Visit to Andrew Duff MEP
EU Aid and Education
Friday 12th April 2002
Francis Irving
Introduction
I met Andrew Duff at his office on the outskirts of Cambridge. He's a Liberal Democrat MEP and a member of the ELDR group within the parliament. He's the first Liberal Democrat MEP in the Eastern region of the UK. The 1999 election introduced a more vote-proportional list based system, which elected Andrew.
He was very knowledgeable about aid, development and the EU, and gave me lots of information. In summary he supports Oxfam's goals, and is himself quite involved in the process of change within the EU.
Disclaimer: When I attribute something to Andrew this should not be taken formally. I may have misunderstood, or made a mistake in the notes that I took. To get Andrew's official view or a quote you should either ask him or look on his website.
European Union Aid
I raised the issue of aid and asked him his thoughts. He said that Oxfam's views have been behind the game, and that the EU is changing a lot.
His reaction to a quote from Clare Short "We are the first generation of human beings to have the power to see the condition of abject poverty eliminated" was doubt. He says that the power of the west is less than it was in the 1890s. Are we doing the right things?
He said there are cheaper things to do than give more money. For example, vaccinations and schooling.
Focus Spending on Education
This smoothly led me into the first point in my brief from Oxfam: to raise the issue that EU aid spending on education is too low. It's currently 3%. Andrew agreed that it is too low.
He said that too much money is spend on grand projects which appeal to recipient corrupt governments. For example, a motorway which once built has no cars on it because nobody can afford them. He said that increased spending on education is in train.
He said that the power of the EU to influence national governments is not as great as it should. He's on the European Constitutional Convention. They're trying to increase the power of the EU to enforce policy of member states. Currently the EU development fund is managed by the Commission separately from the rest of EU spending. This means that European Parliament's control of the EDF is weaker than the rest of the budget.
I think the implication is that if the parliament can gain more control of this from the commission, then the spending on education will increase.
Focus Spending on the Poorest Countries
Next I raised the issue of spending on the poorest countries rather than spending on middle income countries close to Europe.
Andrew said that you have to recognise the political reality in the EU. He said that spending on North Africa or the Middle East is crucial. That is to make these countries stable and good neighbours. In particular where countries are new candidates for entry to the EU, or could well be in the future. Neighbouring countries are also a source of illegal immigration.
He's not impressed by the argument that spending should be taken away from middle income countries to go to poorer countries. Instead, he would prefer us to concentrate on achieving the 0.7% aid target, hence increasing the amount spent in both categories.
Oxfam has a quote saying that the proportion of EU aid to least developed and low-income countries fell from 75% in 1987 to 38% in 2000. Andrew felt that this was misleading as the absolute amount of aid has increased in that time. In summary, he would like to increase aid to both categories of countries. I think all this would be clearer if we measured percent GDP spent on the two categories independently.
Trade Barriers and Subsidies
Andrew spontaneously went on to talk about European trade barriers. He said that to help the poorest countries, initiatives like Everything But Arms are very important. Sugar and tobacco are still protected in trade with the least developed countries, and that should be liberalised.
Andrew went on to describe the long, slow process of CAP reform which is happening. It takes a generation to change farming practices and redeploy people. CAP is too often caricatured, it is actually very important. Enlargement is the best force towards CAP reform.
He also said that Britain could do more (liberalising, presumably) reform within the existing framework of the CAP, which is interesting.
Actions
Commissioner Romano Prodi is also in the ELDR group so Andrew knows him well. Andrew says it would be a bit strange to suddenly write to Prodi on my behalf, as he frequently talks to him. He said they were discussing development issues on Tuesday. Instead Andrew is going to send me relevant information on this subject, such as recent parliamentary resolutions.
Andrew agreed to write to Clare Short before May's Development Council in Brussels. He said that she can be assisted by pressure from MEPs, as she probably often feels on her own in Whitehall.
When I suggested submitting written or oral parliamentary questions to the European Commission or to the EU Council, he explained that this wasn't the process. The parliament has a very formal oral question debate and resolution process. Each group within the parliament will draft a resolution, and then these will form together to craft a resolution they can agree on. The parliament is consensual, the persuade each other and build majorities.
Opinion of Oxfam
Andrew went on to praise Oxfam's campaigners in Brussels. He said that they are much appreciated. They are very organised, professional and do good work. The information from Oxfam is very useful to him.
Andrew gave an important criticism of European development campaigning. He questions whether trans-European coordination of development NGOs is enough.
The environmental movement is much more closely tied at a European level than the development movement. They have a very good umbrella organisation in Brussels. On human rights there are European-wide organisations such as Amnesty.
He says he would prefer it if I was the representative of a European-wide development organisation.
Conclusion
It felt quite different visiting an MEP to visiting an MP. Andrew seemed to have a lot more power, to be less constrained by what his party believed, or by having too many issues to understand in detail. MEPs seems to be more active than MPs. They can and have to participate in this consensual parliament for it to work at all, whereas many MPs can just vote along party lines.
I was slightly surprised, as although I usually find myself voting Liberal Democrat, I'm always unsure about the negative effects of proportional representation. It was interesting to see some of the positive effects in action.
Andrew was very positive and knowledgeable, and is clearly interested in international development and how the EU can help with that. Unlike an MP, he wouldn't so much do things on my behalf, as take on suggestions from me for things that he wants to do as himself. I don't know how this fits in, whether it is a cultural or a legal difference to the role of an MP.
To the Events Archive page
Hosted at
Francis's page