A WORLD FOR THE MANY, NOT THE FEW – LABOUR’S POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT

LCID member Caroline Pinder blogs on development policy and what Labour could do differently

Caroline has been a member of the Labour Party for 45 years, currently in Oxford East CLP.  She has been an international development consultant for the past 30 years, focusing on gender equality and social inclusion, VAWG and women’s economic empowerment.

Labour’s policy paper on international development, “ A World for the Many, Not the Few” with its twin focus on reducing inequality and poverty, sets out an inspiring vision for taking forward Britain’s role in the world as a champion for the poor and voiceless, who have been treated by the Tories, for the past eight years, as objects of charity and patronage.  

The Tories have sought to steal the development agenda by claiming credit for introducing the 0.7% target, acting as the “nice guys who care about the poor”. They have used the increased ODA budget resulting from 0.7%, however, as a means to export their neo-liberal ideology and return to an aid-for-trade approach that smacks of neo-colonialism.  They have done nothing to tackle the embedded cause of poverty which is inequality both within and between nation states. Rather they have fostered competition between states by supporting deregulation and distortion of markets which have further reduced the incomes and livelihoods of these states’ poorest and most vulnerable citizens.

We need to remind ourselves, and the electorate, that it was Labour’s recognition in the late 1990’s of the importance to wealthy and poor nations alike of a fair and transparent global economic and social framework.  It was Labour which gave international development full Cabinet status, making it possible for the UK to influence the global aid agenda through the 2000’s and achieve worldwide support for the MDGs.  It was Labour who encouraged a stronger voice for less developed nations and their citizens through the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in 2005, and the follow up Accra Agenda for Action in 2008.  

Now, chunks of DFID’s budget are being passed to the Foreign Office and other departments to meet their overseas missions.  These may run counter to the objectives of the original International Development Act 2002 which required the Secretary of State to provide assistance “likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty” either by “furthering sustainable development (or) improving the welfare of the population.”  It was this mandate which enabled DFID to lead the way internationally in challenging earlier, colonial-style, development models. The next Labour government needs to continue that earlier work by fostering an international agenda which challenges entrenched global interests, is genuinely inclusive, strengthens the voice of poor nations and their vulnerable citizens, and reduces inequality at all levels.

Building on the experience of the MDGs, the 2015-30 SDGs offer a mechanism for delivering this commitment.   Labour should commit to ensuring all international spending is targeted towards delivering on the SDGs, in particular those concerned with the more vulnerable members of our global community:  women and children living in violent situations, threatened indigenous groups, refugees fleeing torture and conflict, those who are physically and mentally challenged, and disempowered minorities.  

The next Labour government should also encourage innovative approaches to tackling global systems and institutions which penalise poor nations or put them at a disadvantage, by setting an example through the UK’s own dealings with corporations that seek to evade tax, and cut wages or prices paid to poor people in developing countries.  And we need to support governments of least developed nations to establish good quality public services, paid for through fair and transparent tax systems, which will fund health and education services that are accessible to all their citizens. We have a champion NHS that was built on the principle of free access to all in need; it’s a model we should be proud to export, and support its delivery across the world.

There will be occasions when it is reasonable for some of the 0.7% funds to be given to other UK government departments, for example bringing in expertise to support states in setting up quality health care and education systems.  It is not acceptable however, for aid funds to be used for trade or foreign office interventions. There needs to be cohesion across our foreign, trade and development policies, so we don’t contribute to appalling humanitarian disasters such as that currently being experienced in Yemen as a result of the two-faced Tory policy to support trade of arms to the Saudis, whilst delivering food and medical aid to Yemen’s citizens.

These ideas, and more, are captured in the “World for the Many, Not for the Few”.  But ideas need to be turned into reality, and for this DFID needs to be re-energised and strengthened to become again a driving force against the continuance of global poverty and inequality.  It also needs to strengthen partnerships with NGOs and civil society, as well as governments of developing nations.

The Policy paper points out that DFID’s budget has quadrupled since 1997 but its staffing level has not grown proportionally.  As a result DFID has had to commission more and more of its work to be delivered in-country by private contractors whose first priority is profit rather than sustainable development. A departmental staff review is therefore essential to ensure DFID is able and fit to deliver and achieve the maximum impact with the 0.7% ODA, exempting it from the civil service staff freezes which are curtailing its work under the Tories.

It is also important to re-invent and expand the role of NGOs in delivering for impact.  The Tories have slashed again and again the Programme Partnership Arrangements (PPAs) which enabled NGOs to pioneer new approaches to development that reach the poorest in global communities.  Here in the UK there is also work to do in broadening and deepening our own citizens’ understanding of why and how global poverty and inequality impacts on better off nations. “Aid” has been used as a dirty word by some of our media; we have to show that a “World for the Many, Not the Few” brings benefits to everyone.

 

A global NHS: from competition to collaboration

William Townsend, Business Development Officer for THET  @Willmo1

Turning 70 this year, the NHS continues to be Britain’s most cherished institution. And rightly so, in all this time it remains one of the world’s greatest social achievements. It also happens to be the 70th anniversary of the docking of the Empire Windrush, an important reminder that the history of the NHS is also a proud history of immigration to the United Kingdom.

From its inception in 1948 to today the NHS has benefited tremendously from immigration: almost a quarter of the NHS workforce is made up of people with a black and minority ethnic background with 202 nationalities represented across a workforce of approximately 1.4 million.

With vacancies of 35,000 nurses and 10,000 doctors in England reported this year, our reliance on overseas health workers persists. It’s even an issue organisations as diverse as the Guardian and the Daily Mail can agree on: non-UK health workers should be able to come to the UK and work for the NHS. As such, the cap on Tier 2 visas for doctors and nurses from outside of the European Economic Area has recently been scrapped by the Government.

But is this debate as clear-cut as it seems?

Health worker shortages are not unique to the UK. The issue is global and the current deficit of 7 million health workers is set to grow to 18 million by 2030. Unsurprisingly, this shortage is felt most acutely in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where thousands die daily due to a lack of access to qualified health workers.  

While NHS Employers Code of Practice states that “developing countries should not be targeted when actively recruiting healthcare professionals”, my charity, the Tropical Health and Education Trust (THET), believes the NHS must do more to collaborate, and stop competing, with other countries to ensure we plug the worldwide gap between the demand and supply of health workers.

In some ways the NHS is already pivotal in this regard. For instance, through the DFID funded and THET managed Health Partnership Scheme, NHS volunteers from 130 Trusts have trained over 84,000 health workers across 31 LMICs between 2011 and 2017. Kate Osamor MP, Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, recently witnessed some of this work first-hand as she visited Somaliland and saw how Kings College London and THET are collaborating to strengthen medical education there.

In addition, in April the Department of Health and Social Care also announced a global nursing partnership with Jamaica, seeing Jamaican nurses work in the NHS for 3 years to provide care and gain specialist skills which they will then take back to the benefit of the Jamaican health system.

It is imperative therefore to strike a balance that ensures the NHS’ gain is not another country’s loss; particularly important in the context of Labour’s recent policy commitments to support a global movement for public services. We must continue to respect the rights of health workers to migrate to the UK and work in the NHS, whilst ensuring we don’t have a detrimental impact on patients overseas, for instance by attracting some health workers to the UK for training and education purposes with a view to them returning home to up-skill their peers.

The Human Resources for Health crisis is, of course, a complex issue with multiple changes required across all facets of a country’s health system (for instance in health system financing) but if the NHS is to be a genuine beacon for Universal Health Coverage, it cannot passively benefit from other countries’ – particularly LMICs – investments in health care.

We should be immensely proud of our global NHS workforce, and of an increasingly global outlook from the NHS. This is why THET is calling on the governments of the United Kingdom to enshrine the global nature of the NHS in their respective constitutions. We call on them to initiate a clause committing the NHS globally in ways which will benefit patients at home whilst also enhancing other countries’ abilities to build robust health systems.

There are many innovative and interesting models to be explored in order to do this. We look forward to continuing the debate, and others, at THET’s conference on the 27th and 28th September 2018 at Imperial College London.  

 

The rise and fall of human rights

Stephen Tunstall, Palestine & Israel Programme Manager for Embrace the Middle East blogs about why Labour should adopt a humans rights focused foreign policy

@SCTunstall

Tony Blair’s famous 1999 Chicago speech set out a foreign policy doctrine to guide Britain through the twenty first century. It makes for a fascinating read in hindsight. Predicting that the biggest decision Britain would have to make in the following twenty years would be its relationship with Europe, it’s as if Blair could foresee a Conservative Foreign Secretary resigning in July 2018 on precisely this issue. Blair finished by warning America not to look inwards or isolate itself from the rest of the world. As President Trump visits the UK, something Blair surely could not have imagined, one wonders what he would have made of that warning had he been listening in 1999.

The Chicago speech gave Britain’s foreign policy a firmly internationalist agenda: “mutual self-interest and moral purpose in defending the values we cherish…. liberty, the rule of law, human rights and an open society… that is in our national interests,” Blair proclaimed.

The rhetoric of human rights was an organising principle of Britain’s foreign policy under Labour.  Labour came to power in the post-Cold War years when there was a genuine, albeit naïve, belief that an era of peace and human security would characterise the new international order. I would not attempt to assess how successful Labour actually was in advancing human rights around the world; it was a mixed bag to say the very least. However, human rights served as a frame through which the government considered Britain’s role in an international community.

Fast forward twenty years and Britain’s Prime Minister is quite clear that human rights are not a pillar of her foreign policy. On the surface, Theresa May’s government makes similar overtures about foreign policy – all the talk about Global Britain and desperate pleas for international cooperation to pull us out of a Brexit quagmire. But that’s where the comparison ends. May’s infamous statement that “if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere” derided the idea of international solidarity and a common humanity. Her Conservative government prioritises the traditional concerns of nation states, or ‘valuing stability and respecting sovereignty’ in the words of her former advisor, Nick Timothy. Defending humans’ rights is no longer in Britain’s national interest if it risks infringing on states’ sovereignty/impunity (delete as appropriate).

I’ve seen this posture repeatedly manifested in the government’s response to recent events in Palestine and Israel. For the past five years I’ve been working with civil society groups there and witnessed the increasing confidence with which Israel violates the rights of Palestinians with complete impunity. Take Gaza; the illegal 11 year closure of Gaza has had disastrous humanitarian consequences and is an appalling violation of the rights of innocent Palestinians. The recent protests at the heavily fortified fence separating Gaza from Israel and the rest of Palestine culminated in the killing of over 100 unarmed Palestinians and the maiming of thousands more, including children, journalists, and medics.

There are potential policy options which would help protect human rights and secure accountability for violations, but the government has shamefully rejected all of them. It could be working with international partners to reform the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism, a supposedly temporary arrangement which restricts the import of essential goods into Gaza. It could be freezing arms sales to Israel because Israel’s use of those arms for internal repression would be in violation of Britain’s own export licenses. Or it could have meant backing a UN Commission of Inquiry to investigate claims of war crimes committed in Gaza.

Britain has done none of these things. In fact, it is actively working against efforts to uphold accountability for human rights violations. Just last month, the government confirmed that Britain would automatically vote against any resolution which specifically addressed Israel’s treatment of Palestinians at future sessions of the UN Human Rights Council. May’s government will vote against a resolution even if it is consistent with British policy, for example condemning the stalled demolition of the Khan al Ahmar Bedouin village to make way for illegal settlement expansion.

It is hard to imagine a British government more hostile to human rights protection that the current one. The new Foreign Secretary is not going to change that. While human rights was fashionable in the nineties, it is very much out of favour in the Brexit and Trump world we now inhabit.

So would a Labour government be any better? Jeremy Corbyn is, of course, well known as a staunch supporter of the Palestinians’ struggle against occupation. But Labour, along with the rest of the political and media establishment, is so wedded to the dogma of a two-state solution that its approach is overly state-centric, liable to approach this as a matter of diplomatic policy rather than a human rights emergency. Its most recent manifesto announced that a Labour government will immediately recognise a theoretical state of Palestine. Labour MPs proudly tout this policy, but recognition alone doesn’t address the daily rights violations that make Palestinian lives insufferable.

Labour needs to get human rights back on the foreign policy agenda. Human security must be elevated as a priority informing diplomacy, defence, and development. For too long Britain has shied away from seeking accountability for Israeli rights violations with the excuse that it won’t help the peace process. Well, there is no longer any peace process and a two state solution is not going to happen. Labour needs to realise this and switch to viewing the situation in Palestine and Israel through a human rights lens, with policies to enhance protection for vulnerable communities and international accountability for violations. Not only will this help protect Palestinian lives and livelihoods, it may help the pendulum swing back towards a political culture where human rights are once again a credible foreign policy priority.

It’s essential for our NHS that we end the era of the British tax haven

mike kaneThis article first appeared on LabourList on Tuesday 1 November

By Mike Kane,  Shadow Minister for International Development and Labour MP for Wythenshawe and Sale East – @MikeKaneMP

Theresa May has pledged a crackdown on tax havens. She should start by cleaning up our own backyard – the secretive network of UK-linked tax havens like the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

Today and tomorrow’s summit of overseas territories leaders, taking place in London, provides the perfect opportunity to kickstart that process. They are our very own treasure islands, stuffed full of booty from around the world: entire economies set up to help wealthy people and unscrupulous companies to avoid paying their fair share of tax. That is money that could be spent on public services like schools and hospitals.

Over the past few years the Tory government has talked a tough game on tax dodging, decrying bad practice and demanding alleged tax avoiders like Starbucks “wake up and smell the coffee”. Ongoing scandals like that which engulfed Apple, and a wilful blind spot when it comes to UK-linked tax havens, tell a different story.

And it is the world’s poorest countries that are the worst affected by this inaction. Corporate tax avoidance is estimated to cost developing countries an astonishing $200bn every year more than they receive in aid. Much of that is siphoned off via tax havens like Mauritius and the British Virgin Islands. Money needed to tackle poverty, cure disease and promote education disappears offshore never to be seen again. That is a gross injustice.

Back in April the Panama Papers leak blew a hole in tax haven secrecy. Those with the means to do so were bending or breaking the rules on a huge scale, benefiting at the expense of ordinary people in the UK and in the world’s poorest countries.

In response, 300 top economists including Thomas Piketty and Nobel laureate Angus Deaton, told world leaders that tax havens “serve no useful economic purpose“. They also argued that the UK is uniquely placed to lead a crackdown, because it has sovereignty over around a third of the world’s tax havens through its overseas territories and crown dependencies.

Our involvement cannot be understated: more than half of the 214,000 firms named in the Panama Papers were registered in the British Virgin Islands, a UK overseas territory. Make no mistake – the UK sits at the heart of a global web of tax havens.

David Cameron came up woefully short on his promises to fix this problem, culminating in the refusal of many overseas territories to even attend his much touted anti-corruption summit earlier this year, much less make the kind of commitments that are needed.

That’s not to say others aren’t trying.  The anti-poverty charity ActionAid has called for greater transparency from UK-linked tax havens; the tightening up of global rules; and reform of the UK’s tax treaties with poor countries – another tool big companies use to avoid paying tax.

Caroline Flint and her colleagues on the public accounts committee secured an amendment to the finance bill which could compel all UK companies to declare the tax they pay everywhere they do business – including tax havens. Ministers must now find the courage to implement the law.

The new prime minister talks a good game on tax dodging, but she can no longer ignore the glaring issue of the overseas territories: our single biggest contribution to the global tax system.

Transparency is a vital first step. We need to know who own the countless anonymous shell companies registered offshore. That’s why ActionAid and others are campaigning for registers of beneficial ownership. Only by tackling secrecy can we know who is hiding their money, and hold them to account.

All of us are expected to pay tax – we should demand no less of the wealthy and big corporations. Tax is the key building block of our public services. Without it there is no NHS, no police, no schools, no welfare state. Everyone should pay their fair share.

We are accountable for the overseas territories and they are accountable to us. And when it comes to cleaning up tax dodging, they are our greatest weakness and our greatest strength. They have a corrosive impact on the global tax system, eating it from the inside. But we have the power to change that. By acting to sort out our tax havens we could set an example to the world.

Theresa May must put the UK’s British treasure islands on notice. It’s time to end the age of the British tax haven.

Tories plot to divert aid away from world’s poorest

lChlPlPlBy Sam Rusthworth, LCID’s Membership & CLP Relations Officer – @SamJRushworth

 

There were gasps and raised eyebrows when Theresa May appointed Priti Patel as Minister for International Development in her new right-wing cabinet, but Patel’s first appearance before MPs last week suggests anyone concerned about global poverty is right to be worried.

In July, while commentators in the Westminster-Village were busy discussing how clever May had been to give senior cabinet jobs to hard-Brexiteers – including a bumbling foreign secretary with a track record for racial slurs and insulting world leaders, who she’d be able to sack by Christmas – at the Department for International Development a silent coup was underway. A new minister took charge who not long before had called for the whole department to be abolished. Shortly after, Ms Patel appointed Robert Oxley as her special advisor, whose previous roles include head of media at Vote Leave and campaign director for the TaxPayers’ Alliance while it was calling for government spending on aid to be cut.

So it came as no surprise when, in her comments to the parliamentary International Development Committee last week, as well as in an article she penned for the Daily Mail, itself a fervent campaigner against what it calls “the madness of aid”, Ms Patel repeated many of the well-worn cliches about aid money being wasted or stolen. The poorest should “work and trade their way out of poverty” not be “passive recipients of our support”, she declared, echoing popular misconceptions with a Nigel Faragian flare.

For most people, who do not spend their working lives unpicking the debates around aid and development, such arguments make sense, and believing them does not mean they do not care about global poverty. Images of famine, disease and suffering have been broadcast onto our TV screens for decades and things never seem to get any better. It is known that some African leaders who have presided over their countries for decades are worth millions of dollars while their people survive on less than $2 a day. Added to this are high profile examples of aid failures, such as £285 million Cameron’s government spent building an airport on St Helena which is unusable due to wind speeds. So it is easy for Priti Patel to conjure an image of a bloated UK Department for International Development dolling out money left, right and centre to corrupt regimes that steal or squander it – and understandable that so many believe it. Hopefully Ms Patel’s new staff at DfID will help her to see how inaccurate this image really is.

The truth about the UK’s international development spending is that, while imperfect, it has made substantial improvements in the lives of millions of people and helped many countries on the path to sustainable development. What’s more, many of the criticisms of aid are past their sell by date. Since Labour set up the Department for International Development in 1997, the UK has developed expertise in delivering aid effectiveness and become the world leader in global development. Contrary to popular myth, UK Aid money is not carelessly doled out but intelligently targeted and fully accounted for.

Just over forty percent of UK Aid money is entrusted to multilateral organisations such as the International Development Association, a financial institution administered by the World Bank, whose work has funded the immunization of over 300 million children, built over 100,000 km of paved roads and made micro-finance loans to over 120,000 small and medium enterprises. Other organizations trusted to spend UK aid on our behalf include The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; the World Food Program; and the United Nations Children’s Fund. Each of these organizations is transparent, accountable, and widely respected for making a real impact.

The remaining sixty percent of UK aid is given to fund specific projects and programs under bilateral arrangements with national governments or respected not-for-profit organisations and used to fund health, humanitarian aid, education, infrastructure, and water supply. Such bilateral aid also includes millions of pounds currently being spent on basic humanitarian assistance, food, shelter, relief packages, health care and emergency education to Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, as well humanitarian assistance and funding Red Cross activity in Syria. In 2014 £238 million was spent in Sierra Leone providing humanitarian relief to those affected by the Ebola crisis, including treatment and measures to prevent infections from spreading.

Again – and I stress this point – such aid money is not wistfully handed out to corrupt chiefs and princes. All over the world, expert DfID staff sit in foreign government ministries to advise and oversee development spending, while foreign governments are expected to sign performance contracts, with each tranche of aid being dependent on achieving results. Aid spent through non-government organisations with expertise in particular areas is likewise carefully monitored, independently evaluated and strictly accounted for.

I am not arguing that DfID gets everything right. When you set to work on some of the world’s messiest, most complex and seemingly intractable problems, mistakes are inevitable, but it is better to learn from them and continually improve aid effectiveness than cast aside two decades of experience and learning with a complete overhaul of aid spending for what are, let’s face it, unjustifiable and ideological reasons.

Priti Patel has even admitted that her plans for DfID are ideological, telling Daily Mail readers that her approach “will be built on some core Conservative principles. That the way to end poverty is wealth creation, not aid dependency…. …we need to empower the poorest to work and trade their way out of poverty”. Few could disagree with the rhetoric, but to suggest that miners in Bolivia, Coffee growers in Rwanda, or garment workers in Bangladesh are not already wearing out their lives in long hours hard work is insulting. Likewise, trade is nothing new. It has been fundamental to the West’s relationship with the developing world for centuries, only on terms that are grossly unbeneficial to the latter. It is worrying, given the evidence, that Ms Patel appears to be arguing that  replacing aid with more trade will miraculously end global poverty.

I am not saying that trade is unimportant. Export-led growth is essential for developing countries to acquire foreign exchange. A stronger entrepreneurial class in lower income countries would seek out ways to supply desired goods and services in a way government planners cannot. Foreign Direct Investment can provide jobs and transfer valuable learning. However, for the world’s poorest to take advantage of global trade they first need shelter, health care, sanitation, and education, while entrepreneurs need good infrastructure, security and access to finance. In other words, far from trapping people in “aid dependency”, the UK’s aid spending that Ms Patel is so quick to criticise is vital to empowering the poorest to work and trade their way out of poverty.

Perhaps Ms Patel would respond by questioning why governments of lower income countries are unable to fund infrastructure investment and public services themselves – why they are so ‘dependent’. The answer is partly that they struggle to extract tax because so much economic activity is informal and they lack the resources and expertise to capture it, but more so because so many foreign-owned multi-nationals shift profits to avoid their tax obligations in developing countries. The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) last year published a study which showed that developing countries lose over $100 billion per year in revenues for this reason. The IMF put it at $200 million  – over seventeen times the UK’s total annual international development spend.

It is not yet clear quite what Priti Patel actually means by extolling the benefits of trade as though it is an alternative to aid while at the same time pledging to maintain the UK’s commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on aid, but reading between the lines it appears she intends to divert funds away from health and education for the world’s poorest and into the hands of businesses charged with ‘increasing trade’, possibly by out-sourcing more low paid, insecure jobs to developing countries.

Indeed – and this is the most iniquitous part of all – Patel has hinted at reversing the principle of Labour’s 2002 International Development Act that aid should target poverty reduction, and instead prioritise aid spending in countries with highest migration flows to the UK, potentially enabling British business to secure cheaper labour, just not on British soil.

This would be the ultimate application of Patel’s “core Conservative principles” to development aid – diverting tax payer’s money into the hands of private business and trusting it ‘trickles down’ to the poorest in the world.

Labour must defend its legacy on International Development and not allow the Tories to take us backwards. The Labour Campaign for International Development is where that fight starts.

Owen Smith MP – my commitment to tackling poverty at home and abroad

owen-smith-2Owen Smith MP, candidate in the 2016 Labour Leadership contest, blogs for LCID on his commitment to international development – @OwenSmith_MP

Anyone in any doubt about the right-wing agenda of this new Tory government should take a look at two of Theresa May’s lesser commented-on appointments over the summer – that of Priti Patel as International Development Secretary, and her Special Adviser Robert Oxley – formerly of the Brexit campaign and the ideological Taxpayer’s Alliance.

Both Patel and Oxley have spent years attacking the very department that they now lead, arguing for the aid budget to be redirected, cut or even scrapped – and even at one point suggesting that DFID should be abolished or reformed. Even more shockingly they appear to be willing to undermine the cross-party consensus on the 0.7% aid target to spend a small but guaranteed proportion of our income on supporting education, health and responding to disasters around the world. They must be stopped.

Establishing DFID, leading the way on both the quality and quantity of our development assistance, and while abandoning the type of policies that led to the Pergau dam scandal – was one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour government. An achievement that literally saved lives around the world, and showed the type of outward looking internationalism that Britain and Labour should represent.

It is clear that there is a moral case for international development assistance – and focusing this on those who need it the most. Who can say that we should turn by and walk on the other side when so many children remain unable to go to school, when millions face the threat of HIV/Aids, Malaria or TB, and when women and girls often bear the brunt – not least in conflict zones. And as we see the effects of climate change and disorganised war and conflict impacting on many more – we also have to prepare for the challenges of the future.

It’s why the agreement of the Sustainable Development Goals was so important – recognising that tackling poverty and injustice requires concerted action in many areas, and in the richest countries domestic policies as well as their international action – not least when it comes to sustainability, climate change, taxation and corporate behaviour overseas. I want to see a Labour government that leads the way in delivering the goals domestically and internationally.

But as well as the moral case – international development is clearly in our national interest. Whether it is the tragedy of poverty and conflict driven thousands drowning in boats in the Mediterranean – or the threat of instability and poor governance in countries across Africa and the Middle East leading providing the space for extremism to grow – we ignore these challenges at our own peril. There is no zero-sum game between our Defence, Development and Diplomatic efforts around the world. We must ensure there is coherence and collaboration to ensure a safer, fairer and more just world for all.

But I believe there is something more fundamental at stake. Many understand the need for charity – but only Labour has historically recognised the need for justice – whether for garment workers in Bangladesh, women fleeing rape in the DRC or the refugees of Syria. We need to address the immediate impacts – but also the economic and political structures that drive injustice, poverty and conflict – for example through global tax transparency or fair trade. DFID and our aid budget have been at the heart of that fight for justice since 1997, and I will fight tooth and nail as Labour’s Leader to ensure the Tories don’t take an ideological axe to its work – and pledge to put tackling poverty at home and abroad at the heart of my programme as Labour’s next Prime Minister.

 

Owen Smith

Owen Smith MP signs LCID pledge for Leadership candidates

owen-smith-mpAs with previous leadership contests in 2010 and 2015, LCID will not be endorsing a leadership candidate in the current contest.

However we have asked candidates to sign the International pledge for 2016 Leadership candidates.

We are delighted that Owen Smith MP has signed the pledge and agreed to uphold the principles it contains.

We are awaiting a response from Jeremy Corbyn MP.

 

International pledge for 2016 Leadership candidates:

 

  1. I believe tackling poverty and inequality is what Labour governments are for. Any government I lead will take a ‘whole government’ approach to global justice, ensuring that our policies on tax, trade, climate change, home affairs, education, business regulation, defence, and security deliver for the world’s poorest people.

 

  1. I back British aid. I will ensure we spend 0.7% of GNI on aid and spend it well, focusing our aid exclusively and explicitly on tackling poverty and inequality, even in the hardest to reach places.

 

  1. I want DFID to be a development department, not just an aid administrator. I will ensure DFID is an innovative, independent department with a seat at the cabinet table and representation on all the relevant cabinet committees

 

  1. The Government I lead will pursue an ethical foreign policy and champion a progressive approach to humanitarian intervention in line with our international obligations, such as the UN’s Responsibility To Protect Civilians commitment.