10 January 2005
Howard: The wider problem of world poverty
Response to the Prime Minister’s statement on the Asian Tsunami in the House of Commons
"May I thank the Prime Minister for making this statement and for giving me advance sight of it?
Two weeks on, it is still difficult to comprehend the awful and awesome scale of this disaster. There could be no more poignant reminder of how frail and fragile the human condition is, and of how tragedy can befall any of us at any time.
Our prayers have been with all those who have lost relatives and friends. And our immense thanks go to everyone who has been working so hard in so many ways to provide help to those who have suffered such loss.
Confronted with a disaster on this scale, it would be natural for people to feel helpless.
But from the moment the disaster broke, the British people responded with heartfelt, urgent generosity.
Spontaneously, quietly, selflessly, typically, they gave their money and their time to help those in need.
This required no Whitehall initiative, no grand scheme, and no ministerial diktat.
The lead has come from the people, not the politicians.
I welcome the very substantial amounts, over and above the £50 million, which the Government expects to contribute in aid over the next few weeks.
The Secretary General of the United Nations has pointed out that, in the past, not all the money pledged by different countries for natural disasters has actually been given. From now on, every country must measure up to its promises. Does the Prime Minister agree it would be sensible for the United Nations to produce a regular, independent audit of disaster income received and expenditure made? And will the Prime Minister now agree to give Parliament a regular report on the amount of British aid pledged and spent?
We also welcome the decision of the financial institutions and broadcasters here not to charge commission on credit card donations and the decision of the Chancellor in respect of VAT.
Many of those who have made telephone donations to the Disaster Emergency Committee wish to maximise their generosity and have asked to have their donations gift-aided. But as things stand the DEC will have to write to every one of them - hundreds of thousands of letters. This is clearly not the best use of their time or money. They have asked to be released from this obligation. Will the Prime Minister act on this request?
What is more, people who put money in collection boxes can't claim gift-aid. Will the Government act to ensure that people's spontaneous generosity is not penalised?
We also need to make sure that any lessons we can learn from this terrible tragedy are learnt and shape our future response. Those grieving deserve no less.
Is the Government satisfied that all the diplomatic help which could have been made available was - and with the necessary degree of urgency? Can the Prime Minister tell us what proportion of diplomatic staff in the affected countries were out of area, how quickly they were able to return and, most importantly, how many additional staff were made available on the scene and back at home? Can he also tell us how our back-up at home, including our performance in setting up the necessary help lines, compared with that in other countries? How many people were operating the help lines?
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the civil and military co-operation group, set up to help deal with emergencies, has yet been deployed to the region and, if so, when? Can he confirm that in 2001 this Group was due to join the Sri Lankans in a training exercise to practice responses to a tsunami, but was stopped on grounds of cost? If so, would he agree that this was a false economy?
A number of other countries released estimates within days of the numbers of their nationals who were missing. I realise that this is a difficult decision. Nevertheless, can the Prime Minister explain the Government's thinking behind its decision not to do so, and its subsequent change of mind?
The British people, who have given so generously, do not want these shattered communities to be forgotten as soon as the TV crews leave. The best way of ensuring these places aren't forgotten is to establish lasting relationships with the area concerned - school to school, church to church, temple to temple, mosque to mosque, community to community.
So will the Prime Minister support setting up a register of those local authorities who are prepared to join in such a scheme?
Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to organisations like Red R which are already engaged in providing people with technical skills who can respond to emergencies around the world?
The Prime Minister is right to say it is essential that while our attention is fixed on the visible catastrophe around the Indian Ocean, we do not forget the wider problem of world poverty.
It is easy to forget that around the world some 30,000 young children die every day from diseases that are entirely preventable. Or that almost a billion people live on less than a dollar a day.
Britain's Presidency of both the G8 and the European Union gives us a singular opportunity to help lift people out of poverty by fighting for freer, fairer trade.
Would the Prime Minister agree that free and fair trade is the best way to lift people out of poverty?
While developed countries give with one hand by providing aid, we take with the other by imposing tariffs.
This earthquake has been a disaster on a global scale. Tectonic plates clashing off the coast of Sumatra led to Britain's worst loss of civilian life since the Second World War. Grief has known no boundaries so why should we still maintain tariff barriers to keep goods out and perpetuate poverty at a time of want?
Both the European Union and the United States have imposed a tariff on clothes from Sri Lanka. Even since the disaster, new tariffs have been imposed on goods from Thailand.
What representation has the Prime Minister made to the EU Trade Commissioner about these tariffs?
Protectionism by developed countries at the expense of the developing world must come to an end.
It is both indefensible and immoral.
Would ending it not be the most fitting tribute to the generosity of the British people, and the most fitting memorial to those who so tragically lost their lives?"
|
|
 |
|
|
Rt
Hon
Michael Howard QC MP |
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
