Sir Andrew Mitchell
MP for Sutton Coldfield · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I urge Labour Members to rise up now and say that the historical interest and support of the Labour party have been for international development. People might expect the beastly Tories to cut aid and development, but they do not expect the Labour party to do that. Now is a chance to have a real reset, which should include three things.”
“As we get older, we tend to look back at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, but I acknowledge at the outset that British development policy is at its best by far when it is conducted on an all-party basis. It is not a Labour, Conservative or Liberal policy; it is a British policy. That was one of its great glories in the past.”
“Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the importance of saving the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, but we have to accept that we will not get a major boost in public support unless it comes from the top. We had an era of huge support, led by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May.”
“The Government are the 100% shareholder in BII and are therefore able to set out very clearly what its priorities should be, but they should then leave an organisation like BII to get on with following that mandate. I argue that there have been three great losses from the Johnson and Starmer premierships.”
“I argue that, since the Suez crisis, international development has been the only area of indisputable British international leadership—and we have lost that.”
“I do not really agree with that because, while the hon. Gentleman cites a number of areas where Britain makes a big contribution, there is a big black hole where we have cut off our legs in respect to international development. I will say a word or two about that in a moment.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,936 lines we hold for Sir Andrew Mitchell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 45 of 99.
“As a result, extreme poverty is rising for the first time in two decades. Once again, IDA is responding flexibly, using financing from the UK and other donors, to support the poorest countries to respond to rising inflation and food insecurity. The World Bank is providing $36 billion this year as part of its wider global crisis response package. For example, over the last few months, IDA has financed social protection payments to support over 400,000 households in Somalia who face food insecurity. It is helping half a million households in Ethiopia to cope with drought by providing livestock feed, water and veterinary drugs. IDA has also provided an additional $1 billion of exceptional financing for Ukraine without diverting funds from the poorest countries. The UK can be proud of our role as a major donor to IDA.”
“Following negotiations throughout 2021, the UK and other donors committed to a record-breaking $93 billion replenishment in December. As announced to Parliament through a written ministerial statement earlier this year, the UK pledged £1.4 billion, positioning us as the third largest donor after the US and Japan. That was a 54% reduction on our pledge to the previous replenishment round, IDA19. This is in line with our international development strategy, which set out how we will rebalance the aid budget towards the bilateral programmes, thereby giving us greater control and flexibility over how taxpayers’ money is spent. Since the replenishment was agreed in December, Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has had a devastating impact on developing countries across the globe, which face growing debt, food and energy crises.”
“It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, because I know how much he did for the World Bank and Britain’s relationship with it. The reports at the weekend were about spending on refugees in particular, principally from Ukraine but also from Afghanistan, Syria and Hong Kong. In the first year of their residence here, it is entirely in accordance with the principles that govern the official development assistance rules—in other words, the development spend—that the first year’s expenditure should be covered. As the hon. Gentleman implied, that of course imposes considerable strains on the development budget and leads to spending in the UK, but we all accept that it is perfectly legitimate public expenditure within the definition.”
“The multilateral debt relief initiative enables the World Bank and the African Development Bank to cancel debts that were owed to them by countries at the time through an agreement that donors would compensate the banks for the loss of repayments. The order allows the Government to continue to make good on that commitment by contributing £119 million between 2031 and 2033. IDA is an important development partner; it tackles global challenges that the UK cannot address alone. The contributions covered by these two orders will deliver UK foreign policy and development objectives in countries with the greatest need, and they are an important part of this country’s commitment to the world’s poorest. I commend the orders to the Committee.”
“IDA will also help to deliver the Glasgow climate pact by using 35% of its finance to tackle climate change, and by supporting 30 countries to develop long-term strategies to transition towards net zero. Since its creation, there has been strong support across the House for IDA, and recognition of the positive impact it has had on the lives of millions of the world’s poorest people, including people from marginalised groups, such as those with disabilities, women and girls. The other draft order permits the UK Government to provide an additional £119 million to support IDA’s participation in the multilateral debt relief initiative, which, through the G8 presidency, the UK played a leading role in creating in 2005.”
“The hon. Gentleman’s daughter is right, and all of us are horrified and extremely worried about what is happening in the horn of Africa, where the dreadful spectre of famine looms, and indeed has started in some parts. There is no question about that. He will understand that it is 10 years since I last stood at the crease, but I am pretty confident that the quality of development spending over those last 10 years has increased. He is quite right to put his finger on the importance of getting humanitarian aid speedily to the people who most need it. Without it they will perish. I am afraid that there is no better example of that than the horn of Africa at this time.”
“IDA is still providing the vast majority of financing to Governments—50% of it is spent in Africa, and 40% is spent in fragile states. [Official Report, 21 November 2022, Vol. 723, c. 2MC.] I hope that that reassures her. The hon. Lady also asked whether I accept ICAI’s recommendations. I set up ICAI 12 years ago, and it is a brilliant organisation. It is the taxpayer’s friend. It often causes Ministers and civil servants discomfort, but that is its purpose. It is there to stand up proudly and independently, and to confirm whether the expenditure is in the best interests of the taxpayer and is doing what it says on the tin. I have enormous respect for ICAI, which is an extremely good organisation, and I hope that its power will continue to increase.”
“I am pleased to assure the Committee that collective responsibility is not retrospective, and so I cannot be held to account by the Government for what I have said in the past. The hon. Lady made several extremely good points, and I am very happy to take responsibility from now on for the work that the Government do on development. She mentioned the importance of improving the quality of IDA. I will write to her on that point, because she is on to an extremely good issue; it would be good for me to be able to come back to her and set out precisely how IDA has improved since I last had responsibility for this matter. She asked whether the spending of IDA is still focused on the poor, and I can assure her that it certainly is.”
“The policy is not owned by any one party; it is something that is of value to all of us, and we all strongly support it. The hon. Lady asked me a number of questions. I have identified seven, but if I miss anything out I will certainly respond to her by letter. She asked how much debt has been cancelled during this period. The figure is £3.2 billion, of which the UK has paid £1 billion; [Official Report, 21 November 2022, Vol. 723, c. 1MC.] if I am not correct, I know that an official near me will shake their head. The total value of the multilateral debt relief initiative, including all the MDBs, is £43.3 billion. She referred to the “brain drain” from dismantling DFID, and quoted a number of things that I have said.”
“I welcome the comments made by members of the Committee. The IDA is an important partner in delivering life-changing support for the poorest and most vulnerable people around the world. It increases the reach and scale of UK aid spending, and represents considerable value for money. I start by responding to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, with whom I work very closely back in Birmingham. Indeed, we co-chair—or I did until last Thursday—the all-party parliamentary group for levelling up Birmingham. I wish her every success in that work, and I will be supporting her all the way. She made the very good point that this is not a Conservative or Labour policy, but a British policy. Many people in Britain are immensely proud of the good that Britain does in some of the poorest and most wretched parts of the world.”
“Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft International Development Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2022. Draft international Development Association (Twentieth Replenishment) Order 2022 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft International Development Association (Twentieth Replenishment) Order 2022.— (Mr Andrew Mitchell.)”
“She rightly pointed out the importance of focusing on the poorest. She talked about the importance of focusing on debt, and gave good examples of why that was so. She talked about the importance of innovation and expanding the balance sheet of what the World Bank does, so that, at this critical time, it can go even further. It is 10 years since I was last the British governor at the World Bank—it is a position that I understand I have now taken up again. I give the Committee this assurance: I will seek to ensure that the World Bank continues the magnificent work it has done in the past and that Britain’s diminished replenishment does not affect our absolute commitment to the noble goals and aspirations that the World Bank epitomises. Question put and agreed to.”
“Friend and predecessor, the Member for Chelmsford. I pay tribute to her for the work she did in this job. Of course, it came as no surprise to me, when I came to the Department, to hear what a fantastic contribution she made during her time there. That is because, as she rightly said, many years ago she and I went to Rwanda to learn at first hand what works and what does not work in international development and to see what was happening in a very poor country that had had the most traumatic and dreadful past and how it was pulling itself up by its bootstraps and making changes to its social infrastructure, educating girls and boys and developing healthcare. She and I learned valuable lessons from that trip, I hope. I am very grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said today.”
“Friend the Member for Gloucester for his kind words, but also for reminiscing about 36 years ago, which was just before I was first elected to the House of Commons. It shows that we are both older than we look. He is right in saying that the brilliant work that the high commission in Kenya is leading is very important, and I pay tribute to the staff for that and for the important work that they do in the region. He talked about the structures, but I do not think that today is the time for me to respond to that. However, he also advocated the one-platform approach, with which I strongly agree. Although that was there anyway, it would, of course, have been strengthened by the merger. The grip on that, which is now quite rightly exercised by the high commissioner or the ambassador, is absolutely right. I come finally to my right hon.”
“Lady will accept that this is a prudent way to adjust a budget that has been diminished by the reduction in gross national income, and by the decision of the Government to lower the amount temporarily from 0.7% to 0.5%. It does not in any way express a diminution in the respect that we hold for the work of the World Bank and IDA; indeed, that work is absolutely brilliant. IDA is one of the only organisations where, through a trust fund mechanism, it is possible to pursue very direct needs and requirements and to bring the might of the World Bank to bear on that in a multi-country way. I hope that I have dealt with the majority of what the hon. Lady said. I thank the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire for her remarks, and I hope that I have covered them in what I have said already. I thank my hon.”
“My hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this area, for which he deserves both thanks and credit. The answer is that I do support those recommendations. It is a very good report by ICAI, and I very much support what it has said. There were two more questions from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. She is absolutely right to say that we are providing substantially less money, but we have been right at the top of the list in the past. Indeed, before 2010, we were the largest provider at the IDA replenishment. Our contribution was scaled back a bit then, because my view was that it was too much. It has now come back to a more European level, and it is still larger than the amounts in the replenishment that France and Germany have allocated. I hope that the hon.”
“Q15. When my right hon. Friend was Foreign Secretary, I know that she was acutely aware of the importance of British soft power acting in our national interest. Will she confirm today the promise we both made in 2010, when the Conservative Government first came into office, that she will not balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world?”
“I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which is both wise and necessary. There will be great relief across the House that the markets have responded to the statement positively, not least thanks to his economic leadership and political skill. In the run-up to 31 October, will he reassure us and the markets that the Treasury, the OBR and the independent Bank of England will work closely together and in total lockstep?”
“I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, in respect of growth, about investment zones. He said that they would come to the west midlands, which I think will be very helpful in levelling up in the Birmingham area and the west midlands in general. May I remind him, however, of the importance of UK investment in tackling international problems, whether they involve pandemics, illegal migration or climate change? This is about British expertise, but it is also about British money. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we are on track to restore what was a manifesto promise to bring back the 0.7% aid commitment in 2024?”
“In Kigali, the capital of one of the Commonwealth’s youngest countries, the national flag and the flag of the East African Community are today flying at half-mast and will continue to do so until the Queen’s funeral. I also remember travelling for many hours in Uganda to the hospital in Masaka run by the 80-year-old sister of the Medical Missionaries of Mary who had recently received an OBE from the Queen for her 50 years of service. In the hospital entrance hung a huge picture of the President of Uganda, Mr Museveni, alongside an equally huge one of Her Majesty the Head of the Commonwealth. Tomorrow in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, we will hold a service of remembrance in our town church, Holy Trinity, followed by a reading of today’s proclamation, and we will mourn the loss of our great Queen, who meant so much to us all.”
“I have never visited a primary school where one of the first questions has not been, “Have you met the Queen?” I had the privilege and good fortune to meet the Queen when I was her International Development Secretary. Like millions around the world, I will never forget every second of those meetings. She was intensely interested in the less developed members of the Commonwealth. She was the reason that the Commonwealth not only survived but flourished and grew, reaching out to unexpected parts of the world, with Rwanda enthusiastically joining. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held in June this year in Rwanda, I watched the binding power of the monarchy, as the King, as he now is, spoke on behalf of Her late Majesty of the ideals and values that she inspired and to which so many nations now aspire.”
“For all the pomp and tradition, Her late Majesty’s true magic was in her humility. She did not need a gilded throne or royal regalia to touch people; it was in her smile, her poise, her natural charm: understated yet reassuring—the best of Britain. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make this brief tribute on behalf of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield—a royal town now for 494 years and one that, at this sad time, is united with the rest of the country in shared sorrow. The Queen’s visit to the ninth world scout jamboree held in Sutton park in 1957 is still remembered by my older constituents, as she came to join in the celebrations for the 50th anniversary of scouting and had lunch in our magnificent town hall.”
“I do not think I will carry the Chair of the Select Committee with me here, although I pay tribute to her leadership of her Committee and the very good work that the Committee is doing, but my advice to the Foreign Secretary, given the complete mess on Britain’s development policy, was to find the money from the multilateral programmes and not from the bilateral programmes. If she is forced to make that decision, a decision she should never have had to make, it is clearly right to take the money from the multilateral programmes, for the same reason that Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks: that is where the money is. The big multilateral programmes such as the World Bank are where the money is, and the Foreign Secretary is therefore in my view right to take it from there, but that is not a decision she should have had to make.”
“Following the pandemic, we see the scourge of famine affecting parts of our world such as the horn of Africa and all the way down the rest of the eastern side of Africa. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who is a former Secretary of State for International Development, will remember the acute leadership that DFID gave, leading other countries to stop famines and starvation in the horn of Africa. That skill has never been more needed than it is today, as we stand before a real threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, but Britain is not in a position to give that leadership. I will make two further points on the money.”
“Development leadership was really needed, and Britain was in a position to provide it. Britain was acknowledged around the world as an international development superpower and was really in a position to move the dial on these things. But what happened? The Prime Minister reduced ODA from 0.7% to 0.5%, at the very time when British leadership was really needed. Of course, the Prime Minister had also dismantled the Department for International Development, and I will come on to that in a moment, but the point I am seeking to make is that, at a time when Britain could have given real leadership—in one of the few areas where it is acknowledged, post empire, that we are a superpower and have real leadership and skills to impart—the money was reduced.”
“It is wonderful not to be on a four-minute time limit for a debate as important as this. I draw the House’s attention to my interests as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Foreign Secretary has inherited a complete mess on development, and I have great sympathy for her in trying to bring some order to things. We are, of course, still spending a very substantial sum on ODA as part of our development budget. However, that sum has reduced from 0.7% to 0.5%, and I want to say a word or two about that. If someone was looking for the least good time to reduce this expenditure, they would definitely have chosen the date and the day upon which the Prime Minister made that decision. It was in the foothills of Britain chairing the G7 and at the time of an international global pandemic.”
“The effects of taking money from the World Bank are very severe, as I suspect my friend the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) is about to make clear.”
“There is quite a lot of money involved, and although there is no doubt we could spend it well through the multilateral system, I do not think the British taxpayer would believe that such a big uplift in one year could guarantee that the money was really well spent, and I do not want to test their patience on this. I want to make sure that we can look the British taxpayer in the eye and say that, for every pound of their hard-earned money that we spend on international development, we are delivering 100p of value on the ground. I urge Treasury Ministers to consider bringing back the 0.6% next year and the 0.7% the year after, and not doing it in one lump, which I believe is the current plan.”
“It is extremely good spending, for reasons that the Minister will be well aware of, and I urge the Government to ensure that we are as generous as possible on the replenishment of the fund, not least because the Americans have made it clear that they will be even more generous than they are already being if other countries put their money where their mouth is. There is a real incentive of getting far more bang for the British taxpayer’s buck in helping with the replenishment of the Global Fund. My other point about the money, and again I hope the Chair of the Select Committee will forgive me for making it, is that I do not believe it is sensible to go in one year from 0.5% to 0.7%. The Chancellor has already committed to bringing back the 0.7% in two years’ time. The year before that, he should go to 0.6%. I say that for two reasons.”
“On that point I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Although I do not want to put words into the Minister’s mouth, I suspect that the Foreign Office wanted to do precisely as the right hon. Gentleman has described, but the Treasury made it extremely difficult. My point is that the savage cuts made to the bilateral programmes, where food was literally removed from the plates of starving children in Yemen, show why, in the end, if the Foreign Secretary is forced to make such decisions, she is right to take the money out of the multilateral programme. While I am on the subject, Britain has had a leadership role within the Global Fund, along with the Americans. After 2010, we made a number of substantive changes to make the Global Fund better.”
“It was hugely in our national interest to pursue those policies because it made us safer in Britain and more prosperous as well. The world is a small place and we are all increasingly dependent on each other. That is an eternal truth. Furthermore, building stronger and safer societies over there helps to stop the high level of migration, which is now being fuelled by starvation and famine, climate change emergencies, and the ease of travel. The whole burden of British development policy was to try to help to resolve that by building those safer and more prosperous societies overseas.”
“When I was DFID Secretary, the Foreign Office always had a view, which we always accepted, about where was the best place in which British influence through development could and should be exerted. The aim of international development policy, which Britain drove forward so successfully under both political parties for so very many years, was to build safer and more prosperous communities overseas. It was to make sure that we helped countries, through partnership, to deal with conflicts—to stop conflicts starting, or, once a conflict had started, to eliminate it and reconcile people who had been torn apart by it, and then to build prosperity and help to promote economic activity to ensure that people had the tools to lift themselves out of poverty.”
“It is even worse than that, because the Prime Minister decided that we should not revert to what Mrs Thatcher so rightly had—the Overseas Development Administration as a Department within the Foreign Office that Tony Blair subsequently took into DFID. The Prime Minister does not want an ODA in the Foreign Office because he knows that if it was there, another Administration after him could immediately re-set up, or try to re-set up, DFID, and he wants development done on a geographical basis. That is the destruction of a real hub and driver of UK leadership, influence, expertise and knowledge. All that has now gone. All international development spending is about Britain’s national interest. It is spent largely in areas where we have a historical connection.”
“The international community used to come to Britain to come to DFID, and to our universities with their programmes that were so closely entwined with DFID, to see how to drive forward the efforts in their part of the world to degrade and try to eliminate grinding international poverty. Most importantly, the top 100 people who were responsible for driving forward the Government’s agenda in DFID have gone. Of course they have, because they have been headhunted by the international system, whether in New York, Geneva or the charitable sector. They have gone because they see a Government who do not recognise or appreciate that extraordinary skill that existed in DFID. The Government are now faced with a large budget but a diminishing level of expertise.”
“My hon. Friend—he is my hon. Friend—is absolutely right in what he says, and it is very good of him to make mention of my book, “Beyond a Fringe: Tales from a Reformed Establishment Lackey”, which is still available in bookshops. I am very grateful indeed to him for drawing the House’s attention to that. I should say that the Minister, who has a starring role in my book, understands these issues, and I absolve her of all blame for any of the criticism I am making because she inherited much of this situation and was not responsible for it. The real problem, which is even worse than breaking our promise on the money, is the vaporisation of DFID. I think the abolition of DFID is now acknowledged in almost every corner as an absolute disaster because it has cut at a stroke the expertise assembled by Britain.”
“It is a vital tool of making policy, so I urge the Minister, who understands such things, to become its strong supporter.”
“Why don’t we spend all the money on our schools and hospitals here?” The argument will be made for abolishing the budget altogether, and if it is made on the back of misspending, it will be heard by our constituents. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact is the watchdog that reports on international development—rightly, to the Select Committee and not to Ministers who can sweep inconvenient truths under the carpet. It draws its power from the legislature and is an important new part of the Government’s architecture. Officials hate it because, of course, it can look at what they are doing and expose them. It is the taxpayer’s friend, it reports to Parliament, and Ministers have the benefit of its work, attention and rigour.”
“Whenever Tony Blair and David Cameron went to an international conference where money was being discussed, they always took a senior DFID official, because DFID, as even the Treasury would admit, was extremely good at money and running money. Frankly, the idea of these brilliant diplomats who prosecute British diplomacy so well being responsible for and running multimillion-pound development programmes should give the taxpayer the heebie-jeebies. What will happen is this: the Daily Mail will discover examples of Foreign Office misspending of the ODA budget, and it will rightly pick up on them. It will say, “If Britain cannot honour its pledge to the taxpayer of value for money, and if it spends money badly in this way, why do we have this budget at all?”
“On 25 July, just under a year ago, I had this precise conversation with the Prime Minister, who described the analysis as excellent, but nothing has been done in the past year to give some extra strength and a boost to the international system to do something about it. That is my objection to the Rwanda plan. It is not that I am seduced by the relevant lobby; my objection is one of severe practicality and cost, and the plan just will not work. Having broken our promise on the budget and having effectively abolished the Department, we are now left with a big budget being spent in ways that are determined by the Foreign Office. I remind the House that it was a law of Whitehall that while the Foreign Office did prose, the Department for International Development did money.”
“They are issues of life and death and of order, and we cannot address them properly if we are at loggerheads with a country 22 miles away across the channel. The final thing that we have to do if we are to resolve these issues is renegotiate the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees, which was set up largely by British effort. It was British officials who helped corral all the different parties to accept this international convention, but it was made at a time when travel was not as easy as today. The situation has completely changed. If we are to resolve this problem, which will get worse because of climate change migration, we need to understand that the rich world has to play its part if it expects the poor world to comply. That is a real job of work.”
“Some 87% of the people who come to our shores come from just four countries, and we should remember that 75% of them end up being found eligible to stay in the country. We need these proper legal routes, we need to process in the right way and we need to restore the relationship with France. The relationship with France, as anyone who has engaged with the French Government in any way in recent weeks and months will know, is appalling and needs to be restored. There are huge reservoirs of knowledge in this country about France and of good will with senior French politicians. Politicians on both sides of the channel know each other well, and the relationship has never been worse than it is today. It urgently needs to be restored if we are to address the issues that exist in the channel.”
“It is a wonderful place, and I have no objection in principle to us sending people there, once they have been processed here, if Rwandans are prepared to take them. However, there are two problems with the current policy. One is that it will not work, and the second is that it is extraordinarily expensive. In this business, there is no alternative but to put in the work, to do the hard yards and to recognise that we have to process far more quickly and effectively people who are coming to our shores, many of whom are fleeing persecution in great jeopardy. We need to hear their cases and process them. Secondly, we need to open up lawful, legal and safe routes. At the moment, those legal and safe routes do not exist. They exist for Ukrainians, and they did exist for Afghanis—and some time ago for Syrians—but for others they do not.”
“The hon. Lady has said more eloquently than me precisely why this is such an important aspect of British policy and also why it is strongly approved of by the Daily Mail and the right, which is because it helps achieve the aim of mitigating and addressing flows of migration and refugees. That brings me to my next point, of which again the Chair of the Select Committee may not approve. I am not opposed to sending people who have been processed here, and who are not eligible for asylum here, to Rwanda, if it is prepared to take them, which it is. I know Rwanda very well. I was there recently for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, participating in an investment conference.”
“My point is that, because we no longer have the rigour and expertise of a separate Government Department that ensures this money is well spent, delivers results and gives value for money both to our partners on the ground and to the British taxpayer—we have lost that—we now have the very unrigorous and uncertain system of controls that previously led to the Pergau dam issue. We do not have the controls we had in the past, and the reputation of Foreign Office Ministers, the Foreign Office and the Government are very much at risk as a result.”
“That prompts the question of what it was doing being spent in the first place, but I suspect that figure is 95% of what the Foreign Office was spending and does not include what was being spent by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I end on this point: I am pretty sure that the money spent by BEIS has been tied aid. As the House will know, it is absolutely not allowed to spend money on tied aid—we are subject to numerous conventions we have signed not to do so—and I think it may even be against the law.”
“DFID did not do it. It is not a development priority, there is no case for it and it should be stopped. The second thing I ask of the Minister—the first was her trenchant support for the ICAI—is to commit to the House that there will be full transparency on ODA money that is spent in China. How much is it, and on what is it being spent? There is a suggestion that some of this money has been spent on prison reform in China. If that is the case, then for reasons that everyone will understand, it is an absolute disgrace. I hope the Minister will reassure us that, if that was happening, it is not happening any more and it will not happen again. There has been further disingenuity, I would say, about spending in China, with the former Foreign Secretary announcing he was reducing it by 95%.”
“There were long-tail projects that it could not end, but apart from that, it did not spend any more. Significant money continues to be spent in China, however, by the Foreign Office, and it is not really development money. Providing that money is, the Foreign Office thinks, the best way to suck up to the Chinese Government, but it is not spent sensibly. Between 2009 and 2011, in the incoming years of the Conservative Government, the expenditure was reduced from £49 million to £15 million. Between 2014 and 2019, however, that ODA expenditure—taxpayers’ money—on the development budget in China rose from £23 million to £68 million. That was the highest figure, but I understand that it was £64 million in 2020. What on earth are the Government doing spending ODA money in China? We promised the electorate that we would not do it.”
“China has done so much to tackle poverty and its GDP is bigger than ours, so there was clearly no case for expecting the British taxpayer to pay any money at all for development in China. I was sent by David Cameron to inform Madam Fu, the Chinese ambassador, of the decision that if we were elected and had the privilege of forming a Government, there would be no more ODA spend to China. She gave me a tremendous ticking off, but the Chinese accepted it. When we went into government in 2010, the first thing I did when I had the privilege and honour of going into my new DFID office was to say, “No more ODA money for China. That was our commitment at the election to our constituents, and unless it’s legally due now, there’s to be no more ODA spend in China.” Basically, since that day, DFID—when it was DFID—has not spent money in China.”
“Of course, all the officials in the Foreign Office will want to reduce ICAI expenditure—first because they will have perfectly respectable arguments for where else the money could be spent, and secondly because they know that the way to emasculate it is to cut its expenditure. That will mean that it cannot investigate without fear and favour on behalf of the taxpayer who, as I say, is the main beneficiary. I agree with the hon. Lady and very much hope that her voice will be heard. I will end on the subject of China, which seems to bring the whole argument together. In 2009, the Conservative Opposition decided that all development money for China would end. We did that because China has roared out of poverty; if we look at what China and India have done for poverty alleviation, we see that the results are sensationally good.”
“I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend now, because it was the earlier point she was pursuing that I wanted to come in on. She mentioned the British support for Africa in respect of vaccinations and covid, which of course is very welcome. The Prime Minister promised in this House a year ago that Africa would have 100 million vaccinations within a year. One year on, it has had 32 million. Can the Minister tell the House when the other 68 million will arrive?”