Sub-Saharan Africa: Diplomatic Relationships

Question

14:47:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what are their main strategic objectives for developing closer diplomatic relationships with countries in sub-Saharan Africa, in terms of aid, trade, investment or cultural exchange.

My Lords, in line with our manifesto commitment, the Foreign Secretary launched a five-month consultation to inform the UK’s new approach to the African continent during his visit to Nigeria and South Africa in November. Our goal is fundamentally a transformed partnership that engages with African countries as equals. This will promote our economic growth ambitions, including trade and investment, address our migration priorities and draw on our shared cultural and people-to-people links.

While I welcome that Answer, the UK has disengaged drastically from Africa in the last few years—aid has been slashed, trade and investment have been halved, the investment summit was cancelled, and the World Service and the British Council are struggling to maintain their services. Russia and China have come exponentially into this vacuum, so what are the Government going to do specifically and practically across all sectors to engage with sub-Saharan Africa? Will they follow the example of Japan, China, India and the EU and set up a UK- Africa partnership?

My Lords, I could not have put that better myself. It was a very helpful summary of where we are. On aid, we are committed to the 0.5%. We have an ambition to get back to where we ought to have been at 0.7%, but noble Lords will understand the inheritance we received—I do not need to mention the £22 billion black hole as my noble friend is here beside me. The noble Lord is completely right to highlight the World Service and the British Council. He will notice the financial support we were able to provide the World Service in the recent Budget, and we are working closely with the British Council to make sure it is put on a stable footing because it is essential as one of the finest soft power assets this country possesses. He referred to Russia and China, and clearly it is for African nations to decide their own international partnerships, but many have expressed the view that they wish to work more closely with the United Kingdom and we are very open to that as part of our new approach.

My Lords, is it not a slight pity that so far in this exchange there has been no mention of the Commonwealth network? There are 22 Commonwealth countries south of the Sahara. They are the main bulwark against Chinese and Russian incursion. Is it not time for us to have a rather more central role for the Commonwealth in our thinking about Africa and to commit more seriously to Commonwealth countries, several of which now wish to join in addition to the existing 22? It is a growing organisation and we should support it vigorously.

That was very well put. I could have mentioned the Commonwealth; it is a vital multinational grouping, as the noble Lord says. I work closely with many Caribbean nations where the Commonwealth is well represented, and that needs to form part of our thinking in the future. I thank him for raising it.

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that we need ambassadorial representation in as many African countries as possible—more than we have now? We should not be seduced by the idea of multiple accreditation, which frankly is not worth a lot, as I discovered during the Somalia and Rwanda crises in the 1990s, when we had nobody on the spot.

I would be very wise to take what the noble Lord says seriously, and I do note it. At the moment we are engaged in a five-month consultation with African nations and others to inform what will be a new approach to Africa. The points that the noble Lord just made will be considered as part of that approach; I thank him.

Does my noble friend agree that in our engagement with sub-Saharan Africa we must try to understand the Africa gap and why the region is turning out so badly compared with east Asia, for example—a matter illustrated very well in the most recent edition of the Economist? We should try to encourage having more Africa specialists in our Diplomatic Service. We should also try to encourage the lowering of national barriers and co-operation with Africa and, as always, do our very best to encourage civil society in the region.

I read the piece in the Economist and it was very useful. The approach that we are consulting on at the moment will touch on many of the issues raised by my noble friend. We want to see an approach that is more about partnership than paternalism, working alongside African nations. My noble friend Lord Collins is in Botswana today, and I know that is precisely the approach that he wishes to take.

My Lords, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the growing influence of the BRICS grouping, in particular its economic influence? There are also the issues of security and cyber, which will impact sub-Saharan Africa as well as other parts of the world. BRICS is a growing grouping, and we saw its direct contest with the Commonwealth during the recent CHOGM held in the Pacific.

We do not think of it as a contest. That was just a diary coincidence, if I can put it that way. It is not for us to tell African nations or anybody else which groupings they should align with, but we find that there is a desire—a genuine desire, I think—to work more closely with the United Kingdom. Sometimes we have perhaps not put the energy that we might into that; sometimes we have perhaps made it too difficult compared with attracting investment from other nations. We want to consider and do all these things as well as we can, as we get to the end of our consultation on the new approach.

Further to the Minister’s reply to my noble friend on partnership assistance levels, is it not correct that, as a result of this Government’s Budget, ODA is now at the lowest level for 17 years? Also, one of the unforgivable actions of the previous Administration was to score more ODA spending in the United Kingdom than in sub-Saharan Africa, or indeed anywhere abroad. This is a policy choice, not a fiscal choice, and the Government have so far chosen to adopt the previous Conservative Government’s approach. Will the Minister agree with me that the way to restore trust with those countries with the greatest need and poverty is to ensure that ODA is not only official development assistance but overseas development assistance and is not scored for spending here in the UK?

I do not want to spend ODA here in the UK. That money is being spent on housing people who have come here in hotels, and it is costing a fortune to do so. That money ought to be spent on education and humanitarian assistance in countries where it is needed the most. That is how this should be, and that is the situation that the FCDO and the Home Office are working hard to get to. We have committed so far to the 0.5%. What 0.5% equals depends entirely on the size of the economy and, as the economy grows, that 0.5% will be worth an awful lot more. As I said earlier, we want to get to back to 0.7% spend, which we never should have left.

My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has said concerning His Majesty’s Government’s aims and ambitions in sub-Saharan Africa, how are they ensuring that their foreign aid there delivers measurable outcomes and aligns with the Government’s priorities, such as supporting good governance, supporting economic development and tackling corruption?

The Foreign Secretary’s priorities for this are around growth, security, government and climate. These are things that we are working hard on through our engagement not just with sub-Saharan Africa but in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere. The noble Earl is absolutely right that every penny we spend on official development assistance must be the very best value for money that we can secure—yes, because of fairness to the UK taxpayer, but also because a bad programme funded by ODA means that a good programme somewhere else does not get to take place. The Foreign Secretary is very keen that we make sure that happens. He is reviewing our spend and the effectiveness of programmes, and he is right to do that.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the African Wildlife Foundation. I ask the Minister to look carefully at how we spend our aid money. So much of it goes through international or regional bodies and, often, when the money gets to practical solutions on the ground, the UK is not visible as a donor. That weakens our soft power, so can the Minister look at the different ways in which we spend aid money to make sure that our soft power really is visible on the ground?

I think it was Tony Blair who said that our international development spend is the strongest soft power asset that we have. He had a point. We work multilaterally because that is often the most effective way to get the best value for money. I take what the noble Lord says about that sometimes meaning that we do not get all the credit, but sometimes it is important to prioritise getting the aid to where it is needed most, which needs to be our first concern. I will consider what he says, but this is all about making sure that we get the biggest impact for every penny we spend.