2013-05-20T02:53:32-04:00 Ivan Lewis MP http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=ivan-lewis-mp Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Ivan Lewis MP Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3235650 2013-05-08T19:00:00-04:00 2013-05-08T10:45:39-04:00

Ivan Lewis MP http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-lewis-mp/
Putting party politics aside, I have repeatedly welcomed the Government's decision to honour Labour's commitment to achieve the globally agreed target to spend 0.7% of Gross National income on ODA by this year.

UK aid works. Every year it helps raise more that three million people out of poverty and get millions of children into school. In 2012 alone it stopped 2.7million mothers and children from going hungry and vaccinated 12million children against lifethreatening diseases.

However, instead of using this historic moment to make the case that it is the right thing to do both from a social justice and national self interest perspective, David Cameron and Justine Greening are focused entirely on appeasing the emboldened right wing of their party and running scared in the face of Ukip's surge in support. Sadly, failing to include the legislation in the Queen's Speech is part of a pattern of behaviour which should be a wake up call to all those who believed UK development policy was safe in Cameron's hands.

On the one hand, David Cameron wants to be seen as embracing a progressive agenda, but on the other he has retreated from making the case and winning the argument for the importance of UK leadership on aid and development in the court of public opinion. We have seen a similar pattern of behaviour on the Big Society and green agendas. His Tory party modernisation project is well and truly dead.

Over the past few weeks there have been a number of cynical and misleading interventions which can only be seen as a desperate attempt to neutralise his critics on the right. Suggestions emanating from the heart of Government that in future UK aid will be primarily used to replace cuts to the defence budget and promote British trade interests.

Justine Greening's handling of her announcement that the UK will end its bilateral aid programme in South Africa by 2015 is another example. She falsely claimed to have secured the agreement of the South African Government, sparking a fierce backlash from the South Africans and raising serious questions about her judgment and integrity. A rushed unilateral announcement three days before local elections which put her party's desperate need for a good headline ahead of the needs of South Africa's poor, Britain's foreign policy interests and our strategic relationship with a key global partner.

This lurch to the right underlines our concern that without legislation, we cannot be sure that this Government will keep its promise to deliver the 0.7% target in future years and stop the aid budget being raided by other departments who are feeling the effects of swinging cuts. The critics of legislation also ignore the fact that by making permanent the link between 0.7% and Gross National Income we would be ensuring the UK's aid contribution will always be related to the health of our economy. When our GDP increases so would our aid contribution and when it reduces the aid budget would be cut accordingly.

To illustrate this, we will not be able to reverse this Government's de facto cut of over £2billion to the aid budget over the past couple of years which has occurred due to the successive downgrading of growth forecasts as a result of their failed economic policies.

Today, the Tories and their Lib Dem allies will argue that legislation doesn't matter as they will hit the 0.7% target this year. Nick Clegg's silence on this issue has been deafening. They may even claim once again that it remains their intention to legislate subject to parliamentary time. Neither of these arguments stand up to scrutiny and the nearer we get to a General Election the less likelihood there is of legislation. The Tory right will claim the omission of the bill as more evidence that Cameron is buckling to their pressure and backing away from his commitment to aid and development. It was several of their standard bearers who prevented Mark Hendrick's Private Members Bill which would have enshrined 0.7% in law from making progress during the last parliamentary session.

This is an important moment. If we don't stand up and be counted, do not be surprised if this turns out to be the thin edge of the wedge as UK aid is used as a cynical weapon in the battle for the soul of the Tory party, instead of a symbol of our national pride. For our part we remain committed to the legislation and will work with MPs of goodwill on all sides of the House to seek a positive way forward.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3085873 2013-04-15T19:00:00-04:00 2013-04-16T05:21:10-04:00

Ivan Lewis MP http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-lewis-mp/ Dublin Conference on Hunger - Nutrition - Climate Justice hosted by the Mary Robinson Foundation and Irish Government, revealed that every year 2.3 million children under the age of five still die of malnutrition and 165 million children are stunted as a result of not receiving enough nutritious food within the first 1000 days of life.

This report demonstrates the vital link between development and the importance of the first 1000 days of a child's life. It is in these crucial first years that nutrition interventions make the biggest difference in a child's physical, intellectual and emotional development. When a child is stunted school attendance and performance suffers. This then makes it harder for them to get a decent and fulfilling job. Undernourished mothers have a greater chance of giving birth to an underweight baby increasing the likelihood of neonatal death. Addressing stunting can break the cycle of poverty and have significant social and economic impacts on the development of nations. However, at the moment the scale of stunting means that more than one quarter of the world's children cannot reach their full potential.

Children in poor communities are more than twice as likely to be stunted, and more than 90% of the world's stunted children are in Africa and Asia. Last year I was in Chad and I saw for myself the devastating impact of hunger and malnutrition. Even in a 'good' year in Chad too many children don't get enough to eat, leaving them malnourished and their growth stunted.

This global injustice needs to be tackled. The evidence is clear both in the UK and internationally that investment in the earliest years makes the biggest difference to a child's development - physically, intellectually and emotionally - giving them a head start to living a fulfilling and productive life. Investing in these first 1000 days is also the most cost-effective way to make a difference to reducing chronic malnutrition. UNICEF has identified 13 simple but key interventions from breastfeeding to Vitamin A supplements than can tackle child malnutrition and according to the Copenhagen Consensus 2012, every $1 spent to reduce chronic malnutrition has at least a $30 payoff. These interventions along with preventative action to provide safe water, promote hygiene and prevent diseases are essential. This evidence should surely be applied to the poorest, most disadvantaged children in every society.

This year the UK has a unique opportunity to show global leadership on this issue. The UK is hosting a Hunger Summit in June ahead of the G8 meeting of leaders. The World Bank has estimated the funding shortage to address child malnutrition is $10.3billion a year; the UK's contribution would be $232million. The Government has honoured Labour's commitment to spend 0.7% of our national income on aid and development, and as this budget increases there is a compelling case to contribute more finance to nutrition. The UN's Millennium Declaration states that children's development is the starting point for reducing the burden's of poverty across the globe, so investing in children will help us to achieve our development objectives faster.

Beyond the G8 this summer, the UN will continue its deliberations on what should replace the Millennium Development Goals when they reach their deadline in 2015. I believe that there should be a strong focus on children and central to any new development framework should be an integrated approach to the early childhood years bringing together nutrition, immunisation, maternal health, parenting, and education. Early years development is essential and that is why I have asked Tessa Jowell supported by Sarah Brown to lead a global campaign to ensure this is part of the new post-2015 framework.

A changing world requires a radical new development framework that focuses on ending poverty and reducing inequality by building capacity within developing countries to enable them to deal with the structural causes of poverty. In January I set out Labour's vision for a new post-2015 development framework which should be underpinned by three pillars: social justice, with an explicit focus on tackling inequality; growth which is sustainable; and good governance as applied not only to developing country governments but also donors, multinational companies and multilateral organisations. Giving every child, regardless of where they live, the best start in life is the surest way to achieving poverty reduction, more vibrant societies and greater equality. UNICEF's report will do a great deal to draw the world's attention to the importance of investing in children, and I hope the Hunger Summit and G8 special event on tax, trade and transparency will take big steps towards ending extreme poverty, starting with our children.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2858935 2013-03-12T07:51:17-04:00 2013-05-12T05:12:01-04:00

Ivan Lewis MP http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-lewis-mp/
This achievement follows on from the tremendous advances made by successive Labour governments between 1997 and 2010. At home, we created DfID as a cabinet-level department, tripled the aid budget, and untied aid from commercial interest. Globally, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown provided leadership which ensured unprecedented debt write off, funding to support the Millennium Development Goals and a compelling vision for Africa's economic and social development.

Since becoming prime minister, David Cameron has earned cross party respect for defending increases to DfID's budget on route to achieving the 0.7 commitment. Despite relentless attacks from many of his own backbenchers, some sections of the press and public specticism in an age of austerity, he has consistently argued it is morally right for Britain to honour this commitment to the poorest in the world.

Our criticisms have largely focused on the government's failure thus far to keep a Tory manifesto commitment to enshrine 0.7 in law. This would create long term stability and ensure future debate can concentrate on how the money is spent, but also by enshrining the link with gross national income permanently link the level of the UK aid to the state of the nation's economy. We have also been concerned at a lack of cross government working on the wider development issues including trade, climate change and tax policy.

However, in the past fortnight we have seen two deeply cynical interventions which threaten to undermine the UK's global reputation for progressive development and are symptomatic of a far greater malaise which is eating away at the heart of this increasingly wretched government.

There is no doubt they are a deliberate attempt to address criticism of the unprecedented increase in DfID's budget which takes effect this year.

Firstly, the prime minister suggested in an interview with the Guardian newspaper that cuts to the defence budget could be reduced by switching aid money to military activities. This grossly exaggerated the potential to switch resources and raised the spectre of the militarisation of aid, which would not only flout international standards but put civilian aid workers in harm's way.

Secondly, government 'spin' that aid would be re-tied to commercial interest ahead of Justine Greening's speech to the Stock Exchange on 11 March. This was a policy Labour ended in 2001 as it invariably reduced value for money and had little impact on poverty reduction. Labour believes the private sector is central to driving jobs and growth in developing countries. It is also entirely right that British companies should seek to access new and emerging markets, and we welcome the acknowledgement of the 27 CEOs yesterday that aid and business are critical for healthy economies.

However, we are vehemently against tied aid, discredited trickle-down economics and growth which have no focus on either inequality or sustainability.

As I set out in my Post-2015 Speech at the heart of our new approach to partnership with the private sector will be responsible capitalism. Supporting dynamic businesses that are good corporate citizens committed to transparency on profit, taxes, labour standards and sustainability supported by governments through active industrial strategies. Profit and ethics inextricably linked not presented as competing options.

As stated earlier, I believe these latest interventions on aid policy are symptomatic of a deeper malaise at the heart of this Tory-led government.

Through a combination of 'spin' and the willing advocacy of his international development secretary, David Cameron has sought to mislead the British people to believe that in the future our aid will be predominantly about strengthening our hard pressed miltary and supporting British business.

These false claims are both wrong and damaging to Britain's hard earned reputation as a global leader in development. Of course, security and growth are vital if we are to achieve Labour's explcit objective of ending aid dependency by 2030. But so is our support for many countries to create health and education systems from scratch, vaccinate hundreds of thousands of children against life threatening diseases, improve governance systems, build institutions to collect taxes, support women to have equal rights and enhanced opportunities and develop vibrant civil societies which can help to hold governments to account.

Following the demise of the Big Society and the 'green blue' Tories, aid was the last bastion of David Cameron's claim to have detoxified the Tory brand. However, by abandoning the moral case for aid and seeking to mislead people about its future use, Cameron is revealing how weak he has become. He is in retreat from his right wing backbenchers including an increasingly vocal 'tea party' tendency and paying a heavy price for his failure to change his party. It is potentially the greatest irony of all that this failure may yet allow the person who first warned the Tory Party that they were 'the nasty party', Theresa May, to seize the mantle of leadership from the prime minister.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2250360 2012-12-07T03:40:36-05:00 2013-02-05T05:12:01-05:00

Ivan Lewis MP http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-lewis-mp/
There is consensus that the current system of press regulation is broke and needs fixing. It not only fell short in investigating allegations of criminal wrongdoing ie phone hacking but over a long period of time failed to prevent the unethical conduct which did so much harm to the McCanns, the Hillsborough families and too many innocent members of the public. Its weakness together with the malpractice and failure of corporate governance at News International has cast a shadow over the reputation of the vast majority of local and national editors and journalists who strive to uphold high professional standards.

Lord Black, Lord Hunt and the majority of serving editors weeks in advance of the publication of the Leveson report sought to frame the debate as a stark choice between state regulation of the press and the freedom of the press. This is and always was a bogus choice as Leveson himself said when explaining the need for minimalist statute. "This is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press. What is proposed here is independent regulation of the press organised by the press, with a statutory verification process to ensure that the required levels of independence and effectiveness are met." In fact, this in Leveson's own words would "enshrine for the first time a legal duty on the government to protect the freedom of the press".

Harriet Harman in the first substantive parliamentary debate post publication of Lord Justice Levesons report forensically took apart criticisms that the proposed statue would undermine the freedom of the press. Firstly, reference to the press in legislation does not undermine its freedom. In the past the press have been instrumental in lobbying for their inclusion in legislation ie Human Rights Act 1998. Secondly, the proposed statute would verify that the new independent industry regulator was properly fulfilling its duties not, regulate the press. Thirdly, new legislation can be introduced at any time making a mockery of the claim amendable legislation is the "thin edge of the wedge." Fourthly, other countries ie Ireland have introduced similar measures accepted by many of our large UK based newspapers. In addition, the Irish legislation consists of two clauses, not the cumbersome legislation that some suggest. Finally, this is not a call to determine what can and what cannot be written but a call for a responsible press that recognises the rights of private citizens. Imagining a world without statute, we would inevitably see a world of "editors marking their own homework" again. Harriet rightly called for cross-party cooperation to achieve an acceptable solution.

In rejecting Leveson's minimalist but essential proposal on statute David Cameron has divided his coalition and party while letting down the victims of press misconduct who genuinely believed he would do the right thing. Worse still, he has put his perception of the political interests of the Tory party ahead of the national interest. He has cynically calculated that on this one issue alone he could repair his ruptured relationship with the right wing press who have become increasingly critical of his government.

In stark contrast, Ed Miliband has shown political courage and true conviction in accepting Leveson's recommendation that a new independent self-regulatory system can only work with statutory verification. In doing so, he has demonstrated his willingness to honour his commitment that the Labour party he leads will stand up to vested interests however powerful when they act against the public interest. In the first test of One Nation Labour he has shown that irrespective of political risk and the temptation of political expediency he is serious when he asserts that responsibility must apply to all sections of society without fear or favour. On a daily basis, the press, left and right alike bemoan a shortage of conviction politicians. They do not get the irony of their criticism of Miliband and MP's including a significant number of Tory MP's when it comes to their own blinkered self interest.

Thankfully, David Cameron's calculation that press ethics are largely a 'Westminster bubble' issue has turned out to be a mistake. In the days following his rejection of an integral part of Leveson's package of recommendations the public have made it clear that they instinctively mistrust Cameron's opposition to any form of statute. In doing so they may have debunked the myth that has so influenced the conduct of the political class for decades. Namely, a belief that making decisions which are at odds with the interests of powerful sections of the press leads to negative electoral consequences.

Since the horrendous story of the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone shocked the nation, Ed Miliband has provided strong and principled leadership on a sensitive and highly charged issue. In these difficult times, it would be wrong to suggest the conduct of the press is a priority issue for the 'squeezed middle.' However, over the next couple of years as they reflect on the challenges the country faces they are likely to conclude these are the leadership qualities best placed to deliver the change the country needs.

Ivan Lewis is MP for Bury South, shadow secretary of state for international development and former Labour spokesperson on culture, media and sport.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1343941 2012-03-14T05:43:18-04:00 2012-05-14T05:12:01-04:00

Ivan Lewis MP http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-lewis-mp/
Last week I went out to Chad with Oxfam to get a better understanding of the food crisis in the Sahel region. From West Africa, across the Sahel and into Chad 13 million people face food shortages this year that will leave them struggling to get by until the next harvest in September.

Even in a 'good' year in Chad too many children don't get enough to eat, leaving them malnourished and their growth stunted. This year over 1 million children are at risk of severe acute malnutrition in the Sahel. In Chad, the number of children suffering from severe acute malnutrition, that may kill them or stunt their growth, keeps rising - from 94,000 in 2010 to 127,000 cases anticipated in 2012.

We drove 10 hours out of the capital to Mangalmé, in the centre of the country, to visit some of Oxfam's projects. As we entered the first village we met women working at the anthills. This is just one of the desperate courses of action that people use to cope with the food shortages. Others include eating the leaves on trees, but this year these have been eaten already by insects; reducing the numbers of meals a day to one, which is already the case in many households; and selling livestock - the equivalent of spending your life's savings.

These coping mechanisms normally kick in in June and July, when the 'lean' season sets in for the last couple of months before the new harvest in September. This year families have been forced to turn to them as early as February. When these options are exhausted, the only thing left to do is leave home and migrate in search of food. 3.5 million people in Chad don't have enough to eat, that's 32% of the population.

In the UK however, we do have an option. If we act now we can help prevent the worst of this crisis. The UK is already providing much needed humanitarian support through NGOs and ECHO, the European humanitarian funding mechanism. But we need to do more. What was clear from my meetings with multilaterals, NGOs and government officials last week is the significant shortfall currently facing Chad, and the Sahel region more widely, in terms of the humanitarian response. The World Food Programme has planned to deliver food but there is an anticipated shortage of funding of more than 100 million US dollars.

In Chad, we visited projects already underway. The first was a 'cash for work' irrigation scheme which not only contributes to a better harvest next year, but also gives people the opportunity to earn money, helping them overcome short-term food shortages and stimulating trade in local food markets. The second project was a vegetable garden. The produce from the garden is supplementing food intake and being sold into the markets. Both projects were run by community management groups in partnership with Oxfam and local authorities. They are designed to help with the short- term food crisis but also to increase the resilience of communities to food crises in the future. This combined humanitarian and development approach is key to ensuring that people are not trapped in a recurring poverty cycle.

Save the Children and Oxfam's report 'A Dangerous Delay' made very clear what the cost of acting too late in Chad and West Africa will be, both in terms of the immediate loss of life but also the damage to longer term resilience. The UK Government has already committed some money but it should urgently clarify the level of humanitarian investment it intends to make in the Sahel region, and back proposals for donors to urgently come together at a conference to commit to more life-saving support. Any further delay would suggest lessons have not been learnt from the past.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1264727 2012-02-09T03:56:23-05:00 2012-04-09T05:12:01-04:00

Ivan Lewis MP http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-lewis-mp/
In the town of Bagamoyo, on the coast, I visited a group of women who run a small business harvesting seaweed.

The income from the sale of this seaweed means that these entrepreneurs are able to double their income from around 40p per day, to 80p per day.

While this may not seem like a huge amount, this supplementary income enabled these women to send their children to school for the first time and to feed their families properly.

The women told me that an enterprise like this boosts their self-esteem and confidence, and affects their relationships more generally in their families and communities.

For a country like Tanzania, support for the improvement of healthcare systems and educational provision is crucial, but it is also crucial that we empower people and give them the power to build themselves a better standard of living.

Through doing this we can help to contribute towards the economic growth and social empowerment which is so vital for countries like Tanzania.

Though it has seen strong levels of GDP growth over the past few years, the Tanzanian economy remains heavily dependent on agricultural exports, with over 80% of the population working in the agricultural sector, and 36% estimated to live below the poverty line.

Economic growth should not come just via foreign investment, but should be primarily about supporting and nurturing home-based micro and small businesses too. This type of small-scale private sector trade is vital to achieving equitable and long-lasting economic growth.

Visiting these businesses and speaking to these women I understand the huge difference which this type of economic activity can make to the lives of women and their families.

It is absolutely at the heart of the kind of development that is going to be necessary in terms of sustainable change in coastal communities like this in Tanzania. ]]>