I am bringing forward this debate because of deep concerns about the future of the Department for International Development, about its funding, and threats to our proud tradition as a distributer of aid to the most impoverished places on the planet.
I am seeking cast-iron guarantees from the Minister that my fears are misplaced, and that we will continue to make our full contribution of 0.7% of our national income to the world’s poorest communities,
That we will continue to address the deep scars of poverty and inequality that disfigure our world, the legacy of centuries of colonialism, of wars, of unequal and unjust distribution of the world’s resources.
That we will continue to consider ourselves internationalists, brothers and sisters with the peoples of the world, not narrow isolationists cowering behind our drawbridge.
The Department for International Development (DFID) has a proud history. As Rt Hon and Hon Members will know, it began as a separate ministry under Harold Wilson’s Labour Government in 1964, as a reflection of Wilson’s own internationalism and humanitarian beliefs.
He appointed Barbara Castle as the first ever minister in charge of overseas aid.
It then moved in and out of the control of the Foreign Office, depending on who was in Government.
Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath put it under the FCO in 1970,
Wilson returned its independence in 1974,
Margaret Thatcher downgraded it to an agency again in 1979,
and finally, it became a full government department with a Cabinet-level minister in 1997 under Tony Blair.
It is to the credit of the Coalition Government elected in 2010 that this cycle of upgrading and downgrading was halted, with DFID remaining part of the machinery of government, and that its budget was maintained despite deep cuts to the rest of Whitehall.
Perhaps also it shows how effective the work of DFID is, and how established and respected it has become, here and around the world.
There have been some notable politicians at the helm: I mentioned the formidable Barbara Castle. No less formidable were Clare Short, Judith Hart, or the Rt. Hon Member for Leeds Central, and on the Conservative side I should mention Chris Patten and Baroness Chalker.
The first-ever black woman to serve in a British Cabinet was Baroness Amos, when she was appointed secretary of state for international development in 2003.
DFID works in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Iraq, Malawi, Nepal, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tanzania, Yemen and Zimbabwe, to name just a handful.
It tackles gender inequality, helps to build health & education systems and works with communities shattered by war, genocide or famine.
DFID is respected and admired in all the places it operates. Wherever the UK Aid logo appears it shows the world how much the British public care.
Since the 2002 International Development Act, all overseas aid must be spent with the explicit purpose of reducing global poverty. This was an important piece of legislation because it made clear the distinction between aid and trade – that one is not the quid pro quo of the other.
The Pergau Dam scandal showed that some aid in the 1980s and 1990s was being linked to trade deals. In this instance, despite clear objections from civil servants, there was a link between British aid in building the dam and British arms sales to Malaysia. It was declared unlawful in the landmark court case in 1994.
More recently, fears have been raised that our aid budget has not been solely focussed on poverty reduction. An article in the Guardian revealed that charities such as Oxfam, Save the Children and Action Aid are deeply concerned that some of the funds are used by “classing politically convenient projects as aid”, rather than exclusively helping the most vulnerable.
Of course, we must conduct this vital overseas aid because of our obligations as one the wealthiest nations in the world.
I am sure the Minister will offer warm, emollient words today. He/she will tell us the commitment to DFID as a department and that the 0.7% target remains in place.
At this point, we should pay tribute to Michael Moore, the former Lib Dem MP, for bringing forward his private members bill to enshrine the 0.7% target into law, and to the then-Government for allowing it to pass. We should welcome the Conservative Party’s commitment in its 2017 manifesto to maintain this 0.7% commitment, which I am sure the Minister will also mention in his/her speech.
So why should we be concerned about the future of DFID?
We’ve seen the tectonic plates of politics shifting in recent months. The voices that considered overseas aid a waste of money have become louder and more mainstream within the governing party. The critics are moving from the fringe to centre stage.
The former Secretary of State the Rt Hon Member for Witham seemed more aligned with the Taxpayers’ Alliance than the global antipoverty movement. She resigned after running errands for the FCO in Israel, rather than running her own department.
The former Foreign Secretary the Rt Hon Member for Uxbridge called the very establishment of DFID in 1997 a ‘colossal mistake’. He has endorsed a report this month from the Henry Jackson Society, which calls for a dilution of DFID’s role in alleviating poverty and a diversion towards broader international policies such as peace-keeping. He told the BBC’s Today programme that “We could make sure that 0.7% is spent more in line with Britain’s political, commercial and diplomatic interests.”
Commercial interests? What could he possibly mean by that?
My Rt Hon Friend, the Member for Liverpool Walton has made it clear that he believes this is the opening act in a move to downgrade DFID and slash overseas aid, and it is hard to disagree that this is the Secretary of State’s secret agenda.
We are, therefore, rightly concerned that both UK aid, and the department with primary responsibility for spending it, are under threat, or will be diverted away from the alleviation of poverty and linked to trade.
So can the Minister today go beyond the same old stock phrases committing the Government to the continuing existence of DFID and the 0.7% target and give us a cast-iron guarantee that:
• One, he/she distances himself/herself absolutely from the comments made by the former Foreign Secretary about the future of DFID.
• Two, that any review of DFID’s department policy post-Brexit will in no way undermine, downgrade, obfuscate or dilute the commitments enshrined in the International Development Act 2002, and the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.
• And three, that his/her party will enter the next election with a manifesto commitment to maintain, as a minimum, the current levels of expenditure on overseas aid, with the aim of eradicating poverty and tackling gender inequality.
The Minister has an open goal, let’s see if he/she can settle this once and for all.
Finally, I am sure that we all stand united in our gratitude to the staff of DFID – whether they are freezing in the mountains of Tajikistan, or sweltering in the heat of Mozambique, or in the offices at Abercrombie House or just up the road at 22 Whitehall.
We offer them our thanks, they are truly the best of British.
