Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP answers the questions that you posed here.
Screenburn: What special responsibility does the UK have to its former colonies?
Since one of the main problems in aid is everyone trying to doing everything everywhere, we recommend greater specialisation by donors – each giving their aid budget to fewer countries. For the UK that would naturally mean focussing on countries with which we had links notably former colonies – as we already do to a significant extent.
KT Eden: How can we encourage individuals to give more to projects in developing countries?
We recommend more widespread linkages between local communities in the UK and their counterparts in developing countries – see page 121 “Building Local Links”. This would go beyond the sort of twinning arrangements that currently exist within Europe and involve more comprehensive links between schools, hospitals, churches, business groups etc. We believe this would lead to a significant increase in both the quantity and effectiveness of voluntary giving.
Stephen Parry: Your report rightly highlights the huge number work permits given to teaching and medical professionals from developing countries where they are in demand. How do we, as Conservatives, reverse this trend and avoid allegations of racism?
It is hard to see how refraining from asset stripping poor countries’ health services could be described as ‘racist’. This government has an explicit policy, which it describes as “uniquely ethical” of the NHS “not recruiting nurses and doctors from Africa”. Yet they have undermined that policy by issuing over 60,000 work permits to nurses and doctors from Africa since 2000.
It would be easy to stop denuding Africa of vitally needed health staff by simply not issuing work permits to agencies who recruit them.
Peter Kingsman: Peter, at the moment British farmers have to produce food meeting health, hygiene and animal welfare standards that imported, cheaper, food does not. Should we require all imported food (and its ingredients) to meet the standards required of domestically produced food or should we lower the standards for domestically produced food?
Firstly, all food products and imports are subject to the general food safety and hygiene requirements of the Food Safety Act 1990. In general, these are that food must not be rendered injurious to health, unfit for human consumption, or so contaminated that it is not reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption in that state .
There are additional regulations that we create for our domestic industries – and if we had to choose between increasing import regulation and reducing domestic regulation, the later would generally be preferable.
Constance Harper: One of the biggest problems facing Africa is the lack of transport infrastructure. Given the corruption that is endemic in many African countries how could we support major infrastructure projects that are and are seen to be for the benefit of Africa and not the west?
A specific recommendation, to avoid some of the infrastructure failures of the past is that “Build/Operate/Maintain contracts should be used to incentivise good design and maintenance.”
In general (page 85) “we strongly believe that corruption must not be used as an excuse for giving up on aid. But we are equally strongly convinced that it is an issue that must be tackled robustly and openly. ‘Sunlight is the best disinfectant’ and the most effective steps to curb, prevent and ultimately eradicate this scourge involve introducing greater transparency and openness.
Donors should publish details of aid allocations; recipients should be required where possible to publish funds allocated to individual schools, clinics and so on; reliable, timely and independent auditing of programmes involving aid should be required and Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys used with the results publicised. Information is the best way to empower local people, parliaments, civil society and media (strengthened by other measures that we propose) to hold governments to account.
British officials, diplomats and ministers should not be reticent in highlighting evidence of corruption.”
We also discuss the use of “integrity pacts” for use in large procurement contracts (page 393).
Treacle: Our Army is undermanned, run down and being hung out to dry in Iraq. Our navy is sailing at half-speed due to fuel rationing. Our Aircraft carriers have not been ordered and there are no planes currently in the Fleet Air Arm anyway. Our Liberties are being eroded by the EU and by our own government. Our taxes are too high. The state is too big. We are force-fed drivel about the environment morning, noon and night. Our cities are full of illegal immigrants and our streets are not safe. Half our children cannot read as well as their grandparents. Half the country cannot work out what one eighth of 32 is. Elderly people are effectively condemned to death if sent to our filthy disease-ridden hospitals. Our electoral system is being debased and corrupted. Muslim terrorists roam our Country whilst British citizens are told to mind their P & Q's. Forgive me if the only question I can think of is: 'Why the hell are we wasting our time on being missionaries to the world while our own fellow citizens are left to rot?"
I sympathise with many of your concerns. However, we will not resolve those issues by ignoring others. In today’s globalised world, problems are often interlinked.
For example, you mention the issue of immigration. As our report points out “The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has recently warned of waves of immigration from a ‘boiling arc of unstable and fragile states’ unless more is done to rebuild their homelands. If rich countries are determined to restrict immigration, helping the poor to prosper in their homelands is not just a moral issue but one of self interest” (p3).
Mark Wallace: There has been a lot of discussion recently about how to modernise how traditional issues are discussed. A crucial criticism of the EU is that its protectionist policies are not only damaging the UK economy but are also impoverishing millions around the world. It is inconceivable that France, for example, will agree to trade liberalisation, so wouldn't it be best for Britain's economy and the world's poor for the UK to leave the EU and pursue free trade policies?
Important though the issue of opening our markets to low income countries is, it is unlikely to be the determining factor in deciding whether our present relationship with the EU is in our interests. At least from the inside any concessions we achieve on behalf of low income countries would provide access to the EU market of 500 million not just the UK’s 60 million potential consumers.
Things may not be as bleak as your question suggests. As we point out in our report, (p19), “In the past there has been resistance to extending trade preferences to all low income countries since that includes India whose size and growing industrial strength arouse protectionist fears in Europe. However, India will become a middle income country in a couple of years, followed by Pakistan, before our trade package could become a reality, thereby removing the main source of resistance.
We believe that with sufficient popular backing it should be possible to garner international support for the unilateral opening of EU markets to all low income countries, including (crucially) support within the rest of the EU. If, nonetheless, it meets opposition from a minority of protectionist member states the UK should be prepared to refuse to agree a new EU budget deal unless and until agreement on our proposed trade package for low income countries is accepted.”
We propose a Real Trade campaign (p69-71), to create cross national pressure on this issue – in the same way Drop the Debt did with multilateral loans.
Tony Makara: What are your views on the rapid economic expansion of China? In particular the way that China is consciously trying to dominate world export markets. Do you feel that there is a danger that over time we may become dependent on Chinese manufacturing?
It is a mistake to apply military concepts like “domination” to matters of trade. Since trade involves mutually beneficial exchange each party is equally “dependent” on the other. China has lifted more people more quickly out of poverty than any other country in history. That is good in itself and creates new market opportunities for us as well as integrating China more firmly into the world economy. The Report includes a paper on the impact of China on developing countries on page 453.
RB: Do you believe there should be a stop to health workers being poached from Africa to work in the NHS?
Yes. To quote from our report (p45):
“Despite its proclaimed policy that it does not employ nurses and doctors from Africa, the Government has issued over 60,000 work permits to nurses and doctors from Africa since 2000. This is asset-stripping African health services…
Recommendation 20: Only designated training posts should be open to medical staff from shortage countries, and then only for as long as required by their training needs. The British Government should no longer issue work permits to medical staff from developing countries simply to fill service posts in this country.”
It is absurd we are giving aid with one hand while taking the very people necessary to improve healthcare with the other.
601: If we stop taking doctors from developing countries, wouldn't they just go to other developed countries like the U.S?
Not necessarily. There is no reason to suppose that the US or other countries would recruit more nurses and doctors from developing countries if we cease to recruit them. Additionally, we do not just recommend halting UK recruitment of doctors and nurses, but propose positive measures to help health staff stay in the country they were trained in. To quote from our report (p44).
“It is also vital that key staff have sufficient incentive to remain in their home country. Donor countries have traditionally been reluctant to support salaries in particular as they see this as a potentially open-ended commitment. The UK should re-examine its policy on this, and in target countries with very small numbers of medical personnel, it may be appropriate to provide incentives for them to stay; or, if they have left for other countries for higher medical training, to provide a reasonably secure position to come back to.”
Chris: Can you name a country that has been truly lifted out of poverty by aid? [People say Europe after WW2...but these countries already had working legal systems, rule of law, enforceable property rights, low corruption etc so I do not accept these countries really being impoverished to the same extent as much of Africa]
No. But aid can help countries grow faster than they otherwise might have done. The report found that of the “35 econometric studies we have examined a clear majority indicate that in the right circumstances –
where reasonable standards of governance and macroeconomic balance prevail - aid has a positive effect on growth” (p26).
Aid can and has also succeeded in bringing benefits not measured by economic growth statistics such as the eradication of diseases, saving millions of lives. It also played a key role in the famous ‘Green Revolution’ which helped double crop yields in Asia.
Yogi: Having scanned through the first hundred pages of a 429 page report, I am beginning to think 'what is the point of the Conservative party?' If we are to spend 0.7% of our GDP on Foreign Aid, that’s fine and yes we should target it. However, isn't it the stated aim of the EU to collect all aid from member state and then disburse it through another layer of bureaucracy in Brussels? Frankly, the Conservative front bench seems to have lost the plot…I am becoming totally disillusioned with our front bench and beginning to think that the Conservative Party is being infiltrated by leftie liberals.
This report takes a firm line on multilateral aid spending, not least aid channelled via the EU.
“DFID should, as a leading bilateral donor, take a much more robust line with multilaterals, demand evidence of effectiveness and performance, be ready to withhold discretionary funding where necessary and through this more assertive stance create real impetus for change.” (p104)
We recognise that the EU has been one of the least effective aid agencies and, far from envisaging it taking over the UK’s aid effort, we recommend that if the EU fails to reform the UK should be prepared to withdraw its contribution to the European Development Fund.
Chris: Would our aid budget be better spent paying the Europe's trade tariffs ourselves, on behalf of African exporters, shaming our European partners into giving them up in the process?
An interesting idea – but difficult to implement in practice and such aid would probably count as an illegitimate trade subsidy. In any case, if a country is not ashamed of forcing some of the poorest people in the World to pay to provide useful products to their own citizens your proposal would be unlikely to deter them either.
johnC: From the summary I have read, your report seems to support one-sided trade liberalisation for developing countries: the EU etc have to open their markets, but developing countries can be 'flexible' in deciding whether to do so themselves. How as a free market Thatcherite can you justify this? Doesn't protectionism merely prolong inefficiency and lack of competitiveness and impede economic progress?
Protectionism may well in general be bad for developing countries. But:
i) Conservatives believe in national sovereignty. We should not impose liberalisation on poor countries.
ii) removal of protectionist measures (however unwise it was to erect them in the first place) may be painful and involve considerations that only the national government can weigh up,
iii) there are arguments in favour of infant industry protection. As our report states: (p75) “It is not necessary for developed countries to resolve the debate about the effectiveness of “infant industry” strategies in developing countries. Some countries have pursued them and grown rapidly. So whether such intervention was or was not the cause of their growth, it clearly did not prevent it.”
iv) Finally, believers in free trade should set an example and liberalise first. Genuine believers in free trade recognise that even unilateral free trade is beneficial to the country which opens its own markets. If rich and powerful countries are not prepared to open their own markets to poor and weak countries we cannot expect them to be enthusiastic about reciprocating.
Guy Moore: Are these endless rounds of policy groups really helpful or should we be developing positions through the conviction of our leadership first? Shouldn't we be driven by the convictions of our leader whenever possible?
I am not sure what you mean by endless rounds of policy groups. David Cameron created six policy groups covering the main areas of policy when he was appointed and they are reporting this summer. The policy process is driven by the convictions of David Cameron, the Conservative front bench and the policy group leaders such as myself. Having been intimately involved in policy formation under Mrs Thatcher, I can assure you she always insisted on detailed analysis of the facts and options rather than making up policy off the cuff. We have been doing that detailed work over the last eighteen months.
Frustrated Nick: As a passionate Tory, I have been reading Alistair Campbell's diary to see if we can learn any lessons with regards to getting back into Govt. One thing is starkly apparent- our total, utter lack of hunger and passion in terms of showing the country we really "want it" in comparison with Labour from 94-97. Too many of our top people look distracted, amateurish or just "playing at it". They should quickly shape up, or ship out. Would you agree?
No. If we weren’t hungry for power we would not have spent the last eighteen months working on detailed policies for the next Conservative government. That was something Blair failed to do and as a result he found himself in office without a programme and has left no legacy.
By setting up these policy groups David Cameron has demonstrated that he is preparing for government. Clearly the issue of Global Poverty, though intrinsically important, will not be as electorally significant as the Policy Groups on the Economy and Public Services. But it covers issues which matter greatly to an important minority and affect the perceptions of the Conservative Party of a far greater number. The exceptionally warm response which our report has evoked from an unusually wide range of non governmental organisations, think tanks and business people shows we are influencing sections of opinion previously alienated from us.
