International Development Strategy — House of Lords, 2021-12-16
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, we have been repeatedly told by this Government that global Britain policy is a result of a fully integrated policy-making process, but the integrated review came after the FCO-DfID merger. It did not inform it. Spending decisions on co-operation and overseas assistance came, and will come, after a much-delayed development review that we still have not had, rather than being decided by policy choices. A law, built on consensus, to maintain our level of co-operation and support at 0.7% of GNI has now been replaced by an executive target of 0.5%, with annual decisions on its future This approach is now the ceiling, whereby vaccine support or girls’ education, as has been referred to in this debate, will not go over this executive target—so that means that other areas will be cut even more. Reverse- engineering policy to fit budgets is bad government and it is worse when it comes to international policy. The fact that we have new business later today on FCDO staffing cuts is telling in itself With others, I commend the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for being so persistent in this House for the global goals and international development policy. His debate allows us to consider what should be in the next review, and we are grateful for it. We on these Benches support the calls we have heard in the debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for UK international assistance policy to take a feminist approach. I have spoken to my colleagues in our sister party in Canada about how the Canadian Liberal Government put forward the first feminist international assistance policy. It had strands within it directing future policy, but through this gender approach, under the titles of human dignity; for quality healthcare, nutrition and education; for growth that works for everyone; for environment and climate action, and climate finance to reduce barriers for women, particularly in the services sector and finance; for investments; for inclusive governance; and for peace and security, all directed through a gender lens and all forming a very strong international strategy. I and my party want the UK to be the lead country in the Development Assistance Committee on delivering a feminist international assistance policy I will not refer to "aid" in my contribution, I will refer to "co-operation". I believe very strongly that we should have not an aid strategy but an international co-operation strategy, because we share the 17 ambitions in the global goals on an equal basis with every other country in the world within the UN. The question should be how we play our part, as one of the richest countries in the world, for those who are less developed to meet all those 17 ambitions. We carry out a voluntary national review, as other countries do, on the global goals. We are no better or worse than them as a country, even though Liz Truss tells us that we are the greatest country on earth. We share our priorities and therefore the global goals should underpin all this approach going forward There are other areas we should reflect on in the changing world since the last review, but also looking forward. That is the case with climate finance. If we fail on climate, there is no development. There should be a particular focus on urbanisation. A projected extra 2 billion people will live in cities by 2050. What comes after the 2030 agenda? The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised a point about seeing Africa not as a development challenge but as a continent of opportunity. I will be meeting the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, the Investment Minister, on the prospects of an African prosperity commission and I hope that the strategy genuinely is an integrated document—that it does not just say so but genuinely is—so that it brings trade policy within these areas too As my noble friend Lord Oates said, however, words are not actions, and we have to see the Government’s policies as a result of their actions, in many regards. Across that area, they are shameful, because, at a time of global pandemic, which has impacted the world’s poorest people the greatest, the Government have made the choice—it was not an obligation upon them—to cut support in many areas with a direct impact on the lives of women, in particular, and children and their life opportunities In her Chatham House speech, as was referred to, the Foreign Secretary—who, incidentally, did not mention poverty once—set what the Government’s international strategy would be going forward. She seemed to indicate that the key element of this will be our alternative response to China. As International Trade Secretary, she saw trade with China grow at the fastest rate ever and we now have a £43 billion trade deficit, meaning that we are heavily dependent on imports. But she has refused, as a Trade Secretary and now as Foreign Secretary, to have a human rights policy integrated into our trade and reflected in a development strategy. So I hope the Minister can state categorically that the co-operation strategy will include key elements of human rights policy across all elements of our economic and trade policies What of the news today, which is breath-taking in its impact? Just a few days after the Foreign Secretary indicated that we would be looking for alternatives to finance, the UK has slashed its support to the International Development Association of the World Bank by 55%. This is a fund for the world’s poorest countries to receive AAA-rated funds and, in the replenishment this year, the UK has cut its contribution by $1.8 billion. I remind the Minister that the UK has been the biggest single donor to the IDA and whereas, in this replenishment, France, Japan and the US have increased their pledges, none of them could offset the UK’s cuts. It means that the Foreign Secretary says one thing to our domestic media, while in the global forum there are cuts that will actively undermine this approach On girls and women, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, we have waited long for the impact assessment, and I hope the Minister will state today when we are to receive it. At a time of global pandemic, when vaccine nationalism, as my noble friend said, does not work, the UK is slashing support for health systems around the world. Unbelievably, we have seen vaccines and medicines destroyed because we have prevented the health systems being able to distribute them to those most in need On conflict, as the noble Lord indicated, last week I was in north Iraq meeting Yazidi leaders. They told me quite heart-rending stories of how they feel they are now a forgotten population, with 280,000 IDPs still in camps, seeming to be forgotten, as the Lord, Lord Alton, indicated. I was reminded that when there was military action, the UK was raising this issue every week—there were Statements and elements of funding—but now on conflict prevention and peace- building we are silent. Why have we cut support for development for these people in Iraq in totality from £50 million in 2020-21 to just £3 million in 2023-24? Please give us an explanation as to why the Government have done that In my last moment, I appeal to the Minister to reflect on his answer to me when I raised the point about the massive jump that may come in 2024, if we are to return to 0.7%, of an extra £5.2 billion allocated. He said, "It’s not going to happen overnight, there’s ample time to prepare"—but none of the Treasury statements give any indication that there will be a smooth transition back to 0.7%. Every statement from the Treasury says that we will review it annually and, if next year’s figures meet their fiscal targets, we will then grow to £5.2 billion in one year, which will be impossible to programme and deliver sensibly. So I appeal to the Minister again: would it not make much more sense, if we are to return to the legal target of 0.7%, to do it in a staged manner, so we do not reverse-engineer all the problems we have created but start from this strategy now, with proper looking forward, so we can operate in a much better way? In that way we will be a better partner—and a more reliable one also.