ConservativeHome's 100policies

Ernie Warner: Aid Partnerships (AP)

> Policy summary

A new approach to foreign aid through “twinning” communities in the UK with communities in developing countries to their mutual benefit. The UK Twin partner becomes the aid delivery vehicle. Its objective is to develop economic achievement and understanding through practical support and appropriate exchange of knowledge and resources. Twins could be cities, counties or both. The scheme could apply to:

• Manufacturing
• Infrastructure and transport
• Agriculture
• Recycling of plant and equipment
• Education
• Health and welfare

> Policy explanation

A region or province of a recipient country produces something that is used or needed in the UK twin community, thus providing the vital link. A manufacturer could set up a factory in the recipient country, for example, employing local labour for everything from the building of the plant and infrastructure through to the eventual manufacture. Supervision would be provided by British organisations until local staff in the recipient country have acquired the skills. Outside of manufacturing, twin partners in Britain could free interchange of personnel and activities, e.g. tourism, health and education.

Products of the scheme would be treated as if produced within the U.K and exempt from import duties. Personnel would move freely without the usual immigration restrictions (movement would be limited to the operation).

The new factory generates revenue initially through a guaranteed market overseas from the outset, then from its home market, expanding locally before moving on to regional export.

The main scheme could be further enhanced by creating ancillary businesses, such as packaging or transport, to operate alongside the manufacturing plant. Production and employment opportunities create a need for homes and infrastructure. Using local labour provides opportunities for Britain to provide trainers, who in turn enhance their own skills and experience, not least by having to learn foreign languages and working within a different environment.

Management would be from within and not by any Government Agency. There should be equal representation among the management from recipient and donor bodies, with a chairman elected by the groups themselves.

> Political risks and opportunities

The biggest risk is that AP’s are set up in countries where the government is corrupt or inept, and funding or product becomes sidetracked.

The reward for Britain is that it offers a way to expand our economy by increasing the size of the developed world, allowing recipients to trade their way out of poverty. Central to this opportunity is the fusion of government with enterprise, the former to enable, the latter to do.

> Costs

Apart from initial “pump priming” from the Overseas Development budget, the cost to the UK taxpayer should be minimal. Eventually, these “Aid Partnerships” would become self-funding and self-governing. Donor Companies would be expected to largely fund any development costs of plant and infrastructure (although UK or European Government grants must be applicable).

   

Andrew Gilbert: Ratify convention against human trafficking

Andrew is a Solicitor, Senior Lecturer in Law, Huntingdonshire District Councillor, and member of the CSJ's Writers' Forum.

> Policy Summary

Ratify and implement the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

> Policy Explanation

Almost two hundred years since the enactment of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807, the United Kingdom is faced with the challenge of how to tackle a modern manifestation of slavery. Trafficking in human beings is now a global problem, affecting almost every nation, and touching the lives of millions of adults and children. While a Home Office report from 2000 estimated that between 142 and 1420 women were victims of sex trafficking each year, the inherently covert nature of human trafficking makes it difficult to obtain accurate data concerning the scale of the problem.

The knowledge base concerning child trafficking in the UK is even less substantial and reliable. The exact extent of trafficking activity, both globally and in the UK, is simply unknown. What is clear, however, is that urgent and effective action is required to stem the tide of this most dehumanising crime.

Trafficking is essentially the movement of human beings by means of threat, force or deception for the purpose of exploitation. It can be distinguished from people smuggling in that smuggling is usually limited to delivering a person to the country they wish to enter, at which point the relationship between the smuggler and the smuggled comes to an end and the illegal migrant is left to their own devices. By contrast the will of trafficking victims remains subjugated to the trafficker throughout the period of exploitation.

Human trafficking has only been a discrete offence in English law since the enactment of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The relevant provisions of that Act have now been replaced by sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which deal respectively with trafficking into, trafficking within, and trafficking out of the UK for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Trafficking for purposes other than sexual exploitation (e.g. domestic labour) is caught by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. All offences carry a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. 

The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings was finalised on 16 May 2005 and is a comprehensive treaty focussing on three main purposes: to prevent and combat trafficking; to protect the human rights of victims; and to promote international cooperation on action against the crime. To date 32 member states have signed the Convention and two have gone on to ratify it (Moldova and Romania). In many respects the UK is already acting in ways consistent with the Convention (notably in its concerted law-enforcement efforts), but it is in the area of the treatment of victims that it appears most to be falling short.

Current policy appears unclear and there is evidence that some victims have been deported within days of being rescued, with the consequent danger that they may be quickly retrafficked upon their return home. Under the Convention victims are entitled to a temporary residence permit and to a 'reflection period' of at least 30 days. The reflection period is designed to enable the victim 'to recover and escape the influence of traffickers and/or to take an informed decision on cooperating [in giving evidence against their traffickers] with the competent authorities'.

The government is currently refusing to sign the Convention because of concerns that it will create a 'pull factor', encouraging illegal immigrants to present themselves as trafficking victims in order to obtain preferable treatment. This is in spite of the fact that such concerns have not been an insurmountable problem to the numerous countries that have already signed up to it, including some with more porous borders than our own such as Germany and the Netherlands.

There have been widespread calls for the UK to ratify the Convention by various NGOs such as Anti-Slavery International and Amnesty International as well as by a cross-party group of MPs and peers in a letter to The Times on 27 June 2006. It is submitted that the Conservative party should commit itself to ratifying and implementing the Convention and, after considering compelling evidence from UK NGOs working with victims suggesting that a much longer reflection period is needed, going still further by promising even more generous, yet appropriate, measures of victim support.    

> Policy Risks

Risks

• The policy would need to be presented clearly as an human rights and criminal justice issue and not muddled with the current government's immigration debacle. There is a danger that the (probably) spurious 'pull factor' argument could carry significant and unjustifiable weight in the current climate.
• There is a danger that we are seen to be signing up to 'yet another European convention'. The stock of the European Convention on Human Rights is currently relatively low in the public's perception and without proper explanation of the trafficking Convention the public may have little appetite for signing up.

Opportunities

• To demonstrate a coordinated anti-trafficking approach from both criminal justice and human rights perspectives.
• To be seen to be following good practice in the eyes of the international community and taking a global lead against a global problem.
• To send an unequivocal statement to traffickers that the UK is off-limits to their activities, and to victims that if they are rescued in the UK they will treated compassionately and given appropriate support.

> Questions for ConservativeHome Readers

• The Convention sets out recommended minimums. Should the UK go further in its support of trafficking victims? (The average stay of trafficking victims with the Poppy Project (a London-based trafficking victim support service) is around 8 months.)
• If it transpires that ratification does serve as a 'pull factor', how can the procedures for dealing with purported trafficking victims be sufficiently robust to identify bogus victims whilst at the same time protecting those who have genuinely been caught up in trafficking?
• Should we look to provide the various rights afforded under the Convention through purely domestic measures rather than resorting to ratifying the Convention?

> Costs

The costs are not known at this stage. Clearly costs would be incurred as a result of mounting ongoing counter-trafficking operations as well as providing support services to rescued trafficking victims. By way of illustration, the Poppy Project has received a Home Office contribution of £2.4 million over 2 years to fund its work with up to 25 victims at any one time. There is scope for costs to be met (at least in part) from the recovery of traffickers' criminal assets.

 

John Hayward: More international aid should be channelled through civil society organisations

John Hayward has worked in international development since 1995, living for much of that time in former Soviet Central Asia.  He is Political Deputy Chairman of Tonbridge & Malling Conservative Association and is on the Party's list of approved candidates.

> Policy summary

A much greater proportion of British international aid should be channelled through charities and other non-government organisations rather than handing over to foreign governments and intergovernmental bodies both vast sums of British taxpayers money and, with it, our international responsibilities.

> Policy explanation

The British public gives more money to international aid agencies than to any other charitable cause.  Yet, of more than £4.8 billion of our taxes that the Government spent through the Department for International Development (DFID) last year, less than £233 million was channelled through such civil society organisations - not even half of what the public gave.

Instead, working to a very different set of priorities, more than half of DFID's expenditure went to foreign governments, while another quarter went to the European Community's Development Programme, the World Bank and the United Nations, each of which has questions of financial probity and efficiency to answer.  ActionAid claims that 29% of DFID expenditure is wasted on "phantom" aid.  Indeed, even the Government admits the quality of EC assistance is poor, yet it persists in squandering our taxes on their programmes.  Such government-to-government and multilateral funding often fails to target aid at the countries we should be helping most, forces developing countries to privatise essential services in the public sector, and exacerbates problems of corruption, oppression, dependency, and environmental degradation.  Without fundamental changes in how our aid is invested, much of it will continue to be lost, pocketed by unreliable officials or poured into inefficient and inappropriate projects.

As Conservatives, we believe in small government and in empowering individuals to contribute creatively to their own communities.  We should therefore develop person-to-person aid and support community-to-community links, using non-governmental organisations to a far greater extent than we do at present.  DFID funds could be used to finance British citizens to help develop skills overseas through locally-managed, community-based development programmes providing individual care.  Equally, the Government could follow the public's concern by matching public giving to international aid agencies from DFID's budget.  Increasing national control over our international aid spending would help promote good governance abroad, empower those most disenfranchised across the developing world, and encourage greater awareness of global issues here in the UK.

> Political risks and opportunities

At the last election the under-35s mostly didn't vote and, when they did vote, they didn't vote for us.  Yet, contrary to popular myth, this is not a generation that does not engage with politics - this is the Live8 wristband generation.  If they are even to consider a traditional political party such as ourselves as being of relevance to their concerns, we need to apply our Conservative principles to the global challenges of the 21-st century and develop long-term policies that will help foster a safer, fairer world.

Calling for reform of or even reducing our commitments to global giants such as the European Community, United Nations or World Bank is not a course to be undertaken lightly ... but if not now, when?  If not by us, by whom?

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• What are our international obligations in today's global village?  Do we have a greater obligation to countries with which we have historical links, such as those in the commonwealth, than to other developing nations?
• Are the two criteria defined in the International Development Act that all UK development assistance is required to fulfil - namely, that aid should contribute to poverty reduction and should be provided for sustainable development or improving the welfare of the poor - sufficient or should additional criteria be added?
• In what ways can or should we help improve the failings of multilateral bodies?

> Costs

Government-to-government funding typically deals in much larger sums than NGOs require and giving smaller sums to a larger number of benefactors would thus require more administration to ensure effective monitoring.  However, the increased administrative costs would be more than outweighed by the increased effectiveness of every pound invested in individuals serving organisations working within local communities.  Any change in how we give would not require any change in the amount that we give.

 

Cllr Matt Davis: Passenger security profiling

> Policy summary

To introduce security screening based upon passenger profiling at all UK airports and ports, including the Channel Tunnel links, in order to target security resources where they are best used and minimise the massive disruption and inconvenience currently being caused to air travellers.

> Policy explanation

One day last week the Matt cartoon in The Daily Telegraph showed a middle aged woman frisking her husband on the doorstep whilst telling him; “Someone’s been bringing dead birds into the house and it seems unfair to only check the cat.”  This seems to completely sum up the current government response to the most recent terrorist plot to blow up civil airliners, which is plainly based more upon political correctness than it is upon proven aviation security principles. As Baron Stevens, ex Metropolitan Police Commissioner John Stevens, recently and rightly pointed out in the News of the World:

“I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4ins suit-wearing ex-cop—I fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber? Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman? No. But they are all getting exactly the same treatment and devouring huge resources for no logical reason whatsoever.”

The unarguable fact is that Islamic terrorism in the West has been universally carried out by young Muslim men, mainly from ethnic minority backgrounds. However the present severely increased security procedures being enforced at our airports fail to take any account at all of this fact or to make proper use of the passenger screening techniques that have been proven time and again, especially by Israeli airlines, to work better than anything else at keeping flying safe for everyone.

As the Wall Street Journal recently said:

“A return to any kind of normalcy in travel is going to require that airport security do a better job of separating high-risk passengers from unlikely threats. However, the fact that we may have come within a whisker of losing 3,000 lives over the Atlantic still isn't preventing political correctness from getting in the way of smarter security."

As Conservatives we should be calling for the best possible use of resources allied to causing the minimum disruption to the maximum number of air travellers and that unquestionably must mean the introduction of passenger profiling.

> Political risks and opportunities

There is truly only one real political risk attached to this policy and that is, as Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Tariq Ghaffur put it, that it would make a “crime of flying while Asian.". Therefore there is a genuine risk that we will be accused of some form of racism by the Muslim community, much of whom continue to remain in complete denial about the origin of the terrorist attacks in the UK. However this risk needs to be balanced against the reality that the terrorist attacks and plots are indeed being executed by British born Muslims and that they remain the most likely source of future attacks. This is a fact that has not passed the majority of British air travelers by and we will reap the rewards of telling the truth about this issue from a populace that is sick and tired of political correctness and double standards. It is of course essential that security screeners are also continually aware of the possibility of a non-Asian Muslim, perhaps a convert like Richard Reid, being the source of an attack.

On the positive side we would have better, more effective and efficient security at our airports and ports, far less disruption to the vast majority of ordinary travelers, and we would all feel much safer about traveling. These are outcomes that can be very easily contrasted with the Labour Government’s response, to show them up for the politically correct incompetents that we know them to be.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Is this policy really racist, or just common sense?
• Are we so desperate to secure Muslim votes that we ought to continue to allow much of that community to be in denial about the reality of Islamic Terrorism?
• Are you prepared to be considerably delayed and have your freedom to travel as you wish, and with what you wish, massively infringed upon simply to be “fair” in some nefarious way?

> Costs

This policy is in fact most likely to be financially positive since it will cut the unsustainable level of cost associated with the current all encompassing search routine as well as cutting the losses being sustained by the airlines as a result of both the security measures themselves and also by the loss of public confidence in air travel that leads to a drop in bookings. Not only that but passenger screening can be introduced at no cost whatsoever to the travelling public since it only needs a reallocation of existing resources and the political will to tell the truth about the threat that faces us.

Sam Burke: "A Human Rights Minister"

Sam is a Parliamentary Research Assistant and is reading Law at the LSE. He is a member of the Conservative Human Rights Commission, Chairman of his constituency Conservative Future and currently serves in the Royal Naval Reserve.

> Policy summary

A Human Rights Minister to champion natural liberties abroad and further advance our Party’s commitment to the dignity of man.

> Policy explanation

As things currently stand, the member of the Government responsible for Human Rights is the Minister for Trade, Ian McCartney.  He is also responsible for: Trade and Trade Policy, Trade and Investment (UKTI), Economic Policy including Science and Technology, Global Issues (including sustainable development, energy, climate change), North America, South East Asia, East Asia and Oceania.  This begs the question: how can a person with so many responsibilities adequately defend human rights in a pro-active manner?

As the Official Opposition, our party’s situation is even more obscure.  Despite being in the privileged position of having Members on both the Frontbench and Backbenches with a deep rooted and long-standing commitment to Human Rights, there is no single point of reference on Human Rights on the Frontbench despite the significance of liberty, democracy, human dignity and the rule of law.

The solution, it seems to me, is to create a Ministry within the FCO specifically tailored to Human Rights.  Whilst in Opposition, we could make this a firm manifesto commitment and create a Spokesman on Human Rights to raise matters in House of Commons, with a colleague to raise similar concerns in the Lords.

In addition to Parliamentary duties, the Spokesman could produce an annual report akin to the America's Annual Report on Religious Liberty.  This could be co-authored with the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, which might also inform other areas of the Spokesman’s agenda.

In America the creation of an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom has been widely hailed as a great success.  There is similar scope to develop our organisational structure to reflect our concern for Human Rights.

We have seen how DFID has ascended into one of the most prominent Government Departments and the public consciousness of International Development has reached an all-time high.  However, it is also time to recognise that economic development means nothing to ordinary people, if they are not afforded freedom from oppression, torture, extra-judicial action, slavery, equality before the law.  Furthermore, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of religious conviction and worship, freedom of association, protection of property and most importantly, an adequate standard of living and bodily integrity, are fundamental expectations we must promote amongst all nations.

> Political risks and opportunities

This policy would allow the party to further take the lead on this most vital of causes.  The Conservative party of Wilberforce has a distinguished record in this area.  As we approach the bi-centenary of the abolition of slavery, we need to ask ourselves how we might best address the injustices of our fellow man.

Perhaps this policy would antagonise some members of the party who see Human Rights (along with Social Justice and the environment) as a “Lefty issue”.  However, such obstacles have not stopped progress thus far and must not offset momentum on this issue.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Have you ever been alerted about Human Rights concerns of the Government?
• Have you been informed of any party action from the Conservative Party on Human Rights?
• Should the Spokesman be a Peer or MP?
• Who would make the best Conservative Human Rights Spokesman?

> Costs

A lot of the costs are already met under the auspices of responsibilities of the Trade Minister though making Human Rights a stand-alone Ministry would mean a need to provide additional resources.  An approximate estimate of such costs might be £500,000: a Ministerial Salary, staff, cost of publication of annual report, travel and other administrative costs.