---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Most   Gracious Speech

My Lords, a number of areas relating to international development were mentioned in the gracious Speech. There is the renewed and welcome commitment to using the UK’s presidency of the G8 to secure progress in tackling poverty in Africa and on climate change. There is the commitment that the Government will push for a resolution of the conflict in Darfur, and a commitment to continue to contribute to a modern and representative United Nations, although I wonder whether going to war in Iraq was a step towards that. There is the commitment to working to secure a successful outcome for the United Nations Millennium Development Review Summit and the ministerial meeting of the WTO in Hong Kong in December. There is support for continued assistance to the government of Afghanistan including in their counter-narcotics efforts, and to support better standards of governance throughout the world. We also hear among all that that peace in the Middle East will remain one of the Government’s highest priorities. That is a pretty wide-ranging set of objectives, far more than we have often had in a gracious Speech. Few would disagree with the words on paper, but there are some important underlying issues. The international section concludes with a statement that the Government intend to strengthen the partnership between Europe and the US,"““in order to meet these objectives””." I would hardly have thought that partnership with the United States had, up to now, brought much progress in many of those areas. Iraq, tied and very limited aid, even tying aid to supporting US foreign policy objectives, refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement and so on hardly augur well. Maybe we should wish the Government more success in those areas than they have achieved thus far. I welcome the mention of Afghanistan. There was international agreement on the war there, but bin Laden was not found and there is little control outside Kabul. The newly elected president continues to plead for attention and money that the international community has pledged but not yet delivered, so that the country can escape the drug lords whose bumper crops fund the local farmers and whose products are now on the streets of the United Kingdom. Where are the eyes of the world as far as Afghanistan is concerned? Do we see a step change in help for Afghanistan? From what we have heard so far, it does not seem like it, but I look forward to hearing what else the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, can tell us. Another area that we neglect at our peril is, of course, the Middle East. It was said that one of the quid pro quos of joining the United States in Iraq was that the US would take a more proactive line in pushing the road map forward but, as Israel consolidates its grip on the occupied territories, we have to realise that the current window of opportunity is small. Abu Mazen’s time as the Palestinian president will surely be limited if he cannot deliver peace and prosperity to the Palestinian people. Restrictions such as those on students wishing to study, the continued road blocks which the World Bank has identified as fast destroying the Palestinian economy, the continued building of the wall, and the decision at the same Cabinet meeting that confirmed the pull-out from Gaza to continue the wall to encircle and protect settlements in the occupied territories—especially as regards Jerusalem—all augur poorly. Of course we understand Israel’s desperate need to feel secure, but we have to urge once again that no one will be secure unless there is a just settlement. I welcome what the Government have said about the relief of poverty in Africa. Part of me wonders precisely why that may have shot to the top of the agenda, but this is clearly a key moment. We know why we should address the matter. There are more than a billion people living on less than $1 a day, 100 million children are unable to go to school, and every three seconds a child dies because of poverty. That cries out for action, but so do the warnings from the UN high-level panel about the insecurity that affects us all if those problems are not addressed. The UK hosts the G8 and holds the presidency of the EU, and, this September, there is the UN summit on the millennium development goals, which aim to cut poverty by half. The UK Government have committed themselves to reach 0.75 per cent of GNP by 2013. We would look to that timetable being shortened by at least two years. We certainly would not expect any slippage from it, as the Irish Government slipped last year; they committed during their presidency of the EU to 0.7 per cent and, as soon as it ended, reneged on that. Yes, the Government have increased aid from the low level of the Conservatives, but it still stands at only 0.34 per cent. The quality of aid is important, and the Government’s attempts to ensure that they target the poorest countries is welcome, although sometimes it can mean dismissing some of the poorest people because they are in middle-income countries such as South Africa. Aid needs to be untied, reliable, predictable and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, so rightly said—transparent. The Africa Commission’s emphasis on the need for recipient countries to improve their own transparency and governance is extremely important, but that must not allow the richer countries to get off this particular hook. The proposed international finance facility, which the US shows little sign of joining, cannot be allowed to mean that countries do not increase their aid budgets. With the IFF, if we do not watch out poor countries may well mortgage their future. I would like to know from the Minster where he anticipates other G8 countries significantly increasing their aid budgets, and whether there is any movement from the US on the IFF. The UK has led the way in promising to cancel debt, which is welcome, but it needs to ensure that neither the UK nor other countries committed to the policy then tie that to privatisation of services in debtor countries. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell is surely right on that. As we all know, however, it is not aid so much as favourable conditions of trade that will do most to help developing countries. There again, the UK presidency of the EU is of key importance this year. It is all very well saying that trade must be free but, if the infrastructure of the poorest countries means that they are not properly able to compete, they do not benefit from the freeing of that trade. If they are trading with countries where industries are subsidised, that makes their position even worse. We need to protect those emerging countries so that they can develop their own industries, yet the EU is now busy negotiating unfair trade agreements with many of its poorer partners through the economic partnership agreements. I would like to know precisely what the Government will do under their presidency of the EU to address that issue. I want to turn briefly to AIDS, to which I have referred in this House many times. The UK Government’s commitment to universal treatment for HIV by 2010, which is welcome, must be translated this year into an explicit G8 commitment. Recognising the exceptional impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on international development, and given the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to,"““press for an international agreement on universal access to AIDS treatment by 2010””," can we expect that commitment from the G8? AIDS threatens every MDG, and we are only just waking up to that. This is a key year for the UK on the international stage. It has been a key time for the UK internationally one way or another over the past year or two. But whereas the war in Iraq was highly controversial and took its toll on the Prime Minster and the Labour Party in the general election, all can agree about tackling world poverty, although taking that beyond lip service is far more difficult. I hope that we see major changes when the G8 meets in July, and that those are carried through and beyond our presidency of the EU.