There are two distinct points there: DFID’s spending and the proportion of the spending. The first thing to understand is that CDC is 100% owned by the Department for International Development, which is one reason why a number of these amendments are not appropriate. On the proportion of money spent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) eloquently pointed out, the small increase that we are talking about in terms of the annual amount that CDC will be able to invest will still be much smaller than comparable organisations in Holland, Germany and France. It will be about a third of the amount that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation can invest—OPIC is just one of the US’s development finance institutions that is able to invest—and only about a sixth of what the International Finance Corporation puts out a year. We are not talking—comparatively, globally—about a large amount of money. We are talking about something in the region of 8% at maximum—even if we hit the maximum of official development assistance—and the other 92% will continue to go in the normal way through non-governmental organisations and organisations such as UNICEF for the objectives that we pursue.
Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Rory Stewart
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 January 2017.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
619 c227 
Session
2016-17
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2020-04-14 16:38:45 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-01-10/17011059000295
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-01-10/17011059000295
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-01-10/17011059000295