Condition for exercise of power to increase limit: analysis of use of separate financial centres

Part of Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill – in the House of Commons at 3:45 pm on 10 January 2017.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Madeleine Moon Madeleine Moon Chair, Defence Sub-Committee, Chair, Defence Sub-Committee 3:45, 10 January 2017

I am particularly pleased to follow Tommy Sheppard. I am speaking today because of concerns brought to me by constituents, and only concerns brought to me by constituents. No NGOs have lobbied me. Constituents contacted me before Second Reading to express concern that, if the Bill were passed, we would run the real risk of aid money being spent inappropriately, and of our commitment to aid, of which we can all be proud, being undermined. I return to that concern, which I raised on Second Reading, and to what for me and my constituents are the core issues: directing the money to where it is needed most; scrutiny; and transparency.

On Second Reading, I quoted the recent NAO report on CDC. I know that has already been quoted today, but it bears listening to again. The report concluded:

“It remains a significant challenge for CDC to demonstrate its ultimate objective of creating jobs and making a lasting difference to people’s lives in some of the world’s poorest places. Given the Department’s plans to invest further in CDC, a clearer picture of actual development impact would help to demonstrate…value for money”.

We are not getting the actual development impact promised. We cannot see that the development proposals are for the future; we are being asked to trust. Perhaps the Lords will understand that, but we cannot.

Like other Members, I accept that CDC has made changes. Its staff are motivated and hard-working, and improvements have been made since the negative reporting of 2008 and 2011. However, as the Bill stands, Parliament will have little direct opportunity to scrutinise in detail where funds are being directed and whether they are used for the greatest benefit of those in need. Let me go through some of the examples that have been brought to me.

In education, we have seen the use of the “school in a box” model, where large classes are taught by unqualified, low-wage teachers, with technology being used to teach standardised lessons. CDC has invested in the expansion of such schools in Kenya, Uganda and Liberia, through Bridge International Academies, to the tune of between $6 million and $15 million. The model, however, offers no guarantee of quality education and has been criticised by the UN special rapporteur on the right to education for, in essence, privatising education. In Uganda, 63 Bridge academies were forced to close following a court ruling, which found, among other things, that education and legal standards regarding the use of certified teachers, an accredited curriculum and appropriate teaching models had been neglected.

We have heard a good example about a utility development in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. CDC established a company called Umeme in 2005 to run Uganda’s electricity distribution following privatisation. The company has been highlighted as an example of the positive impact that such an initiative can have. The experience of Ugandans, however, does not chime with that, as power outages are reported to be regular and prices are high. The public services international research unit at the University of Greenwich noted that

“Umeme was rated as one of the most corrupt institutions in the country by a Transparency International survey.”

On healthcare, a Unison-commissioned study found that the majority of CDC healthcare investments in India are in privately funded, fee-paying hospitals, many of which target international medical tourists. The knock-on effect of that is obvious: publicly funded healthcare suffers and low-income groups who need medical attention are denied access. As I have said, we have been told that CDC operations have improved considerably over the past few years, but giving it free rein to invest, with no conditions attached, is far from ideal. If we are to be standard bearers in international development, we need to ensure that our delivery of aid, whether directly or through investments, is transparent and of tangible benefit to those at the receiving end. The examples that I have mentioned suggest a tendency to invest in programmes that produce a quick fix, rather than creating sustainable, long-term solutions that will have a real impact on people’s lives. CDC is being seen to do something, but the end result is not the primary consideration. The Bill, if amended—but only if amended —presents us with an opportunity to prevent similar things from happening in the future.

Like many Members, I face questions on a regular basis, but in the past couple of weeks I have increasingly faced them about inappropriate international development spending. People come back to this issue over and over again. Last week, when I spoke to Porthcawl’s Newton women’s institute, I took many questions on international development. I hope that the amendments and new clauses will allay many of the fears that my constituents have raised and set the important work that DFID does—it changes lives in some of the poorest countries in the world—as something that our constituents can all support, because they can see that it is transparent, scrutinised and accountable. Without that, I fear we face yet more weeks of negative and often false news reporting, which will undermine the credibility of the vital work that this country undertakes around the world.