Hansard

European Standing Committee

EU Contribution to Achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals (03/11/2005)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I welcome the opportunity to have what I am sure will be a rigorous and good-natured debate, and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bayley, given your considerable interest in the issues that we shall be discussing. I am genuinely delighted to be able to explore with the Committee the outcomes of the millennium review summit. The European Union played a critical and constructive role in securing a successful outcome to the millennium review summit. Following the G8 summit at Gleneagles, it was important to keep up the momentum.

I am pleased therefore that the outcome document on development consolidated almost all that we achieved at Gleneagles. In particular, it endorsed the need to accelerate progress towards the millennium development goals, acknowledging the special needs of Africa. We were especially pleased that agreement was reached on establishing a peacebuilding commission by the end of the year. Such a major innovation will address some of the critical weaknesses in the international response to conflict. The establishment of an effective peacebuilding commission is a priority for the United Kingdom and we will be working with the United Nations secretariat and the office of the President of the General Assembly to take forward the implementation of the commitment. On humanitarian emergencies, there is now a consensus that the response of the international community needs to be improved through more timely and predictable funding, and through the development of stand-by capacities.

In New York, European Union member states provided the bulk of the $150 million that was pledged to reform the central emergency revolving fund. The summit resolved to create a new human rights council to replace the discredited commission on human rights and to strengthen the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was given a mandate to address a longer-term reform of the UN development architecture in line with proposals in his report “In Larger Freedom”. More specifically on development, our key objective was to secure global endorsement of the Gleneagles commitments on more and better aid, including through multilateral debt relief and innovative sources of finance. The development section of the outcome document reflects that.

The need for urgency on all sides is underlined, as is the need for more ambition in developing countries’ own national development strategies. The outcome document reaffirms, too, the central principle that developing countries must take primary responsibility for their own development, and that good governance, anti-corruption policy and the rule of law must underpin that development.

The summit endorsed the G8 commitment to increasing aid volumes by approximately $50 billion a year by 2010. During the financing for development session of the millennium review summit, non-G8 countries added their pledges of further aid. Through its welcome for the G8 multilateral debt relief proposals, the summit represented a broadening of international support for that initiative, paving the way for agreement at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings in Washington a week later.

The efforts of the United Kingdom and others to develop innovative financing mechanisms, such as the international finance facility, also gained broader international support through the explicit endorsement in the outcome document of the value of such initiatives for frontloading resources for development. HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other health issues were dealt with specifically, and in line with G8 commitments on reaching as close as possible to universal access to treatment by 2010. There are now global commitments to provide substantial funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and to achieve universal access to reproductive health by 2015.

Given the UK’s focus on Africa during our G8 and EU presidencies, we welcome the recognition given at the summit to the special needs of Africa. The outcome document emphasises the centrality of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development as the framework for action. Coherence issues, such as the environment and trade, were not overlooked, but it was recognised that they have to be dealt with in other international more appropriate forums. On climate change, the Montreal conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change will take place later this month. On trade, there is clearly more work to be done ahead of the World Trade Organisation’s ministerial talks in Hong Kong in December. The Government will obviously be playing a full part to ensure a successful conclusion to the Doha development agenda.

Taken together, the agreements on development reached at the millennium review summit confirmed a recognition of the urgency of making faster progress towards the millennium development goals, and demonstrated a commitment to do so. However, a lot remains to be achieved.

The Chairman (Mr Hugh Bayley): We now have until half-past 3 for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that their questions ought to be brief and address only one subject, because there will be ample opportunity for Members to ask more than one question.

2.50 pm: Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con): May I join the Minister in saying how pleased I am to see you in the Chair, Mr. Bayley, bearing in mind your particular areas of interest in this part of Government policy?

The European Union Committee report on the European Union’s role at the millennium review summit stated that the

“EU needs to deploy its diplomatic outreach to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America”.

Will the Minister explain how that squares with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s policy of closing embassies in those parts of the world?

Mr. Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, there a number of ways and a number of forums in which one has discussions with foreign Governments. His party has consistently urged Government to review the way in which we spend our money and to prioritise more. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made a number of judgments and there will be similar judgments to make about our aid programme and how we focus our people and resources to best effect.

Through the European Community, which has delegations around the world, and our current presidency, it was possible to explore the position of the European Community in the run-up to the millennium review summit. That was done not only by our embassies and our Department for International Development offices, but through EC delegations making the case strongly to the Governments of those other countries. The success of the summit—I believe it was a success—is reflected in the success of that combined lobbying effort by the European Community.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): May I, too, say how pleasurable it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Bayley.

I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question about trade. The documents make much of the importance of fair trade. In that spirit, would it not be sensible now to seek a much earlier than planned abolition of export subsidies and to open up developed countries’ markets to the products of the poorer African, Caribbean and Pacific countries?

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend will know, since he and I were elected on the same manifesto, that the Government have a commitment to try to persuade the European Community to abolish its export subsidies by 2010.

2.53 pm: Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

The Chairman: Order. It may help members of the Committee if I say that I intend to continue the question period until 4 pm. According to Standing Orders, if there are no further Divisions, we could, depending on how many people wish to participate, continue with debate until 5.30 pm.

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) asked in the first part of his question about export subsidies. He will know that there is a shared commitment across the European Community to end export subsidies. The trade negotiator for the European Commission, Peter Mandelson, is seeking to achieve the end of export subsidies not just in the European Community but in other key Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries such as the United States of America. The ending of export subsidies is a key issue in the current negotiations, which I hope will culminate in a successful Hong Kong ministerial meeting in December.

Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD): I should be grateful if the Minister would acknowledge that, collectively, all eight millennium development goals and all 18 targets are, at the present rate of progress, about a millennium—some 1,000 years—behind target. Bearing that in mind, which of the international forums—EU, G8 or UN—does the Minister believe to be the most useful for addressing that serious failure of the global community, and what single action could the global community take to get the millennium development goals back on target?

Mr. Thomas: I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions. All the forums that he listed have a responsibility and a role to play in accelerating progress towards meeting the millennium development goals. Clearly, the UN is important in setting the agenda, and the millennium review summit with its objective of being a development summit is hugely important in forcing all the international community, not just the G8 leaders, to think about the issues and to consider what we can do collectively, as an international community, to raise our game. The G8 and the European Union are important in providing the resources for leaders of those countries to deploy in the cause of development. Given our chairmanship of the G8 and the European Union this year, we were obviously determined to try to put Africa centre stage in the run-up to the millennium review summit; to galvanise more resources for development and debt relief; and to begin the process of getting some momentum into the trade talks.

It is fair to say that until July the talks were pretty much stalled. We have succeeded in making progress on aid and debt relief, although one can always do more. In terms of trade, we will have to wait for the outcome of the Hong Kong ministerial talks. I believe that the offer by the United States and subsequent offers by the EU are positive signs. But it is undoubtedly true that there is a considerable way to go before we can have confidence that the Hong Kong talks will produce the outcome that we collectively want to see on both sides of the House.

Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough) (Lab/Co-op): In terms of specifics, I accept what the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) says about the enormous gap between our target with the millennium development goals and where we are now. I was pleased, from a European perspective, that there seems to be a greater targeting of the increase we are likely to see—with some 50 per cent., I believe, going to Africa. Can the Minister confirm whether that is 50 per cent. of all moneys, or 50 per cent. of the additional growth? My worry would be that, at present, we have the problem in Europe of where the current money is going. It is welcome to see 50 per cent. going to Africa, but is it 50 per cent. of the total or just the increase that we are likely to see between now and then?

Whichever figure it is, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact that that will have, perhaps in a number of years or in cash terms, in reducing the current gaps with the millennium development goals?

Mr. Thomas: On my hon. Friend’s last point, the speed and success we have in making progress toward the millennium development goals obviously depends on how that aid is used. On his point about EU and EC assistance and how that is divided up—the balance between the funding that goes to low-income countries and other, slightly richer, countries—let me try to separate out what the EU does in the form of bilateral monies from that which the European Community does. There has been a long-standing effort by the British Government to increase the amount of money from the European Community’s assistance—its main external relations budget—that goes to low-income countries. In 2004, some 55 per cent. of money from that source went to them; our goal is to see it getting closer to 70 per cent.

My hon. Friend may well also be aware that there is a European development fund—a separate, not-on-budget fund—available for the ACP countries; predominantly Africa, but also in the Caribbean and Pacific. I hesitate to say that it is over 90 per cent., but it is very close to that proportion of the resources from the ninth EDF going to the poorest countries. We want that to continue when the 10th EDF is negotiated.

In terms of the bilateral assistance to which European nations have committed, my hon. Friend is right that of the additional $50 billion that will be available, some $40 million has been committed by European nations. We believe that there is a successful commitment to ensure that 50 per cent. of that goes to Africa.

The Chairman: I remind colleagues that they should be asking quite short questions, with short answers.

Mark Simmonds: Thank you, Mr. Bayley. Does the Minister believe that the British taxpayer currently makes a more significant contribution to meeting the millennium development goals, and alleviating poverty, through bilateral aid or aid going through the European Union?

Mr. Thomas: Four or five years ago, I would have unequivocally said that the money going through the British Government’s Department for International Development was by far the more effective. The bulk of it was targeted at the poorest countries, and hon. Members will be aware of the excellent reputation of DFID staff for allocating money effectively.

Similarly, there have been considerable concerns across the House about the quality of European Community aid. There has been, however, a substantial effort over the last few years to increase the quality of EC aid. We want to see further reforms to the effectiveness of aid. We want to speed up further the European Community’s ability to get aid to where it is needed quickly. As I stated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), we want to see an increase in the proportion of the European Community’s aid to low-income countries.

Andrew George: Is the international community talking with forked tongue? On the one hand, through the EU, the UN and the G8 summit, it talks the language of aid, debt relief and getting trading relationships into the right dimension; on the other, through the IMF, the international community lumbers developing countries with conditions of governance that limit the number of civil servants—nurses, teachers and doctors—whom they can employ to deliver development programmes. Does the Minister not accept that the international community must not say one thing on the one hand while constraining development on the other?

Mr. Thomas: The IMF is sometimes a convenient target with which to cover up poor economic and political governance and the responsibilities of individual nations to improve their economic climate. The hon. Gentleman alludes to the need to strike a balance between investing in public services in developing countries and ensuring a sound economic climate. The IMF continues to have an important role to play in helping developing countries, and, where their economies have significant economic problems, in helping them to sort their economies out.

Economic stability is crucial if the private sector is to grow and trade is to develop in the fundamental way that we know will achieve sustainable routes out of poverty. One must be careful about attacking the IMF; it has a key role to play.

Jeremy Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): I am grateful to hear the Minister say that European Union-directed and funded aid is improving, and that there are improvements in respect of the destination of that aid. Is the European Union getting the balance right between the big-ticket items, which are more glamorous and attractive, and the smaller-ticket items, which are more useful? I am thinking of water purification projects and projects that require sustained funding, but which are less impressive for the EU to latch on to immediately. If that balance is not right, what do the Government intend to do about it?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question. Through discussions among EU Development Ministers about the future development policy of the EU, we are considering exactly that issue. The European Community must continue to concentrate on where its aid can add value. Specific projects such as water purification about which the hon. Gentleman talks are best done bilaterally, although there is a role for the European Community to continue to encourage developing countries and other developed nations to provide more resources for water. It has a particular value in providing budget support to developing countries and funding for big infrastructure projects. It is one of the few large donors with expertise in that area.

The European Community should not develop a series of small AIDS projects. It can add value on the issue of AIDS through its funding of the Global Fund to Fight Tuberculosis, AIDS and Malaria.

Mark Simmonds: As the Minister rightly said, prerequisites for meeting the millennium development goals in many African countries are the rule of law and stability. However, as a precursor there must be conflict resolution. At the end of the millennium development goals summit in September, the proposed peace-building commission was announced, which it was said would be in operation by 31 December. Is it still on target? If not, why not, and when will it be operational? If it is on target, what operations will it undertake first?

Mr. Thomas: Having obtained agreement on the principle of a peace-building commission, detailed discussions are now necessary on the commission’s exact role, how it will work with the peace-building fund, for which agreement has also been obtained, and how the staffing arrangements will be organised to support the Commission’s work. Intensive discussions are taking place in New York to get those arrangements right and we are still optimistic that we will meet the end-of-the-year deadline for the commission.

Some of the commission’s first streams of work will be to consider where it can play a key role. One country where the commission, had it been established, might have played a role is Sierra Leone, where, when the civil war had come to an end, a peace-building commission could have helped to galvanise international attention and to keep the international community’s focus on the development needs of Sierra Leone long after the television cameras had disappeared.

There may still be a role for the peace-building commission in Sierra Leone, but first, the arrangements must be set up and the objectives outlined in the summit document must be made reality with the establishment of the commission. There is a further discussion to have about what exactly its first tasks will be.

Andrew George: I want to probe the Minister further on the IMF. It is easy for him to say that it is a convenient target for people who do not like such multilateral international institutions, but, despite the laudable words from the EU, G8 and the UN, he must accept that the practical day-to-day constraint on many countries, especially African counties, with an IMF contract also constrains the number of nurses and doctors they can employ. The only way of overcoming that is for non-governmental organisations and independent agencies to deliver the AIDS, malaria and TB programmes in those countries using the Global Fund because those countries cannot do so themselves.

The Minister must accept that that needs to be considered. Otherwise, developing countries will not develop their own capacity to enhance their health services.

Mr. Thomas: I accept, for example, that the IMF’s record on some of its structural adjustment programmes in the 1980s and 1990s was not always impressive. The lessons learned from those experiences include recognition of the fact that some conditions the IMF attached in the past were not always appropriate. We have tried to persuade the IMF to review the conditions that it attaches to its support, with some recent success. We will have to see how the changes that the IMF has recently introduced work in practice.

It is fair to say that one cannot use the IMF as a target for what is not going right in developing countries. Political leaders must sometimes make difficult choices—perhaps to prioritise health care and education rather than focusing on military expenditure or other choices. Political leaders must make those decisions in their own way in their own countries.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): The NHS is full of doctors and nurses from the Philippines, Botswana, south Asia and elsewhere. How do we prevent or discourage qualified medical and dental personnel from the developing world from leaving to seek better paid jobs in the developed world?

Mr. Thomas: We can do a number of things. We can try to ensure that the NHS does not directly recruit people from developing countries that have a shortage of nurses. My hon. Friend will be aware of the code of practice in the NHS, which we have recently strengthened to include those private sector organisations that supply nurses and doctors to the NHS. He is right that we should consider the circumstances in the developing country to find out what incentives people have to leave their country.

We recently funded further investment in the health sector in Malawi, so that the pay of nurses and doctors can be increased significantly. Initial, anecdotal evidence shows that that is having an impact in slowing the rate of people leaving and possibly helping to increase recruitment of nurses to the Malawian health service. The money that we have given has only just started to have an impact since April, so it is too early to say how successful it has been. The Malawian Minister of Health was positive about the programme to date.

Mr. Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): In certain African countries, information technology is now being used in education, especially in primary education, including distance learning projects with European Union countries. What knowledge does the Minister have of that and how is it coming along?

Mr. Thomas: There is definitely a role for information technology, especially in the training of teachers. There is a more fundamental problem for primary education in Africa, which is that a huge number of children are out of school. That requires decisions by Governments in developing countries to abolish user fees, which are often a significant deterrent to children going to school. The international community must also support those countries by providing additional resources.

The most recent example is Burundi, whose Government took the decision to abolish user fees. Britain has given £2 million to help them to provide extra teachers and classrooms to meet the huge demand for primary education in Burundi.

Mark Simmonds: The Minister will be aware that Conservative Members support the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. He will also be aware that a sizeable proportion of the EU’s aid growth is down to debt relief, and is not new money for aid. What is the Government’s position? Are the Minister and the Secretary of State trying to persuade their colleagues and counterparts in European Governments to change this policy? Are the UK Government using additional growth in aid money to support the HIPC initiative?

Mr. Thomas: We have always made it clear that the UK’s contribution to debt relief moneys comes out of the development budget. We think that debt relief and direct assistance are both useful tools to tackle poverty. It is for other countries in Europe to make their own judgments about the balance between direct development assistance and debt relief. We think that the $55 billion debt relief deal that the G8 leaders helped to initiate, and which the World Bank and the IMF have endorsed, with up to 38 countries benefiting, including 18 immediately, is hugely important, but it must be seen as part of a package, including more aid and fairer access to world markets for developing countries.

Jeremy Wright: May I bring the Minister back to the subject of the international finance facility? He will know that one of the drawbacks to such a facility is that, although funding will be available up front—frontloaded, as he said—money will not be available in the same amount in succeeding years. Countries receiving such aid will have to have the financial planning mechanisms in place to deal with that. How can that drawback be addressed?

Mr. Thomas: It will be addressed by countries adhering to their commitments to increase their development budgets to meet the United Nations goal of 0.7 per cent. of national income spent on development assistance. We have been clear in saying that the IFF is not a substitute for progress towards achieving that goal. The IFF will enable those resources that are committed over time to be frontloaded to help to speed up progress, which all parties in the House recognise is necessary.

Andrew George: On the theme of the international community and those developed countries—particularly at EU level—talking with forked tongue, the Minister rightly highlighted in his opening remarks the significance of a strong trading relationship with developing countries.

The EU common agricultural policy is only partially reformed, and certainly not to the degree that the Labour Government would like. Does the Minister accept that, rather than concentrating on what the EU can do on aid and debt relief, perhaps we should accept that the biggest assistance that Europe can offer developing countries is further reform of the common agricultural policy to ensure that production supports are completely removed, so that European markets are properly opened up to developing countries?

Mr. Thomas: I agree that we want further reform of the common agricultural policy, and we have had success in negotiating reform. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs achieved a good outcome in the talks on CAP reform in June 2003. That helped to create the negotiating space to allow the Trade Commissioner to make offers in the way that he has done to get progress in the run-up to Hong Kong.

We need to recognise that it is not only the EU that has a responsibility; a whole series of other countries also have a responsibility to reduce tariffs and increase market access for developing countries. We need to sequence the EU’s commitments to reduce market access in order to leverage similar reductions in tariffs and so on by countries such as the United States.

Andrew George: In his opening address, the Minister rightly referred to the United Kingdom’s contribution to trying to kick-start the much-expanded UN central emergency revolving fund. Although it does not have a direct impact on the millennium development goals, it is fundamental to underpinning the work that the goals are undertaking. That was a welcome move, but there has been no proper multilateral, reciprocal donation to that revolving fund. What action needs to be taken internationally? What work is being undertaken at a European level to ensure that there is parity of donation from other wealthy European and western countries? How will the development of that revolving fund play from here?

Mr. Thomas: The fund, like a number of other things agreed at the millennium review summit, needs detailed work done on how it would operate, and agreement must be sorted in New York. We are optimistic that such agreement can be secured so that the fund is ready to run from 1 January. At the millennium review summit, six countries—Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland and ourselves—together pledged $160 million. That is a good start.

We know that a number of other countries are considering making contributions to the fund, as the details of how the fund will work become clear. Given the Secretary of State’s advocacy of the fund, we will have a responsibility to continue working with Jan Egeland, who heads the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs—the body that will operate the fund—to make the case to other nations for more money. We sought to use the EU Development Ministers’ informal meeting in Leeds last week as another opportunity to make the case for investment in that fund.

Mr. Reed: I welcome the recognition that we must improve the quality of aid and not just the total amount; that is crucial. The Paris declaration on aid effectiveness is welcome; the trouble is that it requires monitoring. Will the Minister assure us that the monitoring will not amount simply to bean counting that gets in the way, but will ensure the effectiveness of the aid? Can he reassure us that we will get the balance right between those two needs?

Mr. Thomas: The development assistance committee of the OECD carries out that process. It initiates reviews of the quality of aid by different donors; it does not bean-count, as my hon. Friend is worried it might. It looks at the broader issues relating to the quality of aid, and the peer review provides an opportunity to continue to increase the quality of aid.

Mark Simmonds: May I follow up the very good question from the hon. Member for Loughborough? It is clear from document No. 8139 that, as part of the additional sums that are coming through the European Union and will be distributed, a significant additional amount will go into direct budgetary support. As the Minister will be aware, there is some nervousness about direct budgetary support. One of the mechanisms alongside the OECD is the peer review mechanism, to which he referred. I think that only four African countries are currently part of the peer review mechanism. What progress is being made to encourage other African countries to join the mechanism and to support them with the necessary confidence building and expertise that they will require to join that group?

Mr. Thomas: From memory, some six countries are already committed to the peer review mechanism process, to be completed by the end of the year, and another six have identified themselves as wanting to be peer reviewed by the end of 2006. If I am wrong, I will add the question to the lengthy list of questions that the hon. Gentleman has asked me on previous occasions, about which I am in the process of writing to him. Given that it is a relatively young process, that is an encouraging sign of progress and of willingness to be subjected to international audit by developing countries.

On budget support more generally, we are clear that we must engage directly. One does not simply hand over money as budget support and then walk away, and not continue to monitor how it is spent. Often we will co-fund budget support with an organisation such as the World Bank or with one of the regional development banks, again so that we have confidence in the quality of auditing the use of budget support moneys that we give.

Andrew George: In regard to the proportion of aid being provided to the developing countries, the Minister knows that the United Kingdom Government have expended £5 billion on the military effort in Iraq and that, at the end of the year, the international community will have expended over $10 billion on the reconstruction of Iraq. In view of the tens of millions of pounds being offered to African and other countries and the serious shortfall, of which the Minister is well aware, of $3.5 billion in the Global Fund, does he believe that the United Kingdom’s response is in proportion? In other words, is the proportion right between the enormous amount of money going to Iraq and the relatively smaller amounts going to the other countries?

Mr. Thomas: I think that we have got the balance right. Substantial amounts of money are needed for the development of a number of countries—far in excess of the $5 billion quoted by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, one of our successes as a country, from the G8 and EU presidency process, and indeed from the millennium review summit process, was to secure agreement to some $50 billion extra of development assistance, of which half will go to Africa by 2010. We are not content with the success that we have had in that area, or indeed on debt relief. That is why we are pushing for an international finance facility. That is also why the launch of a mini-version of the IFF, an IFF for immunisations, is so important in sending a signal to other countries that the IFF concept works, can make a real difference and should be supported.

Mr. Prentice: I have a question about HIV/AIDS. I recall a few years ago being in Windhoek, Namibia and seeing council workmen putting the wall around a cemetery that was already full up. Goal 8, target 17 states:

“In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries”,

and in the bundle is a letter from the Secretary of State for International Development, which mentions pressing for

“an international agreement on universal access to AIDS treatment by 2010”.

Are the pharmaceutical companies co-operating in those aims, and is it realistic to say that we will hit the AIDS target by 2010?

Mr. Thomas: The pharmaceutical companies, particularly British ones, have been generally helpful in substantially bringing down the price of antiretroviral drugs. We want them to go further still, and continue to work with them to encourage them in that direction.

On whether the target of universal access by 2010 is achievable, we estimate that at present 6 million people have full-blown AIDS and are in need of antiretroviral drugs. Last year, the World Health Organisation launched an initiative to get 3 million people on treatment by the end of 2005. We believe that close to 2 million will be on treatment by the end of the year. On the number of people getting access to antiretroviral drugs, there are encouraging signs, particularly in sub-Saharan African, where there has been a threefold increase in the past 12 months.

Clearly, there is a lot more to do. The biggest problem is not drug prices but the number of health workers available to support people through antiretroviral treatment, an issue that my hon. Friend touched on in his earlier question. That is why our experiment in Malawi is so important. If it works and we can replicate it in other developing countries, we stand much more chance of achieving the universal access commitment.

Mark Simmonds: It is clear that increasing aid packages, whether coupled or decoupled with debt relief, will not be sufficient to get anywhere near meeting the millennium development goals within the ambitious time scales. The only way to get close to achieving the goals and significantly alleviating poverty in Africa is by improving the international trading regime. I realise that there is an important World Trade Organisation meeting in Hong Kong in December, but could the Minister update us on where specifically the UK Government and the European Union are on realigning the rules of origin, the generalised system of preferences and the existing tariff regime, which is so damaging to international trade?

Mr. Thomas: First, I do not believe that one should be completely unoptimistic about the direction of travel in respect of the millennium development goals. It is possible that we will achieve several goals in their entirety. However, there are concerns about whether we will make as much progress as we want to in sub-Saharan Africa in particular, and there are also concerns about achieving the goals in other parts of the world.

Yes, fairer trading rules are part of what is needed to make further progress, but also required are commitments by the Governments of developing countries to do what is necessary to prioritise their resources to meet the millennium development goals.

The UK, as one of 25 nations, continues to argue with the European Community for further reform of the rules of origin. I believe that there will be reform, but it remains to be seen whether we can persuade other countries to go as far as we would like. We are working on the GSP arrangements. We had hoped to have a speedier reform of the GSP to help us to act on commitments more quickly after events such as the recent tsunami. It was not possible to make progress as swiftly as we would have liked, but we are continuing to push hard on that.

The hon. Gentleman raised a third trade matter.

Mark Simmonds: Tariffs.

Mr. Thomas: The tariff regime. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, that is in the melting-pot for the Hong Kong talks, and we will see how things turn out. The Government are clear that we want the European Community’s trade negotiators to push as hard as they can to get as much market access as possible for developing countries. The offers that Peter Mandelson has made and the counter-offer from the Americans are important for giving the talks momentum, but I do not want to suggest that a lot more work does not need to be done, because it certainly does, if we are to get the outcome that we want.

Jeremy Wright: With reference to the Minister’s last answer, it is clear that, in order to meet the millennium development goals, there will have to be a huge pan-European Union effort. Are the Government confident that the other Governments in Europe are as committed to getting the job done as they are, and does the Minister think that the rest of the EC’s response to events such as the recent Asian earthquake is encouraging?

Mr. Thomas: All the EU Governments signed up in June to new aid targets. Those targets are public, so we shall be able to hold countries to account if they fail to make as much progress as we hope. We are committed to continuing to make the progress that we said we would make, in terms of achieving the target of 0.7 per cent. However, we accept the hon. Gentleman’s main thesis that the aid commitments that have been given are not on their own enough to make the progress that is necessary to achieve the millennium development goals.

That is why the international finance facility continues to be such an important potential tool. We have got agreement with the French, and we have the support of 80 other nations around the world. We are continuing to make the case for support of the IFF concept to other European nations—and, indeed, to nations outside Europe. That some six countries supported the IFF for immunisations is encouraging, and we shall see how things turn out.

Andrew George: But to continue my theme of the international community speaking with forked tongue, does the EU speak with a forked tongue to African countries when it enters into bilateral agreements with them on fisheries? Senegal’s artisanal fishery has been demolished as a result of its bilateral agreement with the EU, and other African countries have also not been helped by bilateral agreements. Is the Minister confident that the impact of such bilateral agreements on fisheries has been properly assessed? What does the Minister feel should be done to ensure that bilateral agreements reflect the development needs of such countries?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me, but I will have to get back to him on the specific question of fisheries, and the situation in terms of the EU’s and the EC’s relationship with Senegal.

Illegal fishing is clearly a huge problem. Fishing is a key industry for many African countries, and the loss of revenue as the result of illegal fishing is as important an issue as the problem of illegal logging in many developing African countries, and in many developing countries per se.

We are working on a regulation to help move the agenda forward in respect of illegal logging. We are hopeful that, under our presidency, we will be able to conclude an agreement on illegal logging. However, I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on illegal fishing.

Mark Simmonds: Can the Minister confirm that of the $48 billion pledged at the G8 summit for debt relief, $30 billion is earmarked specifically for Iraq?

Mr. Thomas: There has been a popular misconception that the $55 billion potentially available to heavily indebted poor countries includes money for Iraq. There is a difference between the debt relief available under the heavily indebted poor countries process and the Paris Club debt that has been written off for Iraq and Nigeria. Those are two separate pockets of sources for debt relief. The $55 billion is completely separate from the Paris Club debt written off for Iraq and Nigeria.

Mr. Prentice: Very briefly, goal 3 is about gender equality and the empowerment of women. Are we on track to meet that? How do we tackle the kind of cultural issues that hold back women in many very poor countries? How do we begin to address that?

Mr. Thomas: One thing that we have long called for, and that the European Union has supported and pushed for in the millennium review summit, is a reproductive health target. Frankly, we have had difficulties in persuading other nations to go as far as we would like. However, there was positive language in the millennium review summit outcome document, and that clearly gives us a process on which to build.

On the cultural changes necessary, the single most effective intervention that one can make is in political leadership. We know that that matters hugely for combating HIV and AIDS. Similarly, to empower women, political leaders need to grasp the issue and consider what they can do to encourage more women to come into politics in their countries. In Rwanda in particular, there are encouraging signs; frankly, the number of women sitting in its Parliament puts the UK Parliament to shame. That is one encouraging sign. Political leadership is key to resolving such issues.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 8137/05, Commission Communication on Policy Coherence for Development: Accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals, No. 8138/05, Commission Communication on Speeding up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals—the European Union’s contribution, and No. 8139/05, Commission Communication on Accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals—Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness; and supports the Government’s view that the EU’s recognition that its non-aid policies have an important impact on developing countries’ prospects for growth and development, including attaining the Millennium Development Goals; EU Member States’ commitments to double annual EU aid to all developing countries by 2010, with at least 50 per cent. of the agreed increase going to Africa, and to achieve the 0.7 per cent. ODA/GNI target by 2015; and agreements on increased aid effectiveness under the Paris Declaration, untying of aid, trade-related assistance, multilateral debt relief and innovative financing in line with the outcomes of the UN Millennium Review Summit to take stock of progress towards the Millennium Development Goals.—[Mr. Thomas.]

Mark Simmonds: I should like to make sure that the House understands that the Conservative party supports the aspirations set out in the millennium development goals, those set out at the G8 summit and the Government’s target of spending 0.7 per cent. of GDP on aid by 2013. We also support the EU target of spending a collective average of 0.56 per cent. by 2010 and the HIPC initiative, which we discussed earlier.

However, we are deeply concerned about the ability of the Government, the European Union and the United Nations to deliver on the promises set out at the initial conference in 2000. At the bottom of page 9, document 8138/05 states:

“Estimates show that many African countries will not be able to reach the MDGs by the target year of 2015.”

The footnote to that summarises the situation succinctly. It states:

“‘Sub-Saharan Africa, most dramatically, has been in a downward spiral of AIDS, resurgent malaria, falling food output per person, deteriorating shelter conditions, and environmental degradation, so that most countries in Africa are far off track to achieve most of the Goals’. [The region] ‘has the highest rate of undernourishment . . . the lowest primary enrolment rates . . . [with the highest] gender disparity . . . The HIV/AIDS crisis is devastating much of the continent . . . The region also has the highest TB incidence in the world and the highest maternal and child mortality ratios . . . Progress in access to safe drinking water, though more promising, is still too slow to achieve the MDG targets. Without sustained support, Sub-Saharan Africa is unlikely to meet any of the Goals’.”

That was from the UN millennium project report of January 2005.

I know that we are here to discuss putting structures in place to change the situation detailed in that report. It confirms that little progress has been made from the original millennium summit in 2000 until January this year. The hon. Member for St. Ives gave some staggering statistics about the dates by which some of the goals would be met—they are 100 or 150 years away. The “universal primary education in sub-Saharan Africa” target looks as though it will be met by 2133. The “halving the number of people living on less than $1 a day” target will be met by 2150. The “reducing mortality of children under five by two thirds” target will be met by 2165. The system, as it is currently being operated, is not succeeding. That is of great concern.

One concern of Conservative Members is that the European Union does not have a good track record in this area and in getting aid to where it is needed the most. I believe that 52 per cent. of EU aid money currently reaches low-income countries, although I was encouraged by some of the Minister’s responses and the fact that he felt the situation was changing. We are also concerned about the direct budgetary support mechanism. It is clear from the documents that we are discussing that the intention is to increase direct budgetary support quite substantially, without the necessary checks and balances, accountability and transparency that is required, particularly when UK taxpayers’ money is being used for what are, in theory, very good purposes.

Furthermore, as was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), questions have to be raised about how committed some of our EU partners are. I understand that some EU countries, which shall remain nameless this afternoon, have not given any aid to support those affected by the appalling natural disasters that recently occurred in Kashmir. That is not a good precedent for attempting to raise additional funds to be used for aid or for debt relief.

As I said in one of my questions, the key to long-term sustainable success in meeting millennium development goals and in making a serious inroad into alleviating poverty must be the improvement of the international trading situation. Creating other, different, protectionist blocks is not an answer. We must break down existing protectionist blocks while understanding that there needs to be a transition period through which many of the developing nations need to pass before they can move to full free trade.

My final point is about the international finance facility, which is proposed to frontload aid expenditure to meet the millennium development goals. It is welcome that all EU countries and 42 countries elsewhere are supposed to support the mechanism. Can the Minister confirm that they will do so? We welcome the IFF for immunisation, which will result in $4 billion being spent on immunisation over the next four years. However, there are concerns about the impact that the IFF will have in future years. We must ensure that the extra money that is generated through the aid system and HIPC is used to meet the millennium development goals. It should not be used for other purposes, as is currently happening.

Kelvin Hopkins: I, too, want to focus on trade and broader economic issues. That is what is needed to help poor countries escape from their poverty and start to move towards the kind of civilised life that we in the west take for granted.

For several decades, I have heard warm words from the European Union and its predecessors about development and how they are helping poorer countries. I remember, some years ago, discussing the Lomé agreement on trade as an arrangement by which the third world could develop itself. The reality was that we had the common external tariff against those countries. The Lomé agreement tied them up in knots. For example, a country that produced timber was not permitted to transform it into high-value-added products and then export them to the European Union. They had to export the timber so that we could have the benefit of the high-value-added production in the European Union. That did not help those countries. I understand that they could not even export logs to a second country nearby to be sawn into planks so that the planks could be exported. That was the level of control.

I remember how during one of my attempts to become a parliamentary candidate, I was asked what I thought of the renegotiated terms of the Lomé agreement. At that time I knew what it was, and my sceptical views on Europe were known. A colleague in the audience was trying to undermine my credibility by asking me about it. I explained the agreement, but I confessed that I was not familiar with the details of its renegotiated terms. It has been replaced by the arrangements that we are discussing.

I do not pretend to be au fait with all the detail in the documents, or the technical details of the trading arrangements. However, I am aware that poorer countries are subject to rules decided by rich countries, and that they have to accept crumbs from the rich man’s table. If I were a Finance Minister of a poor country such as Malawi, I should not accept them. I should ask why we, a desperately poor country, should have to import subsidised sugar from the European Union. I should say that I was going to impose trade restrictions.

I believe in protectionism in some respects. If a poor country is trying to develop its economy, it wants to direct any consumer demand to its economy and its producers to get the economy going. It does not want demand leaking to imports and destroying its farmers and domestic producers.

If I were that Finance Minister, I should say that I do not want to be forced to accept expensive imports from developed countries, and that I want to if necessary restrict them and develop our industries to produce for ourselves. Only when poor and weak economies can take such steps will they have a chance to develop.

Some poor economies, including Mozambique, which are adjacent to richer countries, receive remittances from foreign workers. In Pakistan, a high proportion of Kashmiris live on remittances from their brethren who now live in the United Kingdom. They send back vast sums of money to keep an essentially poor economy ticking over. Another way that they survive is by providing soldiers for the military. However, Kashmir’s economy is weak, and I should want to say to the rest of the world that that is not acceptable.

The World Trade Organisation and the IMF, however, are fixated by an almost religious view of free trade and liberalisation. That is not correct or right. I expect my hon. Friend the Minister not to respond in detail to what I say, but at least to hear what I say, because I think that their view is wrong.

It is interesting that 40 years ago, countries such as Malaysia and some west African countries were equal. Malaysia has been transformed, not simply by accepting rules from outside, but by deciding internally such policies as the devaluation of its currency. What a terrible thing to do.

When the far east meltdown occurred in the late 1990s, the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank said, “Whatever you do, don’t impose restrictions on trade, don’t devalue your currency. Just let the market bring your economy back to prosperity.” The Malaysian Government said, “On your bike,” imposed exchange controls, devalued the currency and the economy bounced back in a year. Good old Malaysia. That is what I would have done. However, that policy broke all the rules and upset the world trade organisations—the international institutions—because the Malaysian Government were not only breaking the rules, but proving that breaking the rules worked.

Some poorer countries ought to be allowed to take steps to help their own economy. The papers suggest that the best way for those countries to develop is for them to learn to help themselves. However, if they are hamstrung by rules decided by rich countries that prevent them from developing rapidly, they will not get far. Let them decide for themselves what is appropriate for their country, and restrict imports from the rich countries. Let them say that they are not going to import agricultural products that they can produce themselves, and let them say to the world, “If you want to help us, get rid of your export subsidies and allow our agricultural products into your markets without restriction.” That would be a fair and successful way of doing things and it is where I would start.

I appreciate that this is not flavour-of-the-month politics. Our leaders do not currently subscribe to this view, but I do not believe that I am wrong. As I say frequently in meetings, “Shoot me down in mid-sentence if you think I’m talking nonsense.” I do not think that I am talking nonsense—[Laughter.] But I may be.

I look forward to a world where we finally accept that poor countries can decide for themselves whether they accept imports from the developed world. They should be able to say to us, “If you want to help us, accept our products without restriction. Let us have a little bit of high-value-added production in our country that we can export to yours.” It would not hurt us at all if we had to close down a lot of our current agricultural production. It would not matter; we could turn it all over to biofuels. Biofuels are CO2 neutral and provide a good way of producing energy that is environmentally sound. The energy has to be produced near the forest for obvious reasons. We could turn over a lot of our agriculture to biofuel production—we might even avoid having to have nuclear power if we did that—and then we could import a lot of food from these countries.

Our balance of trade problems are not with poor countries, but with other developed countries. The UK’s massive balance of trade deficits are with rich countries, not poor ones. If we have any trading problems, that is where they are. Let us open our markets to poorer countries, allow them to decide what is best for their economies and support them in that. Let us see what happens.

Why do we not just provide enough medicine for those countries to deal with all of their AIDS problems? The global cost for rich countries would be a very small drop in a very large ocean of money. We could do that if we had the will, and when the EU starts to talk like that I shall take it more seriously than I do at the moment. I am sorry that I am being so critical and unkind to the EU, but I want to see effective action, not just warm words.

Andrew George: The hon. Member for Luton, North obviously acts as a policy nursery for the Labour Government and no doubt some of his ideas, given encouragement, might find their way into future Labour manifestos in the decades to come.

Like the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), I support the aspirations that the Government have outlined, and I pay tribute to the leadership role that they have provided in Europe and the G8. I do not question the sincerity of the Secretary of State or the Minister with regard to their commitment to the causes for which they have been upstanding.

However, we can never be complacent about the enormous challenges that the global community has to face. In my first question I tried to explain that the millennium development goals will collectively take a millennium to deliver, such is the state of the global response to the challenge. So far behind are we, that we need to consider ways of treating those goals with a great deal more urgency than the global community is at present.

A theme that I tried to develop in my questions to the Minister was that the quest to achieve the millennium development goals and all the other international development aspirations is not in itself divorced from other aspects of policy development, particularly with regard to trade. That is why I am particularly concerned that the documents contain a small, passing reference to the reform of the common agricultural policy, for example, and bilateral agreements with regard to fisheries, but contain no proper evidence that the European Union properly recognises the clear connection between its failure to reform the common agricultural policy effectively and assisting the achievement of the millennium development goals. A similar thing applies to the impact of the bilateral fisheries agreements—I am not talking about illegal fishing—on a large number of fishing nations, particularly on the west coast of Africa, and on their capacity to develop their coastal economies in order to help meet their millennium development goals.

Although the Minister defended the IMF, of which the UK is a board member, I hope that he and the Government, in their negotiations with developing countries, carefully consider the conditions that have been attached to investments that have been made in developing countries, particularly with regard to the development of the capacity of those Governments to achieve the millennium development goals—especially in relation to health and education. It is clear that in order to improve their capacity to deliver AIDS, malaria and TB programmes and education programmes, those countries need to employ a larger number of civil servants than they do at present. However, the IMF continues to place a real cap on the freedom of those Governments to make those additional appointments in order to achieve those objectives. That may well be something that could be finessed through negotiation. Perhaps the IMF may review the conditions attached to the agreements between itself and those developing countries to ensure that, where there are unhelpful restrictions, they can be lifted. However, that is not what the Minister said today. I would like to hear him say that the Government, as part of the board of the IMF, will use their influence in the IMF to ensure that, where there appear to be restrictions—Government officials and Ministers have spoken to me about the impact of those IMF constraints—and where they clearly constrain the ability of those developing countries to meet their goals, conditions can be renegotiated.

The international community clearly needs to respond to the issue of governance and the issue of conflict in developing countries. A large number of African countries have reached a boiling point where the situation could become out of control or it could be contained. That is important because in order to meet millennium development goals a stable civil society is needed. To a very large extent, aid and debt relief programmes are due to be delivered over time. We are providing the finances to enable development to take place and I am content that progress is likely to be made there, although I am not as content with regard to trade. I am not convinced that the international community is doing enough to establish stability in civil society. I compared the amount of resources that has been put into the military action and reconstruction in Iraq in the past three years with the tens of millions of pounds that have been given to support the African Union troops in Sudan. The target of 7,700 in Darfur by the end of October has still not been met. There is still a 1,000 shortfall, which is well short of where they should be.

The situation in Darfur is seriously running out of control. I am not saying that it is liable to become another Rwanda, but the position is so serious that the international community should revisit the African Union’s mandate to ensure that it has the capacity and the resources to deal with the situation and to protect vulnerable citizens, especially the millions of displaced people in Darfur. Its troops must have the capacity—especially armoured personnel carriers—to fulfil its mandate. My concern is that the Government and the international community are not giving Sudan the priority that they otherwise would, because it is not Iraq.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on the role of the European Union with respect to reform of its common agricultural policy and its common fisheries policy, under which bilateral fisheries agreements are being established.

The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) asked about the impact of the loss of many overseas health workers in the UK. I accept the Minister’s words and his reassurances that the UK Government are not engaged in recruitment campaigns in developing countries that desperately need health workers, but many private recruitment companies, some UK-based, still operate in those countries and provide a supply of health workers for the NHS. I hope that the Minister will accept that although there may be no Government recruitment programme, there is a covert private company effort to recruit health workers for the UK.

Mr. Thomas: The point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle was that we have strengthened the code of practice on recruitment into the NHS to include private sector agencies that supply NHS hospitals. As well as taking measures on the code of practice, we also need to help developing countries to strengthen their recruitment into their health service. That is why our programme in Malawi of increasing substantially the salaries of doctors and nurses there is so important.

Andrew George: I accept that, and I understand that there is also such a programme in Uganda. That is welcome. Where that can be delivered, it is a welcome addition, but it is not happening in all developing countries, many of which still supply the NHS with health workers, particularly nurses. The Minister cannot deny that. I hope that he will not feel that the Government have solved that problem, and I hope that he will keep the issue under review.

Mr. Thomas: I certainly have not solved the matter. One reason for going to Zambia and Malawi with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), was specifically to look at what else we can do collectively, perhaps through links between NHS hospitals and hospitals in Malawi and Zambia—there are already some established links—and how well our programme in Malawi for increasing nurses’ salaries was going. In some developing countries, of which the Philippines is one, where there is an excess in the number of health workers available to them we have an agreement for them to supply nurses for the NHS. The issue in the code of practice concerns those countries with a shortage of health workers and we have sought significantly to improve the problem while not accepting that we have solved it.

Andrew George: I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification.

The primary issue, which the Minister highlighted to some extent in his opening comments and in answer to some of the questions raised, is that if there is a hierarchy for primary effort to achieve millennium development goals, the top of that tree must be to get the trading relationship right. It is important that, as we move towards the mandate on behalf of the United Kingdom at the Hong Kong ministerial talks in late December, the agenda is properly fleshed out. I hope that we have an opportunity to debate it before the Trade Commissioner goes off to those talks because it is a vital area and fundamental to the global community achieving its millennium development goals in the longer term.

The issues that need to be fleshed out include the EU honourably ensuring that it opens up its markets, particularly for agricultural produce, because developing countries have a particular emphasis on primary industries. Opening up the EU’s market for agricultural produce is essential, as is making sure that those talks recognise the distinction between appropriate and responsible inward investment and western exploitation of developing countries. This is not the forum in which to define the difference between helpful inward investment and inappropriate and unhelpful exploitation of developing countries. We all know of examples that exemplify the distinction and the issue needs to be fleshed out in future debate.

UK-based multinational companies certainly have an important role and I hope that the Government will use their influence because some western companies are operating successfully in developing countries but working cheek by jowl with communities living in extreme poverty. The argument that simply having multinational companies in a country inevitably means that everyone in that country will be better off is not confirmed by many examples in developing countries. I hope that the Government will have discussions with multinational companies and make them fully aware of the United Kingdom’s full commitment to achieving the millennium development goals, and make them fully aware that those goals should be reflected in the corporate social responsibility statements that guide their policies and their own economic development in those countries.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to make the winding-up speech. Let me begin by running through the points that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness made. He, together with the hon. Member for St. Ives, rightly began with a cautionary note about the progress that has been made toward millennium development goals, and the substantial progress necessary if we are to get back on track. However, I must attach a cautionary note to their cautionary note by pointing out that the headline target goal of halving, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people living in absolute poverty—on less than $1 a day—looks likely to be met globally. Clearly, progress across the regions of the world is going to be uneven: we are likely to meet that target because of progress being made in Asia, but we are substantially off-track to meet the target in sub-Saharan Africa.

Similarly, the global target to halve the proportion of people living without access to safe water is on track to be achieved, but clearly, elsewhere within the millennium development goals there is a whole series of targets on which much more progress is needed. That may be on universal primary education, as there are still about 120 million children of primary school age out of school, or on the number of child deaths: while it has been decreasing over the last two decades, there are still some 11 million children under the age of five dying each year. Often they die from diseases and conditions that would have been entirely preventable had they been living in a richer, more developed country.

Obviously, the continuing challenge of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, as we discussed today, needs another cautionary note in terms of progress itself, and in terms of progress in meeting other millennium development goals.

I recognise that the main opposition party has a continuing obsession with attacking the European Community, although I recognise that may appeal to certain of my hon. Friends. The European Community’s approach to development systems has improved substantially over the last five years, but we want more progress. In the discussions taking place on future development co-operation funding, we are seeking to make the case for better-quality aid and for more of that aid to go to the poorest countries of the world.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend is quite right that the main opposition party is critical of the European Union, as indeed am I, but on entirely different grounds. The Conservatives think it is too socialist; I think it is too neo-liberal.

Mr. Thomas: I am not quite sure how to respond to that intervention from my hon. Friend. Perhaps I should move swiftly onwards.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness rightly said that we need to be careful about how budget support is provided, but may I remind him and other hon. Members that there are considerable audit requirements and that considerable discussions take place with developing-country Governments before budget support is provided? On occasion, we have suspended budget support—perhaps where we have concerns about the direction of travel regarding human rights in a particular country, if we think there has been significant movement away from commitments that were given to us.

However, one argument in favour of budget support relates to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough on the quality of aid. In many sub-Saharan countries, a huge number of different donor missions go in wanting to talk about their particular projects or priorities. All have perfectly good projects in mind, but they place a huge burden on the developing-country Governments when the capacity of the civil service in those countries is often relatively limited. We, as donors, need to recognise the impact that our requests on such developing countries have and try to offer aid in a more predictable way—albeit one that ensures, rightly, that the money we offer is spent in an appropriate way on tackling poverty, not lost through corruption.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness asked again about the international finance facility, following up his contribution in questions asked earlier. As I said, we have launched the IFF for immunisations with a number of other European countries. We believe that that will be a success, not only in helping to tackle the number of children who die needlessly, but in sending a signal about the quality of the IFF as a vehicle. We have the support of France; we hope to persuade other countries to join us and launch the scheme. That lobbying exercise continues.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North was not attacking the European Community directly, he talked, quite rightly, about the importance of trade and how the CAP and export subsidies under it slow progress in tackling millennium development goals. The reforms that have taken place so far, which give our trade negotiator the ability to show movement from the EU, are hugely important. The Government will continue to campaign for more CAP reform: it cannot be right that 40 per cent. of the EU budget is spent on a part of the budget that serves the needs of only 5 per cent. of the population. Clearly progress has been made, but more is needed and we will continue to make that case.

As well as seeking to secure fairer trading rules, we also need to help developing countries to benefit from them by addressing what economists call the supply-side constraints on trade. We must help them to tackle issues arising from a lack of good customs arrangements, issues relating to business regulations so that it is easier to do business in-country and the huge infrastructure constraints in many developing countries, which also inhibit trade. One matter on which we got agreement at the G8 summit in Gleneagles, and which was endorsed by the millennium review summit, is the need to pull together an aid-for-trade package to do just that. We are working on the details of that package, through the EU and with G8 colleagues.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree in broad terms with my hon. Friend. One way for the developed world to help the supply side would be to provide capital equipment directly, particularly capital equipment that is not the last word in modernisation—for example, old computers—and education. Providing education direct to those countries is a key component of supply-side development. It is clear that education has been crucial in countries such as Malaysia.

Mr. Thomas: We must allow developing countries to make their own choices about the type of equipment they need. That is why budget support could be a hugely important vehicle. Projects that provide certain types of aid to communities through non-governmental organisations have their place, but if we want to develop the capacity of Governments to look after the interests of their own people, substantial budget support is the route to take.

We do not support free trade per se. We want fair trade and a managed process of opening up barriers to trade. That is why the special and differential treatment measures for which we are campaigning to be part of the deal at Hong Kong are so important.

The hon. Member for St. Ives asked me again about the IMF. Fewer conditions have been attached to its programmes as a result of the pressure that we have put on it, and the position with the World Bank is similar. We will have to see how the new World Bank and IMF arrangements work in practice. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the important contribution that civil society makes in helping to improve Governments. I am sure he is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State increased the budget that we make available to small and medium-size NGOs by some 40 per cent. last year.

There must be partnership between developing countries and developed nations. On the one hand, richer nations should provide more aid, more debt relief and fairer access to their markets; on the other, developing nations should improve the quality of governance that they offer their citizens, address human rights issues and continue with anti-corruption measures.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the point about fisheries and Senegal. On big business, he rightly made the point that it has a responsibility. The extractive industries transparency initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched in 2003, is helping to tackle the issue of the resource curse, whereby countries with large extractive industries find that, through corruption, those resources are lost for the fight against poverty. Asking companies such as BP and Shell to publish what they pay Governments, and Governments to publish what they receive from those businesses, would allow parliamentarians, civil society and so on to track what is on offer.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman made the justified point that the international community needs to keep its attention on Darfur. We discussed that at the EU Development Ministers’ meeting last week. International attention needs to be maintained, and we will continue to apply pressure. This has been a good year for development, but it is clear that much more needs to be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

Parliament Page Home Page