Mitchell's Firm Grip of DFID

Guido reckons Andrew Mitchell has gone native at DFID. I have evidence to the contrary. This very day, for the first time ever in the history of Dfid, a huge picture has gone up in the main reception. Of Her Majesty the Queen!

To my mind, Mitchell has been one of the success stories of the coalition. A man on top of his brief who has shaken up his department and completely reconfigured our aid policy. And if anyone really thinks he has gone native, they should read his speech to the LSE on wealth creation. Very sound.

Having said all of that, I still don't think the DFID budget should have been ringfenced...

Where Will Extra Afghan Aid Money End Up?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a piece explaining why I thought the Dfid budget should not be ringfenced. What provoked my ire had been the revelation that we are giving £800 million in aid to India, a country which spends almost as much every year on its space programme.

I was therefore delighted to read this weekend that all aid to Russia and China was being cancelled. Quite why we were giving any aid at all to countries in the G20 is anyone's guess. It's a sure sign of the profligate approach of the previous government. International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell is also reviewing aid to other countries, and about time too. He might start with India. India and China are the two main powerhouses of the East. Of course both countries have huge problems with poverty, but if they don't address that, is it really the place of the British taxpayer to ride to the rescue?

The ringfencing of the Dfid budget means that the savings made on cutting aid to China and Russia are not being handed back to the Treasury, as you might have thought ought to be the case. Instead, all these funds are being directed to Afghanistan. This means that our aid budget to Afghanistan is increasing by 40%. The challenge for Andrew Mitchell will be to make sure that this money is not pissed down the drain. If it ends up in the pockets of Afghan warlords it would be an absolute scandal.

I look forward to hearing what plans are in place to ensure that does not happen.

A really Tory Approach to International Development

Another bit of good news for Conservatives this morning, this time via the columns of The Guardian, where Shadow International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell lays out his plans for Dfid under a Tory government. And it will gladden your heart. He has some radical - and truly Conservative plans.

A shakeup of Britain's £9.1bn overseas aid budget would be launched by a Conservative government to cut funding to more prosperous developing nations, notably China, and boost it to the poorest, especially those in the Commonwealth.

In the biggest change at the Department for International Development since it was created by Labour in 1997, the Tories would bring in outsiders to review all 102 countries funded by Britain.

He pledged to:

• Review spending in all 102 developing countries funded by Britain with a view to cutting the overall numbers. Mitchell, who pledges to publish details of all DfID funding on its website, said: "I suspect that we will reduce the number ... We would narrow the focus as part of making it sharper and less scattergun."

• Give outsiders a key role in conducting a "proper independent evaluation" of DfID spending and its outputs – for instance, how many schools are built. Mitchell cited the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex as the sort of body that could conduct this work.

• Focus more aid on the 53-strong Commonwealth, which had been "under-valued" by Labour. Aid to India would be preserved because of its "deep historical and cultural relationship" with Britain even though its economy is developing rapidly.

• Transform the work of the DfID. Amid concerns among senior Tories that the department has become too detached from foreign policy, he added: "One of the things we will do with DfID ... is to inject a little bit more business DNA, and indeed a little bit more classic civil service DNA and perhaps a little less NGO DNA."

It would help formulate overall foreign policy on a national security council alongside the foreign and defence secretaries. "We would build on what DfID is today and make it even more successful and perhaps wire it in a little bit better into the Whitehall constellation," Mitchell said.

• Curtail funding to UN agencies if they failed to deliver under a performance-related approach being championed by the Swedish development minister, Gunilla Carlsson. Sweden has reduced its contribution to the United Nations Development Programme.

Read the full article HERE.

Tories in Rwanda

Francis Maude has written a MY WEEK diary in the Sunday Times, telling of his week teaching English in Rwanda. He's out there with Andrew Mitchell and his group of 100 Tory activists, candidates and MPs. It brought back a lot of memories for me of my trip there last year. Andrew asked me to go with them again this time, and, believe me, I was tempted. It was one of the most memorable weeks of my life.

If Andrew's political career ended tomorrow he could look back with pride at what he and his entourage have achieved in their time in Rwanda. They have left a lasting legacy in a country which has pulled itself up by its bootstraps after its terrible experiences of the mid 1990s.

Makes you proud to be a Conservative.

UPDATE: Tobias Ellwood tells of his experience in Rwanda on ConHome.

Guest Blog: Obama or McCain? Who gets the Vote of the Poor?

By Andrew Mitchell MP

From the tea rooms of the House of Commons to the slums of Nairobi, the Obama versus McCain showdown is the talk of the world. It promises to be the most unpredictable and gripping contest for many years. What will it mean for the poorest people on the planet?

There is now a real prospect that the next leader of the free world will have close relatives who are among its poorest inhabitants. According to a recent CNN report, Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother and uncle "do not have a television and live in a simple, single-story canary-yellow home several miles from the closest village."

Obama's father was born and raised in the East African nation; after the recent post-election violence, some reporters asked breathlessly 'Can Obama Save Kenya?'. On an emotional visit to his father's homeland in 2006, Obama was greeted by cheering crowds. He took a public HIV test at a remote rural health clinic in an effort to promote AIDS awareness. And the Senator from Illinois has taken a legislative interest in development issues back in Washington: he is piloting the Global Poverty Act through Congress, which would require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to halve extreme global poverty by 2015, and demands measurable benchmarks and timetables to achieve this ambitious goal. If he wins in November, he might just be carrying this through as President.

But there is an elephant in the room whenever the presumptive Democratic candidate discusses development: Trade. During the primaries he followed John Edwards and Hilary Clinton in playing to the protectionist gallery. This is dangerous territory: failure for the Doha Round could fatally undermine the multilateral, rules-based system overseen by the World Trade Organisation that protects poor countries and offers the best route to freer global trade. The deadline is looming for this vital and much-needed agreement.

The voice of reason on trade is that of Republican frontrunner John McCain. He has bravely kept the flag of economic freedom flying, making the unanswerable case that free trade and open markets are the surest route to growth and development. Pointedly ignoring the siren call of protectionism, he promises to "aggressively promote global trade liberalization at the World Trade Organization and expand America's free-trade agreements to friendly nations on every continent."

McCain's views on development are practical and challenging, though perhaps less clearly-defined than Obama's. He has called for the G8 to boot out undemocratic Russia, but embrace the market democracies of India and Brazil. Writing in Foreign Affairs, he pledged to help promote an 'African Renaissance', and to work to eradicate malaria. On Darfur, he says " I fear that the United States is once again repeating the mistakes it made in Bosnia and Rwanda" and promises "my administration will consider the use of all elements of American power to stop the outrageous acts of human destruction". On a more personal level, his website tells us that "in 1993, John McCain and his wife, Cindy, adopted a little girl from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh" and that adoption is a policy area of personal interest to him.

Clearly, both of the Presidential hopefuls have thought seriously about how to tackle poverty around the world. This is nothing new: from the post-war Marshall Plan, through JFK's Peace Corps, successive Presidents have recognized that peace and prosperity abroad matter to their citizens at home. Whichever candidate wins in November will face tough challenges on development - to say nothing of the massive military, strategic and environmental questions which so affect the world's poor.

Getting a global trade deal that works for all, winning the fight against disease, rationalizing the US aid programme and ensuring every dollar of hard-earned taxpayer's money achieves the maximum value for the poor: there are battles to be fought and political capital to be expended to get these things done.

As the Presidential race unfolds, in its barrage of pundits and predictions and polls, people in remote villages and urban slums around the world will be watching as closely as the inhabitants of the Washington beltway and the Westminster village. For what happens in November 2008 matters as much to them as it does to us.

******

Note from Iain: I will be running a series of guest blogs throughout the Summer. If you would like to write an article to appear on the blog (max 750 words) please do email me. I can't guarantee it will be used though!

Tomorrow: James Clark on the death of the British Record Industry

Douglas Alexander's No Show

What is it with the Alexander family this week? They seem to be doing their utmost to bring yet further opprobrium on Gordon Brown's ailing administration. Yesterday it was Sister Wendy, today it was Wee Dougie.

The Department for International Development, at which Wee Dougie is part time Secretary of State, applied to Mr Speaker to make a statement on the growing crisis in Burma. Sadly, it seems Wee Dougie forgot all about it, or was busy having urgent discussions of a non Ugandan variety with the Prime Minister. Or was stuck in traffic. Who knows? Anyway, it's the first time MPs can ever remember a Minister failing to show up for a Statement they had requested. Here's what happened...

12.12pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the absence of the Secretary of State for Defence—[HON. MEMBERS: “International Development!”] In the absence of the Secretary of State for International Development, who I understand is on his way, and the Secretary of State for Defence, who has the business after that, I have no option but to suspend the sitting for five minutes.

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State for International Development is not here. Could it be that he has been detained advising his sister on the mess that she has got the Government into, and he is now getting the Government—and, indeed, this House—into another mess?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has to be a matter of pure speculation. I suspend the sitting until 12.17 pm.

12.17pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I begin by apologising unreservedly to the House for my delayed arrival and for the delay in making the statement. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to inform it on the response being taken to cyclone Nargis.

He may well have apologised but he certainly didn't explain. The Deputy Speaker was overheard giving him a right bollocking, warning him that "Mr Speaker will be furious".

The Labour whips were in full panic mode trying to locate Dougie. Was he stuck in traffic in his limo? Perhaps he should take a leaf out of his Tory opposite number's book. Andrew Mitchell travels everywhere in London by bike. He managed to make it back to reply to the Statement despite having been half way up the M1 on his way to Birmingham when the Statement was agreed to by The Speaker's office.