Plenary, 08 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, March 8, 2001

Official Report 649KB pdf

---

International Development Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1713, in the name of Susan Deacon, on the International Development Bill, which is a UK bill.

The International Development Bill is an important step forward in fighting poverty around the world.

The bill establishes the reduction of poverty as the key objective of UK international development assistance. It also gives the Secretary of State for International Development a power to encourage civil society bodies to undertake international development projects and confirms the ability of a range of statutory bodies across the UK to engage in international development activity.

Although international development is a reserved matter, there are four elements in the bill that need the consent of the Scottish Parliament. All four are consequential on the bill's provision to enable a range of statutory bodies, including some in Scotland, to undertake international development work. The elements in question ensure that, within the reserved purpose, devolved interests are appropriately respected.

We want Scottish statutory bodies to be able to stand alongside their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom in providing international development assistance. It is also important that Scottish ministers can ensure that the bodies do not do so at the expense of their domestic responsibilities. The bill therefore includes provisions to create a dual consent mechanism for Scottish statutory bodies that undertake international development work. The consent of Scottish ministers, as well as that of the Secretary of State for International Development, will be required before Scottish bodies can undertake international development work. The bill will also give Scottish ministers the power to add or subtract from the list of bodies that can undertake such work.

The bill includes provisions that are designed to ensure that Scottish police officers who are engaged in international development assistance are not disadvantaged in pay and pension by so doing. Police forces from Scotland may, for example, be asked to help to establish an efficient and effective police force in a developing country. Assistance could include training on management techniques, professional policing skills and respect for human rights. Police officers who are appointed to work overseas are subject to the conditions of service for police officers on central service.

What will happen in the case of members of other Scottish emergency services, such as fire brigades, who take part in overseas service? Will they have protection of conditions similar to that of the police?

My understanding is that they will be covered. The fire service is not one of my departmental responsibilities, but I shall check and write to the member.

Police officers appointed to work overseas are subject to the conditions of service of police officers on central service; that is, they are not treated as members of their parent force but their terms and conditions of service are protected and their service away from their force continues to count for pay awards and incremental progression, and for pension purposes. The officers continue to be eligible for promotion. To maintain that situation, the bill includes consequential amendments to section 38(a) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and to sections 7 and 11 of the Police Pensions Act 1976.

The International Development Bill is about tackling world poverty. Although the motion has less lofty goals, its goal of securing the Parliament's agreement to provisions that reflect devolved interests is important. It is a good example of the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament working together to deal efficiently with business in which we both have an interest and where we share common goals.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the principles included in the International Development Bill that Scottish Ministers' consent be required before Scottish statutory bodies undertake international development activity, that Scottish Ministers can add or delete Scottish bodies from the list of those which can undertake such activity and that Scottish police officers who undertake international development activity abroad continue to enjoy the same conditions of service as in the UK, and agrees that the relevant provisions to achieve these ends in the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

As you know, Presiding Officer, I worked worldwide for 15 years for the victims of war, famine and hunger. As the convener of the all-party international development group of the Parliament, I continue that commitment.

The bill provides the Executive, the Parliament and, above all, the civic organisations of Scotland with an opportunity to take a more focused approach to the assistance Scottish people can give to those who are more disadvantaged than themselves. While international development is a reserved matter, there is no reason whatever why we should not look to areas in which we in Scotland have the specific expertise and where we can add value to the work of the Department for International Development, which has its biggest staff base in Scotland, in East Kilbride.

On the background to the bill, Clare Short has done a remarkable job in focusing attention on the key principle of the reduction of poverty. The targets that she sets—all to be achieved by 2015—are ambitious: to halve the proportion of people living in abject poverty; to provide primary education for all children; and to ensure that everyone has access to basic reproductive health care. In those targets she has SNP support.

If we work through bodies responsible to Scottish ministers—as identified in the bill—and add value to the work of the DFID, we may yet, in international development, add another leg to Jack McConnell's external affairs policy—once he gets round to revealing to Parliament what it is. Our key strength in Scotland is that of our civic society and our voluntary organisations. As Jackie Baillie will be well aware, those skills are exportable. Crudely, if we can have a Mothers Against Drugs in Alloa or Cranhill, we can have one in Tallinn or Timisoara. If we can do meals on wheels in Glasgow, we can do it in Gdansk. In many areas, through internet and distance learning, we can add value to voluntary assistance in the ex-communist countries of eastern Europe and Africa. In education, we can push global citizenship.

All that should not happen only abroad. I ask the female minister: who is the poorest person in the world? It is certainly someone from Africa. It is someone female, young and disabled—probably by a landmine. It is the very person who never, ever gets out of refugee camps—who is imprisoned for life. When we consider dispersal of refugees throughout Britain, perhaps we, in this warm wee country, can offer special help in that area. I could say the same about skills in agriculture and in other areas, such as Scottish Enterprise.

When, in 1999, the SNP adopted a policy for a department of external affairs in the Scottish Executive, one of the objectives of which would be to encourage greater co-ordination of international development work, I was lambasted as a separatist, hell-bent on breaking up the United Kingdom. Inevitably, I believe that we could do more in this country if we were an independent nation, but I recognise that, at this stage of the devolutionary process, the challenge is to work within the framework of DFID policy and to add Scottish value to it. I have indicated ways in which that can be done across a range of bodies that are responsible to Scottish ministers.

I hope that, in his concluding remarks, Malcolm Chisholm might agree that the next step might be for the Executive to meet members of the IDG and the Scottish agencies to see how we can co-ordinate further. I very much hope that when Jack McConnell finally publishes his external affairs policy, international development will be part of it.

The Conservative party, here and at Westminster, broadly welcomes the International Development Bill in so far as we do not oppose the general thrust of its contents, but despite our general acquiescence and agreement we feel that it is necessary to raise one or two points as we believe it articulates a number of issues that require to be addressed.

Britain has always had a strong record on aid and development. The Conservative party and other parties and individuals represented in the Scottish Parliament will always support policies that are effective in reducing world poverty. It is for that very reason that I am concerned about the general focus of the bill. There is a lack of focus on good governance and the rule of law.

We believe that real change in a developing country can come about only when there is political stability. That means having a framework of competent and responsible government that is open, transparent and accountable, and institutions that represent an open and fair civil society. Above all, it is crucial that developing nations are able to establish a strong rule of law and an effective legal system, both criminal and civil. We would seek, through legislation if possible, to empower developing nations to achieve that.

We must also consider the impact of corruption and, in some cases, contempt for human rights in certain countries. In spite of the Labour Government's promise to be tough on corruption, it has failed to pass legislation to enforce the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery. Such legislation would make it an offence for any British national to bribe a foreign public official. We suggest that to show that it is committed to the broad principles of the bill, the Government should introduce such legislation.

Although time does not permit a full and detailed analysis of all the relevant points, I would like to draw one or two contradictions to the attention of members. Under the bill,

"The Secretary of State may provide any person or body with development assistance if he is satisfied that the provision of the assistance is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty"

but the bill contains no definition of poverty. That is not appropriate and should be tightened up. However, as I look around the chamber and see some past and present members of the Social Justice Committee, I am reminded that there always seems to be some doubt as to the definition of poverty in a domestic context, never mind internationally.

The bill also gives the Government powers to provide humanitarian relief. At the moment, there is no requirement for such assistance to contribute to the reduction of poverty. We suggest that that be included in the bill.

I have highlighted two inherent contradictions but, overall, the bill is worthy of support and we will certainly not seek to delay its progress.

The Liberal Democrats, in the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster, support the International Development Bill. The main purpose of the bill, which is to establish in legislation the reduction of poverty as the central aim of UK international development assistance, is laudable and worthwhile and we should all support it.

I wonder whether, in summing up, the minister could clarify exactly which statutory bodies in Scotland will be affected by dual consent. When I looked through the paperwork that I was supplied with, I was not quite sure which ones were affected and which were not. I do not intend to say much more, except that the Liberal Democrats support the bill and the objectives laid out in the briefing document.

We now move to a brief open debate. I ask members not to exceed the time limits for speeches.

In supporting the motion, I want to highlight three things. First, we should highlight the leadership that the UK Government has given in prioritising the reduction and eventual abolition of poverty as the key task for the international community. That marks a step change in UK Government policy and in the approach of developed nations in general towards less developed nations.

People from other countries, especially African countries for example, highlight the fact that Britain's approach is the one that most fits their needs. The approach in the bill includes a principle of common humanity, which I applaud, and a series of practical steps that will make things better.

Especially commendable is the fact that the bill aims not just at worst first. It is not driven by disaster or the worst forms of poverty; it represents a carefully targeted and sustained approach that operates on several different levels to meet the needs of different parts of the world. It recognises that poverty exists not only in the poorest countries, but in many different ways in different countries.

Secondly, it is important that the approach that is being adopted is based on partnership. If we are to provide successful assistance to developing countries, the crucial principle is sustainability. That will be achieved only by a long-term engagement between us and people in other countries. It is important that instead of seeing third world countries as recipients of aid, or indeed as customers for our industrial products, the emphasis is on sharing expertise. Third world countries can gain a great deal from our expertise, but we can learn a great deal from the way in which things are done in many developing countries. I hope that the partnership, which is a hallmark of the bill, is seen as a partnership from which both sides can benefit.

Thirdly, I will highlight the emphasis that the bill places on the role of civil society. That is why it is especially important that we in Scotland engage positively in support of this. We have seen, through the activities of organisations such as Jubilee 2000, a large-scale mobilisation of people in Scotland on issues of international development, focusing on debt and on other matters. We must build on what has been achieved. We must motivate business, involve public organisations and get voluntary organisations to take opportunities to put what they have to offer into this kind of activity.

A huge amount must be done, in health and across the range of other activities for which this Parliament has responsibility. The policy framework gives us an opportunity. I hope that the Executive will actively foster the development of organisations in Scotland that take on board their role and responsibility and seek out opportunities to contribute to international development activities.

This Parliament can promote this worthwhile subject in two ways. First, we can put pressure on the Westminster Government and Parliament and encourage them and our various parties on the causes we feel strongly about, such as Jubilee 2000, which has been mentioned, and better restrictions on the sale of arms. That is a weakness in British policy. A great deal of poverty in Africa is caused by wars, which in some cases we keep going through arms we manufacture. We can legitimately press Westminster to do the sort of things that Scottish people would like to be done. I am sure that Scottish MPs will do that as well.

Secondly, I endorse Des McNulty's comments and push them further. Scotland could do a lot more at national and community level to encourage people to take an interest in developing countries. We could have twinning, not of the sort where councillors from one town go to another and have a bit of a booze-up, but of a type where young people from a Scottish town are encouraged to form links with one in a developing country. They could do their year out or early qualification when they are a doctor, a teacher or whatever in that area and we could build up links. That would improve both communities, as they would really understand the problems in other places and help other countries.

Without being paternalistic, we can help enormously by sharing our experiences and bring back good ideas that would benefit our own communities. There is a lot of scope in this bill and much good will in this Parliament, and I hope that the Executive will take some of the ideas on board and push them.

I echo the remarks of all members who have spoken, with the exception—the chamber might not be surprised to hear—of Bill Aitken. It is rather ironic that the Department for International Development has been established for four years and has been extremely successful; it has had the largest budget increase of any UK Government department in that time. That represents not only the department's success, but success in turning round the percentage of UK gross domestic product that is allocated to international development issues.

The UN target for the proportion of GDP spent on aid is 0.7 per cent. When the three years of the previous Labour Administration's International Development Department came to an end in 1979, the proportion spent was 0.52 per cent. Under the Conservatives, the figure slumped to 0.27 per cent. It is now back up to half the initial target. Although it will be a long slog to get back to where we were, an important start has been made.

As for the Scottish aspect of the bill, there is a keen and well-developed sense of international solidarity among Scottish people. I was involved in solidarity movements such as the Anti-Apartheid Movement and the Chile Solidarity Campaign—which dealt with refugees—before I ever joined a political party. I know that a number of other members have taken that route; indeed, a number of people get involved in such solidarity action without going near a political party. Their efforts are no less serious or valuable. Furthermore, a large part of the Department for International Development's work force is situated in East Kilbride and George Foulkes, now a Scotland Office minister, played a very important role as junior minister in the department.

We must sustain the work done by Scottish organisations in the UK and—as Des McNulty pointed out—at an international level. Unless there is sustainability, we could lose the value of the considerable amount of money that goes to encourage countries to develop their own civic society and infrastructure. We should also encourage civil society in Scotland to play a supportive role. I fully support Dennis Canavan's comments on that point; he was a member of the House of Commons International Development Committee and knows what he is talking about.

Dennis Canavan mentioned the firefighters and other emergency and rescue workers who have made a sterling effort in many recent international disasters. We must ensure that they are firmly within the bill's ambit. Although I understand from the minister that that point will be answered, it is important that we recognise the international work done by Scots both in raising money and resources in this country and in going abroad to give the benefit of their experience.

I am very glad that we have had the opportunity of a brief discussion on international development in the Parliament instead of as part of a members' business debate. I am also very pleased that the bill is progressing with Scottish input.

I begin by thanking George Reid for his tribute to Clare Short's work in refocusing our international development priorities on the reduction of poverty. Bill Aitken asked about a definition of poverty. It is defined in terms of internationally agreed targets, including moving 1 billion people out of extreme poverty by 2015. In turn, I want to pay tribute to George Reid's substantial work on this important issue over the years and to thank him for his very constructive approach to today's motion.

Scottish ministers have not ignored this issue. Members will be interested to know that on 5 June last year, Jackie Baillie visited the Department for International Development in East Kilbride to discuss the common interests of the Executive and the department in the voluntary sector in Scotland. A number of international agencies are based in Scotland and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which receives Scottish Executive support, is assisting them to interface with the Department of International Development and to link with each other.

It is important that Scottish ministers have consent powers in relation to Scottish statutory bodies that undertake international development work. I refer George Lyon to schedule 2, which lists those bodies, which are mainly health bodies. There is a balance to be struck between international development activity, which is reserved, and the responsibilities of Scottish ministers in relation to Scottish statutory bodies. The bill strikes that balance by requiring the dual consent of Scottish ministers and the Secretary of State for International Development before Scottish statutory bodies can undertake an international development project and by giving Scottish ministers the right to add or delete statutory bodies from the list of those that can undertaken international development work.

The bill also makes particular provision for Scottish police officers. It is right and proper that the terms and conditions and pension rights of officers who are deployed on such missions should be protected while they are away from their normal force. The Scottish police are recognised for their professionalism and expertise; eight police officers from Scottish forces are currently deployed overseas. They are fulfilling an important international function. We should continue to play our part on the world stage.

I thank Dennis Canavan for raising the issue of firefighters. I undertake to look into the matter. If there are problems in the bill, I shall draw them to the attention of ministers at Westminster.

I hope that all members can agree with the bill. In pursuit of an important reserved purpose, it respects devolved interests and shows that we are working in partnership with the United Kingdom to tackle world poverty.