution. He says that the answer to Europe's problems is institutional change, for example in the competences described in the treaty. If we followed what the hon. Member for Woodspring proposes, we would wait years and years for any change whatsoever. The fundamental flaw—not to say deceit—in the Conservative party's position is the insinuation that all that needs to be done to secure the institutional change is for Opposition Front-Bench Members to demand it, and that it will then happen. What the Opposition always fail to notice—and they failed to notice it during the general election campaign—is that such institutional change requires the agreement of 25 independent member states. They have never been able to name even one other member state that supports their position on the EU.
The hon. Member for Woodspring knows that it was hugely difficult to get agreement on the constitutional treaty at the intergovernmental conference, and that that treaty has since been rejected by two member states. If he is interested in staying in the EU and making it operate better, he and his party must apply themselves to the practical realities involved in making the EU work better today. That is exactly what the Government are seeking to do.
On the question of economic reform, a good model does exist—the new Labour model, which we have pursued over the past eight years. That model has cut unemployment by hundreds of thousands from the levels left by the previous Conservative Government. The Labour model extends the idea of social responsibility across the UK, and is now seen as a beacon in the rest of Europe. Yes, progress on the Lisbon agenda has been very disappointing elsewhere in Europe, but the UK has met its targets under that agenda.
The hon. Member for Woodspring spoke about better regulation. Less regulation may be the answer in many areas, but regulation is needed in some others. For instance, Conservative Front-Bench Members have called for a level playing field in services. That does not require less European regulation; it requires more, but we must make sure that that regulation is effective. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should not speak with a forked tongue and imply that better regulation is always less regulation.
As for CAP reform, the overall parameters have been set out already by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We intend to pursue that matter in the course of this presidency.
Finally, the hon. Member for Woodspring asked about the rebate. Before the European Council two weeks ago, we made it clear that the rebate was wholly justified and that we would use the veto, if necessary. We did use the veto: as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out at the press conference held in the small hours of 18 June, the rebate is an anomaly, but it is an anomaly on an anomaly. What we are seeking to do is address that anomaly on an anomaly, so that the case for the rebate withers away. Meanwhile, we will maintain our position.
That position was well spelled out in the other place—
"If the reason that gave rise to the need for the rebate—the nature of the budget and the common agricultural policy—were to change, the rebate would automatically disappear without any action."—[Official Report, House of Lords 21 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1550.]
That was the position as set out by the former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson—now Lord Lawson. I agree with him, and it is more or less exactly our position.
I welcome the White Paper and the way in which the Government have allowed for debate in this House. The former members of the Foreign Affairs Committee had a meeting with Members of the European Parliament, and I welcome such initiatives for closer co-operation. I see in the White Paper a list of meetings and I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that some of them are held in Birmingham. He may recall that such meetings in our last presidency were very successful.
On a more substantive point, the White Paper refers to the continuing negotiations on the arms embargo to China. I urge my right hon. Friend to make representations to his colleagues to be cautious about lifting the embargo, because the time is not right and it would send the wrong signals.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for the White Paper. On meetings in Birmingham—
There is obviously general approbation for that suggestion. I have a feeling that most of the locations for the meetings have now been determined, but I will raise the point with my right hon. and hon. Friends who are involved in such matters. During the last UK presidency, several meetings were held in Birmingham, including a justice and home affairs meeting.
On China, I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The EU may well reach conclusions on strengthening the code of conduct generally, but she is right to imply that there is now wider concern about the implications for the lifting of the embargo elsewhere in Europe and that has to be taken account of in any decisions that are made.
First, I wish to apologise on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who is on a plane on his way to Washington DC to attend the parliamentary assembly meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
It's tough at the top.
It is indeed.
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the advance notice of the statement on the White Paper, much of which the Liberal Democrats agree with, as we did with large segments of the Prime Minister's widely reported speech to the European Parliament. However, as has been said before, in the European Union the trick is always to translate words into action. The EU has long been distinguished by a tradition of grandiloquence that is not always matched by concrete actions. To that end, I have three questions.
First, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is essential that the Government's tone when they talk about reform of the EU is precise and does not appear hectoring or condescending? Does he agree that occasionally, especially when discussing the Government's economic record, an impression is sometimes given that we have all the answers and everybody else is in the doldrums, when—as no doubt he would wish to confirm—the superior economic performance of several other member states suggests that the reality is altogether more nuanced?
Secondly, given that support from the French Government is so essential to the success of the British presidency in securing progress on budget reform, reform of the common agricultural policy, opening enlargement talks with Turkey and progressing the services directive, what measures are being taken to ensure that Anglo-French bilateral relations are in a sufficiently healthy and robust state to deliver those items in the next six months?
Finally, given that reform of the CAP assumes a central if not totally dominant place in the ambitions of the Government in their forthcoming presidency, it is a little surprising to see that page 13 of the White Paper contains no more than five fairly short paragraphs on what that reform might involve. Given the essential need for providing further detail on what CAP reform would entail, will the Foreign Secretary give us an assurance that he would be prepared to come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity to explain specifically how it will be implemented in the years ahead?
First, on tone, the hon. Gentleman is right to argue that we should not, in his words, be hectoring or condescending. I do not believe that we are, nor do we insinuate that we exclusively have the answers to Europe's problems. However, we have been able to show, especially in the past eight years, that on economic and social policy we have many of the answers, but—I would add—so do several other countries, such as some of the Nordic countries, whose economies have outperformed the average. However, each European country has examples of very good practice in every area of policy and we need to draw on them, so we are not in the least exclusive about that.
Secondly, on bilateral relations with France, it is easy to write stories—often with substance—about the argument between France and the United Kingdom continuing, but underneath the headlines there is much co-operation with the Government of France, their representatives and the people of France. In my case, my relationships with the French Foreign Minister are good and also productive. On a range of dossiers, not least Iran, for example, we have to work together operationally to deliver a European foreign policy.
Finally, on reform of the CAP, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the White Paper contains a summary only. We are talking about proposals that we would wish to see on the table in the midst of the financial perspective, and that requires consultation with colleagues and partners in the EU. The broad components of reform of the CAP are straightforward to describe. They include a reduction overall in the amount spent by the EU on agricultural support, a change in the method of support and an end to all export subsidies. There has been some progress in each of those areas under the existing financial perspective, but much greater progress has to be made on each of those, not least the issue of the elimination of export subsidies by the 2010 deadline that the EU set earlier.
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the priorities that he has set out today, as well as the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe yesterday about the enlargement process. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will know that when the Enlargement Commissioner published his report yesterday, he was lukewarm on the issue of Turkey's membership. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just a case of opening negotiations with Turkey and supporting the negotiations beginning with Croatia, but of making the case for enlargement in the UK and throughout the EU?
Incidentally, according to the Foreign Office website, there will be a meeting in Birmingham, but I note that there will be no meeting in Leicester or Blackburn.
I am sorry about the absence of a meeting in Leicester. We will try to repair that in our next presidency—I give that solemn pledge—in 2018. It may even be later if Turkey and some Balkan countries become members. I am sure that my hon. Friend will still be a leading Member of Parliament, although I am not sure quite where I will be.
As for the important matter of Blackburn, we share and share alike there. Colleagues will remember that in the British presidency that began in January 1978, there was perhaps the most important meeting of the whole presidency held at the holy of holies, Ewood Park football ground, to discuss football hooliganism. It was a very successful meeting.
On Turkey, I do not think that Olli Rehn's report was lukewarm. Commissioner Rehn is continuing the excellent work of his predecessor, Günter Verheugen, but Rehn made it clear that there had been quite an argument inside the College of Commissioners, which reflected the controversial nature of Turkey's application. But, like my hon. Friend, and I believe that I speak for the whole House in saying this, we believe that Turkey's membership is of great importance not only to Turkey—the very process of membership has already led to major reforms there, and we must keep that process up—but to the European Union and the United Kingdom as a whole.
If reforming agricultural policy means the elimination of export subsidies and the reduction of the overall costs, what did the Prime Minister mean yesterday when he spoke of getting rid of the CAP? Is it the Government's policy to renationalise agricultural policy?
The proposals for renationalisation or for co-decision are among those that have been suggested by other member states. Interestingly enough, those on co-decision were proposed by the Finns and, two days ago, in an interesting debate in the Dutch Parliament, there was support for the so-called renationalisation of CAP payments. We will listen to all the various proposals that are made. Our judgment is that what is key for the initial stage—we are talking about the forthcoming financial perspective—is that the amount spent on the CAP is progressively reduced. If there were a renationalisation—it is not one of the proposals that we make at the moment—it would have to take place in the context of a European regulatory framework because, otherwise, we could find that the renationalisation led to an increase in the subsidies, as in fact it has done in respect of two states that are outside the EU but inside Europe: Switzerland and Norway.
I tell colleagues who are less well-informed than the right hon. Gentleman that renationalisation of itself will not lead to a reduction in subsidy. By the way, I tell the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that, if he believes that getting rid of all agricultural regulation across Europe is the way to deal with the subsidisation of European farmers, he needs to think again.
That is not what I said.
The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that better regulation meant less regulation. He needs to think about that because such things are more complicated than he obviously thought this morning.
The other issues—there is no secret about this—relate to cutting the connection between support for rural areas and farmers and support for products and dealing with the interests of export subsidies.
rose—
Order. We have a very busy programme today and time is very limited, so I appeal for much shorter questions and, with respect, much shorter answers as well.
The Foreign Secretary will know that the system of listed events, whereby different countries are allowed to determine which sporting events should be available on public service broadcasting and free-to-air services, depends on the television without frontiers directive, which is mentioned on page 11 of the document. Will the Government ensure that we adhere to and strengthen that directive, so that, for instance, we can see the Lions on tour on public service broadcasting?
I am expert on many things, but not on the fine print of the television without frontiers directive. However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to one of the world's experts on the issue: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
In wishing the United Kingdom's presidency every success, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will consider an initiative that will involve Members of Parliament from each national Parliament, as well as MEPs, bearing it in mind that it is our stated objective to reinforce our belief in a Europe of nation states?
First, may I express my personal welcome back to the hon. Gentleman and our collective sympathy for the awful predicament in which he found himself during the election?
Secondly, quite separately from this series of White Papers, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I made proposals to the House in respect of greater involvement by the House and the other place in all European business, and I very much hope that the House itself will now take them forward. We want to see much greater accountability to the House by the British Government and European institutions. The proposals are on the table. It is now a matter for hon. Members to make their decisions on them.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that this June marked the 10th anniversary of the planned, premeditated genocide of 7,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica. Can he reassure the House that he will use all the resources of the UK presidency to ensure that the perpetrators of that heinous bloodbath are brought to justice and stand trial, to make sure that justice is delivered to their grieving families?
Yes, I can. We in the United Kingdom have led a very tough approach in respect of co-operation by every Balkan state that was part of the former Yugoslavia with the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague precisely so that, whatever the ethnic origin of the perpetrators, they are all brought to justice. The House will also wish to know that, on 11 July, I shall visit Srebrenica to lead the European Union's commemorative service in that town.
The Foreign Secretary reveals that neither he nor the Government understand that the peoples of Europe—whether French, Dutch or British—do not like the direction in which the European Union is going and want it changed. My specific question is about agriculture. As a farmer who receives payments from the CAP, my personal opinion is that it should be scrapped. How much longer will we proceed with British taxpayers supporting tobacco production? British taxpayers pay to stop tobacco being smoked here, so why should they pay for tobacco to be produced in Greece and elsewhere?
On the latter point, the answer is that they should not. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is absurd that the European Union subsidises tobacco production. We want to see that changed, but to get change in the European Union normally requires the agreement of at least two thirds of the member states around the table and, sometimes, all of them. Yes, it is true that the message in referendums on the constitutional treaty in France and the Netherlands was that the public did not like the direction of Europe. That is the easy bit. The difficulty is that the public in those countries appear to want Europe to go in different and contradictory directions. That is not only why the Prime Minister set out his vision of the direction that Europe needs to take, but why we must ensure that we bring others with us. The way to do that is the way that we propose. The way that the Conservative Front-Bench team currently propose—treaty change, as if by magic—offers no future whatsoever.
The House will have heard with great interest the Foreign Secretary's statement. The programme that he has set out is, in fact, reasonable and likely to get majority support in the European Union, but can he assure the House that when we talk about Birmingham, Leicester and Blackburn—bringing the good news from Aix to Ghent—we will try to get the debate out into the country so that the huge benefits of the European Union can be understood by our people, so that they can give it greater support in the future than they have done in the past?
I hope that the wide variety of locations that we are using will help to bring across the value of the European Union; but, in the end, the European Union will be better appreciated when its delivery is better—so this is about the substance, not just about the form.
When the Prime Minister returned from Europe, he made a statement in the House. I asked him a simple question about the CAP and what would happen. In his reply, he hinted that there could be a way whereby Governments could interfere and pay subsidy to farmers. When we had another Question Time, I asked the Minister for Europe about that. He enlarged on the issue. Will the Government tell us now what is their policy on the issue, because it leaves farmers in a very peculiar and sad position? Farmers should know exactly what the Government will do on the issue.
The current arrangements for support of farmers were made by the European Council in October 2002 and they will stand until they are changed, which provides obvious reassurance. In any event, under our proposals, we are not talking about immediate change, but about changes that would take time and would be the subject of great discussion. As I told the House earlier, the key part of our proposal, indeed any proposal, to reform the CAP is to reduce its total size—its total burden on the budget—along with splitting the connection between payments and production and the elimination of export subsidies. There is debate in Europe about co-decision on the renationalisation of agricultural payments and we shall listen carefully to that. I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are interested in how much money they will receive in their pockets rather than the exact source from which it will come. In pursuing agricultural reform, we take account of the needs of the UK farming community, but we must also take into account the overall burden on the British and European taxpayer.
My right hon. Friend's statement is a measured and appropriate response to events in Europe over the past four weeks. Does he agree that there are still major problems of management inefficiency in the system that will not disappear because of what happened in the Netherlands or France? During the British presidency will further attention be given to how the presidency operates so that we do not have the ridiculous system whereby one country holds it for six months every 13 years, with Leicester having a visit only in 2018?
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.
I am delighted, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Keep it short.
The answer to my hon. Friend is yes.
I perceive that you were desperate for my question, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Although I appreciate the benefits of a Muslim country acceding to the EU, many of us are concerned about the unqualified support for the accession of Turkey, as it has an appalling human rights record, especially with regard to the suppression of the Kurdish people. May I draw the Foreign Secretary's attention to the withering judgment of the European Court of Human Rights last month in the case of Ocalan v. Turkey? Will he use his best offices to ensure that the Turkish Government comply with that judgment generally, and specifically that they adhere to the basic tenets of human rights with regard to the Kurdish people?
Our support is not unqualified, nor do the Government or people of Turkey want it to be unqualified, for the Erdogan Government are a reforming Government, content to see pressure for reform coming from outside Turkey as well as inside. We should applaud the phenomenal progress that the Government of Turkey have made in the past two years on human rights and on economic and social reform. The condition of qualification for membership is that that progress continues—I believe that it will.
What further steps will a strong Europe take to deal with terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah and their sponsors, Iran and Syria?
Although there is much further work that we can do to deal with terrorism, the position of the EU on it has strengthened, and there is great concern in the EU about the current position of Syria. I have arranged for that to be put on the agenda as a key item for the first meeting of Foreign Ministers that will be held in two weeks' time. Iran's support for terrorist organisations is one of the items constantly on the agenda in the negotiations that take place between France, Germany, the UK and Iran.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, following the precedent of the Swedish presidency, it is a matter of discretion for the presidency as to whether Council of Ministers meetings are held openly, certainly when legislation is discussed? Will he make a commitment to the House that, under the British presidency, Council of Ministers meetings will be held openly when legislation is being discussed?
We intend to follow the best practice of previous presidencies.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that during our presidency our message should be that where we seek economic flexibility we do so not at the price of fairness but as a route and accompaniment to it, and that we in the UK are building our own version of a social model, drawing on good practice in Europe and elsewhere? Finally, I should like to tell my right hon. Friend that Doncaster will welcome him during our presidency, or we will book for 2018.
I shall do my best to get to Doncaster before 2018. Meanwhile, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he thinks that the high degree of co-operation with France to which he referred will genuinely lead to reform of the sugar regime to one in which, once and for all, French overproduction, which is largely the cause of the problem, is addressed? A much better document from the European Union was published last week. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that it is taken forward and that there is genuine decoupling of compensation from production, which did not happen in the last round of CAP reform? Will he ensure that the reference price is big enough to ensure that production continues not only in the UK, but in the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that export their cane sugar to us?
What I guarantee is that, first, we have to negotiate with the French; they are key partners and if we just shout at each other we shall not reach agreement. We have to negotiate with them. Secondly, I was talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs this morning about exactly that issue: sugar prices and export subsidies for sugar. She is involved in detailed discussions with her French opposite number, because reaching agreement with France is key to reaching overall agreement. Thirdly, we actively support the Commission proposals.
The White Paper says that the new fundamental rights agency will fill a gap in the current system. What will the agency do that the Council of Europe does not do already?
The Council of Europe is a different institution and its work is different from that of the European Union. If my hon. Friend is asking that we ensure that the agency does not duplicate the work of European and national bodies, the answer is yes, I have been discussing that very issue—that we ensure it adds value to fundamental rights rather than simply duplicating the efforts of others.
What prospect is there of the British presidency being used to encourage other EU members to take action in respect of the prospect of the Iranian nuclear bomb under a newly elected hard-line, fundamentalist President?
When I began work with France and Germany negotiating with Iran in what is now called the E3, there was much scepticism about whether European consensus would hold. It has held. My French and German counterparts and Javier Solana have been as firm as me in negotiating on the dossier. At each stage of the resolutions at six meetings of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency there has been unanimity led by Europeans. Following the election of the new President, we shall work with Iran on the basis that he will meet and keep the commitments to which his predecessors kept. We shall begin negotiations with him on that basis; if that changes, our position has been made very clear.
First, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his previous answers, in which, as I understand it, he gave a firm commitment to hold a series of glamorous and high-profile meetings in the great city of Birmingham, on whose behalf I offer many, many thanks. Secondly, in the context of Turkish accession, does he have any words for our Cypriot constituents, who have a history of sensitivity about Turkey, as well as a sense that they have not had quite the support that they hoped for from the Labour Government?
I give a solemn promise to the House that if, as I hope, I am still Foreign Secretary in 2018, there will be definitely be an EU presidency meeting in Birmingham, if not three or four.
The situation regarding Turkey and Cyprus is a sensitive issue for both Greek and Turkish Cypriots in equal measure, albeit for different reasons. The best hope of resolving the problems on Cyprus in the long term and achieving its unification is through Turkey's accession negotiations because Turkey knows that that issue must be resolved before it can become a member of the EU.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about Turkey because enlargement of the EU has been a great success—does he agree? Will he comment on the progress that might be made over the next few months on the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU?
The date of accession for Bulgaria and Romania has been set for 1 January 2007, but they must meet certain criteria before then. I hope that that will happen, but if it does not, accession will probably be delayed by a year.
May I endorse what my hon. Friends have said about Birmingham? We would like two meetings, if possible, because we are getting one already.
I agreed with my right hon. Friend when he identified the middle east peace process as a key policy area in which the European Union has a unique and distinctive role to play. What can the European Union do to ensure that any opportunities presented by Gaza withdrawal are not closed off by the chances of a viable Palestinian state being removed by continued settlement building in the west bank and the construction of an illegal wall in the occupied territory? My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is opposed to those things, so will he tell us what the European Union can practically do to change the situation, rather than simply protesting about it?
A great deal, not least by working in the Quartet of the United Nations, EU, the Russian Federation and the United States, with which we work especially closely, as we have to, and, above all, by ensuring that the withdrawal by the Israelis from Gaza that is due on 16 August takes place in such a way that we see the creation of the beginnings of a separate and viable state of Palestine that is, above all, capable of running its own security. If we can achieve that—we are giving active and practical support to the Palestinians for it—there will be a strong international consensus on the next stage laid out in the road map of moving towards a viable totally separate state of Palestine. Many of the issues on which my hon. Friend and I agree can be resolved in the course of the final-status negotiations.
Turkey is of course an important ally in NATO, so I am pleased that paragraphs 79 and 80 of the White Paper outline the development of the European security and defence policy and give an assessment of the successes that it has already had in Bosnia. However, there is an outstanding difficulty with the relationship between NATO and the EU relating to Turkey, so will my right hon. Friend give a pledge that our Government will continue their strenuous efforts to try to resolve those difficulties so that we can get more effective security in our continent?
Yes, I will. The difficulties that occur independently of the EU in NATO would be resolved by the process leading to Turkey's full membership of the European Union.
Will my right hon. Friend comment on the situation that is evolving as the European Union and its institutions try to generate a new relevance to the lives of ordinary people throughout Europe? Will the British presidency suggest that they try to focus on intervention in some of the real problems that exist, such as the difficulties in the insurance industry in which market failure, lack of competition and conflicting regulations have caused a crisis for small business, workers, home owners and even charities. Such problems are especially acute in peripheral areas such as Northern Ireland, which has suffered from a collapse of the insurance industry, so it is important that something is done about that.
I accept my hon. Friend's point entirely. In paragraph 28 on page 10 of the White Paper, we comment on the proposals to improve the operation of financial services across Europe, which must mean opening up a proper common market for insurance.
I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said about enlargement, but given that there appears to be little doubt that a big reason for the no vote in the referendums was hostility to not only future enlargement, but the most recent enlargement, does the Union not need to do some serious thinking about its enlargement strategy? Surely there is a case for developing mechanisms to allow possible applicants to enter into closer relationships with the Union so that they can enjoy some of its benefits pending what would undoubtedly be a lengthy transition period in many cases.
All accession states have a transitional position of associate partnership, which will continue. It would be a profound error, and not remotely in the interests of Europe as a whole or the United Kingdom, to close the door on the prospect of membership to Turkey or the Balkan states. Public opinion about accession varies throughout Europe, but concern in countries in which there is hostility to the accession of countries such as Turkey would be greatly eased if the citizens of those countries saw a more successful European Union than they do at present, especially with regard to its economic progress. Enlargement was in many ways a surrogate for discontent about the lack of economic progress in the existing E15 member states.
Africa (Poverty)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watson.]
I am sure that the whole House will welcome the opportunity in the week before the G8 summit to discuss the great moral and practical challenge that our generation faces: eradicating poverty in Africa. I cannot not recall a time when poverty in Africa, its causes and what we can do about it were the subject of so much debate and public attention. The Make Poverty History campaign and its many supporters, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House, including members of the International Development Committee, the all-party group on Africa and the other all-party groups, deserve our heartfelt thanks for achieving that.
There is growing recognition that it is both our moral duty to help to change the condition of humankind, and in our self-interest to do so in an interdependent world. Many people will be in Edinburgh or at one of the Live 8 concerts this weekend because they want the G8 to act and believe that it is possible to do something. That is a message of hope, and it is certainly the best defence against cynicism, because if cynicism were ever to take hold in the fight against global poverty, we would be lost. It should also encourage us in our task. I wish to speak today about what needs to be done.
The facts about poverty in Africa are a reproach to every single one of us. Some 315 million people in sub-Saharan Africa—nearly half the population—live on less than a dollar a day. Some 40 million of its children are not today where they should be—in school. Some 250 million Africans do not have safe water to drink or proper sanitation and 6 million men, women and children died last year of entirely treatable diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. We can no longer claim that we do not know that that is happening. We understand what needs to be done, and there has never been a better time to act, because Africa itself is making progress and changing.
The establishment of the African Union, with its principle of non-indifference, has seen interventions in Darfur, Togo and the Central African Republic which frankly would have been unthinkable only a decade ago. There are fewer conflicts. Since 1999, peace agreements have brought to an end 10 of Africa's major wars. More leaders are being democratically elected. Governance is improving. Thanks to the New Partnership for Africa's Development, since 2003 23 African countries have agreed to have their economic, political, social and corporate governance critically reviewed through the Africa peer review mechanism. Last week, the first assessments on Ghana and Rwanda were discussed by African Heads of State. The leaders of those two countries will respond to the recommendations in the summer. I will place copies of the reports in the Library of the House as soon as they are available. We should commend Presidents Kufuor and Kagame for their openness and readiness to acknowledge the need for change.
We are also seeing action to combat corruption, most recently in Zambia and South Africa, and in Nigeria, where President Obasanjo is making a significant break with the past. More than $700 million of corrupt assets have been seized. Three Ministers and three judges have been sacked. One judge has been suspended. The Senate President has been forced to resign, and the inspector general of police has been arrested.
I am sure that the House will welcome the steps that are taking place in Nigeria—a country that suffered so grievously over the past generation, from corruption, bad governance and military dictatorship. I am also sure that the House will welcome the news of an agreement to deal with Nigeria's debt which was reached by the Paris Club yesterday. That is proof that reform brings benefits. Now is the time for all of us to support the reformers in Africa.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have a high respect for him, and we have discussed the issues once or twice before. When he says that there is moral challenge to us all, I agree with him. When he says that poverty reproaches each one of us, I agree with him. However, surely more than anyone it reproaches the other rulers who are not making progress—those in Zimbawe, who are not criticised by Mbeki in South Africa, and those across the continent of Africa, where next to no progress is being made, including, I regret to say, Ethiopia, whose Prime Minister was a member of the Commission for Africa.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall come to those two countries directly because if we are going to do the right things to help, we have to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the condition of Africa.
We are also seeing economic progress. Average GDP growth in 2004 was the highest in eight years. Mozambique has cut poverty by a third in the past 15 years and has doubled the number of children in school. Uganda has cut poverty by half and reduced the incidence of HIV by two thirds. We all know, however, that progress is not seen everywhere across Africa. On current trends, the millennium development goals will not be reached for another 100, or in some cases 150, years. The people who need the progress that the goals represent will be dead by then. They cannot wait that long.
Africa suffers from a lack of capacity. Many countries simply do not have enough money to pay the salaries of doctors, nurses and teachers, or to buy the drugs that are needed to fight the AIDS pandemic that is killing so many people—2.5 million Africans died last year of AIDS—and threatens economic development. It is not just a human tragedy, but potentially an economic catastrophe.
Ethiopia, which has achieved great success in reducing poverty and getting more children into school, is involved in a terrible struggle, with loss of life and arrests as a result of its election process. The fact that there is no result to the Ethiopian elections should concern us all. Governments in Sudan and Zimbabwe have shown a shameful contempt for human rights, in one case killing their own citizens and in the other bulldozing families out of their homes. I applaud what the African Union has done in Sudan, and I very much regret its silence on Zimbabwe. I hope that that will change.
I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the associate parliamentary group for Sudan for addressing us so shortly after his return from Sudan. It is pleasing to see at one level what is beginning to happen via the AU in Darfur. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that another tragedy is opening up in the east of the country, around Port Sudan. There has been rebel activity and, as before, the Government are overreacting. Will he talk to the Foreign Secretary to determine whether preventive action is needed now, so that we stop the tragedy of the north-south divide occurring again and ensure that there is not another scar on the face of Africa?
I will do that. My hon. Friend takes a close interest in Sudan. The conflict in the east and in Darfur demonstrates that although there is the north-south civil war, which has cost so many lives, in other parts of Sudan people want political participation and the chance to develop. The importance of the comprehensive peace agreement that was negotiated is that it provides the framework on wealth sharing and sharing political power, which offers the hope of finding a solution to the conflicts elsewhere in the country. In the end, it is up to the politicians to stop fighting, to start talking and to find that solution.
Although we rightly deplore what is happening in those countries where progress is not being made, they do not represent the whole of Africa. We cannot allow the actions of some Governments to jeopardise the future of the entire continent when African Governments elsewhere are increasingly demonstrating their commitment to change and when we can see the difference that aid makes.
The United Kingdom is helping to lead the debate on how aid can best be allocated. In the right circumstances, we should give our aid in a way that allows African Governments to decide how best to use it in line with their priorities to get children into school, to improve health care and to tackle poverty. In many countries, that means budget support. Where that is not possible, however, our aid will support sectoral programmes in health and education. We are also trying to improve predictability of aid—for example, by the 10-year agreements that we have reached with Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Tanzania. In every case, we assess the risk and put in appropriate safeguards against corruption. We are also working with countries to strengthen and improve their public financial management, because we have to be sure that we can demonstrate that the money reaches the poor.
We know that aid works. In Ghana, 15 years of aid to education has resulted in a 10 per cent. increase in enrolment and an increase from one third to four fifths in the number of primary school graduates who have acquired literacy skills.
The right hon. Gentleman talks of aid and includes Zambia as one of the countries that is making progress. The World Health Organisation predicts that by 2010 the average age of a Zambian will be 24. Twenty years ago the average age was 60. How can that be progress?
The reference to Zambia related to tackling corruption. It has an enormous AIDS problem. One reason why we need more aid, and debt cancellation, for countries like Zambia is so that they have the resources they need to buy the drugs and employ the doctors and the nurses to prevent the catastrophe that the hon. Lady rightly mentions. That is why we need to do more.
In Tanzania, budget support has increased the number of children in primary school from just over 4 million to 7 million in recent years. Nine out of 10 children now go to school. Uganda has used budget support to abolish health-user fees for primary health care. It has recruited an extra 3,000 trained health workers. Immunisation rates for children under five have risen from 40 to 80 per cent.
Aid works. That is why the Commission for Africa called for a doubling of aid from $25 billion to $50 billion by 2010. We know that without it Africa will not meet the millennium development goals. The commission was clear on that. We need that aid to improve infrastructure, to invest in people, education and health, to tackle AIDS and to create conditions for private sector investment. Above all, we need a big push now. The most powerful message for our debate today is that all of Africa's development challenges are linked, and that success will come about only if they are all addressed together.
The UK's contribution has involved leadership, and the Prime Minister's decision to set up the Africa Commission and to make Africa the heart of our G8 presidency. However, we are also giving practical help with a rising aid budget, and we have now set a timetable for achieving the 0.7 per cent. target by 2013. Europe's contribution will be particularly significant. The agreement that EU development Ministers reached just over a month ago will double Europe's development assistance between now and 2010, and will on its own deliver two thirds of the $25 billion a year additional aid to Africa that the Commission for Africa recommends. Canada has announced that it will double its aid to Africa by 2008, and Japan will do so by 2007. President Bush will make an announcement today about further contributions from the United States.
Will the Secretary of State do his utmost to ensure that the aid from the European Union starts to return to the poorest countries? He will be well aware that the EU's record of delivering aid to those countries is regrettable. It has never been good, but it has got worse in recent years.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The EU aid deal to which I referred represents the commitments of the 15 member states through their bilateral programmes. In addition, there is the European Community's development programme, and we and others are fighting to see more of that going to the world's poorest countries. I believe that there is support across the whole House for that.
The Secretary of State will have seen in The Times this morning that the International Monetary Fund has produced two reports that question the premise that aid makes a significant contribution to economic growth. What response will he and his Department make to the IMF in that regard?
The case for aid is not so much the difference it makes to economic growth but the difference it makes to saving people's lives and to getting children into school. Aid on its own will not deliver the economic growth that Africa requires if the continent is to be transformed. However, we should not let the IMF report dampen our commitment to increasing aid, because we can all see the benefit of so doing.
Over the next few weeks, a lot of promises will be made about aid for Africa, and we need to ensure that those promises are kept. We must ensure that the aid that is promised by countries across the world materialises in the years to come. There are too many of examples of that not happening; bold promises have been made, and poor people have lost out because they have not been kept.
I could not agree more. The best people to hold to account the Governments who make those commitments are the Parliaments and the electorates of those countries, and the more loudly people express their concern about development and their anger about poverty, the better chance we have of ensuring that those commitments are turned into cash and practical help.
The other big step forward that we have seen is the agreement on debt cancellation, negotiated with such skill by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It potentially involves $55 billion-worth of debt cancellation, so that developing countries—many of which are in Africa—will no longer be faced with the terrible choice between making monthly repayments that they cannot afford and using the money to buy AIDS drugs and to employ the doctors, nurses and teachers who will make a difference to so many people's lives.
Aid and debt relief will help, but, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) said, Africa will not meet the millennium development goals without faster economic growth. We want to see African economies and their share of world trade double in the next few years, which means increasing their opportunities to participate in the global trading system, investing in infrastructure and reducing the cost of transport. One of the most striking statistics among the many in the Commission for Africa's report illustrates that, while it costs $1,500 to transport a car from Japan to Abidjan in west Africa, it costs $5,000 to move it on from Abidjan to Addis Ababa. The high cost of transport in Africa is one of the factors that gets in the way of economic growth and development.
Everyone in the Chamber knows that our greatest opportunity to enable Africa to break free from the chains of poverty will be at the World Trade Organisation talks in Hong Kong in December. Unless we do everything that needs to be done to allow Africa to trade on fairer terms with the rest of the world, we will deny it the best hope that it has of changing the lives of its people for the better.
My final point is about partnership, because, in the end, there has to be a commitment on both sides. I have spoken about the contribution that the richer world can make, but Africa, too, has a responsibility to provide peace, stability and good governance. One reason why we should have hope is precisely that in recent years Africa has demonstrated through NEPAD and the African Union its determination to live up to that responsibility.
A fortnight ago, I was in Rumbek, in southern Sudan, where one in four children die before they reach five years of age and three quarters of all adults cannot read. I do not think I have ever been to a place that has so little. It has been impoverished, brutalised and traumatised by Africa's longest-running civil war, which has claimed 2.5 million lives. I met a group of villagers who had walked from Khartoum to Rumbek, which had taken more than two months. I particularly remember talking to a young woman by the name of Josefina, who was 19, and her brother Stephen, who was 11. Their mother had abandoned them and they had walked to Rumbek with their fellow villagers. I asked Josefina whether Stephen went to school, and she said he did not. When I asked why, she told me that the only school in Rumbek charged fees, and she had no money to pay them. Only with the peace deal will Rumbek and southern Sudan have the chance of a better future. As part of our obligation, we are providing more than £100 million to Sudan this year, in addition to the support that we are giving to the peace mission in Darfur.
Only through peace and stability will southern Sudan have the chance of a better future. The situation there teaches us that, even with the doubling of aid, the cancellation of debt and the opportunity of fairer trade, if people continue to fight one another, there will be no development or progress. Sudan and other countries remind us of that challenge. That is why we are right to provide support to build African capacity and to undertake more peace support operations across the continent. That is also why we are right to put money into education, so that people like Stephen in southern Sudan can have the chance to go to school. That is why we are right to put in money to meet the financing gap in regard to the fight against HIV and AIDS, and why Britain will be hosting the replenishment conference for the global fund in September.
In the end, this is all about one thing. It is about building capacity, without which Africa will not be able to tap its potential. Its countries need good governance, an independent judiciary, a lively civil society, and civil servants with skills. They need to fight corruption and to create a climate in which people from Africa and beyond will want to invest their money. In the end, capacity is about Governments who are able to deliver, and about people who have an expectation that their Government might be able to do something to improve their lives. I learned that lesson more forcefully than anywhere else on my first visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, when President Kabila told me that the challenge that his country faced was not to restore people's faith in the Government but to persuade them, for the very first time in their lives, that there might be something called a Government who had something to offer them. Above all, the future of Africa rightly lies in the hands of its people and their Governments.
There are many hon. Members in the Chamber today, and I look forward to hearing what they have to say. They will know that Africa is as full of potential, creativity, talent and hope as any other continent on the planet, and those qualities are waiting for the opportunity to be set free. We need to see Africa in all its complexity. If people continue to look at it as a continent only of war, pestilence, famine, disease and starvation, we will not see the real Africa underneath that is struggling to come up. In the end, it is the power of the political process in African countries and in the world that offers us the best hope of a better future. What is remarkable about the people who will gather in Scotland this weekend is that they look to the G8 and the political process to change things for the better.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall conclude. Many Members want to speak, and I want to allow as much time as possible for them to do so.
People have demonstrated at some G8 summits because they do not want the G8 and do not like what it stands for—they want it to get out of town. We should draw enormous comfort from the fact that that is not the case this time. People hope that politics will demonstrate its capacity to change things for the better. It is, after all, how we as a country transformed ourselves over the past 400 or 500 years. Life expectancy used to be short, few people went to school, we did not have a health service and there was crushing, grinding poverty. If our forebears and ancestors came back, they would be astonished by the society that we have built for ourselves through a process of political, social and economic development. The people of Africa want exactly the same opportunity for themselves and their families so that they can build a better future and pass it on to the next generation. Our obligation is to do all that we have in our power to help them to bring about that better future.
A number of factors converge to focus the eyes of the world on Gleneagles next week. Britain holds the presidencies of the G8 and the European Union, we will have a strong voice at the World Trade Organisation talks in December and it is the 20th anniversary of Live Aid. Thanks to a well organised and positive campaign, the public's desire to make poverty history has become an almost tangible force in the run-up to next week's summit. That presents the leaders of the eight most powerful nations with a great opportunity but also with a great challenge.
Next week in Edinburgh, it is not only the heads of African Government who will be held to account but the leaders of the richest, most powerful countries in the west, as the public are keen to see their spirit of compassion and good will reflected in the actions of their leaders. They are watching to see that in this year of opportunity politicians live up to the task, so that generosity is matched by the determination to ensure that every penny released for development is spent properly. Good intentions must be translated into effective results on the ground. Next week, the G8 leaders must channel the tremendous good will over the past few months into effective action for the world's poor. If they do not do so, they will fail the 30,000 African children who die unnecessarily every day, and they will fail the people of their own nations who demand real and effective action.
Accountability is the key, and that is what the Opposition will push for. The Conservative party fully welcomes the current political landscape of consensus on development issues. As the Secretary of State knows, we stand foursquare behind him on the Government's push for a comprehensive deal on aid, trade and debt. I am delighted by the emergence of a united British agenda on international development. I pay tribute to my predecessors, including my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who is in the Chamber today, as they have worked hard to secure that unity of purpose. I am proud to have been appointed to my current post at a time of such opportunity. This is not a party political issue, and we will not seek to oppose for opposition's sake. However, the debate must be more than merely an exchange of pleasantries.
While we commend the spirit of the Government's approach, the Opposition think that there are things missing from it. There is a serious danger that the Government will focus too much on headline figures and inputs, and not enough on ensuring that those inputs translate into concrete improvements in the lives of the poor. That would offer no solution to the people of Africa, and no satisfaction to the people of the G8 nations. On behalf of both those groups, we will hold the Government and their G8 counterparts to account.
Africa is the world's biggest continent. It consists of 51 countries with hugely diverse cultures and histories, where more than 1,000 languages are spoken. As the Secretary of State has just said, we should be wary of excessive generalisation when talking about Africa, but the countries of sub-Saharan Africa are, broadly speaking, united in poverty, which is acute, prolonged and worsening. Africa is the only continent in the world to have grown poorer in the last generation. People around the world, particularly in India and China, are creating wealth and gradually escaping from poverty. Africa's share of world trade, however, has halved. Poverty is increasing and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has said, life expectancy is falling.
Today, like yesterday and tomorrow, 8,000 people in Africa will die from HIV/AIDS, 7,000 people will die of hunger, and 6,000 will die from water-borne diseases—90 per cent. of malaria cases are in sub-Saharan Africa. At least 25 million people are HIV-positive, and 12 million children have lost one or both of their parents to AIDS—12 million is more than the number of children in Britain. A total of 100 million children are missing out on school. Their school fees—I learned in Uganda that they are often less than £5 a term—are too expensive for their parents to meet. Denied an education, they are condemned at birth to a life of failure, their intellectual growth stunted just as the growth of their nation is stunted by poverty, and their talent is wasted forever.
Africa's children are like our children—they laugh the same, play the same, and suffer the same. In South Africa, people spend more on burying their dead than they do on food and clothing for their families. In the global village, we cannot ignore such suffering. In the face of that situation, it is truly appropriate that the question that will dominate the G8 meeting next week is what politicians in rich countries should do to reduce poverty and promote development in poor countries. For the millions of AIDS orphans and for all those children not in school there is no more important question. There are, however, no easy answers. Africa needs much more than good intentions. It needs co-ordinated, focused and effective assistance from the developed world and good policy from its national governments—a partnership, as the Secretary of State said.
I deliberately stress the need for good policy from African Governments. Bad Governments pursuing bad policies are the major reason why Africa is poorer today than it was 50 years ago. If the G8 countries are serious about helping Africa, they must face that unpleasant fact, and use their diplomatic and financial influence to create incentives for African governments to govern well. They must be unflinching in their condemnation of those Governments who perpetuate poverty and wage war on their own people. The title of our debate is "Helping Africa to fight poverty", and ultimately it is the responsibility of African governments and the African people to fight poverty.
Our actions should be enabling. They may help to create the necessary conditions for progress in Africa, but they are not sufficient in themselves. Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General has said that
"the struggle for development has to be carried on mainly in developing countries and by their people."
We must not use bad governance as an excuse to turn our back on those 12 million AIDS orphans. There is much that the G8 leaders can, and must, do to assist those African governments who are genuinely committed to helping their people escape poverty.
First, we want to see a big increase in the quality and volume of aid. I welcome the consensus in British politics on the UN's 0.7 per cent target. As well as increasing the amount of aid that we deliver, we must secure international agreement to achieve a dramatic improvement in the quality of aid. We should be candid about the record of aid in the past. Some aid has been spectacularly successful. It supported the eradication of smallpox, for example, saving millions of children from a painful death. In Kampala 10 days ago, I saw how British aid is helping to support 140,000 families affected by HIV/AIDS. I met people who are alive today because of British generosity. I visited the Kitovu hospital run by the CAFOD-sponsored Medical Missionaries of Mercy. Everyone in that hospital was working together to save lives with limited resources. I pay tribute to the work of those amazing people at that hospital and to all those who volunteer. They show us what can be achieved.
I want all our aid to be that effective, yet much aid in the past has been wasted, ending up in Swiss bank accounts or the pockets of arms dealers. Too often, aid has been characterised as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. No part of the planet has received more aid and done less with it than Africa. We will secure public support for increased aid only if we take decisive action to prevent that from happening again. The public are sceptical. A poll for The Daily Telegraph has shown that 83 per cent. of people are not confident that money given by the west would be spent wisely. It also shows that 79 per cent. of voters believe that corruption and incompetence are to blame for Africa's problems.
After the summer, when the G8 conference is packed away, our electorates, the people of the developed world, will look to their leaders to ensure that the vast amount of money raised is spent properly. We must outline clearly how the money is to be spent, and we must put in place clear, transparent structures to account for the money. The G8 leaders must be able to monitor precisely where our money goes. I hope the Secretary of State will look carefully at structural ways of ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the way aid moneys are spent. Our taxpayers will demand nothing less.
Our aid should help to support efforts to develop the institutional and legal preconditions for growth and sustainable poverty reduction. It should be used to reward and encourage countries which establish a framework of transparent institutions, which respect the rule of law and human and property rights, and which promote free trade between individuals and between nations. Where we work with Governments, we must expect them to be fully and openly accountable for the funds that they receive. There should be no more second chances for tyrants and no more benefit of the doubt for corrupt dictators.
In badly governed countries, we should distribute aid through the small platoons of motivated, dedicated NGOs which are already doing such good work in the developing world. Such money should be disbursed through the Department for International Development, which is focused on output, rather than through the inefficient European Union.
We face huge challenges and we have only limited resources, so it is vital that we spend our aid where it will do the most good. That means supporting specific, effective, accountable investments in vaccine research and the provision of basis health and education services. We should draw up a priority list and stick to it. The Copenhagen consensus priorities of tackling HIV/AIDS, malnutrition and malaria are a good place to start.
We need to conduct a rigorous investigation into the merits of direct budget support, as opposed to project aid. Clearly, both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, but the British people will rightly be sceptical about giving their hard-earned money to Governments who are not fully accountable and transparent.
Will the hon. Gentleman include TB in his list? TB, unfortunately, is the great killer in Africa that is often overlooked. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), I had a meeting last week with Dr. Felix Salaniponi, who is the director of the national TB control programme in Malawi. He made it clear to us that TB can be eradicated but it must not be left out of the equation with malaria and HIV/AIDS. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. TB is of course coterminous with AIDS, and he makes his own point correctly.
The Department for International Development has earmarked £45 million for direct budget support to Malawi in the period 2003–06, despite the fact that the Department acknowledges that the country has
"weak economic and financial management".
Can the Secretary of State assure us that the money will be well spent? In Uganda, 50 per cent. of the budget comes from aid. What impact does that have on the behaviour of the Ugandan Government? Does it undermine their accountability to the Ugandan people?
I turn to the proposed international finance facility. That is a very clever way of front-end loading aid funding, but many questions remain unanswered. How exactly will the extra money be spent? How will we avoid the risk of a dramatic reduction in aid levels after 2015? What guarantees can be given that our aid will indeed be more effective if spent sooner rather than later? If the limiting factor is absorptive capacity on the ground, there is a real risk that aid could be subject to significantly diminishing marginal returns.
The international finance facility for immunisation is a very good idea indeed. Vaccinating children against disease is surely one of the most effective ways to spend our money. Children's lives can be saved for just a few pennies. In the 20th century, we eradicated smallpox from the planet and we made great progress on polio. In the 21st century, why can we not eradicate malaria from the planet, or even HIV/AIDS? In the face of diseases that cause such suffering, we cannot set our sights too high. One of the major priorities for the extra resources released at the G8 should be preventive health care and the provision of safe drinking water and adequate sanitation. We must ensure that all the money raised by the main IFF is used as productively as that. Furthermore, the immoral and unethical poaching of doctors and health workers from the third world to work in our country—health workers who are desperately needed back in their own communities—should be ended immediately.
I come now to debt relief. The last Conservative Government led the world in providing debt relief for poor countries. We welcome the progress that has been made on bilateral debt relief and will urge other countries to follow Britain's lead. We welcome the recent deal on multilateral debt. Well managed debt relief has produced many success stories. Mozambique's debt relief has enabled its Government to immunise 500,000 children. Benin eliminated school fees in rural areas, allowing thousands of children to attend classes for the first time. That is what debt relief can and must achieve, but we need to ensure that all the money freed up in this way is spent on fighting disease and educating children. We must put in place robust measures to ensure that the money released by debt cancellation is used to fight poverty. We must match generosity with practicality, acting to ensure that the money released by debt relief is put to good use.
The most effective way of helping African countries to develop is to free up markets for their trade. Although trade policy is a matter to be decided formally at the EU and the World Trade Organisation, it is right that trade measures to help the developing world are very much on the political agenda at the G8. I reiterate our position. Protection for developed countries at the expense of the developing world is both immoral and hypocritical. It must come to an end. For every pound that rich countries give to poor countries in aid, those countries lose £2 through our protectionist trade barriers. Over the past four years, £20 billion has been spent by the EU on agricultural export subsidies to Africa. That is a waste of European taxpayers' money and a direct cause of African impoverishment.
I am horrified by the French attitude to the reform of the CAP.
My hon. Friend will be aware that 20 years ago, when Live Aid started, half the entire EU budget was spent on storing and disposing of surpluses, at a time when people in the world were starving. Is it not a tragedy that 20 years on, we do not seem to have moved very far?
My hon. Friend lays before the House a most important point.
The common agricultural policy hurts British taxpayers and consumers and is detrimental to the interests of poor countries. It encourages overproduction, distorts prices, imposes high tariffs on imports and subsidises exports. The Government must not let French intransigence prevent them from pushing for reforms of the CAP which will benefit the poor. We will press the EU to reduce agricultural tariffs and to end export subsidies. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is saying a number of interesting things today about the reform of the CAP. I hope the Government will want to take up his sensible agenda.
The dumping of state-subsidised produce on poorer countries is an abuse of the market. America should be taken to task for its outrageous cotton subsidies, which impoverish the people of Africa. What steps are the Government taking to equip poor countries to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the multilateral trading system overseen by the WTO? Does the Secretary of State agree that a lack of the necessary expertise all too often prevents poor countries from taking full advantage of the system? What further consideration has he given to our proposal to create an advocacy fund to help poor countries fight their corner in international negotiations and to ensure that they are not outgunned in trade disputes? He will want to consider the important points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition at yesterday's Prime Minister's questions.
The experience of Africa since independence has not been one of undifferentiated failure, and there are beacons of hope and cradles of development from which the rest of the continent can learn. For example, Botswana has had the fastest growth in income per person of any country in the world during the past 35 years. It is a stable, well governed country and a multi-party democracy, and the benefits of its considerable diamond wealth have been spread fairly widely. According to Transparency International, Botswana is the least corrupt country in Africa, and its Government have taken a firm stand against corruption. When I visited Botswana last year, I was impressed by the anti-corruption posters on every street corner. Of course, the problem for Botswana is that all this is threatened by an HIV-prevalence rate of 30 per cent.
Let us be honest—the people of Africa have suffered from some of the worst Governments in the world. It is polite to refer to that point as "the governance issue", but the euphemism betrays those Africans who encounter police as a uniformed protection racket, customs officers not as people who protect their children from drugs but as extortionists who have bought their posts and need to make them pay, or judges not as neutral administrators of justice but as servants of the rich and powerful. To people from Darfur whose villages have been razed or to Zimbabweans whose homes have been burned, the word "governance" is a shameful, almost wilful, dodging of the issue, and the G8 leaders should act on that matter next week.
This Government have not always lived up to their rhetoric about crimes against humanity in Africa. As President Mugabe's repression gets worse, they still do nothing—meanwhile, China supplies him with arms. In the debate following the statement on the Commission for Africa, the Secretary of State said that he felt the people of Africa would hold their leaders to account through the democratic process. I hope that he will at least concede that things are not going entirely as he had hoped. African Governments have remained resolutely silent over the policies of state terrorism exercised by President Mugabe in Zimbabwe, except, of course, for President Mkapa of Tanzania, who is a member of the Commission for Africa and who earlier this year in a BBC interview praised his "brother" for his brave anti-colonial stance.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned good governance in Africa and Zimbabwe. This morning, I visited some of the Zimbabwean hunger strikers in Harmsworth. What message does it send to the world about what this country thinks about Zimbabwe that we are prepared to allow 90 people to remain on hunger strike because we will not stop sending back people to that brutal dictator?
The hon. Lady is right, and I have made the point that more action should be taken.
I am not talking about white farmers, although their treatment has been appalling and unjust. I am talking about the estimated 250,000 black Zimbabwean citizens who have been brutally ejected from their homes, which have been destroyed, and left without shelter or sustenance because they were suspected of voting for the opposition in the last election. I am talking about the many millions more who are starving and dying in the country at large for belonging to the wrong tribe, for having the wrong political allegiance, or simply because they are the random victims of policies that have reduced a once-thriving country to penury. We were told that public criticism of Mugabe's regime by donor Governments would be counterproductive and that we should allow Mugabe's peers and neighbours to use quiet diplomacy and economic leverage to ameliorate his policies. From here, that quiet diplomacy looks far more like spineless consensual silence.
As for Ethiopia, which is run by another of the Prime Minister's friends, Meles Zenawi, the African Union, explaining its silence about the recent murder of more than 20 opposition supporters on the streets of Addis Ababa, said that it had more important issues to deal with.
Neither protestors, nor politicians, nor rock stars will be able single-handedly to make poverty history, which is a task that can be accomplished only by the efforts of African countries themselves. People, not Governments, create wealth, but there is much that our Government can do to make that task easier: we can champion and reward good government; we can give more aid and make sure that it is spent well; and we can allow people in poor countries to trade with people in rich countries without hindrance. However, the ultimate success or failure of the British presidency of the G8 will be judged not by inputs—the headline figures on aid or debt—but by outcomes. How many children will it save from an early death and how many poor countries will it enable to become more wealthy? We have a duty, both to people in developing countries and to the hard-working British taxpayer, to see that the money released for development in 2005 is well spent.
Good intentions and generous spending alone achieve nothing. If we are to make poverty history, we must match compassion with realism and generosity with practicality. Although we should recognise the crucial role of aid in reducing immediate human suffering, we should also remember that the only sure road out of poverty is wealth, spurred on by property rights and freedom under the rule of law. Reforming immoral, hypocritical and pernicious trade barriers and subsidies would do more to help sub-Saharan Africa than anything else.
We fully support the Prime Minister and the Government in their determination to act this year, but we will monitor them closely and hold them accountable for the hopes they have raised, both at home and in Africa. My signal to those marching to Edinburgh—many of us will be marching with them—is that we will not allow their expectations to be let down. Failure by the leaders of the G8 to seize this moment of opportunity would be a betrayal of their own citizens as much as of the poor, the sick and the destitute in Africa. The Government must not squander the emotional capital that they have earned, which is why we will support them in the noble aims and aspirations that they will champion at Gleneagles next week. I hope that they will draw strength from our determination and support and from the faith of those across the world who will be watching.
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that the 10-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers applies from now on.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State welcomed the focus on these important issues—it is marvellous that people are writing and speaking about them, and on Saturday people will be marching about them, too.
On 7 June, I read a piece in The Guardian by Martin Kettle that made me feel angry. Having re-read the article, which was entitled, "The naive lead the naive in a campaign of liberal guilt", and having re-examined Martin Kettle's conclusion that
"Gleneagles . . . is about a generation's unfinished business",
I think that the article probably served a useful purpose by reflecting, along with the enthusiasm for making poverty history and for Saturday's march, the cynicism which undoubtedly exists in some quarters and which has even been reflected in today's short exchanges. As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) has said, Africa has received more aid than any other continent, but has also repaid more debt and more debt interest than any other continent, and it has to deal with countries that pursue grotesque trade policies that clearly make impositions on the poorest people in Africa. We must address those matters in the modern world.
So what do we seek to do? We want to take on board what Make Poverty History is about and to address the issues of conflict. We are all deeply worried about Darfur, and we want to strengthen the international community and the United Nations in their response to that terrible and ongoing crisis. In our aid policies, we want to ensure that we deal with child care issues. In Africa, one woman in 14 is likely to die in childbirth as against one woman in 1,400 in Europe; that cannot be right. We want to address health care problems and people's need for food and medication. We want to tackle genuine development and to challenge the terrible scourge of HIV/AIDS, especially where we know that we have the opportunities to do it.
There is cynicism, and we might as well acknowledge that. It is perfectly fair to criticise what is going on in Zimbabwe, which is abominable, but it has to be set in the context of the problems of the whole of Africa. Some 12 million people live in Zimbabwe—1.6 per cent. of a total population of 817 million. The policies being pursued there are deplorable, but Zimbabwe is not Africa and Africa is not Zimbabwe. Transparency, on the part of donor nations and recipient nations, is absolutely essential. It is essential too in terms of partnership, because without that partnership we cannot achieve the millennium goals and objectives that most Members wish to achieve.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a lead yesterday and today when he mentioned Kenya. He said that school fees had been abolished and that 1 million more children are at school, which is splendid, but he did not do it in a starry-eyed way. He pointed out that 40 million children in Africa are not where they should be—at their desks in the classroom. That, too, remains a challenge.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) spoke about Ethiopia. He mentioned some people in his constituency who went there to help to build a little school, but had not been there for long when they realised that it could not be done. They found children starving and dying and children who were blind, and saw that food and medication were not getting there. They went back to Ireland to review their priorities and to address the problems that they had encountered.
It is not unreasonable to respond to the demands for transparency that have again been made in this debate—indeed, I support them. It is not unreasonable to say that there should be accountability in relation to the extraction of the huge mineral resources in Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and elsewhere. The companies that exploit those resources should be open and democratic, and the Governments who obtain them should be open not only with their own people but with public opinion in this country. I welcome the fact that our Government are taking that issue seriously.
I want to turn briefly, if I may, to the Bill that I hope to introduce for its Second Reading on 20 January; obviously I cannot refer to it in detail today.
That is despite the temptation of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow).
I believe that the Bill is highly relevant to this debate. If we achieve, as the International Development Committee is urging upon the Government, something like the Swedish model, then we will indeed be making progress. Under the Bill, not only would we expect and demand in this Parliament a report on how Governments achieve the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national income—some do not have a particularly good record on that—but would look for the kind of transparency that Members on both sides of the House have demanded today, as well as a compact with recipient countries. We cannot instruct them about how they spend their money in absolute detail, but it is fair that we as a Parliament and the British people know how it is being spent.
We are right to aim for poverty reduction and to see as a huge priority the upholding of human rights and obligations, as well as strong financial management and action on the compelling issue of corruption. Today, we look forward to the events of the weekend. We also look forward to some other important gatherings—the G8 itself, the World Trade Organisation meeting in Hong Kong, and the millennium summit in New York later this year. They will not solve all the problems in themselves, but they are extremely important in making a practical contribution towards challenging the poverty and deprivation and the lack of opportunity and aspirations that we see in the continent of Africa.
In that spirit, I welcome the debate, the Government's policies, and the support that public opinion is giving to the continent of Africa because people recognise that it is a continent seeking to make progress in a world that is experiencing great disenchantment.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), and I entirely endorse his comments.
Although the 10-minute restriction on Back-Bench speeches does not apply to me, I will apply it to myself, for two reasons. First, I may not be able to remain in the Chamber until the end of the debate. I have explained why that is to the Secretary of State, to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Conservatives, so I will not bore the House with it.
Secondly, I have never been to Africa myself. People might say that I am therefore not worthy to contribute to the debate, but I hope that they do not. One does not need to travel to a place in order to be able to express concern or to engage in a debate about it. A maxim that often trips off the tongue is that travel broadens the mind. Its most ardent advocates perhaps say it to salve their consciences about using disproportionate amounts of non-renewable resources as they travel the globe. Some people who travel all over the place come back with the same teeny-weeny little mind that they went off with in the first place. I do not argue that travel does not broaden the mind, but I would say that if one starts with a broad mind, there is a great deal to gain from travelling. I hope that I can prove that, as I will be putting the matter right with regard to Africa in the very near future.
As we could have anticipated, so far the debate has been consensual. I could sign my name to the speech by the Secretary of State and to most of the speech by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), who speaks for the Conservatives. I hope that they might be able to do the same to mine when I shortly reach the end of it; we shall see.
I congratulate the Government on their leadership through the Commission for Africa. They are raising expectations with regard to the G8 summit. Politically, that is a dangerous thing for any politician to do. They have done it, however, in a responsible way. The Chancellor's lead on debt relief is also welcome. We can therefore take pride, across parties, in the Government taking a lead in the world on those issues. Challenges still exist, however, which we want to probe and encourage the Government to address.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who takes a strong interest in such matters, mentioned the national TB control programme in Malawi, and I have also met Professor Salaniponi. The Department for International Development is providing welcome assistance and aid to that programme, supplementing the salaries of medical workers in Malawi, to ensure that they are not poached—at least we hope that they will not leave the country to work elsewhere, as they are essential to the success of that programme. The funding comes to an end, however, at the end of this calendar year. I know, however, that one of the challenges that the Department must face is the exit strategy.
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in acknowledging the enormous damage done to countries such as Malawi when large numbers of nurses leave? I believe that more are now working in Britain than in Malawi, and we must be careful to ensure that the third-world countries from which we recruit can afford to lose those people. There are many nurses from the Philippines in my constituency, for example, but that is not a problem because that country has a surplus of nurses. We should not recruit nurses or teachers from South Africa, however, when that shortage causes huge problems for the countries concerned.
I endorse the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. The Minister will no doubt address such issues, and the question of what the Government are doing, in his response. Certainly, supplementing the salaries of medical workers in Malawi makes a contribution, and we need to do a great deal more. Sophisticated activity might be needed to enable such workers to remain in their home country, whether they be teachers, medical workers or others.
The timing of this debate is related to the G8 summit in Gleneagles next week and the Live 8 marches and concerts at the weekend. I will also be in Edinburgh this weekend, and look forward to meeting the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and other parliamentarians to ensure that the messages get across. When one of the primary issues of the G8 summit is the eradication of poverty, however, I am concerned that that debate is among the eight richest countries in the world. In effect, the poorest countries can wait to hear what benefits come from the top table after the event. When countries that are not present are being discussed, the same principle should apply that applies to the disability community—one should never discuss others without them being present. The G8 should also have what I have described as the P8—the poorest eight—present so that they can look them in the eye, negotiate with them and understand exactly the consequences of their decisions.
In one of the most impassioned contributions to the debate, the Secretary of State described those in the wealthy west as having a moral duty. He described his recent experience of visiting Sudan. I hope—I know that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who has also spoken passionately on this issue, agrees—that the Government and the G8 will consider ways of building the capacity of the African Union and the United Nations as a means of recognising that conflict resolution might mean international intervention, from which we have held back too often in the past.
I asked the Secretary of State earlier about his response to the International Monetary Fund reports and the premise that aid results in economic growth. I have never believed or argued that aid programmes are necessarily intended to result in economic growth, and I was encouraged by his response that aid is about saving people's lives. We hope that trade and other mechanisms result more directly in the capacity for economic growth.
As further background, the Secretary of State mentioned, as reported on the front page of The Times, President's Bush's announcement that he intends to increase the US contribution to aid to Africa in three programme areas, on the condition that African Governments put their house in order. Of course we talk about governance, but it is wrong for us in the west to hector African Governments as we often end up doing. I hope that President Bush will put his house in order with regard to his trade rules.
I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, but how does he think that we can get good government in Africa? I have not heard him explain that.
That is a big question to answer within the time restriction that I have given myself. Perhaps I will be allowed injury time.
I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's contention that we should not hector the Governments of Africa. Where we think that they are letting down the people whom they are there to govern and lead, we should express ourselves in the strongest possible way, which I tried to do in relation to the Government of Zimbabwe.
Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. Of course we should express ourselves clearly when we disagree, but my point is that President Bush should also recognise that he should put his house in order with regard to trade rules. The US is dumping cotton on poor countries, which is having a detrimental impact and undermining the intention to improve poverty eradication in those countries.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real distinction between good governance and corruption? Western Governments are imposing their political will on developing African nations, particularly on issues such as liberalisation of markets and insisting on privatisations.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman intends to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and he will have an opportunity to expand on those points.
The message that I hope that we can send to those at the Live 8 concerts and protests this weekend is that it is not an opportunity for momentary compassion for the poorest in Africa, but that it can be sustained. I hope that the Government will also be encouraging and look for opportunities in which that compassion and concern, expressed by millions of people in this country, can be expressed in practical application. One of the first things that can be done by those who are joining hands around Edinburgh or attending the Hyde park concert is to ask, the next time that they go to their large local grocery store, whether it can provide reassurance that their purchases will not damage the ethical standards for which they have just been campaigning, and will not harm the poorest people in African countries whom they have just attended a concert to support.
Will the hon. Gentleman educate the House as to who would actually answer that question if it were asked in my local Tesco or Sainsbury's?
There are campaigning non-governmental organisations engaged in a dialogue with the larger supermarkets, and they are raising questions about ethical standards. We want to encourage supermarkets. We are talking about transparency in government, but we should also have transparency in the commercial sector in this country, so that we understand more about the source of our bananas, coffee and other products, so that what we buy does not undermine the benefits of the work being undertaken to eradicate poverty in less developed countries. I hope that the Government will use their good offices to ensure that greater transparency can be facilitated.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to address the House for the first time, in this important debate. I thank not just the Government for this timely debate, but the Secretary of State, not just for his contribution to the debate but for the immense efforts and determined initiative that the Government have shown on this issue—not just in the run-up to the G8 and the creation of the Commission for Africa, but dating right back to the creation of the Department for International Development and the policy reloading that that brought.
I stand here proud to uphold the values of the Social Democratic and Labour party—a party of consistency and persistence, as we have stood for non-violence, democracy and partnership as a better way to a better Ireland; and a party that is solidly social democratic, unashamedly Irish nationalist, but determinedly internationalist.
Of course I am conscious that I am more than an SDLP MP. I stand here democratically honoured to represent the interests of all the people of Foyle—whether they voted for me or for other parties' candidates, and whether they share my political beliefs or hold other views, different from mine but no less legitimate for that.
I also know my duty not just to speak up for my party or stand up for my constituents, but also to look out for the needs and rights of other citizens of this world. So it is in this debate on addressing poverty in Africa that I make my maiden speech. This carries some continuity from my predecessor, John Hume, whose last Prime Minister's question, earlier this year, was on this very same crucial issue.
The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that we are 20 years on from Live Aid—and 20 years ago this month, along with John Hume, I went on to a boat in the port of Derry, in my constituency, and met six stowaways from Ethiopia—refugees. Within days, the Home Office gave three of them refugee status and three exceptional leave to remain. Twenty years on, as we go towards Live8 and we face new African issues, we have to ask what prospects those people would face if they arrived now—just as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) raised questions about what we are doing with refugees from Zimbabwe now.
This debate will be full of echoes of the challenging things that Bono, among others, has said to us all about Africa. I agree with them all, just as I applauded Bono for hailing John Hume as a hero, and Seamus Mallon as a giant of Irish politics. There might be spin games in Northern Ireland about who won the war and speculation about who will win the peace, but there can be no doubt about who won the argument. With John the architect and Seamus the engineer, the SDLP provided the blueprint and the construct of the Good Friday agreement.
The key precepts of that agreement were first spelled out in a 1972 SDLP paper, "Towards a New Ireland", which was in two parts, one offering the political argument and the other an institutional model. It will surprise no one in the House to hear that John Hume was the primary author of the rationale, but it may surprise Members to hear that a major contributor to the model outline was Kadar Asmal—then a law lecturer in Dublin and head of the Irish anti-apartheid movement. Since then, of course, he has been Minister for Water, and more recently Minister for Education, in a democratic South Africa.
In getting his ideals to prevail, John Hume led our community from grievance to governance. In a different context, with hugely different challenges, the African National Congress led their people from grievance to governance. In the debate on Make Poverty History, some people raise questions of governance almost as a dismissive counterpoint to the demand for debt relief, proper aid and fair trade. But there can be no sustainable solution to the governance questions in Africa without radical and durable resolution of Africa's grievances. Wrong as they have been, it is not the bad behaviour or poor performance of some African regimes that created the inequities and iniquities of the world economic order that handicap that continent.
In no way can the challenges facing Northern Ireland be equated with the mass suffering that afflicts so much of Africa. My own constituency of Foyle suffered death and destruction in the troubles, and has endured structural neglect and under-investment for decades. It shows up in the league tables as having the highest unemployment, the worst rates of long-term unemployment and high rates of economic inactivity, and many of its wards are among those with the highest concentrations of multiple deprivation, including child poverty and fuel poverty. I will be returning to those and related issues in future debates, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
But there is another league table that Derry consistently tops—that for popular giving to support development aid and combat poverty in Africa and other developing countries. I believe that that stems from a spirit not just of charity but of solidarity. Derry is more forward-looking and outward-looking than many people know, as is evidenced in the great work of so many schools, Churches and other groups in the Make Poverty History campaign and for other causes.
Derry should not just be defined by the sort of stark indicators that I mentioned earlier, without also being described by its tradition of self-help, its pathfinding partnerships, its cultural offering, its working aspiration to be a "city of learning", and the enterprise shown even against difficult odds. So I know too that although all Africans want us to focus properly on the ills of poverty, disease, hunger, child mortality and lack of education and health services, they also want us to recognise their good endeavours, their initiative, their cultural vibrancy, their talents and their ambitions. They want us to recognise their efforts to grow out of poverty, to invest properly, to foster enterprise and deliver community-based development, to combat disease, to provide safe water, to keep children alive to school age and then to guarantee them a school.
It is when we see both what Africans are offering, as well as what Africans are suffering that we get a fuller sense of the compound injustice of their position. We cannot see corruption in African Governments and be blind to the corruption of an international economic order that locks people in poverty and stunts democracy, while mouthing "private enterprise" and "good governance" as a modern version of "Let them eat cake". We cannot preach property rights while we deny production rights.
The Make Poverty History campaign has three demands—debt relief, more and better aid, and trade justice. Debt relief is not just about writing off African mistakes. It is about righting a world wrong. Debt relief means allowing Africa to focus more of its own spending on its own potential, its own needs, rather than on liabilities that it should not owe anyone. It will release important margins of African countries' gross national product for investment in vital services such as health and education. It should mean that the benefits of economic growth allow more Africans to make a living, rather than allowing banks and institutions to make a killing.
I welcome the debt relief package for the poorest countries, brokered by the Chancellor with his G8 colleagues. Its value should not be underestimated, nor should it be overestimated. We need to recognise that many poor peoples in regions of hardship will not benefit directly. We also need to realise that funding debt relief from aid budgets can be seen as robbing Peter to pay Peter. More remains to be done. I believe that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development will try to get more and better, through, for instance, sponsorship of the international finance facility.
The second demand is for aid levels to rise to 0.7 per cent. of GNP. That target was set and promised as long ago as 1970, and has been set again many times by many countries. We now have the solemn commitments of the millennium development goals, which are not just about overall aid levels but about very specific outcomes in education, health, housing, safe water and so forth.
Judged on our record, our promises mean little or nothing. We are hardly in a position to preach to Africa about performance and delivery standards from Government. New promises on aid are overdue, but still under-reliable. Such commitments should be absolute and should do exactly what it says on the tin, with no more evasions consisting of micro-statistical comparisons with what others are not doing, or attempts to include popular donations to aid agencies. That applies not just to the G8 but to all countries, not least EU countries and particularly—for me—Ireland. I entirely back the case for targeting and tracking increased aid, but that proper priority should not be an excuse for our lack of urgency and diligence in living up to earlier promises.
The third plank is trade justice: allowing people a fair price for what they produce, allowing African countries to add value to what they produce, and allowing them to grow their way out of poverty. It must involve ending the travesty of their having to scale the high dam gates of protection tariffs around us when they struggle to avoid drowning as we flood their markets by dump-pouring goods below world prices.
While there are some critics of the case for debt relief and aid, none of us parliamentarians are being actively lobbied against them. That will not be the case when it comes to some of the issues in the world trade round building up to December. Interests in or near our constituencies will bring us legitimate concerns, as businesses or unions. Organised interests will lobby us on the implications and complications of trade round choices. In that confusion and concern, and after the hype of Gleneagles, we must not be tempted to fall for the Meatloaf standard that "two out of three ain't bad". We must not decide that trade justice can wait while we let better aid and debt relief work. Africa needs justice now—not two thirds of justice, but all of it.
It is a huge privilege to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Nearly everyone in the House was delighted when he won a very difficult election in his constituency last month. He is a courageous politician who has had a distinguished career in Northern Ireland, most recently in the Executive and the Assembly. It was typical of him that his speech was not just about the Province, but was an international speech in a significant international debate. He also used the opportunity to point out, rightly, that the city he represents and loves, Derry, is a big city with a big heart, which looks outwards as he did. I hope that he will ably represent his constituency for many years to come.
This has been a significant debate in another respect. In my experience, there have not been many occasions on which we have heard two such fine speeches from the Front Benches. The Secretary of State is respected in all parts of the House for his huge enthusiasm but also for his hardnosed realism, matched with a rare eloquence. We have high hopes that he will continue his good work throughout this Parliament. I hope that the Prime Minister, or his successor, will not be so unwise as to move him in a reshuffle, because we need him in his Department for the entire Parliament.
I am delighted that my hon. and very good Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) is the shadow Secretary of State. He has the eloquence but also the financial expertise to make a large contribution. I think that the two of them will work very closely together.
There are plenty of opportunities in the House for us to have rigorous debates, to play the party political game, to score points and also, perhaps, to thoroughly enjoy ourselves. Increasingly, however, I have noticed that that is a thing of the past in the context of international development, and the speeches we have heard so far have illustrated that very well.
Having said all that, I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me if I draw attention to areas of concern as well as areas of consensus, as he rightly said that he wanted to listen carefully to the whole debate.
It is taken as read, as hon. Member for Foyle rightly pointed out a few moments ago, that there are many aspects to this debate. It is essential that more funds be made available for Africa—that is agreed—but it is also essential that that money be well spent. The hon. Gentleman was also correct when he said there is no point in trying to create an enterprise culture if the first bricks are not in place. The first bricks have to be education and health, but they also have to include good governance. There also has to be a level playing field.
I have criticised before our American allies and our European partners, who are the two principal culprits. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield rightly criticised the common agricultural policy, which we have to work to change. It is not just overburdening our contribution to the EU and its budget, which is bad enough; what it is really doing is ruining farmers across the third world, but particularly in Africa. We have to put great pressure on President Bush and on Congress every time that we meet American politicians. We have to point out the harm that their food subsidies are doing to Africa. This American Administration rightly see the problems in Africa. They are being financially very generous, but most of that will be largely wasted if they do not reform their own subsidies.
Most of all, we have to continue to fight against corruption, bad government and abuse of human rights in Africa. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), who is a considerable expert in this field, chided us by saying that Zimbabwe is not Africa. To that degree he is right, and the Secretary of State pointed out the many success stories, but the Secretary of State also rightly pointed out the failures. I hope that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill will bear with me if I spend most of the remaining few minutes of my speech talking about Zimbabwe, not least because his Government and the Leader of the House have not behaved well in failing to get a Minister to make a statement at the Dispatch Box on Zimbabwe, particularly bearing in mind the outrageous acts of the Mugabe regime, which has demolished so many houses for political purposes and abused human rights. I have no facility to express my concerns other than that which attaches to this debate.
Although the Secretary of State was right to say that wherever possible, our aid should go direct to Governments in Africa—democratically elected, one hopes—who can then choose how best to spend that money, that clearly cannot be so in Zimbabwe. He and I had an exchange on this issue during questions yesterday, and I hope that when the Under-Secretary winds up, he will further confirm that where doubt exists—there is no doubt in Zimbabwe: it is a clear-cut case—and there is fear of corruption and the abuse of human rights, we will concentrate more on the non-governmental organisations and less on giving money to the Government in question. Only when we are satisfied that there is good governance and a lack of corruption can the money go to that Government. That is very important indeed.
It is tragic that we have not intervened—I do not mean militarily—to put greater pressure on Zimbabwe, and that we have allowed Mugabe to abuse his people. We have to ask ourselves why, when action is taken against wrongdoing regimes in the Balkans, the middle east and Afghanistan, it has not been taken in Zimbabwe. It is so condescending to African people to say, "Oh, it's different. We don't want to upset Africa. We have to do things gently." Initially, I accepted that the situation should be dealt with through the African Union, of which I am a big supporter. As the Secretary of State pointed out earlier, the African Union has done some good, particularly in the Sudan, the Congo and the Central African Republic. In Zimbabwe, however, its record has been disgraceful—as has, I am afraid, the record of President Mbeki. I am great supporter of what has happened in South Africa: the transformation since apartheid has been quite remarkable and the reconciliation achieved has been deeply significant. Yet there remains a complete blind spot over Zimbabwe. When we see the President of Tanzania positively applauding what is happening in Zimbabwe, it sends a shiver down one's spine. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned that earlier.
We have to put greater pressure on our African friends to take action in Zimbabwe and we need more effective sanctions. It is possible to apply more effective and sharper sanctions and it is possible to take action against the deeply revolting business men in this country who are helping to fund the regime in Zimbabwe. We know who they are and we know where they live: it is time that enforcement officers in this country, perhaps emboldened by fresh legislation, took action against them.
I conclude by saying that I hope that all these issues are properly taken into account during this deeply significant week with the G8 meeting at Gleneagles. If we just throw money at the problem and do not resolve the other issues, the effort will largely be wasted, which would be a very great pity indeed.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's opening speech, which was excellent, spoken with passion and eloquence and, if I may say so, on the back of a good ministerial track record. I must however add that the congratulatory, nodding consensus across the Floor of the House on this subject is beginning to turn my stomach. I shall want to make some critical comments, but I believe that Gleneagles is a defining moment for this Government. There are a few rare occasions that expose the moral tenor of our times, and the Africa/climate change G8 may turn out, in the breadth of its positive vision, to be one of them. Given the sheer scale of what is being attempted and given that the British Government have been the prime impetus and driver behind the whole project, it must be said that if this can succeed, it will be one of the most important achievements—perhaps the most important achievement—of the Labour Government so far.
Securing international agreement on wiping out multilateral debt owed to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund for 18 of the world's poorest countries, relieving them immediately of £22 billion of debt—a sum that might well be increased to about £28 billion in the next 12 to 18 months with the inclusion of a further nine very poor countries—is unquestionably a huge achievement. The significance of the deal is that dirt-poor countries such as Mozambique, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Zambia, which are now obliged to spend more each year on servicing the debt by paying the interest than on their entire health or education budgets, will now at last have a chance to begin the fight to escape extreme poverty.
The United Nations Development Programme report of a few weeks ago projected that on current trends—that is, before the current deal—there would be 5 million deaths of babies and infants under five in Africa over the next decade. That figure will now be significantly cut as a result of the deal—though, of course, not by enough. I believe that the doubling of aid from $50 billion to about $100 billion a year is still needed in addition. Earlier in the debate, there was some question about the purpose of aid. I believe that its purpose is to build roads and infrastructure, and to put in place the health, education, training and other public services that are necessary for decent welfare and the economic take-off that the private sector will never provide on its own.
I know that President Bush is saying a bit more today, but the current US offer of $675 million is paltry compared with the extent of need. The US economy is worth $10 trillion; the US spends $400 billion every year on defence, but its aid budget is only 0.16 per cent. of GDP. It is the meanest of all the rich nations, but the Bush Administration are saying in effect that, for Africa, the US can afford an extra amount equal to only 0.08 per cent. of its annual defence budget. The Commission for Africa states in its excellent report that that is just one ninth of the absolute minimum that is necessary. The trouble is that the US never took much interest in Africa—at least until the 1990s, when oil was discovered off the west coast.
Quite rightly, much has been made of corrupt governance in Africa, and that dreadful problem needs to be tackled. It is used as an excuse to withhold aid, but helpful precedents have been agreed by NEPAD and some African Governments that would allow aid expenditure to be monitored and audited by independent agencies. That is a step forward. Moreover, the oil and mining industries that are notorious for bribing Government officials are now subject to transparency guidelines. Again, though, those guidelines must have force and they must be statutory.
The corrupt Governments in Africa are bad, but they are not the only ones at fault. We must not be blind to the fact that western practices are also reprehensible in some respects. All too often, tied aid is used as a form of subsidy for commercial exports. In addition, the US in particular often directs aid as a means of helping military allies such as Israel, and not as a way of relieving poverty. The ActionAid report released last month stated that 40 per cent. of global aid goes on over-priced assistance from international consultants. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has challenged that, but the figure is certainly substantial. So when we hear members of the free-trade right scorn Africa's aid junkies, we must ask exactly who those aid junkies are, and who profits so handsomely from the global aid system.
Considerable advances in aid and debt relief have been made in the run-up to the G8 meeting, but they pale into insignificance when compared with the fundamental goal—to transform the profoundly unjust and discriminatory international trading system that impoverished the developing countries in the first place. We have always demanded free trade from those countries, so that their markets could be opened up to our multinational corporations, but we do not always reciprocate. We do not practise unfettered free trade, as we limit access to our markets by means of quotas, high tariffs, so-called voluntary agreements and a host of other restrictions whenever our domestic industries come under pressure.
If we are honest, we must admit that the west does not really believe in free trade. What we really believe in is safeguarding our economic dominance at all costs. Nearly all the aid, loan and debt-relief packages put together by the World Bank and the IMF are predicated on liberalisation conditionalities. Before they can receive aid, developing countries are required to agree to dismantle tariff barriers, open up to foreign investment, privatise state-owned companies, reduce public services and hold down wages.
Now we are at it again. Paragraph 2 of the pre-G8 Finance Ministers' statement says that to qualify for debt relief developing countries must
"boost private sector development"
and eliminate
"impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign."
To take just one example among many, that means that Uganda will have to sell off its water supplies, its agricultural services and its commercial bank, all with minimum regulation.
I do not especially like that policy, but if it worked, a good case could be made for it. But it does not work. According to the World Bank's figures, in its recent report, across the 20 years from 1960 to 1980, before it and the IMF started introducing strict conditions on countries that accepted their loans, median annual growth in developing countries was 2.5 per cent. a year. In the 18 years from 1980 to 1998, it was zero or 0.0 per cent. precisely. Trade is the best route out of poverty, as we can all agree, but not if it is fixed to keep developing countries in subjection as mere suppliers of commodities at rock-bottom prices with severely limited access to western markets. Yes, we should cancel the debt, but we should cancel it unconditionally. We also conveniently forget that all countries that have achieved economic take-off have done so behind high protective walls, and I hope that we will consider that for Africa, too.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am always pleased to follow the distinguished and right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), with his long track record and undoubted concern on these issues. While he concluded on a more consensual note, a degree of anachronism crept into his arguments, because the whole point of the G8 and the Government's aims is that growth is not a zero sum game. The whole idea is that the growth of the rich countries can be spread through trade to help the growth of the developing nations and thus the world generally.
I start by setting out my total agreement with the proposition that the Government have a real opportunity at the G8 to set the agenda and the tone for the two paramount issues of far-reaching concern—climate change and relieving poverty in Africa. Those are the correct priorities, and they are laudable and timely. The Government have my party's support for those overarching themes. This is an occasion on which it is wholly appropriate—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) said—to say that the Secretary of State's speech was one of the best and most memorable that I have heard in this House, and I am grateful to him for it. Equally, I appreciated the response from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). There is a danger of the debate turning into a paean of praise, but the whole point is that we have a shared belief in the importance of the subject and in translating our will into effective action. That is the challenge for all of us in this debating Chamber as we discuss the deeply disturbing problems on the ground in Africa.
Africa is a vast place and the topic is vast. I hope that the debate will bring out many aspects of the topic, but each one of us has to do our best to focus on the issues on which we can gain some purchase, instead of trying to cover the whole canvas. My own interest is well known, not least because I am Tanzanian born. I am chairman of the all-party group on that country, as well as the all-party malaria group. I am also involved with the all-party Africa group, whose chairman I see in his place, as well as being vice-chairman of the Uganda group and the debt, aid and trade group, which used to be the heavily indebted poor countries group and before that the Jubilee 2000 group—changes of name that demonstrate how these issues have developed over time.
It is pleasing to note that Tanzania has seen a massive increase in the take-up of primary education, from 4 million to 7 million, to which the Secretary of State referred. Of course, as I was finding out in a conversation with the high commissioner of Tanzania to this country just the other day, the challenge is how to develop the secondary education system. By the time one gets any system in place for primary education, the cohort of children who benefit quickly become those who are challenged by the need to develop and consolidate the advantage, all of which has been hugely strengthened and assisted by the good will and financial aid from this country and many others. So that is now the challenge for Tanzania, as well as reaching out to the many rural areas where primary education has not even begun to become a reality.
Although such things, as the Secretary of State said, are certainly examples of aid that works, we need to pause for a moment to wonder whether the phrase that he might have used in his speech is that aid can and often does work, but not always. It is important for the future that western donor countries and their people continue to have the confidence that aid is worth while and an essential thing for us to do. That has been touched on, and it is part of the Secretary of State's and the Government's priority. So when we focus on poverty, in addition to the cancellation of debt, the big challenge now involves multilateral debt, which is subject to much wider agreements and where a solution is more difficult to secure.
Most of us feel that the progress made on private bank debt and bilateral debt through the Paris Club has been very significant and very helpful. However, we should bear in mind the words of Anthony Montague Brown—the former private secretary to Sir Winston Churchill—who, after Sir Winston Churchill died, went off into the City and the banks. In 1976 and 1977, he was instrumental in extending a lot of loans to developing countries. He said in his book that of course people never expected those loans to be repaid. When that is analysed, it is clear that those debts have long since been written off by those banks. The interest has long been way in excess of what was a sensible, commercial return. Let us face it. Many of those debts have in fact been cancelled—rightly—which shows the mental approach at the time.
We should not forget that there comes a time—perhaps this helps the argument of the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton, who does not appear to be in his place at the moment—when we should think about cancelling, either without conditions or without too many conditions, the debts that are causing some of the continuing problems
Apart from hoping that the Secretary of State will carefully consider the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield about the advocacy fund—a topic and policy in which I was glad to be involved in a previous incarnation in the House—my primary argument is that we must consider what gains the best leverage for the aid that is being translated from this country to Africa.
I am sure that many hon. Members are familiar with a very good body of work called the Copenhagen consensus, in which a rigorous assessment was undertaken of all the possible destinations for money in the developing countries and how best that can gain a purchase on the things that really matter when transforming those countries' structural inability to develop, so that they grow and gain the potential for economic independence. Such things were compared with many others that tended to be rather worthy.
I am inevitably bound to mention malaria. Hon. Members will know that I have an obsession with the need to tackle malaria. Rather than going through the detail, I shall quote what the Copenhagen consensus suggested:
"Many recommended malaria control interventions have a mean cost per Disability-Adjusted Life Year"—
even talking in those terms shows the hard-nosed assessments that we have to make, which the Secretary of State has been trying to establish—
"of less than . . . $50 a day and most of them less than . . . $25 which economists consider highly attractive in a very low-income country. As judged by the expert panel of Copenhagen Consensus, these are stunningly attractive investments. This panel of distinguished economists ranked controlling malaria as one of the top four global priorities that would yield the largest benefit/cost ratio."
Given that one of the other factors was dealing with climate change from the western world, we need to consider carefully whether we should devote aid to things other than health and education, clean water and the controlling of infectious disease. They bring the greatest advantages. In addition, we should free the rules for trade and support good governance.
How do we get the money past the tyrants to the poorest people? We face a difficult dichotomy. Where good governance exists, we should use it as a test and reward it with aid directed via Governments, through a liaison committee or non-governmental organisations. I used to think that aid should go directly to NGOs, but to reward good governance we have to go through the democratic processes so that democratically elected politicians gain some credit for what they have done. We should reward them "pour encourager les autres". Unfortunately, of course, les autres are often tyrants who do not allow people in the poorest countries to know about good governance. That is both a challenge and a dichotomy.
As there is a restriction on the overall package, we should use the money to best leverage effect and reward those who have shown good governance. It will increase the confidence of the west in continuing and sustaining that money if we ask for it to be directed where we would gain most leverage.
The Copenhagen consensus made it clear, through a rigorous test, that controlling infectious disease was cost-effective. HIV/AIDS and TB unquestionably belong in that category. So, too, does malaria, which is hollowing out the generation of children that replaced those killed by HIV/AIDS.
We must concentrate on training people to deliver health care. Malaria is treatable and curable. The all-party group on malaria recently produced a persuasive report and I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for attending its launch. We can all collectively be proud and confident that, rather than just being worthy, we are making a huge and effective difference to the future of Africa and its peoples.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who made a thoughtful speech.
Our debate will rightly concentrate on the statistical evidence of the need to address Africa's poverty, to release its potential to grow and flourish, but as the Commission for Africa report correctly states:
"We have to remember that behind each statistic lies a child who is precious and loved. Every day that child, and thousands like her, struggle for breath—and for life—and tragically and painfully lose that fight."
I have had the opportunity to visit Africa only since I was elected, and I have witnessed the outstanding beauty of the continent and the warmth of its people, but I recognise the scale of the challenge that they face and their overwhelming desire for a better future. I am sure that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) will remember our visit to Rwanda. I shall never forget the scenes at the genocide site and the gacaca trial that we attended.
Last September, I visited Zambia on a British Council parliamentary exchange and followed the hon. Regina Musokotwane around her constituency in the rural south. We visited two schools. One had been opened by the state government, after the local community had waited almost 30 years; the other was built by local people themselves with supplies from a US charity. They had no money for a qualified teacher. They had no power or even a water borehole, and the school could offer only a basic syllabus for the first two years of primary education. The people were incredibly proud of their achievement—rightly so; but at the same time as my visit, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were insisting on a nil budget deficit to enable the Zambian Government to reach the heavily indebted poor countries completion point. As a result, 5,000 qualified teachers had no job and the World Bank representative in Zambia was informing politicians that they should stop criticising his institution.
As the commission's report points out, debt relief is key to achieving the millennium development goals not only for the current HIPC group, but also for many other nations in sub-Saharan Africa. Was the meeting of G7 Ministers earlier this month what the Chancellor described as "a historic breakthrough" on the issue of debt? On certain key criteria, we can definitely say yes, but with the caveat that the fight to establish fully adequate debt relief has still some way to go.
I am chair of the all-party group on debt, aid and trade—formerly the all-party group on HIPC—and our group has long argued the justice of granting 100 per cent. debt relief to the world's poorest nations. I pay tribute to my predecessor as chair of the group, Julia Drown, the former Member for Swindon, South, for her marvellous work in pursuing that campaign. The decision taken at the meeting to grant 100 per cent. debt relief not only on the interest, but on the debt stock, for the world's 18 poorest countries, with another nine to be added in the next couple of years, was welcome.
The US Administration changed stance by agreeing to include International Monetary Fund debt as well as World Bank debt in the deal. That is significant because IMF debt is extremely onerous and constitutes half of all debt service obligations to the main multilateral institutions. The agreement to replenish the funds of the international financial institutions rather than reducing the amount available for grants was also significant. That news, when added to the recent announcement by EU states that they will effectively double their aid to Africa over the next five years and set a timetable to reach the target of 0.7 per cent, is a leap forward. I am sure that the private Member's Bill being promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), who is not in the Chamber, will help us to ensure that we reach that target.
This in itself is not however sufficient to allow Africa to meet its millennium development goals. Let us not forget that that was what the international community solemnly promised to achieve more than five years ago. We must go a great deal further and acknowledge now that such additional effort is achievable, rather than a pipe dream. Just last year, the international community cancelled $30 billion of debt owed by Iraq, which is more than has been delivered to the entire African continent over the past 10 years.
Even at this late stage, the G8 summit should next week consider extending the remit of the G7 debt proposal. The original HIPC list was drawn up in 1996 on a rather flimsy analytical basis and excluded key states such as Kenya and Angola. Kenya's total debt is $5.5 billion and 70 million Kenyans live on less than $1 a day, yet the World Bank considers its debt sustainable, despite the fact that 32 per cent. of its national budget is spent on servicing the debt, which is more than the amount spent on health and education combined. According to a debt sustainability analysis by the Jubilee debt campaign, Kenya needs total debt cancellation if it is ever to realise its millennium development goals. Some Kenyan politicians have suggested that the country is being penalised for keeping up debt payments. Debt relief seems to remain as elusive as ever for such nations.
It has been calculated that 35 non-HIPC, low-income countries warrant immediate 100 per cent. debt cancellation just so they can have a chance of meeting their millennium goals. To be fair, the UK Government have recognised that fact by agreeing to write off their share of multilateral debt for the world's poorest nations.
This month's agreement cancels only 10 per cent. of the debt owed by all 62 states with the lowest incomes which need 100 per cent. cancellation. The deal will amount to $1 billion per year for the next 40 years. That is $40 billion in nominal terms, but it is perhaps more accurately described as a net present value of $17 billion.
I know that the US Administration was reluctant to accept the sale of IMF gold reserves to fund debt relief and that an alternative decision was reached, but given that we in the UK accept the case for using the IMF's vast undervalued gold resources for the further extension of relief, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continue pressing the point in the international community that we should give more relief and that we have a method of expanding debt relief? The undervaluation is estimated at $35 billion, so surely it is unreasonable to offer the people of Africa less relief from odious debt than what is offered to the current Iraqi Administration.
I welcomed the deal on Nigeria that was reached this week at the Paris Club. Will my right hon. Friend indicate the total amount of relief that will be granted to Nigeria as a result of the initiative?
I turn quickly to the conditionality that surrounds debt relief. Although I fully accept that we must show that relief is genuinely used properly and specifically for poverty eradication, I argue that multilateral institutions must accept responsibility for the many mistakes that they have made in the past by imposing inappropriate economic policies that were not focused on poverty reduction. I welcome the paper by the Department for International Development and the Treasury on conditionality, which acknowledges that fundamental changes must be made.
I am worried that those states that have still to reach the HIPC process—there are a number of them—could find themselves in exactly the same position as Zambia last year by spending all their energies on achieving nil budget deficits, rather than employing teachers, who are vital in the fight against poverty. The statement of the G7 Finance Ministers makes no concession on that. Instead, it ambiguously refers to good governance, accountability and transparency as crucial to releasing the benefits of debt cancellation. That appears to be a further test applied to low-income states on top of the already demanding requirements of the HIPC process.
It has been difficult to draw the boundaries between good governance conditions and economic policy conditions, with policy reforms, such as privatisation, sometimes promoted on an anti-corruption basis. Of course, there should be accountability, but as the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said, if we truly wish to foster good governance and democracy in a genuinely equal partnership with African Governments, we have to allow them and their citizens to make their own economic decisions and to take responsibility. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will press for further relief not to be subject to economically damaging conditionalities?
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for International Development on their enormous efforts over the past few months to place Africa at the top of the G8 agenda next week. That is proper and fit. To use a cliché, we are going forward and not back, but we need to maintain that effort so that Africa achieves its full potential, which is what we all desire. I hope that the Minister uses his good efforts to persuade the G8 to go even further next week.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) made an excellent speech, which included some powerful points. She demonstrated that the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) was wrong to dislike consensus. If hon. Members speak with a united voice, our message is that much clearer to the rest of the world. There are others whom we have to convince, not least Congress in the United States and colleagues in other legislative Assemblies, that what we want to do, and what we are promoting, is correct and that our policies are right. The House speaking with one voice is powerful.
I want to comment on climate change, conflict, capacity, commerce and commitment. On climate change, we have to recognise that what is happening at Gleneagles is not two separate debates on climate change and Africa, because they relate to each other. Climate change is important for Africa and developing countries. If I had one sadness in the last Parliament, it was that the International Development Committee's report on climate change and sustainable development did not get the coverage it deserved. I commend it to hon. Members.
Vulnerable communities will suffer from climate change most. It also contributes to conflict. One reason why we have problems in Darfur is that the Sahel desert is moving south and there is more desertification. Pastoralists who used to move their cattle around over the grass are finding it more difficult to find grazing land. They, in turn, put pressure on farmers, which led to conflict. That is all about climate change. Getting both things right is important. I hope that the G8 tackles Africa and climate change.
On conflict, the Secretary of State was right when he talked about peer review mechanisms and what is happening in Ghana and elsewhere, and with NEPAD. That is brilliant. However, there is no peer group pressure in Africa on conflict. There is no excuse for what is happening in Zimbabwe. There is also no excuse for neighbouring countries not exerting peer group pressure on Mugabe.
These debates are brilliant, but we tend to have two lots of debates. We have international development debates and we have foreign affairs debates, and the two never come together. It would be wonderful if both Secretaries of State were present or we at least had a Minister from the other Department to wind up the debate. The issues all interrelate. I suspect one reason why we do not have the sort of peer group pressure that we should have on Zimbabwe is that the South Africans are concerned about the collapse of Zimbabwe and what that would mean in terms of refugees coming across into their country. There is still no excuse for the lack of pressure, however.
There is no excuse for Nigeria not to hand over Charles Taylor to stand trial in the war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone. We understand that it got him out of Liberia and provided him with asylum, but that was a long time ago. A UN-backed warrant has been issued for Taylor to stand trial before a UN-backed court. He should stand trial, and if he does not, I hope that the UN war crimes tribunal will find a way of trying him in absentia. Such trials happened at Nuremburg; I see no reason why they should not happen in Freetown.
On conflict, we do not seem to have a coherent strategy on military or other intervention for the purposes of humanitarian relief. Everything is done on an ad hoc basis: the French went into Côte d'Ivoire; we went into Sierra Leone. We have a different mechanism now for Darfur. The African Union is fine; those of us who have seen its work were very impressed, but we are never quite sure how it is going to be funded. Different Secretaries of State come to the Dispatch Box at different times and say that it will be funded by NATO or the European Union, or perhaps by a bit of money from the United Nations. There is absolutely no coherence on this issue. If we have another humanitarian crisis in Africa, who will take the lead? On what basis? According to what ground rules? There is also no excuse for Ethiopia not acknowledging the international arbitration over Ethiopia and Eritrea. In all these situations, there are some things that Africa has to do and others that we have to do. We need much greater coherence in regard to the way in which the international community intervenes.
The Commission for Africa's report clearly states that capacity is the most important factor. One of the things that strikes us when we visit Departments and Ministries in Africa is how thin the capacity is. The report makes it clear that it is important that more be done to train civil servants, and to develop higher and further education and skills in Africa. About three quarters of those who leave Africa to pursue higher education never return. What has happened to higher education in Africa over the past couple of decades has been a tragedy, and it is now in need of considerable investment. We also need to help parliamentarians in Africa, as we have said on many occasions. We have organisations such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and they should do more to support parliamentarians in Africa, to enable them to understand what is involved in holding Governments to account.
On commerce, the figures show that Africa's economies need to grow by 7 per cent. a year if there is to be any hope of meeting the millennium development goals, yet many are growing by no more than 1 per cent. a year. The vice-president of Sierra Leone was speaking today at Chatham House about how his country was going to go forward, but very little is happening there. It would be very difficult for its economy to grow by more than 1 per cent. a year at the moment. During the last Parliament, the International Development Committee went to South Africa. The unemployment rate in many of the townships there was between 60 and 70 per cent.
We all talk about health, education and AIDS in Africa, but an issue that we must all address is that of enterprise. Where are the new jobs going to come from? We saw Lesotho get a toe-hold in the textile industry for a while, only to get completely knocked off course by what is happening in China. Of course, what happens at the WTO talks in Hong Kong later this year will be very important, but south-south trade is also important, and there is a great deal of trade that does not involve the reform of the WTO rules. It is difficult to see how even a country as influential as South Africa can be sustainable in the long term if it continues to have to support unemployment rates of 60 or 70 per cent. We need to pay a lot more attention to commerce.
On commitment, some people believe that if we manage to achieve what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor hope to achieve at Gleneagles, we shall be able simply to tick that box. However, this is a long-haul issue. We are miles behind on the millennium development goals. What leaves the greatest impression on my mind when I visit Africa is the persistent, grinding, unremitting poverty that so many people have to endure. We must tackle that problem, but it will not be done in a matter of weeks or months; it will require a long-term commitment by all of us in the House over many years. It is brilliant that there is now broad cross-party agreement on that, because Governments—irrespective of their political persuasion—will need to maintain that commitment over the next five, 10 or 15 years. We have a simple choice as a civilisation—either we get this right and meet the millennium development goals or we just turn our back on Africa and shut the door. From some articles and reports in the press it is clear that some people are urging us to do the latter. They do not see the point of investing in Africa or of caring about it. We care about Africans, because they are fellow human beings, and are as valuable, valid and important as any other individual. Our commitment must therefore be long term. The fact that in the past few years these issue have risen up the political agenda in the House and the fact that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are making a political commitment are to be greatly applauded. Everyone in the House hopes that they will succeed at the G8 conference and that we can take a definite step forward to ensure that we meet the millennium development goals by 2015.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to the sterling work that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has done as Chairman of the International Development Committee. We are all grateful for his chairmanship of that Committee in the last Parliament. I congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on his maiden speech and, as has been said, his contribution over a period of many years to the Northern Ireland peace process. It has been lonely and rocky, but it needed courage, which he has shown in abundance. I welcome him to the House and wish him well in his endeavours both as leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party and as a Member of Parliament.
I congratulate the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development on the agreement that they secured from the G8 Finance Ministers. The fact that all multilateral debts and some bilateral debts have been written off is a huge step forward. Congratulations should also go to ordinary people. For many years, my constituents, as well as Churches and voluntary organisations in my constituency have worked with me on the Jubilee 2000 campaign and other initiatives. More than 3,000 of my constituents signed up to those campaigns, so there is enormous enthusiasm locally. Many events have taken place in my local schools over the years. More than a year ago, on my return from a visit to Zambia, we organised a Christmas response to the problems there. Almost £18,000 was generated by the local community, including primary schools. St. Michael's primary school in my constituency, for example, contributed £1,500. Christie Park school mounted a spontaneous concert and gathered £200 from parents as they came to collect their children from school. Secondary schools, including the Vale of Leven academy, Dumbarton academy and, in particular, Our Lady and St. Patrick's high school have a taken lifelong interest in the subject.
Eammon Cullen is one of the teaching colleagues with whom I used to work. He teaches at Our Lady and St. Patrick's, where he organised a justice and peace group. It has been in existence for more than 20 years, so the young people in my constituency can say that they worked on these initiatives before we did. I pay tribute to Eammon and his colleagues. He is about to retire after 30 years' teaching service in Our Lady and St. Patrick's school, but his interest will not decline and he will work with renewed vigour on justice and peace and other issues that are vital to the Gleneagles summit. Without that groundswell of support, the Government and the G8 would not be where they are. May I therefore suggest to the Minister that, given the enthusiasm of young people in my constituency and elsewhere, he and the Secretary of State should devise an initiative to engage them? They could provide finance and opportunities for them to engage with a particular country in Africa and thus achieve a constituency focus on the subject. The only way we will take the goals forward is by passing the task from generation to generation. Given the good work that young people have undertaken to date, I would like the Government to respond with an initiative such as I have suggested.
We have a once in a lifetime opportunity, as has been said. The UK is hosting the G8 summit, the UK holds the EU presidency, the UN summit on the millennium development goals is taking place later in the year, and the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting will be held in Hong Kong in December. To date we have failed miserably on the millennium development goals. The rich nations pledged that there would be primary education for all in the developing countries by 2015, but present estimates indicate that it will not be universally available until 2130—115 years late. The rich nations pledged to halve poverty by 2015, but that will not be achieved until 2150—135 years late. The rich nations pledged to eliminate avoidable infant deaths, but that will not be achieved until 2165—150 years late.
If a citizen of one of the developing countries asked whether there was any justice in the world, the answer would manifestly be no. Does that make the task impossible for us? Certainly not. There needs to be a much more urgent focus on the three intertwining strands of aid, trade and debt. We have heard today about aid to Africa. From 1981 to 2001 the number of poor people in Africa doubled from 164 million to 313 million. That level of deprivation is unconscionable. It is accompanied by disease, conflict and squalor.
The injustice in global trade has been mentioned. The rich countries' massive support and protection for their own agriculture is paradoxical, since agriculture is the sector with the greatest potential in Africa to decrease poverty and achieve the pro-poor engagement that is so crucial, particularly to rural Africa. On debt, notwithstanding the agreement that has been made—we do not yet know the details—Africa still owes almost $300 billion and pays off $15 billion a year in interest and fees. Only seven states out of the 53 in the African Union have seen their debts reduced to sustainable levels.
I mentioned Zambia. I have had a number of contacts with civic society in Lusaka, having visited on a few occasions and having welcomed representatives of that society in the United Kingdom. One of my friends, Peter Henriot, runs the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection in Lusaka. Peter and his group undertook an economic, social and cultural rights survey in March this year. One of the issues on which they focused for countries like ours was employment. At present 90 per cent. of Zambians are unemployed or work in precarious conditions in the informal sector. They are hampered by inadequate skills, inadequate capital and inadequate support for infrastructure. When we discuss aid, it is important to focus on transport and other aspects to ensure that people in rural areas can be involved in and welcomed into the country's economic development.
Despite the fact that the Zambian Government provide free primary education, education is gradually becoming the privilege of the very few. Tuition fees in colleges and in the two universities in Zambia range between US$60 a year and US$1,600, which is beyond the reach of the vast majority of Zambians. On public health, my colleagues tell me that only 15 per cent. of houses have access to proper toilet facilities. The 2000 census on population and housing indicates that although 49 per cent. have access to safe water, 51 per cent. do not. The lack of access to clean water and sanitation presents a huge risk to public health in that country. The statistics are dismal, but they remind us of our task.
Mention has been made of the economic and social progress that our country had to make, so let us compare our country with Zambia. In the UK, the death rate per 1,000 population is 10.8, whereas it is 20.23 in Zambia, which is double the UK rate. In the UK, infant mortality is 5.16 per 1,000 live births, whereas it is 112 in Zambia. In the UK, life expectancy is 78.5 years, whereas it is 37 years in Zambia, where 23 per cent. of under-fives are underweight, too.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) asked, "Why has Africa gone backwards?" Africa has gone backwards since the 1960s. Living standards and growth levels in Africa in the 1960s were greater than they were in the 1990s, but does that mean that we should halt our support—
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to participate in what has been, as expected, a fascinating and enthralling debate.
I pay tribute to the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). His reputation precedes him, and I am sure that he is a worthy successor to John Hume. In the summer, an SDLP Member and I are visiting the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I am looking forward to it.
As has been said, Africa is a huge subject, and no one speech can do justice to the myriad issues. My particular concerns are the conditions imposed on debt relief—so-called conditionalities—and compliance, which concerns the international community's failure to honour its commitments to Africa in previous years and decades. I will even suggest a mechanism, which would be easy to set up, by which we can honour any new commitments that might be made at next week's G8 summit.
The Government's decision to place Africa on the G8 summit agenda was inspired, and I congratulate them on galvanising public opinion and making Africa part of the public consciousness, which has created an almost unstoppable and insatiable demand finally to address African poverty. However, expectations are heady and the issue could become a cross for them to bear, because the British public expect the rhetoric to be matched by action. I urge the Government not to resort to their Pavlovian instinct of spinning—some of the Chancellor's contributions have come close—because the British public, who expect action to be taken, will find them out.
Next week, the expectation will reach a crescendo as the G8 circus eventually rolls into Perthshire. I am sure that Scotland will be an excellent host, and I am looking forward to it putting on an excellent show. I will be marching with colleagues in the Make Poverty History march in Edinburgh on Saturday and am also fortunate enough to have secured my tickets for next week's Live 8 event at Murrayfield, where I look forward to seeing the cream of Scotland's artists and international acts.
It is an understatement to say that my constituents in Perthshire, along with people in Edinburgh and throughout the rest of Scotland, are bracing themselves for the arrival of the G8 summit with a mixture of apprehension, concern and anxiety. Perthshire will bear the brunt of any pain created in the next few weeks, but hopefully it will also gain, because we will be highly visible throughout next week as images of our beautiful corner of the country are transmitted across the world.
Like all hon. Members, I hope that real progress is finally made on addressing African poverty at the G8 summit. The G8 summit has rightly been described as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get to grips with the problem, and it is there to be grasped. It would be fantastic if that beautiful little corner of Scotland is for ever and a day associated with making progress in Africa, and it would be wonderful if the "Perthshire accord", or whatever we call it, were for ever remembered for starting to make poverty history.
It now seems as if everybody and their granny is getting involved in the debate about Africa. Even the BBC has discovered where Africa is and has shown some fantastic programmes in the past few weeks. Of course, all my old chums from the world of rock and roll are gearing themselves up for the Live 8 concerts next week. Although I do not share Bono's view that Blair and Brown are the Lennon and McCartney of international politics—my hon. Friends and I see them more as its Laurel and Hardy—I welcome the contribution that Bono, Bob Geldof and the rest of these international artists have made to creating the groundswell of public support for trying to deal effectively with poverty in Africa.
But in order to make progress on Africa, it is time for the politics to kick in. That is our job. We must finally ensure that there is compliance and that we get the best possible deal that we can in order to address African poverty. The last thing that anybody wants is for this massive circus to come into town, say a few words, and then pull up its pegs and go on its way again. There would be massive frustration and disappointment if we were marched to the top of the African hill only to be marched all the way down again.
That is why in recent weeks I have called for a legacy—a permanent resource—to be left behind in Perthshire to ensure that whatever is agreed to next week is adhered to and that the commitment has been made. We must have some mechanism in place to ensure that the big promises that we expect to be announced next week are finally turned into reality on the ground, that the work is co-ordinated, and that any agreements reached at Gleneagles are effectively monitored and acted upon. I have even written to the Prime Minister to suggest the establishment of a co-ordinating centre bringing together the G8 Governments, the African nations, the non-governmental organisations, the charities, and the academics involved in this field to establish best practice and to ensure that all the commitments that we have made to Africa are delivered. Of course that should be financed by the G8 and should be in beautiful Perthshire near to the site of Gleneagles.
Compliance is important. When we look at the record of the G8 nations, we have to acknowledge that their compliance has been pretty poor in terms of what they have agreed to in their summits and the commitments that they have given to the developing world. The international community has consistently let Africa down at times when it has promised the earth. We are nowhere near meeting our international commitments. The millennium development goals now seem like nothing other than distant aspirations. There has been no real progress on the targets that were set on HIV/AIDS, peace-building, and so on. We have gone backwards in Africa instead of forwards. Following the Toronto G8, research found that G8 members comply only modestly with their commitments. That cannot happen with important commitments to Africa, which is why the legacy—the permanent resource—must be left behind. We cannot allow Africa to be left on its own once more.
While compliance is being monitored, it should also be possible to look at the conditions for aid. The setting of conditions for debt relief and aid should be as apolitical as possible. Politically dogmatic western Governments should not be trying to impose their political will on African Governments. I have big problems with the conditions imposed on debt relief by the G8 Finance Ministers in recent weeks. Yes, we must tackle poor governance and corruption. Corruption cripples poor nations, especially in Africa.
I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said, tensions are involved in tackling poor governance and corruption, but we should do what we can to ensure that those who are subject to appalling dictators and despots are not left in the poverty in which they find themselves. We have to be just that little bit more creative in how we deal with the tensions. It is not good enough to draw up lists of the worthy and deserving and, by implication, a list of those who have been discarded. No one can argue against good governance, and everybody would want aid to be targeted to the nations and regimes that will ensure that it is passed on to their populations, but I am concerned when those conditionalities start to intrude into how Governments should govern.
The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) mentioned the Finance Ministers' report, in which they referred to
"eliminating impediments to private investment".
What they meant was that commercialisation, privatisation and the liberalisation—
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the rule of law and property rights in South Africa have encouraged private investment, and have made that country a beacon of hope in Africa? Before he dismisses private investment entirely, perhaps he should consider what it has done for South Africa over the past decade.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks, and I agree with them. In some instances, private investment is exactly the right way to go, but the one-size-fits-all approach of western Governments demanding liberalisation and privatisation is a step too far. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton mentioned the example of Uganda and the privatisation without regulation that costs that nation millions of pounds. It gets worse—to qualify for the next round of debt relief, the Ugandan Government must sell their water supplies, agricultural services and commercial banks, probably at great loss to that nation again.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one can distinguish between the need for the rule of law and privatisation? One can have the rule of law without necessarily having privatisation.
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I hope that he has an opportunity to expand on that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Certain things work for certain countries, but the attitude that western Governments must impose their view of what should happen in Africa concerns me most.
Lastly, I want to acknowledge the role of Scotland. We are hosting the G8, and we will have all those fantastic demonstrations. I hope that Scotland will be seen positively around the world, and that the events pass off peacefully. I am concerned about some of the security and policing issues—I still do not know who will meet the £100 million expected costs of hosting the G8, and I certainly hope that it will not be the council tax payers of Perth and Kinross.
I want to praise Scotland's First Minister, however, for undertaking his mission to Malawi several weeks ago. He has rightly upped Scotland's international ambition by taking that trip, and I hope that he is congratulated by the Minister in the wind-up. The First Minister has acknowledged that Scotland has a particular and specific role to play in the developing world, especially in nations such as Malawi, with which we have a great association through the work of David Livingstone and Christian missionaries in the 19th century. I hope that that is noticed. The First Minister acknowledged that we have that distinctive role—I agree with him—and I am glad that he did so.
If we can achieve that in Malawi, however, surely we can do it in other nations, too. I do not want Scotland's ambition thwarted; I want to see Scotland do a lot more of that. I encourage the First Minister, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament to undertake more of that type of work. I also believe that were we a sovereign, self-governing nation, we would reach that 0.7 per cent. target, as other small nations have done, which has proved elusive for some of the larger Governments.
I am looking forward to next week, which I think will be a fantastic week for Scotland, and to a new role for Scotland internationally. Let us ensure, however, that any decisions taken at Gleneagles in Perthshire next week are acted on, and that we get compliance. Let us ensure, too, that we do not make eliminating poverty conditional.
In approaching this debate, I am reminded of the defining statement of the Labour party, produced on the back of each membership card:
"by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone".
Through that statement of principle and notion of solidarity, I hope that our fellow parliamentarians and legislators around the world, and our fellow people around the world, come together sincerely to address the huge injustice that exists in Africa.
Levels of poverty in Africa are beyond that which many of us in the Chamber can comprehend. Despite the images on our television screens, and the reports from Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya and other nations, we cannot truly comprehend what it must be like to live on £1 a week or a small portion of rice a day, or to walk miles just to collect a small amount of water. Our life of relative luxury does not come close to the endless hardships faced by the people of Africa. By the strength of our common endeavour, however, we have already begun to achieve something.
In Uganda, debt relief of £700 million in 2000 helped to increase its poverty reduction budget by 75 per cent. Since then, Uganda has abolished health user fees, and attendance in clinics has risen by a staggering 87 per cent. In Rwanda, the revenue authority has increased revenue by 40 per cent. over two years, allowing the Government to double spending on health and education and improving the lives of many Rwandans, both young and old. Possibly more importantly, we have written off 100 per cent. of the debt owed by the poorest countries to the UK.
We cannot become complacent, however. We cannot stop working towards a greater good for the continent of Africa. In a week's time, the leaders of the world's eight richest nations will meet at the Gleneagles hotel in my constituency. This will be a real chance to increase the speed at which change is brought about and to give back to Africa some of what was taken from it during the years of imperial rule.
Debt relief is a vital part of the relief of poverty in Africa. Nations can spend a lifetime simply paying back the interest on their debts. All too often, the moneys involved are small for western nations but huge for the African nations, where the debts hang round countries' necks, prohibiting their development and progress.
This Labour Government's commitment to debt relief has led the way for other nations. The Prime Minister, with the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has constantly maintained the pressure on other nations to join our campaign to eradicate poverty. We now see the beginnings of the international finance facility, pledges to ensure that Government spending on aid reaches 0.7 per cent. of GDP, and a dedication to wipe out the debts of those nations so that they can begin to lift their citizens out of poverty.
However, debt relief must be coupled with governance changes in those countries. Democracy needs to be strengthened, and corruption stemmed. We must provide the necessary assistance to individual African nations to help them to diversify and stimulate internal and external economic relationships, and to become more fiscally understanding of the needs of good governance.
We cannot simply write off debt in the hope that countries that have been ravaged by dictatorship, military rule and war will bloom into model nation states. Corruption is a huge problem, and improvements must be made to ensure that the assistance reaches the people whom it is meant to reach. We cannot assume that individual nations can always make those changes on their own. We must provide them with the help that they need to take those steps, so as to guarantee that the debt relief that this Government and many others have fought to secure can be effectively managed.
Addressing debt relief and governance will not solve all Africa's problems, however. There were 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS in Africa in 2003, with 5 million new infections in that year alone. HIV/AIDS directly or indirectly affects nearly everyone in Africa. Hundreds of thousands of children are left orphaned by parents who have contracted the disease, and the stigma attached to the illness breaks up communities. The cost of drugs that help fight the infection make those who suffer even poorer.
The IFF will allow us to build the health care systems that those countries need to combat HIV/AIDS, and to implement a plan for prevention and care—and, I hope, one day a cure. Nelson Mandela said that AIDS is a curse that we must not deny, and better education in countries such as South Africa can help to set the world on the right track in combating HIV/AIDS. Campaigns waged by religious groups encouraging young people not to use condoms must be addressed, and the denial of assistance by foreign governments to organisations that provide condoms as a method of HIV/AIDS prevention should also be corrected. Religious beliefs should not be ignored, but neither should the devastating consequences of such misdirected advice.
The cost of AIDS drugs to many in Africa is phenomenal. All too often, western companies charge more per dose in developing nations than in their home nations. I cannot place a price on the cost of a human life—but it appears that many pharmaceutical companies can. I see companies with soaring profits that publish catalogues of their compassion in helping developing nations, but still charge just enough for HIV/AIDS treatment to ensure that their shareholders dividends are kept high. They give with one hand and take away with the other.
The IFF advance purchase scheme could prevent more than 1 million deaths a year. The work by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation and the generosity of the Gates Foundation have helped to secure vaccinations for 50 million children around the world. I am proud to see the £1 billion pledged by this Government to the finance facility for immunisation. That is a real start to addressing the plague of diseases that blight so many countries in Africa, and attention must now be drawn to how we can tackle the damage done by malaria.
Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell's comment that the west is increasingly developing rampant consumerism and a "must have" culture, leading us to huge waste, is correct. Consumerism and the protectionism that is so closely associated with it hold back nations that are struggling to develop. As the Chancellor said yesterday in his speech to UNICEF, we should be opening our markets and removing trade-distorting subsidies. We must more urgently tackle the waste caused by the common agricultural policy by setting a date for the end of export subsidies.
I am confident that through our presidency of the European Union we shall be able to begin to address the issues of agricultural subsidies, and help to combat trade issues which mean that it is cheaper to import rice from America to southern Senegal than to grow it and transport it from the north of Senegal to the south. Big business should not profit at the expense of people and the environment. Greater corporate responsibility must go hand in hand with freer trade. We must end the export dumping that damages the livelihoods of the poorest communities in Africa. We must fight corruption, work to improve the health and education of millions of people in Africa, implement debt relief programmes and investment, and open the markets to provide a truly free-trade environment.
The fruits of this Labour Government's leadership in regard to poverty in Africa are already beginning to show. Even President Bush's comments yesterday reflect the willingness of other nations to listen to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development. However, I urge those who will attend the G8 summit at Gleneagles next week not to let this opportunity pass. We have been here before. We have seen discussions take place on the need to address poverty and debt relief in which much has been promised and little delivered. I hope that the actions of my right hon. and hon. Friends at DFID in recent years have shown that this time it is different, and we will deliver. I fear, though, that a watered-down result from next week's discussions may harm future attempts to address global poverty, despite the advances that we may make at Gleneagles.
It is a great pleasure to follow two Members—the hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks)—who represent different parts of Perthshire, where the G8 summit will be held. Apart from the summit, we shall have the Make Poverty History march, which will take place in my own city of Edinburgh, the Live 8 concert, which will be attended by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, and the descent of the potential million forecast by Bob Geldof on the city during the following week.
The summit may constitute one of the most significant meetings ever to take place in Scotland. The decisions and agreements made there will undoubtedly have a huge impact on the future of not just Africa but the entire planet. The G8 nations account for 65 per cent. of global GDP and 47 per cent. of global carbon dioxide emissions. With climate change and Africa dominating next week's G8 agenda, it is no exaggeration to say that those countries, acting together, could make an enormous difference on both issues.
As the Prime Minister said several years ago, Africa remains a scar on the conscience of the world. Despite all the words and all the promises, the scar is far from being healed. For too many years, political leaders have sat on their hands making grand gestures when real action has been required. The G8 summit marks a unique opportunity for the UK to lead the way and broker an agreement to help Africa lift itself out of the extreme poverty that it is experiencing. It is an opportunity that we cannot afford to squander.
It is important to pay tribute to the work of the Make Poverty History campaign, which has been extraordinarily successful in bringing this issue to the forefront of debate in the House and throughout the country. For many years, I have witnessed at first hand in Africa the terrible effect of poverty and also the real potential for the future. Allowing Africa to take control of that future requires meaningful action on our part in three fundamentally important areas: aid, debt and trade.
We must be committed to the principle of fair trade, not just free trade. We must drop the remaining debts that continue to cripple so many African countries, and we need all the G8 countries to make real strides towards meeting the requirements on international aid to achieve the millennium development goals. At the same time, it is crucial that we continue to tackle corruption, and support and encourage the transition to stable democracy throughout Africa.
It is clear that poverty in Africa cannot be eradicated without a major increase in international aid. The millennium development goals require that all countries work toward providing 0.7 per cent. of their national income in aid. The target is both realistic and achievable, but currently only five of the 22 major donors have met it. The UK Government have done well finally to establish a timetable for reaching the target, but 11 donors still have no timetable and many appear to be in no hurry. If current trends continue, Canada will not reach the target until 2025 and Germany will not do so before 2087.
What is more, the sums that rich countries currently invest in tackling global poverty remain embarrassingly small. Even worse, the wealthier that these countries have become, the less they have given. The sad truth is that today, the world's richest countries give half as much, as a proportion of their income, as they did in the 1960s. The Government of the USA, the richest country in the world, spend just 0.1 per cent. of gross domestic product on aid, yet the same Government are able to find twice as much to spend on the war in Iraq as they would need to spend to increase their aid budget to 0.7 per cent. of GDP. I very much hope that the G8 summit will provide the Prime Minister with the opportunity to show the benefits of his special relationship with George Bush by his persuading the USA to commit to those increases.
On top of this, too often the aid and assistance that we have given has been unhelpfully politicised. In recent years, the very goals of development aid have been redefined to suit the new security agenda. For example, in Denmark, Japan and Australia, combating terrorism is now an explicit aim of official aid programmes. It is a question of priorities, and I am afraid that ending poverty in Africa is simply not at the top of that list. In recent years, it has not even been close.
It is clear that poverty in Africa will not be solved by simply throwing money at it. Without a wide-ranging change in how aid is delivered, it will not achieve maximum benefit. Aid needs to focus better on the needs of the poorest, which means more being spent on basic health care and education, for example. Aid should no longer be conditional on recipients promising economic changes such as privatisation or deregulation of services, and the interests of the donor country certainly should not be put above those of the recipient. Currently, almost 30 per cent. of G7 aid is tied to an obligation to buy goods and services from the donor country. That is a truly shameful statistic.
It is worth noting that many countries that we now consider "developed" would not enjoy their current economic status but for their having received substantial amounts of aid. Lest we forget, after the second world war, 16 western European nations—ourselves included—benefited from grants from the USA worth more than $75 billion in today's terms. Those grants underpinned our economic recovery and have helped to create today's climate of peace and prosperity. More recently, EU structural funds have supported growth in Spain and in other southern European countries. Yet even though it has been proven that aid can work effectively, African countries have not yet benefited from the same generosity.
I will not say much on debt, given the Chancellor's recent announcements about increasing the number of countries to be freed from debt, which were welcome. I hope that they will be followed by the announcement of more initiatives in the week ahead. But even if African countries are freed from debt, their situation can only improve with a change in the way that we trade with them. By developing a genuinely liberal and international trade policy, we can enable major opportunities for growth and development in the parts of the world that need it most. Currently, the rules of international trade remain stacked in the favour of the richest and most powerful countries. Opening European markets to the products of the poorest countries would help their economies, and stopping the dumping of subsidised EU food in Africa would help African farmers to become more self-sufficient. These basic acts could do more than aid could possibly hope to achieve. An increase in Africa's share of world exports of just 1 per cent. would be enough to raise the equivalent of more than five times the total amount of aid given to that region.
We are part of the solution, but we are also part of the problem. A timely report published last week by Oxfam and Amnesty International highlighted the extent to which the UK and other G8 countries are exporting arms to many African countries, fuelling poverty, oppression and human rights abuses. The report pointed out that Britain, France and the US have made more money in the past four years from arms exports to Asia, Africa, the middle east and South America than they have offered to those regions in humanitarian aid. This report comes at just the right time to remind us of our role in Africa's plight. Rather than just being spectators to a crisis, in many instances we are playing a leading role.
Poverty in Africa has been created and sustained not merely by chance or nature, but by a combination of factors—injustice in global trade, the huge burden of debt, insufficient and ineffective aid and global warming. They all play their part and each of those factors is determined by human decisions, yet we continue to condemn Africa to a future of poverty through our consistent failure to act on those issues.
We are partly responsible for the continuing plight of much of Africa and we must start living up to that responsibility. We need to recognise that we have a responsibility and a moral obligation to act. A good test of the humanity of a society is how it treats the least privileged—and many of them live in Africa. The eyes of the world are on the G8 next week. We must all ensure that, after everyone has gone home, the momentum is maintained.
We could do worse than follow the example of one of my own constituents, John Mackay, who has launched an organisation called Sailing for Justice. Included in that organisation's project is a non-stop circumnavigation of the world, starting and ending in Scotland and taking the Make Poverty History message around the globe. Through this year and the next, we in the House must, like my constituent, continue our commitment for as long as it takes to make poverty history.
I begin by acknowledging the immense progress made on debt relief and poverty eradication through the leadership shown by the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in developing pro-poor polices, which can only benefit all developing countries, and particularly the poorest countries in Africa.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that among the major causes of poverty in Africa are poor maternal and child heath, the status of women and HIV/AIDS. I believe that major and sustained interventions in sexual and reproductive health are vital for the future of Africa and are the key to sustainable development there.
Sub-Saharan Africa is the world's poorest place, with 70 per cent. of its people living on less than $2 a day. Fertility is highest in the poorest countries as well as among the poorest people in those societies. It should be no surprise that those same places have the highest levels of unmet need for family planning and reproductive health services. According to the environmental sustainability taskforce, that need, together with health, education and gender equality issues, must be addressed with policies and programmes that will slow population growth and realise synergistic improvements. At a national level, fertility reduction may enable accelerated social and economic development. Conversely, the absence of sexual and reproductive health and rights undermines development.
It is widely recognised that reproductive illness and unintended pregnancies detract from economic development, whether by weakening or killing adults, disrupting and cutting short the lives of their children or placing heavy financial burdens on their families. Sexual and reproductive health and rights also deals with poverty and development in the wider context. The ability to exercise rights and freedoms of choice brings self-determination, which, in turn, has a direct impact on individuals' ability to emerge from poverty.
Sub-Saharan Africa is confronted by continuing high population growth, youthful populations, low contraceptive prevalence, the highest rates of HIV/AIDs and high unmet need for family planning. Poor reproductive health accounts for 40 per cent. of the diseases suffered by women and one in 20 women in Africa die from pregnancy-related causes, in comparison with one in 16 in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet, if all the available condoms in Africa were evenly distributed, each man would receive only three or four per year. There is a huge gap between the demand for condoms and the funding available for them.
Of the world's 875 million illiterate adults, two thirds are women. Gender equality is a catalyst for development because women who can plan the timing of their pregnancies and the number of children that they have have greater opportunities for work and education. Empowering people to exercise their rights over fertility and to choose the number and spacing of their children is a very powerful tool in the fight to reduce poverty.
Gender equality is essential for achieving the millennium development goals. It cannot be achieved without guaranteeing the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls.
Seven priorities for action have been identified by the gender and education taskforce in order to achieve gender equality. One of them is ensuring access to sexual and reproductive health and rights. Specific interventions to address gender inequality should be an intrinsic part of all MDG-based investment packages. There should also be systematic challenges, such as the protection of sexual and reproductive health and rights, including access to information and family planning services.
One African in two are under the age of 20. More than 40 million of Africa's children are not in school, and two thirds of them are girls. Families with fewer children spaced further apart can invest more in each child's education. That, of course, is of particular benefit to girls, as a girl's education may have a significantly lower priority than the education of a boy child in the family.
Children in large families are likely to have reduced health care, and unwanted children are much more likely to die than wanted ones. Our mission in relation to child mortality is clear. Where mothers live, their children are much more likely to live. Where mothers are healthy, their children have a much better chance of being, and staying, healthy.
There are 529,000 maternal deaths each year, and half of them are in Africa. Every day, 1,400 women die from preventable pregnancy-related causes. The child health and maternal health taskforce recommends that an additional target be included for monitoring the fifth of the millennium development goals, which is to achieve universal access to reproductive health service by 2015, through the primary health care system, and to ensure the same rate of progress, or faster, among the poor and other marginalised groups.
More than 17 million Africans have died from AIDS, and another 25 million are infected with the HIV virus. Approximately 1.9 million of those are children. UNAIDS estimates that, this year alone, another 3 million people in sub-Saharan Africa will be infected with HIV.
Our approach to HIV/AIDS should be based on an integrated model of sexual and reproductive health care. The Millennium Project's HIV taskforce stated:
"The fight against HIV/AIDS and the broader struggle for reproductive health should be mutually reinforcing."
National Governments should incorporate universal access to reproductive health and sexual health services and information as an integral part of their AIDS responses.
I am sure hon. Members of all parties would agree that the empowerment of women is a development end in itself. Removing the obstacles to women's exercise of economic and, indeed, political power is also one of the most important ways to end poverty. Reproductive health is a part of an essential package of health care and education. It is a means to the goal of women's empowerment, but it is also a human right. It includes the right to choose the size and spacing of the family. It is by far the easiest and most cost-effective way to help people of all nations out of poverty, and it is essential to ensuring that the millennium development goals are achieved.
It has been said twice already in the debate that we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity at the G8 and the summit on the millennium development goals. I know that the Government believe that better reproductive health is crucial to reducing poverty in Africa and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell the House in his response to the debate that the Government will push reproductive health and rights in discussions at the G8 and push for their inclusion at the millennium development goals summit in September.
I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. It is also a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) and I congratulate her on selecting an issue on which she has obviously made herself an expert. She focused on that issue and contributed thoughtfully to the debate. I hope that she will excuse me if I do not follow her on that issue.
I am not a rock star, so I do not bring the particular expertise that membership of that profession brings to the economic problems of Africa, but I am one of few MPs—if not the only one—to have devoted the best part of a decade before becoming an MP to working on aid and development projects, mostly in Africa. I hope that I can draw on that experience to contribute to this debate. I worked in countries as diverse as Ethiopia, Zaire, the Republic of the Congo—the former French Congo—Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Cameroon at a time when they were full of hope and enthusiasm and it seemed that the possibility of progress from poverty to prosperity was real. Subsequently, I saw the heartbreaking decline and reversal in many of those countries into deeper poverty, greater disease, conflict and distress. No one is more passionately committed than I am to seeing poverty made history and to seeing the goals of that campaign achieved. I recognise the good faith of those who support that campaign— and especially the Secretary of State in the contribution he made today. I also recognise the genuine support that has welled up in the country as a whole.
However, I hope that I have earned from my past work the right to puncture some of the complacent endorsement that has perhaps been a characteristic of this debate—certainly of the debate outside—of everything that has been done in the name of making poverty history. I am concerned that as well as supporting many genuine and desirable objectives, the campaign could become a vehicle for anti-free trade, anti-free market and anti-globalisation attitudes and policies that, if pursued, would be damaging to Africa, and all too often embody a patronising attitude towards Africans that in some cases borders on racism.
Those anti-free market and often patronising attitudes were prevalent within the aid agencies when I worked for them in Africa many years ago. However, all my experience of working with Africans, who became friends and valued colleagues, convinced me that those attitudes are wrong. Africans have the same number of grey cells as any other race. They have the same desire to better themselves, their families and their communities. They have the same capacity for hard work, ingenuity and enterprise as any other country. It is sad that, for example, the advertisement that appears today in many newspapers has a headline that implies that eight white men in a room in one day can solve the problems of Africa, with the implication that 680 million Africans are effectively relegated to the status of recipients of the largesse, wisdom and power of those eight gentlemen. In my view, that is nonsense and, in my experience, it is incorrect.
I did many studies for the UN Economic Commission for Africa and the UN Industrial Development Organisation, in which I identified a viable project located in a country where its inhabitants were free to invest. In many instances, that project was duly implemented by local entrepreneurs, often before the aid agencies had finished processing the report or the local government had got round to seeing whether it wanted the project to happen or not. Where African people have the freedom in their own countries and the access to foreign markets to prosper, they will take those opportunities, and they will prosper. So our first demand should be to open up access to our markets to African people who want to trade with us and export to us.
I do not know how many people have read the manifesto of Make Poverty History, but I was astonished to find that it contains no call to open up access to the markets of the EU or other developed countries. It rightly calls for an end to export subsidies, which can be damaging in African markets, but rather than attacking the protectionism of western markets, it calls for the right of African countries to protect their own agriculture and farmers.
Obviously, those countries are free to take their own decisions, but I believe that there is hardly anything less designed to be helpful to the elimination of poverty in developing countries than raising the price of food for poor people. If those countries must indulge in protection, let it be on cosmetics and Cadillacs, rather than on anything that makes their food more expensive; but, anyway, our aim should be to open up our markets to Africa's goods.
Making Poverty History's second aim, with which I entirely concur, is to drop the debt. I am proud to have belonged to a Government who wrote off all aid debt to African countries—although we did not make a song and dance about it at the time—thus leaving only Government guaranteed trade and multilateral debt to be dealt with.
Some free-marketeers, who would agree with me in other ways, are suspicious of debt relief. They are mistaken. It is what happens in free markets. If we lend to someone for a project that fails to make a profit and a return, the debt has to be written off. If we lend to someone who, through unwisdom or otherwise, is unable to pay back the loan, we have to write it off. The only reason why there is a problem about debt relief for Africa is that the debts are not free-market debts made freely between someone investing in those countries or lending to those people, but debts that have been guaranteed by Governments or Government agencies.
Some people say that writing off debts will reward corrupt dictators and plutocrats, but let us remember that it is not the corrupt dictators and plutocrats who will pay back those debts, if we insist on their repayment, but the poor peasants and the impoverished people who live in the townships of Africa. Whoever's fault it was that those bad loans were made, it was not the fault of poor people in Africa, and they should not be required to repay their loans. So I entirely endorse the objective of writing off debts that cannot be repaid, but we should not start again down the path of Government-guaranteed debts and Government-channelled lending to those countries. We should encourage private investment and lending wherever possible because that results not only in the better targeting of investment, but in better managed investment and better monitored investment. That brings me to aid.
Where famine, destitution, draught or disaster exists, we have a straightforward humanitarian, Christian obligation to aid those people. There is a good case, too, for giving aid to finance hospitals, schools and the training of teachers, nurses and doctors—rather than the reverse: their training our teachers, nurses and doctors—especially if that aid is delivered directly to the project and audited transparently. But in all my experience, aid that was designed to finance projects of an industrial nature to contribute to development was unnecessary. There was no project that I ever saw that would not have occurred in the absence of subsidies.
In the UK, we have abandoned our belief that we can make ourselves richer by Government subsidising business, picking winners and selecting industries, so why are we so patronising towards Africa as to think that Africans need those outdated methods of industrial development to prosper? They do not. Our role should be to remove the obstacles to their trading in our markets, to lift the burden of debt that hampers them and to help with their humanitarian needs. If we do that, I have faith and confidence that, given good governance, the people of Africa will move from poverty to prosperity; but it will be they who lift the burden of poverty, not eight men in Gleneagles.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on a thoughtful and in some ways provocative speech, but I agree with the provocation; it needs to be said that the private sector has a vital role in the development of Africa. If we protect African countries from private investment or the private sector, we will impoverish them.
I congratulate the Government on making Africa a priority for the G8 and EU presidencies; on giving Africans a voice in developing the agenda that they take to the G8 since more than half the members of the Commission for Africa Africans; and on setting their sights high in the goals that they seek. In the Chamber, we inevitably talk about theoretical constructs, such as aid, trade and debt, but they are means to an end: empowering human beings to live decent lives.
From what has already happened in the preparations for the G8, we know what the summit will deliver. Although it will not achieve the millennium development goals in Africa, it will lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. It will get many, many more children into school, and provide clean water supplies in many villages and towns that would not have obtained them otherwise. The Gleneagles summit will agree the debt write-off that has been mapped out by the G7 Finance Ministers. It will endorse the EU agreement on a timetable for reaching 0.7 per cent. of gross national income for development assistance.
Those decisions would not have been made had it not been for the leadership that our Government have given internationally to prioritise Africa. We shall see real progress on debt and aid at Gleneagles. More will be needed, and I shall be speaking at one of the rallies in Edinburgh demanding more, as will many other people. But there will be insufficient progress at the G8 on trade, so we must see Gleneagles not as a high watermark but as a staging post. We must use the time between now and the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in December to create a political basis internationally for agreement at the WTO.
The main stumbling blocks to a trade agreement are the agricultural subsidies in developed countries, so we in the Chamber should turn our attention from the G8 to the UK presidency of the EU, which starts tomorrow, and talk about what our priorities for our six-month presidency will be. We take over the presidency at a difficult time. The EU is suffering growth pains from enlargement. The European constitution has been rejected by France and the Netherlands in referendums. There is deadlock on the EU budget and the UK rebate. There is high unemployment in many EU member states and a need for economic reform to meet the challenges from emerging economies, but no consensus in the EU on how to deal with those problems.
The problems of the budget, the UK rebate and CAP reform will not go away. The CAP is a barrier to progress at the WTO, and many Members on both sides of the House have said during the debate that trade reform can deliver more towards lifting people out of poverty than more help through aid or debt write-offs.
The UK rebate was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher because it was recognised that the CAP imposes an unjustifiably large burden on the UK. I hope that we can build a cross-party consensus in the UK that if we can get CAP reform, the UK's net contribution to the EU will come down as the cost of the CAP comes down, so the rebate can come down, too. If we can get consensus in the UK on opening up debate about the rebate and the way in which we could allow ourselves to reduce it, we should be able to make progress on CAP reform.
I would like to suggest six planks for the reform of the CAP that our Government could take forward during their presidency. First, we should of course avoid undermining the current reforms such as the decoupling process and the proposals on ending EU export subsidies. The progress that has been made in those fields must be consolidated.
Secondly, the Government should consider relaunching a proposal that the Germans made several years ago to devolve rural policy and spending decisions to member states—I think that the EU jargon is "nationalisation". In other words, the subsidy rules would be agreed at EU level, but the subsidies themselves would be paid from the national budgets in all the 15 original EU member states. I have often wondered why France needs to pay its farmers twice as much in aid as it gives in aid to people in developing countries. If we adopted the nationalisation approach on agricultural subsidies, we would create an incentive for all the EU 15 to reduce subsidies overall.
Thirdly, we need to propose a new EU development mechanism to replace the CAP and structural funds, which would permit budget transfers to be made from richer to poorer states without tying those transfers only to agriculture. We have heard many times that the CAP absorbs 40 per cent. of the EU budget, yet agriculture represents a tiny percentage—less than 5 per cent.—of the EU economy. Such a mechanism would give receiving states greater freedom to set their own development priorities and decide how money should be spent.
Fourthly, we need to set out a realistic timetable for reform. We could introduce the new regime—the end of CAP and the structural funds, and the introduction of the EU development mechanism—in 2010. We could offer to introduce it on the basis of the existing share of contributions as long as we also had an agreement on a transitional period in which we would move from the current mix of contributions to a rational method of burden sharing based on the gross national income per capita of each member state.
Fifthly, as the EU cuts agricultural subsidies, we should refocus those resources on external aid. We could support accession states such as Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey so that they can make the reforms necessary to allow them to join the EU at a future date. The resources could be used to stabilise the "near abroad"—to use the European jargon—of the middle east and north Africa. They could also be used to address the problems of global poverty, especially in Africa.
Sixthly—I stress this point—we need to retain EU control of the subsidy rules at Commission and Parliament level because that would be the only way in which we could reassure the WTO that a downward path of agricultural subsidies would be achieved.
I welcome the strong cross-party agreement that we have seen during the debate. However, if we are really serious about making a difference for the poorest of the poor in Africa, we must reach cross-party consensus on reform of the CAP and on the UK rebate from the EU. We will not get CAP reform unless we move on the rebate.
We need to recognise that negotiating change in the EU budget will require give and take. At the end of the process, the UK will remain a net contributor because we are one of the richest countries, not least because of the economic success of the Labour Government. The contribution that we and other rich member states, such as Germany, France and Italy, make should be structured on a rational basis, relating to gross national income per capita in each country, and not on the anarchic basis of the CAP.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who made an outstanding speech. It is a privilege to work with him in my day job, as it were, as a shadow Minister for Northern Ireland. I look forward to working with him in the House for many years.
I welcome the debate and the high profile that international development has these days. I am happy to pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for working hard towards the goals that we all share, not least on the Conservative Front Bench. I join those who paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), who made an outstanding speech.
I want to touch on three issues. There is a campaign with the slogan "trade not aid", but we need both trade and aid. We need to improve the trade prospects of third world countries. Having visited a number of them—twice to Ethiopia, once to Rwanda and once to Kenya—I have seen the depths of poverty there. To suggest—although no hon. Member has—that those countries can leap forward as quickly as they need to do simply because we remove tariff barriers or subsidies is fantasy. When one walks through streets and sees people huddled together, banging pieces of tin with bricks to make something to sell, one realises that they have a long way to go before they can compete in the markets that should rightly be open to them. I am not saying that we should not remove trade barriers or subsidies, because we certainly should, but we also need to do much more to help those countries progress.
On a recent visit to Ethiopia, I visited a hospital where the surgeon was an 80-year-old lady who was doing a fantastic job, but in the countryside I saw the true meaning of a hospital queue, with people physically sitting outside the hospital. We saw that people live in a space no bigger than the Table in the Chamber, and it has to accommodate 10 or 12 people or families and their animals. We also saw girls who spend their entire lives walking to collect water. That made us realise how much we need to do to enable those countries to compete. We must remember that we have to provide development aid in particular to them, as well as humanitarian aid, which is provided in response to disasters. As well as removing trade barriers, we need to do our utmost to persuade the supermarkets, which have enormous power, to buy more goods from the third world and to have them correctly labelled so that consumers can choose to contribute to the development of third world countries in that way.
Although it is important to give money to good Governments, we have to remember that people who live in countries that are corrupt or at war are probably in greater need than those who live in countries without those problems. It is more difficult to deliver aid in those circumstances, but it is even more important to do so and to find a way to do so. That is best done through non-governmental organisations. I pay tribute to the aid workers on the ground. I have seen the jobs that they do. They risk their lives, are away from their families and live in appalling conditions to save the lives of the people in those countries. I want to place on the record my appreciation for their work. It is important to recognise the value of their enthusiasm.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) spoke earlier about our visit to Rwanda, where we walked through the bones and skulls of people who had been massacred in the genocide. Strangely enough, what made me feel worse was our visit to the trials, where we saw quite ordinary-looking people who had hacked others to death. We wondered whether the situation could ever be sorted out, or whether we were just wasting our time. Gradually, however, we realised that the fact that those ordinary-looking people had done that kind of thing was a reason to help. That is also what motivates the people who work on the ground in those countries.
I think that I shall be the lone voice speaking in support of Ethiopia today. We have heard a number of criticisms of the Ethiopian Government, and I share the concerns about the situation that led to 20 people being killed there, and about the people who are being held without charge for demonstrating. I shall certainly do my little bit to persuade the Government there to bring about a speedy conclusion to that situation. I must point out, however, that only about 14 years ago, Ethiopia was in the grip of a Marxist Government. Recent elections there were observed by 300 international observers, there has been an economic growth rate of about 5 per cent., and more and more children go to school these days. The Ethiopian Government have also initiated a resettlement programme. Although quite crude, it is trying to bring people from the non-fertile areas, which are desperately poor, into areas in which they might be able to grow and have access to food.
The Ethiopian Government are doing everything that they can. I understand the Secretary of State's decision to suspend the increase in aid to Ethiopia—I have discussed the matter with him—but I would ask him to keep in close touch with the Ethiopian Prime Minister. I know from our discussions that he will. As I said earlier, the poorer a country is, the more help it needs. We have to accept that this is Africa, for goodness' sake, and we cannot judge Africa by our own standards. We have our own problems with electoral systems in this country, and if we are going to say that anyone who does not have a perfect Government and a perfect country cannot have aid, I suggest that we are missing the point.
I know that the Secretary of State will keep a close watch on what is happening in Ethiopia, with a view to continuing to increase the aid. I commend the Government for having done so in the past, and I hope that we shall be able to resume providing Ethiopia with the help that it needs. It is a desperately poor country, and it really needs our help. The blind children and the crippled children on the streets are the ones who need help, not the Ethiopian Government. I urge the House to have some tolerance for what is going on in Ethiopia and to recognise the real progress that it has made.
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on one of the best maiden speeches that I have heard? I look forward to hearing more from him in the future. I also want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on one of the best Front-Bench speeches that I have heard in the nearly five years that I have been here.
Much attention has understandably focused on the steps that the leaders of the G8 can take when they meet at Gleneagles this weekend. Today, however, I want briefly to mention an issue that will be largely unaffected by the decisions taken at the summit, but which I hope will not be forgotten. Poverty is not a problem that we associate with one of Africa's richest countries, and certainly not with one of its oil-rich regions. Up to 2 million barrels of oil a day are pumped from the Niger delta's swamps. They provide Nigeria with 80 per cent. of its revenues and 98 per cent. of its exports. However, most ordinary Nigerians do not see the benefit of this wealth. Seven out of 10 Nigerians live on less than $1 a day. The disparity is particularly pronounced in the Niger delta, where much of the wealth comes from, and I shall explain why that is the case and what can be done.
Oil is a mixed blessing. It provides great wealth, but it has troubling consequences. In the Gulf states, for example, it provides regimes with so much money that they do not have to levy significant taxes on the population. Great, one might think, but it means that leaders can operate without representative government, so they do not pay any attention to the needs and wishes of their people. In the Niger delta, since the 1970s, revenues amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars have been grabbed by central Government and local politicians, and have been largely wasted. Since President Obasanjo came to power in 1999, the country has experienced greater stability. He took steps to rein in the politicised army, but the situation remains fragile. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the Paris club had reached agreement on Nigeria's debt, which is welcome news. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin), I would be grateful to know how much debt relief will be provided.
The Nigerian Government need to do much more to provide a stable basis for the delta. They must guarantee that the 2007 elections will be free and fair; otherwise no amount of work by non-governmental organisations or foreign Governments will bring peace and prosperity to the region. There will be primary elections next year, but the country has the capacity to explode into civil war. The 2006 primaries will draw attention to local areas such as the Niger delta, where there is extreme violence. Ethnic and religious strife threatens to overwhelm any future development. Rival militias in the delta have cost hundreds of lives since 2003 and caused tens of thousands of people to flee their homes. What chance is there for people to escape poverty when they do not even have secure shelter? Indeed, the militias are exploiting poverty. One particularly sinister leader, Mujahid Dobuko-Asari, is posing as a champion of the oppressed. He demands a greater part of the oil profits for his Ijaw tribe, but in practice he causes mayhem. According to Human Rights Watch, the police do not have the firepower to take on the militia, so Mr. Asari takes in the jobless youngsters of the delta, obtains weapons which are more sophisticated than those carried by the police, and talks of an "armed struggle".
Militias and their fighters have made attacks on the oil industry, and many have dubious roles as private security contractors. With the state unable to guarantee security, what are the oil companies to do? Should they make unorthodox payments to those so-called contractors, or should they wait for their production to be stopped by violence? The people of the Niger delta need security and a stronger state if development is to progress. As well as working on aid and debt, the British Government and others must work with the Nigerian Government to ensure that the rule of law returns to the Niger delta. If the rule of law is restored, there is a chance that the billions of dollars worth of wealth created in the Niger delta will spread to the rest of Nigeria, so that the 70 per cent. of the population who live on less than $1 a day can perhaps earn more money.
Earlier this year, our former colleague Bill Tynan was instrumental in setting up the all-party parliamentary group on the Niger Delta. Following Bill's retirement, I have taken over the group's chairmanship. I pay tribute to Bill's dedication in setting up the group, and I am grateful for his advice on the subject. In fact, he still advises me and has done so this week, even though he is on holiday in Spain. The Niger delta group is making good progress. On 16 June, we held our annual general meeting, which was attended by representatives from Shell, communities in the delta, and a researcher who has been investigating the region's problems and reported to the group at first hand. In the past few weeks more than 30 MPs have joined the group, and Lord Jenkin, who is a vice-chair, is taking up the baton in the other place.
In a few weeks I shall be leading a delegation to the delta in order to assess the situation on the ground. We will meet representatives of the Government and the oil companies, as well as many ordinary people who live in the area. In advance of the trip we will be in close touch with the Foreign Office. I have already had a short discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, and I know that he is looking forward to me briefing him on my return from the delta. I look forward to doing so.
I know that other Members want to speak and raise a range of important issues relating to poverty throughout Africa, so I shall not detain the House any longer than necessary. A Labour Member does not usually have the opportunity to slow up Opposition Members who want to speak, but in this case I will give up some of my time to allow them to speak on a subject on which there is cross-party agreement.
With Nigeria's great potential, including its wealth and resources, it is a natural candidate to leave the way in the development of Africa. I have outlined a few of the serious challenges that stand in the way. As the Minister for Trade and Investment said, if Nigeria does not meet its millennium development goals, Africa cannot meet them. That is why we must work with the people of Nigeria. I urge my right hon. Friend to do everything he can, and I know he will, to help make the Niger delta prosperous and to expand its wealth to the rest of Nigeria and, hopefully, point the way in democracy for the rest of Africa.
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), who as ever spoke with sincerity, experience and knowledge. Moreover, I endorse wholeheartedly the tribute that he and others have paid to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who delivered a moving and memorable maiden speech of which he should be justly proud.
Let us be clear that aid, trade and debt relief are necessary but not sufficient conditions of African development. The Secretary of State knows the high esteem in which I hold him. It was a privilege to shadow him, and I can tell him that the Bierton combined school, to whose Make Poverty History assembly I had the privilege of speaking on Monday, made it clear that it wanted its support for the agenda to be taken forward at Gleneagles.
There is a fundamental weakness in the trinity of aid, trade and debt relief unless there are additions to it—that is, that that invaluable package does not stop genocide. Genocide is the source of poverty, and stopping genocide requires the establishment or re-establishment of security. In the time available I shall focus my remarks specifically and narrowly on Darfur, western Sudan, which I had the privilege and also the harrowing experience of visiting twice in the past 12 months. In reflecting upon the tragedy and the savagery there, let us remind ourselves of the legal position.
Deprivation of access to food and medicine is a crime against humanity under article 2(b) of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group in whole or in part is a form of genocide under article 2(c) of the United Nations genocide convention. My contention is that the cocktail of barbarity that has been unleashed and continues to be visited upon the people of Darfur is almost certainly an act of genocide. There has been and continues to be prolonged suffering in the region.
Look at the facts. Consult the World Food Programme. The position is clear. Over 3 million people are dependent on food aid. Already, no fewer than 3,200 villages have been deliberately burned. It is estimated that some 2 million people have been internally displaced, and we should not forget that no fewer than 200,000 people have fled in terror from the Government and from the Arab militias over the border into Chad. That is the continuing reality of the situation in Darfur, although the issue is not nearly as prominent in the news media as it was only a few months ago.
It saddens and horrifies me when I hear it said that there is "a semblance of calm" or "relative normality", or that "the situation has stabilised". I do not doubt the Secretary of State's sincere and determined intention to do what he can to tackle the situation, but there is no real calm at all. Look at what has happened. Much of the bombing has already taken place, and if the Antonovs are raining down bombs rather less frequently than they were, it is because much of the job has been done, so the necessity for continued and remorseless aggression from the air no longer exists. The bulk of the ethnic cleansing has already taken place.
Above all, as we pontificate on the future of Africa, we should listen to the verdict of the UN's under-secretary for humanitarian affairs, Jan Egelund, who is the head honcho in the field. On 21 June, which is only nine days ago, he said:
"we have regressed. More and more women are being attacked, younger and yet younger children are victims of these atrocities . . . It is a vicious racial issue."
Although I applaud the contributions from the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), it is necessary to puncture the complacency of the debate to highlight the difference between our aspirations for the future and our conduct of the present.
In truth, the international community is not doing the maximum that could be done. The Secretary of State is responsible for humanitarian assistance, and he is brilliant at it. He is the best Secretary of State for International Development since the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), who, in her different way, exemplified the values that must be progressed if we are to secure advances in Africa. The Secretary of State is brilliant at his job, but we need joined-up government here and within the multilateral institutions of the European Union and, in particular, of the UN. The fact is—I know that this is sad and brutal, and it is no doubt undiplomatic to say it—that the international community does not care enough about the continued and deliberate slaughter of tens of thousands of black Africans in Darfur, for if it did, it would not sit on its hands.
So far, we have seen a half-hearted intervention to which there are three significant downsides. First, the straightforward moral reality is that the international community has abdicated and continues to shirk its responsibility to the suffering citizens of Darfur. Secondly, there are the financial implications. Whoever else we seek to deceive, let us not deceive ourselves—the longer we wait and the less we do, the greater the burden and the bigger the cost when the day of reckoning comes. We do not have to consult the crystal ball, because we can look in the book of the historical experience and tragedy of Rwanda, where the eventual cost of reconstruction was $4.5 billion because the international community pitifully and pathetically neglected the situation. I greatly admired the Prime Minister for saying to the 2001 Labour party conference that if ever there were a comparable situation again, Britain and the international community would have a moral duty to act. There is and we have.
Thirdly, many tributes have been paid to the African Union. There are some 3,320 personnel in Darfur, of whom, on the latest reckoning, about 2,055 are troops on the ground. Even if the force increases to 7,700 soldiers, as the Secretary of State has said today and articulated at yesterday's International Development questions, the likelihood is that their remit will simply be to protect people in the camps for internally displaced persons. What that means is that each soldier will be responsible for the protection of no fewer than 305 people.
This is a slow-burn, grisly, despicable and, from the vantage point of the international community, shameful genocide that we are allowing to be perpetrated on our watch. What we need to do instead is to seek ceaselessly until we obtain a chapter VII United Nations peace enforcement mandate. It is no good talking about peacekeeping. There is no peace settlement—there is a temporary and fragile ceasefire honoured more often in the breach than in the observance. We probably need a force of 25,000 people to go to Darfur to protect civilians and to offer a better prospect of peace and security, which is the indispensable precondition of the recovery of the people and the beginning of the fight against poverty in western Sudan.
The people of Darfur have suffered too much for too long with too little done about it. I am ashamed of that, and I hope that other right hon. and hon. Members are ashamed of it. I appeal to the Secretary of State to use his good offices to pressurise the Foreign Office, to work together, and to use the moral force that still exists, admittedly in diminished form, with the Prime Minister, to argue for a robust, concerted and effective approach at multilateral level. That is what is needed; nothing less will do.
I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) for giving me such an easy act to follow—I don't think.
This House has a proud history of fighting for social and economic justice, and today we have the chance to write another chapter in that history. We must support the Make Poverty History campaign for trade justice, full debt cancellation and more and better aid. As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, if we can do it on the basis of consensus, then so much the better. It is a disgrace that in 2005 the world's poorest countries are still forced to pay millions of pounds a year to the rich world in debt repayments. It is a further disgrace that rich countries agreed to give 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product as long ago as 1970, yet so far only five countries have managed to reach that target. It is a disgrace that sadly our Government and our country are yet not one of them. It is an injustice that the poorest 49 countries on this planet make up 10 per cent. of the world's population but their share of international trade is under 0.5 per cent.
Nearly 500 trade unions, campaign organisations, development agencies and faith groups in the United Kingdom have come together in an unprecedented coalition to say to us and to our Government that it is time to bring about progress on trade, aid and debt. The people are not just with us on this—they are ahead of us.
This year is a unique opportunity. Our Government have the presidency of the G8 and the EU. It is only 10 years until the world is meant to meet the millennium development goals. Poverty is supposed to be halved by 2015, yet it is 20 long years since the world called for change at Live Aid. Today, we must persuade the world to choose the right policies on trade, aid and debt. We really do have a chance, if we choose, to make poverty history.
Late last year, I had the privilege of leading a delegation of public service workers to a conference in Johannesburg organised by my trade union, Unison, where 70 delegates from 10 southern African countries met to plan their response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic that is sweeping sub-Saharan Africa. The whole conference was paid for by Unison. It was money well spent on behalf of ordinary men and women—people who, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, had quite likely been killing each other previously, but had decided, in southern Africa as in Northern Ireland, that the only way to achieve genuine reconciliation is to work together.
Workers came from Angola, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mauritius, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and South Africa. They worked in different public services, under different political regimes, and faced different cultural systems. Three things united them, however. They all wanted to deliver world-class public services for their people. They all wanted to develop a role for working people and their organisations to beat the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. Most crucially, they realised that the key driver of the pandemic is poverty. It is a poverty that does not cause AIDS but helps to spread it. It is a poverty that makes people live in houses unfit for animals. It denies human beings the right to good, clean water. It prevents men, women and children from being properly educated. It breeds on ignorance and allows cultural exploitation, especially of women and young girls. Above all, it is a poverty that does not have to exist, which is what we should be arguing.
We live in a world that spends more on obesity, erectile dysfunction and pet medicines than on the so-called neglected diseases of Africa. We live in a world in which the most powerful nation tells the weakest ones that the real cure for AIDS is abstention. What an attitude—when all else has fallen around one, even the comfort of the person one loves would be denied by those of us in the west who know better. We also live in a world in which more money is spent on protecting the monopoly of drug corporations than on alleviating the needs of sick and dying children. That must be wrong.
There is a shift in attitude and in world opinion. Employers in southern Africa have realised that HIV/AIDS is their business as well as the workers' business. If workers are sick, dying or off work because they are burying their relatives, they are not producing the goods for their employers. That might be sustained for a while, but not when millions are sick and dying, and definitely not when, as in the case of Africa, more than 70 per cent. of those with HIV/AIDS are in the work force.
For example, mining companies have come to realise that it is ridiculous to retrain, employ and recruit people and then see them fall away from the work force. They are therefore implementing programmes that help people to take time away from work. They are introducing sex education lessons. It is sad that in much of southern Africa, public services are not reflecting the work that private companies are doing—that comes from someone who does not often sing the praises of private services over public ones.
The resolution of the situation is a win-win for all of us. It is not just a way for us to be do-gooders and spread largesse. If we do not attack poverty, its causes and its symptoms, we all become weaker in every way. That is why the events of this coming period are so important.
Most of us in the Chamber probably came into politics to change the world. Before too long, we realised that we had problems changing our socks. Now is our chance—our generation's chance. Many of us are diametrically opposed to other parties in this place, and sometimes even to our own. Many of us have concerns about our relationships with various nations on this issue. My advice is simple. For this period, let us put aside our differences and unite with each other. Let us follow the lead that the people of our country and the world are giving us. Let us say enough is enough. Let us accept our responsibility. Let us acknowledge that poverty is not inevitable. Let us believe that poverty is a human creation that humans can change. Let us put our money where the starving mouths of the world are. Let us make a difference. For once, let us make our kids proud of us. Let us make poverty history, and let us do it now.
If the good people of Rochford and Southend, East had not elected me to this place, I would be returning to Africa. I want to talk a little about my experiences of business in Africa, because I believe that business and free trade are more likely to alleviate poverty than any other activity.
In the early 1990s, I was working in the City of London, and I told my employers at my annual appraisal that I was bored. They said, "Well, why don't you take this job in Swaziland?" I did not really know the continent, and certainly did not know where Swaziland was, but I took up that opportunity. Initially, I felt guilty sat behind a desk, because in my mind, at that time, compassionate people in Africa were aid workers, who dug ditches and, in many ways, lived in poverty themselves. Now, however, I know that Africa needs business men and bankers, specialists, financial markets and advisers. A colleague of mine who went out to Africa a few years before me set up a local stock exchange in Botswana, and went on to generate an awful lot of wealth for that country.
As a banker I was called many things, and I am sure that I shall be called worse things as a politician—but at the bank I saw that although many people look on bankers in a negative way, we lubricated the economy, allowing speedier development and, ultimately, less poverty. I went on to work in the Ivory Coast for a Belgian bank, and in Botswana for a British bank. Indeed, I met my wife in Swaziland.
In my experience, we need free trade and free elections—in that order. However, the term "fair trade" concerns me. It highlights inequalities in trade, and it is right to do so, but Governments should not decide what is fair, markets should—and the African marketplace is no different from any other.
I have a number of clients involved with the sugar industry, and I have visited sugar factories in communities across Swaziland and Uganda. The factories tend to be in remote locations; the lucky ones get jobs there, but there is certainly a lot of poverty, particularly with seasonal workers. It makes me feel sick to think of the subsidies that the first world gives out within the sugar industry. It is duplicitous to take with one hand and give with the other, and then ask for praise for doing that. The sooner we abandon the common agricultural policy and have genuinely free trade among nation states, the better.
I also want to mention some concerns about some of the charitable works carried out for Africa's benefit in the United Kingdom. All too often we paint Africa in the worst possible light, to solicit donations and activity. I am concerned that events such as Live 8 and the events that preceded it pigeonhole Africa and Africans. The countries in which I have lived and worked have been poor, but there has been enormous spirit there—in many ways a greater spirit than we sometimes see in the United Kingdom. There is also more entrepreneurship, with people selling produce and so on, and a positive spirit. We need to reflect that positive view of Africa, too.
Africa is also rich in resources, such as oil, diamonds and fertile land in places such as Zimbabwe. It used to be said that Zimbabwe could feed the African nation, yet look where we are now.
I also want to comment on the HIV/AIDS pandemic—not on the social side of the problem but on the economic development element. In Botswana I managed 750 staff, one third of whom either had full-blown AIDS or were HIV positive. As well as creating a medical problem and a social problem for the families, that has an enormous impact on business in the country, with massive numbers of people being employed to cover for those who are too sick, when the drugs are not working. That in turn has a knock-on effect on poverty within a country.
The intellectual capital of the nation is dying prematurely. One third of the staff who worked for me were affected, but among the graduates coming out of the university the proportion was much higher—so literally, the future of the nation was dying.
We would all have a problem imagining what would happen if we were diagnosed with a life-threatening disease, but imagine one third of all people in this country being diagnosed with a life-threatening disease. Imagine the impact that that has on the psychology of the whole nation.
I want to be brief, so I shall draw my comments to a close, and I want to end on a positive note. I believe that Africa does not have to deteriorate. The continent is not doomed to failure. Friends and colleagues with whom I have worked across Africa are strong and resourceful people, in what can often be a land of plenty. I believe that as politicians, we need to help them establish free trade and free elections—and the rest will follow.
We have come a long way since the days when our nation's aid policy was little more than a tool for big business assisting market penetration and furthering the reaches of our commerce, but hastening the decline of African nations into further poverty and helplessness. Such short-termism led the 1980s to be called the lost decade by those working for Africa's development. I am glad that this Government have given much time to correcting such injustices since coming to power in 1997.
Thanks to our first years in power, policies that led to events such as the Pergau dam affair have been legislated against. That has increased the effectiveness and benefits of our assistance to poor countries. Today we stand at the cusp of another landmark in our effort to support the people of Africa. The radical proposals to offer debt relief, increased spending on aid and enhanced access to the world's trading systems for poor countries, as outlined to the House in recent days by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development, have my wholehearted support.
Before I describe my concerns and ambitions with regard to Africa policy, I want to emphasise just how significant this country's contribution to international development has been in recent years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said in his eloquent maiden speech, it will be a fine achievement when our spending on aid reaches the UN target figure of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, but we shall then join a select group of only five nations.
Our policy directives that cut conditionality, encourage spending on health and education and eradicate the hypocrisy of tied aid have placed Britain at the forefront of development practice, and should be a source of great pride to the people of our country. However, as the campaign to make poverty history reaches its climax, having successfully mobilised a whole nation, we must stress that what will be achieved at this year's great conferences will be but one milestone on an extremely long road. Significant though it is and painstaking though the work involved has been, we must all prepare ourselves and our constituents for the fact that many more victories will need to be won before the people of Africa unlock the potential of their great continent. History may well recall this year as the turning point in Africa's renaissance, but it is our job, in the here and now, to look forward and see just how our assistance may be put to best use.
First, I want to raise an issue involving the two leading African institutions, the African Union and NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development. The Commission for Africa's report repeatedly stresses the importance of those institutions as arbiters of aid and good governance for the region. I wholeheartedly support that sentiment, but I would like the possibility of strengthening and reforming those institutions to be investigated, so that they could be better equipped for the challenges ahead.
It is with regret that I point out the failure of those institutions to deal adequately with the situations that they faced in Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast and Sudan. On each occasion, intervention by northern powers was eventually needed, and often occurred regrettably late owing to the failure of the African Union to deal decisively with what was happening. Today we mourn the suffering of ordinary Zimbabwean people at the hands of their country's pernicious dictator, a situation on which the African Union seems unable or unwilling to act. If the African Union is fully to earn the trust of us donors, it must demonstrate time and again to the people whom it serves that it is willing to fight for social justice and good governance.
A lesson that we Europeans have learned recently is that transcontinental union must fully serve the needs of every citizen, not just its political elite, if the trust of citizens is to be bestowed on it. We should not shy from a reform agenda in our Africa policies. That would be perfectly in keeping with the philosophy of a Government who have offered investment in return for reform in many domestic policies since coming to power.
There are many links in the chain leading from Government assistance to application in the field. Often the weakest link is the last, where aid money is actually spent and distributed among the grass roots. There are several reasons for that, one of which is the difficulty in finding lots of field workers with the capacity and skills required to do such a difficult job well. Another is the challenge of working in communities that often lack the infrastructure and representative leadership through which to work. We must therefore focus much of our attention on ensuring that those administering our aid budget in the field are fully trained and supported, and on ensuring that the community structures and representation are in place to make the link between aid worker and community seamless.
The increasing role of non-governmental organisations has changed the nature of aid in recent years. At their best, NGOs can form a bond with local communities that would be impossible for national and multinational donors to achieve, and they can offer an extremely efficient solution to developmental challenges. But we must also accept that poor practice exists, and now that we are increasing funding to Africa so dramatically, public and media scrutiny of NGO activity will surely be heightened.
I want to see an increase in the independent monitoring of all development work, including NGO activity in Africa. The fact remains that many of the communities in which aid work is carried out are poorly educated, poorly connected and poorly represented. They are communities without a voice, and as such they are rarely in a position to speak out when poor practice occurs. Due to the competitive funding process, it is a rarity for organisations to admit failure voluntarily, which is a shame, because the developmental sector would benefit tremendously from greater sharing of information and from the shared learning of experience.
It would be a great sadness if the public were to become disheartened or cynical about assistance to Africa. That is why we need to be honest about the challenges of working there, to be honest about the time that it will take to achieve success, and to do all that we can to promote transparency in the aid process—from top to bottom. For the first time in a generation, there is real cause for optimism among those of us who care about Africa's future and its people, cultures and ecology. If we fail in our endeavours this year, the opportunity could well be lost for yet another generation. We cannot let this happen. It would be unforgivable.
I have listened to this afternoon's debate with great interest. I agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) that we should not be ashamed if there is consensus on this issue. If we really are going to make poverty history, we need to combine a concern for poverty with an understanding of wealth creation. We need practical compassion and economic realism.
When one first sees poverty in Africa, one changes. I first experienced it just 18 months ago, although I should point out that I have much less knowledge of this issue than does my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge). Like many other people, I have been sponsoring an HIV-positive child. I went to visit her—she was then 14 years old—and unfortunately, her situation was not unique: I have since discovered that 700,000 children are born with, or infected with, HIV every year. When she was a baby, her father died from AIDS. When she was five, she saw her mother die; she was not supposed to—she peeked through a crack in a hospital door. After that, she was sent to an orphanage, which in those days was more of a hospice; it had no money for antiretroviral medicines. Shortly after she arrived there, her best friend died. She would have gone the same way, too, but for the modern miracle of antiretroviral medicines.
Taking such medicines enables sufferers to become practically fully healthy again. They can go to school and to church; they can joke and participate in games. When they get older they can marry; they can even have children who are not HIV-positive. Fortunately, all the children in that particular orphanage have the proper medication, but it is much more difficult to address the problem in the slums of Africa. For the programmes to work, we need regular testing. In addition, the people taking the medicines need proper nutrition and they need medication for more regular ailments.
The biggest slum in Africa is Kibera, where a quarter of Nairobi's population live. Anyone going there is immediately struck by garbage piled up everywhere, and there is only one toilet for every 200 people. I saw a hungry child eating charcoal. Sometimes HIV-positive mothers work, literally until they drop dead, because they have no other source of income for their family. They often become prostitutes, thus spreading the disease further.
I wholeheartedly support the aims of the Make Poverty History campaign, but there is a danger, in what is happening in Edinburgh, of over-simplifying the problem and exaggerating the ease of solving it. Relieving debt, increasing aid and removing trade barriers are part of the solution and represent what we can do, but African Governments must also play their part.
Twenty years ago, the problem of poverty was global; now it is primarily an African problem. We can learn from the countries that have been successful in tackling poverty. Generally, they tackled corruption; they invested in education; most of all, they invested in building up their economic base. Wealth creation is vital for poverty reduction. We should reflect on Japan, which fostered fierce competition between its domestic manufacturers before gradually opening to the world. Hong Kong and China are other examples: they harnessed foreign investment to give them a step up in the expertise needed to run modern businesses and modern economies.
One final ingredient is vital in the fight against poverty. It was identified by Professor David Landes, the Harvard historian, in his book "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations". He tried to examine why some countries were more successful than others in dealing with poverty, but he found that although it was possible to identify factors including climate, religion and culture, none of them were defining characteristics. In the end, he said:
"History tells us that the most successful cures for poverty come from within."
Countries that look for salvation from their own efforts, do not blame others for the problem nor look to others for the solution have generally been the most successful. The disease of helplessness is every bit as damaging as diseases such as AIDS, TB and malaria, because poverty can become a state of mind, not just a state of body.
I conclude by saying that the people will not forgive politicians if the G8 becomes a hollow public relations stunt rather than a real turning-point. Too many countries have eradicated poverty for there to be any excuses from the rich world or the poor. That is why we must match our compassion with clarity, our idealism with realism and our anger with actions.
As chairman and founder of the all-party parliamentary group on microfinance, I should like to make a short contribution on the role of microfinance in helping Africa to fight poverty.
I have been fortunate enough to visit a number of microfinance projects in Ghana. I visited villages in which trust banks of about 20 women were formed. Each woman had her own simple business and working capital was supplied by a group loan. Examples of the businesses included making or mending clothes, making Shea butter or simply buying pots and pans to sell in the local markets. The women supported one another with their enterprises and, amazingly, loan repayments were almost 100 per cent. When I spoke to the women and asked what benefited them most, the first reply was always, "I am able to keep my child at school for longer." Training by local men and women working in the offices of the lending institution also included health education, so there was an add-on of education about HIV/AIDS and an add-on of cleanliness and extra protection.
I also saw individual projects where loans of about £20 to £50 for the first cycle would start a business, and ate in a restaurant where 42 people were employed, although it had started with a tiny loan.
Microfinance institutions develop and go on to be able to accept savings deposits, so that cash can be accumulated for all sorts of future uses or investments. Insurance schemes can be developed, and credit products have been developed for water, sanitation and housing.
As well as NGOs, banks and the private sector play an increasing role in supporting microfinance. It has been clearly demonstrated in many countries that poor people can make use of financial services. A feature of poverty is exclusion from those services, so inclusion is a positive way forward.
Microfinance allows poor people to increase their sources of income. It is an important tool in tackling extreme poverty, but it also helps to support all the other millennium development goals. It is particularly important for the empowerment of women, who gain more assets, acquire choices and become able to make decisions. It offers a sustainable approach to development, helping families to create businesses. Many speakers in the debate have mentioned business and enterprise, and microfinance works by giving people a hand up, rather than a handout.
Current evidence suggests that about 70 million people are being served by microfinance, and it is hoped the goal of 100 million by 2005 will be reached.
The Commission for Africa report recognises the significance of microfinance. It states:
"Small enterprises cannot grow in isolation and need access to a range of financial and non-financial services to take advantage of market opportunities."
Lack of access to credit is recognised as a constraint—the number of people without access to bank accounts can be as high as 90 per cent. in some African countries. The report goes on to welcome the renewed focus on all aspects of finance, and to stress how important it is for the successful development of enterprises in Africa.
The all-party group was very proud to have a sub-group nominated as the UK national committee for the UN year of microcredit. This year, 2005, is the special year for microfinance. The members of the sub-group—it really is a sub-group plus—include people from the corporate and academic sectors, as well as representatives from the media and many NGOs. We are very proud of what we have achieved. We launched the year of microcredit at the London stock exchange with Alice Jere, a microfinance client from Zambia.
A number of speeches were made at that event, and Alice spoke alongside the chairman of the stock exchange and the chief executive of a major company. She said:
"My first loan of £20 took me and my family out of poverty, starting with just 50 chicks. I'm now paying for my children's school fees, and have built up my flock to 500 in just four years. I can't tell you how much this microfinance has changed our lives."
The all-party group's early-day motion has been signed by 56 hon. Members, and I want to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to our most important demand. We want the G8 summit to encourage the World Bank, the IMF and the African Development Bank as well as African central banks and finance ministries to give microfinance increased emphasis, given that 2005 is the UN's year of microcredit. Also, the Commission for Africa has called for a focus on providing access to financial services.
Obviously, microfinance is just one tool, but it has a place alongside all the others. I hope that the Prime Minister will raise the importance of microfinance at the G8 summit. I have heard that President Chirac is going to do so: perhaps the two men will be able to reach an accord on this matter.
I know parts of Africa very well. I lived in Zambia, and I taught and was married there. I had many African friends, and some friendships were so close that one family named their daughter after my family. Her name was Cleopatra Dorries Chisoko. Her christening was a great family celebration in the traditional African manner, but unfortunately Cleo, her parents and her siblings are all dead now. I want to concentrate my speech on the blight of AIDS in Africa.
I was last in Zambia in 1985, when the country was populated by a healthy community of 6 million people, who were expected to live to about the age of 60. Now, the population is 34 million, with a life expectancy of 34, and the WHO projects that it will be 24 by 2010. Today, George Bush promised a three-pronged attack on Africa's problems, including funding for malaria, schools and empowering African women. But what is the point of education and empowering women if they are expected to live to an average age of 24?
Africa is beautiful, and has the added advantages of immense agricultural potential and vast mineral wealth. It has locusts on one side and drought on the other, but down the middle to the south coast it has a bread basket capable of feeding the whole of the African continent. Africa has failed not because of the African citizen, but because of a failed civil society that has allowed widespread corruption, excessive urbanisation and a near total collapse of any kind of service designed to ameliorate the condition of the common African man. It is a real crime that we have let that happen.
Do African states with populations the size of two or three UK counties really need international scale airports, state of the art radar systems, helicopter gunships, Mercedes and all the trappings of a grand state? I think not, but that is what aid has been spent on.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his Commission for Africa and the report "Our Common Interest". It is a worthy document and obviously compiled in good faith. However, the important section is 9.3.2, entitled "Aid: the scope of enhanced effectiveness", which recommends:
"to improve the quality of aid annual discussion should take place between the development ministers of the OECD countries and the African finance ministers along with representatives of civil society and international organisations".
Such future vision is well enough, but does not satisfy the need for immediate action. Do we want thousands of people to die while thousands of others meet to discuss the problem? Minutes of meetings cannot be eaten and they have no effect on viruses.
Without doubt, it is the moral duty of this country to provide all the aid and assistance that we can to Africa. Certain issues can and must be addressed immediately, such as the transmission of the HIV virus from mother to child. Some 2.2 million children are born with HIV and less than 1 per cent. receive treatment. The agony of that fact is that the mother to child transmission can be prevented by the use of antiretroviral drugs during pregnancy. Those drugs should be made available with immediate effect. That is the only way that we can combat AIDS in the future generation. How can a country elevate itself out of poverty when its children are dying? Africa must have the drugs that it needs.
Two medium-sized Indian drug manufacturers recently made an offer to Médecins sans Frontières to provide antiretroviral drugs for Africa at $350 per person a year. In this country, they cost $12,000 to $15,000 a year. On the admission of the Indian drug companies, that would still lead to a healthy profit. Some 28 million people in Africa need drugs, which at that price would cost $9 billion. How much is a life worth?
One of the people who runs those Indian drug companies says:
"I am not a westerner marketing drugs for western markets. I represent the Third World and its needs and aspirations. I also represent the capabilities of a country with a population of a billion. Please do not link up the problems of the Third World and India with those of the West. We haven't broken any laws . . . the main reason for reasonable drug prices in India is the absence of monopoly because of the Patents Act 1970."
If the Indian continent, which is as poor as Africa, can produce drugs at cost price for its people, why cannot that happen in Africa? Why could not Africa operate outside the drugs patent and produce drugs for its people? The operation could be controlled and administered by NGOs.
I do not have much time left, so I shall cut my remarks short. We have all received the report by the Commission for Africa, which talks of power partnerships, comprehensive strategies and professional leadership incentives. What do the people who wrote that report think those words mean to someone lying in hospital under a blanket? Are those words an epitaph for the Chisoko family? We have all heard the words "Hakuna matata" from the Disney film. Where I lived in Zambia, the phrase was "Aziko ndaba". Those words are a tribute to the African people, who spend their lives saying, "No worries, no problems." Those words have been consigned to a Disney film now, because I doubt that anybody in Africa any longer says "Aziko ndaba".
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Although time is running short, I should like to relate the experiences that I gained when I served in the military forces in a number of war zones to the subjects covered today. Debt write-off, investment and improved trade will certainly help a number of countries, but many of the countries that I visited have been at war for 50 years, and we need to go back to the heart of the problem, which was caused when those countries were created in the first place or, indeed, when Europe entered Africa and decided to carve up the continent.
We forget that between the 12th and the 16th centuries, which are often considered to be Africa's most historic centuries, kingdoms were created and democracies existed, even if in basic form, and there was certainly a hierarchy of power and a basic form of government. I appreciate that we are more familiar with the slave trade and so on, how the economy changed and how African empires were eroded.
My view is that the Berlin conference changed the lines on the map, as European states laid claim to the continent with little regard to historical borders or boundaries or the religious groupings and varying customs and languages that already existed. The world wars blurred those lines as well. In some instances, there is a fundamental case for reviewing the borders so that they better represent the geographical areas that unite separate religions, traditions and manageable democracies. As foreign pressures were lifted in the 1960s, when those countries became independent, all the community and regional identities were allowed to grow once again but they were contained or split by the borders that were left behind by Europe.
If we look at other examples around the world, we see something similar. In Afghanistan—it is difficult to see where this will take us—there are Pashtuns, Tajiks and the Uzbeks, all with different identities but confined by one country, yet there is perhaps reason to give them a certain degree of autonomy. Yugoslavia and Bosnia are other examples—as, indeed, is Iraq, with the Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites. Czechoslovakia is perhaps the best example of how a country can divide itself into more manageable democracies.
It is worth considering what is the definition of a country and the fact that the extent to which countries are manageable depends on their size, terrain, religions, ethnic groupings, population and the balance of local, regional and national powers. Africa is no different, and I am concerned about those areas that have been engaged in civil war for 50 years. Ethnic tension and religious conflict has not altered simply because of the confines of the boundaries that have been left behind by European powers. Chad, Congo and Sudan are examples of such countries.
I certainly believe that we need to reconsider the borders in Africa itself. Are they appropriate; or do they need review? I am not saying that any western power should walk in there, but I was very much part of the Dayton peace accord, which gave the countries involved the opportunity to sit down and address their concerns, look at the ethnic groupings and then come up with something that would work for them, and what I am suggesting is that that should be an option in addition to the extra aid that we are proposing and the cut in debts and increased trade that is being offered.
I have heard nothing about that suggestion, and it would be interesting to find out whether the G8 would consider it—after all, it was Europe that went into Africa in the first place and drew the original borders with little regard to what was already there—otherwise I am concerned that we will have a similar debate next time Britain has the presidency of the G8 in five years' time.
My speech will only take a minute. I want to pass on a message from Steven Nyuon, who came to speak at the 60th anniversary service for Christian Aid held in Dumfries.
Some of the people at the service said that it recognised failure, because Christian Aid was set up in 1945 with many of the same goals for making poverty history that 60 years later have still not been achieved, but Steven, a Sudanese gentleman, gave us hope—the sort of hope that we have heard from others today. He did not say, "Give us money," or "Change the world." He said, "Give us the tools to help us set ourselves free." He gave a simple example: the fishing rods and nets that had been used in his part of Sudan to build businesses and feed people.
That short message, which concludes the Back-Bench contributions, is one of the most important things that we can take from our debate. People can set themselves free if we give them the opportunity to do so.
The debate is timely and important, primarily but not exclusively because of the G8 meeting next week, and also because of the UK presidency of the European Union, the millennium development summit in September, and the World Trade Organisation meeting in Hong Kong in December. The year 2005 is vital for Africa. The Trade Justice Movement and Make Poverty History are to be congratulated on keeping the issues at the forefront of the political agenda.
Accepted analysis is that the House is at its best when being confrontational, yet despite its consensual nature the debate has been informed, intelligent and constructive. The high quality of the debate was begun by the Secretary of State in his excellent opening remarks and continued in the response from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the shadow Secretary of State. Both of them made excellent speeches.
There were other excellent contributions and I shall highlight a few of them. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made an impressive maiden speech which was informed, fluent and passionate. He entwined African and Northern Ireland issues in a skilful way. The whole House will know that he has made significant contributions to peace and progress in Northern Ireland. His personal courage is recognised in all parts of the House. I look forward to further significant contributions from him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), in a typically polished contribution, highlighted education and health as important building blocks in alleviating poverty. He also focused on the injustices currently being perpetrated in Zimbabwe, and rightly emphasised the failures of the African Union and South Africa to do more to put pressure on Mugabe to end his tyrannical actions, which damage the rest of Africa, too, especially as significant progress is being made elsewhere on the continent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has tremendous knowledge in this field and admirably chaired the Select Committee on International Development in the last Parliament. He highlighted climate change and conflict, which afflict the poorest communities. The poorest people suffer the most. He rightly highlighted the importance of the interrelationship between those factors.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made a lucid speech, drawing on his African experience. He rightly highlighted the damage to the alleviation of poverty in Africa that could be done by the anti-free trade movement and the anti-globalisation movement. He highlighted the necessity for us to open our markets in Europe and articulated the failings of the protectionist vision and the necessity to remove obstacles to wealth creation and the encouragement of private investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) gave a typically articulate and powerful speech, reflecting on the terrible problems that afflict Darfur at present, with passionate and detailed examples. He will be aware that my views on that issue coincide with his. It is a great shame that the international community has not done more; it is attempting to do too little, too late.
It is our long-term objective to ensure that developing African countries graduate from aid dependency to functioning democracies with successful economies. Like the Government, we are committed to working towards the 2013 UN target of spending 0.7 per cent. of national income on aid. It is clear that well-spent aid works, and the best example of that is the eradication of smallpox. British aid, especially, has helped to immunise millions of children against polio.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield rightly highlighted the fact that the quality of aid is just as important as the quantity, so the Government have an obligation to ensure that UK taxpayers' money is spent effectively and transparently. The European Union is currently widely recognised as one of the least effective aid channels because only 52 per cent. of EU overseas development aid goes to low-income countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) rightly raised that point in his thoughtful contribution.
Announcements have been made today on progress made with Nigeria's debt relief, and some of the ongoing issues regarding debt relief were highlighted by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). Before the HIPC initiative, heavily-indebted countries were spending more on debt service than health and education combined, as the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) rightly pointed out, although he is sadly no longer in the Chamber.
Money saved through the cancellation of debt must be used effectively to alleviate poverty. Well-managed debt relief has produced many success stories—Uganda and Mozambique are but two recent examples. We support the HIPC initiative and the principle of 100 per cent. cancellation of debts to multilateral institutions. We welcome the debt reduction packages that have been approved for 27 countries. However, responsible lending and borrowing are vital to ensure that there is a sustainable end to the debt crisis. The international credit standing of recipient countries must not be compromised, and future loans must be monitored so that we do not have a cycle of borrowing and debt cancellation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) rightly highlighted the importance of trade. Although aid and debt relief are necessary, economic development and international trade offer the best hope of long-term sustainable solutions to poverty and suffering in Africa. International trade has lifted up to 500 million people out of poverty in China and south-east Asia. Much of that was achieved through an export-orientated approach that exploited foreign investment to boost local capacity and allow the countries to compete internationally. Not only international trade is needed to maximise the benefits that trade can bring to Africa, but trade in African domestic markets and pan-African trade are needed too.
Sadly, the protectionist trade policies exercised by the US and EU, such as tariff escalation, which undermines private sector development and diversification, have come at the expense of developing countries in Africa. That is nothing short of a disgrace. For example, US cotton subsidies mean that African farmers are competing not against US farmers, but against the US Treasury. Developing countries' agricultural sectors are being crippled because the EU dumps heavily subsidised commodities that are sold at well below the cost of production. EU consumers and taxpayers, via the common agricultural policy, are being forced to finance policies that exacerbate and perpetuate poverty. Current trade restrictions are the biggest impediment to economic advancement and poverty reduction in the developing world.
Some significant bodies believe that infant industry protection and bans on imports into developing countries would help to stimulate their economies, but history is littered with protectionist folly. Import substitution policies insulate local manufacturers and producers from competition, so local consumers consequently pay inflated prices for lower-quality goods while the local industry is unable to sell in international markets. We understand that free trade cannot happen immediately, but we are committed to working towards genuine free and fairer trade for developing countries, especially through the transition period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made a knowledgeable speech in which he highlighted the fact that tackling preventable diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV and educating and training Africans in health care are essential if we are to end poverty. Disease hinders economic activity. Both my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), in a moving and intelligent speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), in a powerful contribution that was allied to personal experience, rightly highlighted the necessity to alleviate HIV/AIDS in Africa.
Many hon. Members rightly highlighted the importance of education, as it is the cornerstone for an economically prosperous society. We welcome the progress made so far, in particular the removal of school fees in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, but much more remains to be done.
Historically, African Governments have suffered from a lack of accountability and a lack of institutions to facilitate a pluralistic civil society, as well as endemic corruption. That has led to chronic political instability and regressive economic performance, impoverishing many millions of Africans. Corrupt leadership, combined with a history of human rights abuses, inter-ethnic rivalries and, more recently, the HIV pandemic, have left many parts of Africa lagging behind the rest of the world in creating markets, stable societies, trading and improving the macro and micro-economic well-being of its citizens. The developed world is morally right to, and must, assist, but ultimately the solutions and resolution lie with Africa itself.
I join the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) in paying tribute to all hon. Members who spoke in this excellent debate. In particular, I single out the strong and passionate speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). Ministers in the Department for International Development do not have the same opportunities as our colleagues to debate on the Floor of the House new ideas for amendments to UK law. We look forward with relish to 20 January, when he introduces his private Member's Bill, for further discussion of his proposals.
I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). We are all aware of his contribution to Northern Irish policies. We look forward to his contributions to domestic politics and, on the basis of his speech, to international debates, too. I also pay tribute to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty), who rightly reminded us of the need to continue to focus on sexual and reproductive health issues.
There were equally interesting speeches from Opposition Members. I pay tribute not only to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) for the way in which he opened the debate, but also to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) for the way in which he chairs the all-party malaria group. I join others, too, in paying tribute to the excellent work done by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) in chairing the Select Committee on International Development, although I confess that I am not sure that I enjoyed appearing before it. I also pay tribute to the continuing eloquence of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) in rightly reminding us of the need to continue to focus international attention on what is going on in the Sudan. On the Liberal Benches, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for her continued championing of micro-credit issues.
All hon. Members alluded to the fact that Africa is a remarkable continent. It has much to celebrate and is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) said, a continent of breathtaking beauty and stunning scenery. It is home and birthplace to great talent and huge ability, from the excellent Haile Gebrselassie—one of the world's greatest athletes—to arguably the most influential and impressive politician of our time, the incomparable Nelson Mandela. However, as all hon. Members also highlighted, it is a continent that remains scarred by terrible poverty and savaged by the scourge of HIV and AIDS, and its development remains inhibited by the legacy of conflict—in some cases, ongoing conflict—by unfair trading rules, by appalling debt and by weak governance.
What is also clear is that Africa deserves our support. For the peoples of a continent to be so disadvantaged in the 21st century is an outrage. That demands, as the Commission for Africa made clear, a big push for Africa now, with rich countries, such as ours, supporting an African-led agenda. The Commission for Africa also made it clear that its principal demand for African Governments is for them to build clean and accountable Governments—a recommendation that we strongly support—while donors must ensure that aid to Africa is doubled, that expenditure on education, health, AIDS and infrastructure is significantly increased, that there is more radical debt relief and trade reform and, indeed, that the international finance facility is launched.
Our job now, as the Prime Minister made clear as president of the G8 and the European Union, is to maintain the momentum of the commission's report, and to help ensure, through the Gleneagles summit next week, the UN summit in September and the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in December, that the international community continues to make an appropriate response. We remain committed to doing our bit.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) highlighted the size of US aid to Africa. He might be interested to know that, almost as he was speaking, President Bush was announcing plans to more than double aid to Africa by 2010, which I am sure that all Members will agree is an important and welcome step that will create real momentum for a successful outcome at Gleneagles. That, combined with commitments from the European Union, Japan and Canada, means that the G8 and EU will more than double aid to Africa by 2010, increasing it by some $25 billion, as called for by the Commission for Africa. That will also put us within reach of our goal of an extra $50 billion a year in total aid for all developing countries.
We shall, of course, continue to work hard right up to the Gleneagles summit for the best possible package for Africa. We are making progress on aid, and on multilateral debt relief. Hon. Members asked me about a particular deal on Nigeria's debt. That deal will see the write-off of approximately $18.6 billion of that country's debt. That again is a significant step in the right direction.
HIV and AIDS are a continuing priority of our presidencies of the G8 and EU. Last year, we set aside some £1.5 billion for HIV and AIDS expenditure—almost a doubling of our commitment. We also announced a doubling of funding to the global fund. We are hosting the global fund replenishment conference in September. In addition to its work on AIDS, the fund is a key vehicle for scaling up our support for tuberculosis and malaria, the other two key poverty diseases facing Africa. I welcome the fact that the number of people in sub-Saharan Africa with access to antiretroviral drugs has trebled in the past 12 months, but, as many hon. Members have said, much more needs to be done to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
We will of course continue to champion improvements in governance by using our aid budget as well as ministerial and diplomatic effort, and by seeking to improve government standards and to consolidate and expand the African peer review mechanism. We want to ensure greater transparency in public revenues, to empower judiciaries, to create more and better free public media and to support the African Union and other key pan-African institutions.
We shall also seek to ensure an ambitious outcome from the Doha development round. We want to agree on a date for the end to export subsidies. The 2003 CAP reform package was a good initial reform package, but, as many hon. Members have rightly said, we need to go further. We are working for an immediate extension of quota-free and duty-free access to all exports from sub-Saharan Africa. We are also working to ensure that restrictive rules of origin do not prevent countries from taking advantage of preference schemes that exist at the moment.
Much has been made of the apparent consensus on these issues, and I, too, welcome the support from the Conservative Front Bench for the Government's objectives at Gleneagles, in New York and in Hong Kong. However, we still remember their halving of the proportion of national income that was spent on development and assistance during the 18 years that they were last in power. We remember their failure to secure meaningful CAP reform. We also remember how many in their ranks did not seem that interested in good governance when apartheid was in full swing. But to mention those things would be churlish, and I am not that sort of politician.
At Gleneagles next week, we shall have a real opportunity to build on the progress that the G8 has already made in confronting the challenges facing Africa and the developing world. Since Birmingham, back in 1998, we have seen considerable progress on debt relief, the launch of the global fund, the polio eradication initiative, the Africa action plan, and the education for all fast-track initiative. All were made possible though G8 support. Already this year we have seen significant commitments on additional resources for aid and debt relief, far beyond what cynics might have predicted this time last year.
Next week presents a huge opportunity for the leaders of the G8 to give a political boost to make the 2005 agenda a great success and to create that big push for Africa on peace and security, on governance, on investing in the basic services on which people depend, on progress on trade, and, we hope, on further commitments on the resources to finance these undertakings. Not only is it morally right to support Africa; ultimately it is in Britain's self-interest. Our humanity, our internationalism and our belief in social justice demand that we respond to the needs of Africa's people. As the Prime Minister said at the launch of the Commission for Africa—
It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
It being Six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order 55 (1) and (4) (Questions on voting of estimates & c.).
Estimates, 2005–06
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31st March 2006—
(1) further resources, not exceeding £277,697,379,000, be authorised for use of defence and civil services as set out in HC 2, HC 3, HC 4 and HC 5,
(2) a further sum, not exceeding £203,017,367,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services as so set out, and
(3) limits as set out in HC 2, HC 4 and HC 5 be set on appropriations in aid.—[John Healey.]
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions; And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Des Browne, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Ivan Lewis and John Healey do prepare and bring it in.
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
John Healey accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the year ending with 31st March 2006 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending with 31st March 2006; to appropriate the supply authorised in this Session of Parliament for the service of the year ending with 31st March 2006; and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 4th July, and to be printed [Bill 36].
Business of the House
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—[Mr. Roy.]
Barbara Clark
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Roy.]
I am privileged and enormously grateful for the chance to hold this short debate. The House has a precious half hour in which to talk about the plight of one of my constituents. That is important, because Parliament represents the highest court in the land, and today Barbara Clark has 30 minutes of our undivided attention. Let us hope that that 30 minutes will be enough, because the crux of this issue is time. Thirty minutes to hon. Members is like a flake of snow, but to Barbara Clark it is a precious bonus, an extension of life itself. She is watching and listening to us at the moment, hoping on our every word. I would do likewise if I were in her shoes, and I suspect that all hon. Members would.
Barbara's case has come to Parliament because her existence is under mortal threat. She will die if we do nothing, because she is sick with a disease that will certainly kill her unless we act decisively and quickly. I have brought her here to urge common sense and joined-up thinking to address a medical case that has huge implications for thousands of people in this country, particularly women. My constituent has breast cancer, but not an easily treatable form of the disease. The variety that she has contracted does not grow slowly. It gallops, taking over cells and multiplying. It is a frightening and violent insurgent that behaves unpredictably and unpleasantly. It attacks the next target—perhaps a lymph node—going on and on until ultimately it kills.
The bald arithmetic is terrifying. Around 40,000 people are diagnosed every year in the United Kingdom with some form of breast cancer. One in five of those cases—8,000 individuals like Barbara—have the aggressive form. It can be slowed down by existing tried and trusted medicine, but it is desperately hard to stop. This particular cancer contributes heavily to the annual death toll. There are 13,000 funerals every year in Britain because of breast cancer; 35 suffering souls succumb every single day.
We have only half an hour, so I will not waste a single second. The cancer in question has a name—HER2. That stands for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, a protein. If one has the right amount in one's body, no problem. If, however, one produces too much of it, one may be HER2 positive and be more likely to produce and develop an aggressive cancer. Barbara is HER2 positive. She is also one of the most positive women I have ever met in my life. Her courage is outstanding. She has a total determination despite the disease, which, left to its own cruel devices, will inevitably rob her of life itself.
Barbara found a lump in her breast that grew with terrifying speed. Surgery was inevitable, and chemotherapy followed. The signs are that it has now spread to the lymph system. Her regime of treatment is uncomfortable in the extreme. When a human body is slowly drip-fed a cocktail of chemicals designed to wipe out the bad, the good is also likely to be damaged. Hair loss, nausea, memory lapses and lack of energy— chemotherapy is a medicinal sledgehammer. It can work well in lesser cancers, but has a far lower rate of success against Barbara's disease.
There is, however, one drug already on the market and in the national health armoury, which could very probably help Barbara right now. I am always wary of using the term "miracle drug". It is a phrase much over-used by tabloid newspapers to describe the latest developments and advances in the ongoing fight against all disease. Too often it is sloppy shorthand for something potentially good but totally untried and untested. Real miracles are, after all, extremely elusive.
However, Herceptin is different. This drug was deliberately designed to target and block the HER2 protein. It came out of an American laboratory in the late 1990s and has been used extensively ever since. Herceptin is already licensed and approved for prescription in the UK. Let me qualify that statement, if I may. Herceptin is already licensed and approved for some limited use in the UK, but in order to get Herceptin, one needs to be extremely sick.
The official guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence state that patients must be on level 3-plus of their disease. I am not a doctor, but I am told that the calibration runs from one to 10. At level 10, treatment of any type is a waste of time, but at level 3 the disease will already be on its way. HER2, remember, moves like an express train. The official guidance states that patients must already have undergone two full courses of conventional chemotherapy or be able to show that they are ineligible for one of the main agents contained in conventional chemotherapy.
To cut a detailed story short, Herceptin has only been cleared for use with patients who have little hope of survival. It may sound alarmist to call the drug "a last resort", but that is how the national health service currently describes it. Unfortunately for Barbara, she is not quite level three, but it is only a matter of time—probably a short time. Herceptin could save her life now, but the guidelines seem to prevent doctors from acting.
Barbara Clark is not only brave and intelligent, but, having spent her career in nursing, she is not the sort of woman who will take "no" for an answer. She learned about Herceptin in the press and on the internet. If one types "Herceptin" into any of the main search engines, one encounters hundreds of different, highly favourable, worldwide references. When Barbara asked one of her consultants about Herceptin, however, she was greeted with a blank stare—the man had apparently never heard of it.
That should be an isolated horror story, but if clinicians stick to the letter of the NICE guidelines, there is no reason why they should know anything about the drug. We operate the most vigorous licensing regime in this country, and rightly so. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is answerable to the Minister's Department, but it does its business through a slow system. There is nothing wrong with that in principle, and we have a valued reputation for the scrupulous examination of any new drug, but this is a matter of life and death.
The people who might benefit from Herceptin are not at all scared by small risks that might be associated with taking it. If I had a fast-moving HER2 cancer—yes; men can contract it, too—I would do precisely what Barbara Clark is doing. This is a moral issue, and the moral rights of the individual should not be muddled by rules which were set in good faith three years ago, but which are now woefully out of date. In stark truth, if an individual is doomed to die, the decision about the efficacy of any new treatment should be left to them, not a body of experts, however worthy.
In America, where this drug was first developed, the Food and Drugs Administration licensed Herceptin for advanced cancers when Herceptin first went on sale seven years ago. In America, Herceptin is still officially a drug for advanced cancer, but America, by bypassing its own regulations, has led the way in making it available for wider use, because its worth has been recognised.
Recent extensive American trials have indicated the value of Herceptin in early breast cancer treatment. Any drug that saves lives, inevitably saves money, and perhaps, in the end, the matter comes down to money. Barbara Clark has been told that she could obtain a private medical opinion tomorrow and be prescribed Herceptin at the going rate of £1,500 a dose, and she is now contemplating selling her house in Bridgwater just to buy the drug. That is understandable for Barbara, but completely dotty in terms of running a health service that prides itself on effective cancer care.
I do not denigrate the enormous effort that has been put into cancer care in recent years. There are now centres of excellence in many parts of the UK, and I single out the new Nottingham breast cancer clinic—I am sure that the Minister will do the same—as a shining example of diagnosis and treatment. In spite of many valuable advances, however, there are still pockets of—how can I put it?—"resistance". There are still consultants who have never heard of Herceptin; there are still health authorities and trusts that will not prescribe it, presumably because they think that they cannot afford it; and there are still dangerous gaps in the diagnostic process, too.
Barbara Clark may have been lucky. She was given an HER2 test, and I have been assured that only 28 per cent. of all breast cancer patients are routinely and progressively tested. Tests also have a monetary implication—each has a price tag of £50—but the price of failing to discover the disease surely has a much higher cost in turn to the NHS.
Many UK oncologists say that Herceptin can save lives. I asked for this debate in order to clarify some essential questions on behalf of one of my constituents. I do not wish to interrupt the existing licensing process. Licensing demands strict patient trials and a rigid timetable that may not help Barbara and others like her. Changing the licensing process would require legislation and more precious time, but I must point out the real possibility of finding legitimate ways around the existing licensing process. America's FDA is sometimes seen as even stricter than our own agency, yet Herceptin is now freely available for early breast cancer. Only last week, in Ontario, the Canadians found ways around their rule book. France and Germany have also made the drug available to a wider range of patients.
When I took on Barbara's case, I wrote to Professor Mike Richards, the national cancer director. His reply, just received, seems to offer a glimmer of hope. He wrote this about Barbara:
"It may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances for particular patients to be prescribed an unlicensed drug and a hospital consultant can arrange for the supply of such drugs provided the Primary Care Trust or the NHS Trust agree to supply it at NHS expense."
I am heartened by those words. I believe that he is trying to find a way to get a good drug into wider use; I hope that I am right. I invite the Minister to confirm that interpretation so that many hundreds of other brave Barbara Clarks can hold out genuine hope that they will soon qualify to get this important treatment.
In government, as in life, money talks. The manufacturer, so I am informed, is keen to talk to the Government about reducing the unit cost if this drug can be given to a wider range of patients. Some of the hospital trusts may need a greater nudge from the centre. Barbara Clark could go to several NHS hospitals in London today, right now, and be prescribed the drug as a matter of routine. Where she lives—Somerset—clinicians are sticking rigidly to the NICE guidelines, which were written in early 2002, and have been overtaken by mounting evidence of the success of the drug worldwide.
Barbara Clark is a lady who is prepared to sell everything to save her life. Because of what she has done, she has helped to highlight a much wider issue. We cannot afford to ignore her tonight. This has been her debate, and she may not have very long to wait for the right answer.
I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject.
The cancer drug Herceptin has received a lot of exciting publicity recently, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issues raised today. Like many families in this country, mine too was once devastated by cancer. I know from bitter personal experience the torture that it brings. It is with that perspective that I respond to the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
At the centre of our debate is a woman, Mrs. Clark, of extraordinary courage, and I join the hon. Gentleman in saluting her. But, as he points out, it takes more than courage to beat cancer. We are therefore extremely fortunate in this country to have the national health service on the side of each and every one of us. The NHS often makes a critical difference for many of the 34,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer in England each year. Today, because of better diagnosis and treatment, 80 per cent. of women are now alive five years after diagnosis, compared with 68 per cent. in the late 1980s.
The fight against cancer is one of the most critical fights that our scientists and health professionals wage every day. I am proud that the NHS spent £103 million on cancer research and development last year—just under a quarter of all NHS research spending. Almost every week, new advances are reported—new progress and new hope—and one of our best hopes reported in recent months is Herceptin. The drug has been around for about five years and is one of a new class of drugs known as monoclonal antibodies—drugs that target the cancer cells and cause minimum damage to healthy cells, in stark contrast, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, to conventional chemotherapy. It is licensed for treating especially aggressive, advanced breast cancer, and accredited by NICE. I understand that it can increase life expectancy by around six months. Any family who have experienced cancer know that every day of that six months often feels like one of the most precious gifts on earth.
What that means in practice is that every PCT should be funding Herceptin for any woman with advanced HER2 positive breast cancer that might benefit from it. The hon. Gentleman's community, as he rightly pointed out, is among those in which the benefits of Herceptin are well understood. My officials tell me that in June 2004 the level of Herceptin prescribing for women with advanced breast cancer in Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire cancer network was found to be well above the national average.
The issue that is centre-stage this evening is that early evidence indicates that Herceptin might be of much wider benefit—in fact, of benefit to the more than 23,000 women who are diagnosed with breast cancer at an early stage each year, before it has had the chance to spread. Herceptin might now benefit around one in five of those women who are diagnosed with HER2 positive breast cancer. That evidence was highlighted in May this year, when interim findings from trials were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference. Those early results, which remain provisional and unvalidated, show great promise. For example, the data showed that Herceptin in combination with another cancer regime resulted in a 52 per cent. reduction in cancer coming back, and a 33 per cent. reduction in the risk of death. The key point, however, is that those results are not yet validated, and the pharmaceutical company is still analysing the trial results.
It might therefore help the House if I say a few words about the licensing process. To obtain a licence, a drug company will make an application to one of two regulatory bodies, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products—EMEA—or our national agency, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. For Herceptin, the licensing process that will be used will enable automatic European-wide approval. That special licence is secured by applying to the EMEA, in which a committee of experts from all member states including ours will carry out a detailed evaluation of both the application and the supporting research evidence. In general, that licensing process takes around six to nine months from receipt of an application.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, however, because of the existing licence, extended licensing of Herceptin is unlikely to take that long—an application to extend the use of a drug that is already licensed, as in the case of Herceptin, is generally quicker, and possibly as quick as two to three months. Once that work is done, and that licence is applied for and approved, and once NICE has appraised and approved it, two things become possible: a doctor can prescribe the drug, and the PCT must meet the full cost.
The hon. Gentleman understandably commented that Herceptin has already been deemed safe by virtue of the fact that it already has a licence, and that we just need to extend its use. I know that he has suggested elsewhere that there should be procedures for overriding the licensing process, and I very much understand his point. There must also be a balancing obligation on us, however, to make sure that drugs are safe for other patients before they are widely promoted throughout the national health service. In the past, unfortunately, we have made some terrible mistakes. Thalidomide was one such failure.
Despite the fact that Herceptin is only licensed for treatment of some HER2 breast cancer patients, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is possible for a doctor to prescribe Herceptin for other patients, subject to two conditions. First, as he pointed out, the PCT or NHS trust must agree to supply it at NHS expense. Secondly, the doctor must retain clinical responsibility for the patient while prescribing the drug in question. Prescribing unlicensed drugs is the exception rather than the rule for the very good reason that the licensing process is designed to ensure that widespread use of a drug for particular conditions does not cause side effects that are so serious that they outweigh the benefits for which the drug was prescribed. Herceptin may—I stress "may"—produce side effects which, for example, damage the heart in some patients. Those side effects therefore need to be taken into account when balancing the advantages and disadvantages of using this drug for treating early breast cancer sufferers who have the prospect of living for many more years.
The hon. Gentleman hinted at concern that, even once licensed, there will be delays in patients accessing Herceptin on the national health service. I know that he has suggested elsewhere that it could be a very long time before it is widely available, because the NHS will not be able to use it until it has been fully appraised by NICE. I must tell the House this evening that that will not be the case.
It has been made clear to primary care trusts in national guidance that they should not refuse to fund a newly licensed drug on the grounds that NICE guidance is not available when the product is launched. In those circumstances they are expected to make their own assessment of available evidence before deciding how to fund the drug locally. The Government are happy to reiterate that message to PCTs, via strategic health authorities, if there are local concerns that that is not happening.
I know that the hon. Gentleman wants NICE to review Herceptin to treat early breast cancer as soon as possible. So do I. That is why I can tell the House this evening that we are considering referring Herceptin to NICE outside the normal referral waves, so that NICE can react as soon as possible after the drug is licensed—assuming, of course, that it receives a licence.
There is a related question of whether NICE should appraise Herceptin in tandem with the licensing process. That would cause two sorts of problem. First, it would not be possible because before a licence is granted, there is simply not the available evidence base on which NICE can produce guidance. In addition, much of the data on the efficacy of a drug before its launch is commercially sensitive, and NICE would therefore not be able to consult openly on guidance using that evidence.
Secondly, it is perhaps inappropriate for NICE to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a drug while its safety and efficacy are still under consideration. For example, if a licence is not granted or the licence application withdrawn, which does happen, NICE would have spent considerable time and expense with no discernable output.
Sometimes it is said that NICE takes too long to appraise a drug. I appreciate that there are concerns about how long it takes to produce guidance once an appraisal starts. But I underline the fact that it is crucial for NICE to get the right answer. No one's interests are served if it rushes a decision and, tragically, gets it wrong. That is why NICE considers all available evidence, consults widely and takes comments into account. That takes time, but its processes are one of the reasons for its reputation as an international model for producing technology appraisals.
Over the next ten years we will make extraordinary progress on the war on cancer, and this country is at the forefront of that battle. I do not want Mrs. Clark to have to sell her home to get Herceptin. But equally, we cannot override the drug licensing process so that a drug is licensed before trial data have been properly reviewed and side effects fully understood.
I believe that as new drugs are developed, we will turn again and again to the ethical dilemma at the heart of this debate: how do we balance the possibility of introducing the new benefits that new drugs bring as fast as is humanly possible, with the need to ensure that the new drugs available are safe and without downsides that undermine the very reasons for their prescription.
Because of the importance of this debate, and because I think that the subject will come up again and again in the years to come, I add my personal thanks to the hon. Member for Bridgwater for his valuable contribution. As he rightly said, the national cancer director was recently in touch, and he is at present putting together a group that will consult on how to get the infrastructure in place in the national health service so that when, as we hope, Herceptin is licensed and receives its appraisal from NICE, we can ensure that much more widespread diagnosis services are available for HER2. The procedure is not available throughout the country, and we need to ensure that that preparation has been done, so that if Herceptin lives up to its reputation, it will be made widely available to the right people.
In concluding, I again thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater for his valuable contribution to the debate, and join him in saluting the courage of Mrs. Barbara Clark.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Six o'clock.