European and External Relations Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Official Report 318KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive International Development Policy

We move on to the second item of business. I apologise to Patricia Ferguson, Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport: the first item took longer than anyone expected. I welcome her back to the committee to discuss the Executive's international development policy. I understand that the minister appeared before the committee in March last year—that must have been when all the consensual committee stuff was going on, before I was convener—and we welcome the opportunity to hear of progress since then.

I was going to ask the minister to introduce her team, but she has only John Henderson with her. I invite her to make some opening remarks.

Mr Henderson is the head of our international division.

I thank the committee for inviting me along this afternoon. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to the committee about the progress of our international development policy.

The committee has previously heard evidence on the outcome of the G8 summit and the Executive's international strategy, of which the international development policy is a key component. No doubt, evidence from each of those evidence-taking sessions will be relevant in informing the committee today.

It is now just over a year since the international development policy was published and, in that year, a great deal happened. I mentioned the G8, which is probably as good a place as any to start. The achievements of the make poverty history campaign and the G8 summit at Gleneagles highlighted the needs of the world's poor and mobilised ordinary Scots as never before. The dreadful consequences of the boxing day tsunami, the continuing food crises in Africa and the Asian earthquake reinforced the need for Scotland, as a prosperous nation, to continue to look outwards and play a part in tackling global inequality.

Our policy is still young, but it has already lived through a great deal. It is still developing and we are still identifying the areas where Scotland can make the biggest difference, but the three main aims of the policy are to assist the exchange of skills and experience between Scotland and developing countries through the broad-based development of non-governmental organisations; to help those who take a lead in mobilising Scotland's response at times of international crisis; and to consider actively the positive impact of our policies on the developing world.

Within the policy, we have prioritised education, health and civil society development as areas where Scotland can add the greatest value, and we have prioritised sub-Saharan Africa, particularly Malawi, as a key geographical area to target.

Since the co-operation agreement was signed in November, we have made good progress in strengthening our relationship with Malawi. Indeed, I am delighted to say that, later this month, I will visit Malawi to attend a meeting of the joint commission that has been established to oversee the agreement's implementation and to agree the way forward.

We are also considering a large number of bids for the second round of the international development fund. I was going to say that we received a record number of bids but, given that this is only the second round, such language would be slightly excessive. In any case, it is clear that Scotland has a huge amount of skill and knowledge to offer.

I do not want to say too much about mechanisms, although I will cover them if members so wish. As our relationship with Malawi develops, we see more clearly where our input can make the biggest difference and which areas should be prioritised for the future. In the past, we tried to identify areas where our policies could make a difference and have a positive impact on the developing world, but common themes are now beginning to emerge and we are starting to see how issues such as fair trade fit more closely with our priorities in Malawi.

I realise that the international development policy document is quite broad and that members will want to cover a range of issues this afternoon. With your permission, convener, I will stop there and give the committee a suitable opportunity to ask questions.

Thank you very much, minister. Who is first?

On a point of order, convener. I should have said at the outset that I have recently been appointed to the management committee of Edinburgh Direct Aid, which obviously has an interest in these matters.

You are going pretty wild with points of order this afternoon, Mr Home Robertson. Do you have any more up your sleeve?

If you would prefer me not to declare interests, convener, I will not do so.

There is general agreement in the Parliament that the Executive's—and, indeed, the Parliament's—decision to contribute to development in Malawi is a good move. However, reports at the weekend claimed that President Mutharika of Malawi used European Union funding to build a road that he then named after Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe. There has been justifiable outrage over the use of development funds to honour a ruthless dictator such as Mugabe. Indeed, even before that incident, other questions had been raised about President Mutharika.

Nevertheless, will the minister assure the committee that the Scottish Executive will continue to help the people of Malawi? Does she agree that, if a decision were ever reached not to channel funds through the Government of Malawi, it would be perfectly possible to channel a lot of funding through the NGOs that operate very successfully in the country?

I hope that members take this as read, but it is worth repeating that the Scottish ministers share the grave concerns that have been expressed on this matter and condemn Zimbabwe's human rights record under President Mugabe. We have no truck with any of his policies.

Dennis Canavan's point is valid. We have been aware of the issue since we began to engage with Malawi and, as a result, our assistance is structured so that the money does not go directly to any Government source but is channelled through NGOs to projects on the ground. As Mr Canavan has rightly pointed out, our focus is on the ordinary people of Malawi, who so greatly need our assistance, and our approach is likely to remain the same for the foreseeable future.

Did the paper that was submitted to us on the extra budget come from the Executive?

Yes.

It is useful.

I thank the minister for coming to the meeting and for her contribution. I acknowledge that policies are still being developed, but what has happened so far is to be greatly encouraged. The three areas that you identified, minister, are the areas where most sensible people would start, given that the policy is embryonic. I am encouraged by what is going on.

The one area that I do not understand fully, even though you have provided extra figures, is the budget. Our paper on the policy states that £3 million has been made available for 2006-07 and, I think, that another £3 million was provided for 2005-06, but the figure from the Executive is £5.5 million. That might be explained by the figures being rounded up or by something else. I just want to ensure that I understand exactly what is being spent in each year.

The budget lies in the portfolio of the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, but responsibility for the policy lies with the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, if I understand correctly. How will the process work, given those lines of responsibility?

I will deal with the last question first. It is important to acknowledge that the Executive does not work in silos. Ministers talk to one another a great deal and we work across portfolios to maximise the impact of budgets. That is particularly important in my portfolio; I work closely with my colleagues throughout the Executive on the more mainstream areas of my portfolio all the time. In this case, I am working closely with my colleagues in health and education, who support many of our initiatives.

The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform is aware of the issues that we face. Our budget has been identified and it is fair to say that I make the decisions, but the finance minister has oversight of them. That does not necessarily mean that he always comments on them or seeks more information, although he may do so from time to time. The budget is looked after largely within my area of responsibility.

The funding for the international development budget is £3 million per annum over the three-year period that we are talking about. The breakdown that you have is the budget from 2005 to 2008, and it shows the moneys that have been identified and committed at the moment. I hope that that explains to Mr Crawford why it looks as though there might be a gap. There is not a gap; the paper shows the actual expenditure against the budget.

That explanation is fine. I am glad that you are the person with responsibility for the budget.

On the budget process, every year there is, in effect, a bidding process for what each department will spend. The Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform has the final say in that. Will you make the bid for the money to the finance minister or does the finance minister have to make the bid to himself?

The budget has been agreed as £3 million for each year of the three-year period. That is the period of the spending review, so there is no need to go back. The money is signed off.

So the £3 million for the year after the Scottish Parliament elections will still be secure.

It is secure from 2005-06 to 2008.

The amount for international volunteering is £215,000. I would like an explanation of how the money will be used. Immediately after the tsunami, a lot of young people came to me to ask whether funding was available to allow them to help in the affected part of the world. Perhaps that pot of money was not available at the time. Using it to promote that sort of activity would encourage young Scots. Perhaps it is for something else. I need to understand that.

I take Mr Crawford's point. I think that we all wanted to do something immediately after the tsunami, but it is important to remember that people who have the best intentions are not necessarily the best people to land on the doorsteps of those who have all sorts of problems. There is not a pot of money for which individual young people or older people can bid to enable them to assist certain areas of the world. The money is available to assist, for example, the scheme that we work on in collaboration with Voluntary Service Overseas, which is acknowledged worldwide as an expert in the area. Under that scheme, we assist volunteers with maintaining their pension contributions, for example, while they work in projects that the VSO manages in other countries. Money is not specifically given out to individuals who want to go abroad. However, we have a separate health fund to which people with the required expertise can bid. We do not encourage volunteering in general in the sense that Mr Crawford is talking about, but we encourage organisations with a track record of providing volunteers to be part of what we are doing.

I will pick up on volunteering if no other member has a question on it. Is ProjectScotland involved in volunteering in Malawi or in other places? Is there a link between ProjectScotland volunteering and international volunteering under the policy that we are discussing?

You said that the funds for international volunteering could be used to cover a person's pension payments if they were doing voluntary work abroad under a VSO scheme, for example. People who do voluntary work abroad during gap years—which can greatly benefit anyone—tend to have safe and secure environments to which they can return. It is easier for people like that to go away and do something if they can come back to the cushion they left behind. I have often found it irksome that the young people in particular who would benefit most from such work and for whom it could be a life-changing experience might have nothing that they can return to. No one is to blame for that; it is simply how things have developed. It might be said that such people have virtually nothing to leave, but it might be all they have—they might have a private rented flat or a council flat and nothing else. Have you considered maintaining such people so that housing benefit, for example, is paid while they are away doing voluntary work? I know that that is the responsibility of the UK Government, but covering such things would be a huge benefit to many people whom I have met in my constituency and beyond.

I will deal with ProjectScotland first. It is not currently involved in the way that you mention, but it is still early days for it, and it is working to establish itself. I would not be surprised if it became involved at a later stage as its working practices and our policy develop.

We have worked with VSO and other NGOs because they often require people with a degree of skill. Well-qualified people with a background in health, for example, might be required. Obstetric and gynaecological skills are the obvious ones that are required. In Malawi, one in 25 women dies in childbirth. The people who are sought are often well-qualified people with stable careers who want to progress their careers by volunteering in that way. That focus might change in the longer term, but that is our current focus.

I endorse what you have just said. As someone who worked as a volunteer in Bosnia some years ago, I find it embarrassing that unemployed people who do voluntary work overseas in quite dangerous circumstances cannot continue to claim benefit to pay their rent and so on because they are not considered to be available for work. However, there is not a lot that you can do about that.

I move on to the provision of assistance during times of international crisis. Paragraph (B)(3) of the Executive's policy, which is on page 7 and is entitled "Emergency Response—Support ‘on the ground'" states:

"This is co-ordinated through DEC"—

the Disasters Emergency Committee—

"on the basis that … only the largest NGOs have the capacity and coverage to deal with large-scale crisis situations."

There is a perception that the DEC is an umbrella organisation that can do anything anywhere, but that was not my experience in Kashmir recently, when I was with a group that identified emergency work that needed to be done. I should say that I have already declared my interest. I got in touch with the DEC to find out whether it could help with the shelter work that the group was doing, but was told:

"Unfortunately the DEC is not in a position to help fund the Edinburgh Direct Aid project as we are not a grant-making body. We raise funds on behalf of our member agencies".

That demonstrates that the DEC is not quite an umbrella organisation.

Is there any scope for flexibility in the Executive's small programme? If Scottish voluntary organisations or non-governmental organisations that are not part of the DEC come up with bright ideas, might you be able to assist them under the auspices of your programme? I appreciate that the programme is limited and that any assistance would have to be carefully targeted, but perhaps the Executive could refresh parts that the DEC cannot or will not reach.

It is fair to say that in international crises the scale of the problems is such that, by and large, matters need to be progressed by the Department for International Development and the DEC. That is certainly the feedback that we get from the various stakeholders to whom we talk. However, as you will be aware, we opened up the last round of funding to organisations that work in the earthquake area, for a number of reasons. We saw that they had a pressing need for support and we recognised the strong links that exist between people in this country and in many of the affected areas. People on our own doorsteps lost relatives and suffered greatly as a result of the earthquake. We tried to be flexible by opening up the opportunity to obtain funding to organisations that were working in the way that you describe. I hope that we have succeeded in being flexible, but it is important that we focus on areas in which we can achieve most with the pot of money that we have. That has been our ethos.

I want to follow up John Home Robertson's question about the provision of assistance during times of international crisis. The international development policy says that, following the tsunami disaster, a working group was set up to consider what lessons could be learned from the response to the crisis. A number of areas of investigation are listed. Has that working group made progress? Have lessons been learned and, if so, were any of them implemented in the response to the Kashmir earthquake?

It is ironic—and, at the time, it was quite frustrating—that just before Christmas in the year in which the tsunami broke on boxing day we identified the response to international crises as an area for consideration. It was frustrating that the first meeting of a working group was due to take place on 14 January. The situation emphasised to us that there were lessons to be learned in times of international crisis. One of the lessons that we learned was that NGOs in Scotland are heavily involved in such situations whenever and wherever it is necessary and that they have a great deal of expertise. Our job is to support their efforts—I know that that is the job they want us to do.

After the tsunami, a number of NGOs were concerned that staff who were involved in important projects in other parts of the world would be diverted from that work to staff telephones in call centres so that they could take offers of money and other things from the general public. To avoid that, we seconded Scottish Executive staff to those organisations to ensure that their people—who are much more expert than anyone we could supply—could deal with other issues that still needed to be dealt with and not forgotten about at that time of international crisis.

One lesson that we have learned is the need to listen to organisations at such times, to offer our support and to be ready and willing to give that support. By and large, organisations look for support that enables them to respond to an international crisis and not be diverted from their core work and programmes. Unfortunately, as we know only too well, people are suffering throughout the world. That has been the main lesson from that work.

Is that group still meeting?

Not in the same format, but various other stakeholder meetings are taking place.

You said earlier that money for Malawi does not go to the Government there, but goes to support projects directly. To put some colour in the picture for the committee, can you give us examples of projects that are currently supported?

There may have been a little information on that in our paper. We support a large number of projects in Malawi, although we are not the sole supporters of some of them. I can provide the committee with a full breakdown of the projects, which are diverse. For example, they include a project that enables Malawi's culture to be celebrated at this year's St Magnus festival; a project on the sustainable use of aquatic resources for poverty reduction, which is being done with the University of Stirling; projects that reduce maternal and infant mortality; and feeding programmes. A wide range of projects is being assisted. Although we concentrate on certain themes, from time to time good projects on other issues seek funding and we are happy to help them.

That is helpful. I did not ask the question deliberately to elicit a reference to the St Magnus festival, but all publicity is good publicity.

I have one more question. I have seen it reported occasionally that the fact that the Scottish Executive is proactive in international development sometimes causes irritation at Westminster. However, when I was in the minister's position I never found that to be the case—in fact, I found the opposite. Will the minister comment on current relations with the DFID and how it views the Scottish Executive's international development activities?

Our relationship with the DFID has been nothing but positive and extremely friendly. Our relationship with the Government is not reserved to that with the DFID. Colleagues from the Parliament who have visited Malawi will know that British governmental operations on the ground there have been supportive and have helped to put together and facilitate programmes. The relationships are working well. Hilary Benn will address members of the Parliament in the evening of 22 June, which might provide an opportunity for interested members to ask similar questions of him. I am sure that he will echo what I have said, because the relationships are good and supportive.

The minister mentioned some interesting projects that the international development fund helps. Could a list of all the projects be circulated to members, as we are all interested in that?

Certainly. The list of projects is on our website, but I am happy to provide it.

Right. Perhaps you do not have to do the work, then—we can get Alasdair Rankin to do it instead. You can fight it out between you.

It is not a problem. We have copies that we can give to the clerk.

It is unfortunate that Irene Oldfather has left the meeting, because when we discuss issues that deserve consensus, consensus breaks out in the committee. The issue is one on which we all feel strongly and have similar feelings. The minister and the Executive have got the involvement in Malawi absolutely right. In global terms, we are talking about relatively small amounts of money from the Scottish Executive, but it is enough to make a difference. The important point is that by concentrating we can make a difference.

On the subject of making a difference, I note from your paper that you intend to assess sustainable outcomes. How will you do that, without involving masses of bureaucracy? How will you determine outcomes and report them to the Parliament and the committee?

I will ask Mr Henderson to talk in a bit more detail about the mechanisms. We have been concerned to ensure that we do not get into a situation where projects rely on us all the time for money. The money that we give can be helpful to them, but there must be other involvement in order to make them happen. We have been concerned to ensure that, when money goes in, there is a mechanism on the ground that delivers, and that the organisation has thought about what it will do if the funding comes to an end. The last thing that we want is to see people left in the lurch. We are concerned about and are aware of that issue. We require regular feedback, both on financial outputs and on actual outputs, from the organisations to which we give grants or funding. We try to ensure that we have that information and, if necessary, can react to any failure or difficulty that occurs. No such failure has happened yet.

Much work is being done on health training and teaching. That is a good example, because we can measure the throughput of people through the system. However, for the sake of sustainability, it is important that the training augments and is part of the policy of the Government of Malawi. It should not be just in-and-out training; it should form part of the Government's programme to build capacity in the country.

That gives some cause for concern. In your response to Dennis Canavan, you said that you would try to ensure that the Government of Malawi was not overinvolved in the way in which cash was spent. However, if money is going into Government programmes, that suggests that it is coming under the Government's control. Is that the case?

Not at all. We are concerned not to set up alternative projects to those that the Government of Malawi funds but to ensure that they are in line with its overall policy. This is a bad example, but if the Government of Malawi prioritised the training of midwives in an area, we would want to work with it on that, rather than on the training of physiotherapists. We want to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from our involvement and that we do not do things that run completely counter to what is happening in Malawi. People in Malawi understand their culture and needs much better than we ever can. We need to assist them, rather than to force or encourage them to do what we think would be the right thing to do.

Dennis Canavan mentioned Mr Mugabe and his relations with Malawi. Over many years, Scotland has had links with the people of Zimbabwe. Is there any way that, through our special links with Malawi, Scotland could influence the horrendous situation in Zimbabwe for some people?

That issue is best dealt with by our colleagues at Westminster, who have responsibility for those relationships and the mechanisms through which influence can be brought to bear. Anything that we could do would be marginal. I would be anxious about our making life more difficult for people by interfering or getting involved. That is not to say that we are not aware of the situation or that we are unwilling to do what we can, where we can. However, we must accept the restrictions that rightly apply to us in the area and work to support colleagues elsewhere on the issues.

Mr McConnell seems to have special links with the Government of Malawi. It is always helpful to have someone pushing away at a closed door.

We meet politicians from Malawi on a regular basis and exchange information and views on all sorts of issues.

I am aware that we are keeping you over your allotted time because an earlier item ran on. Is it okay with you if we carry on for a little while?

Yes.

I have a quick point that relates to Phil Gallie's question. A co-operation agreement was signed between the Executive and the Government of Malawi, which outlined priority areas such as civic governance and society, health, education and sustainable economic development. Is there any joint committee consisting of representatives of the Executive and of the Malawi Government that is monitoring progress on those issues? Is it possible to raise human rights matters on that committee, or is the agreement focused exclusively on development aid?

The agreement was signed in November, roughly six months ago, and my visit coincides with the six-month anniversary of that signing. Part of my purpose in going there is to meet colleagues in Malawi to review the co-operation agreement and the progress that has been made and to see how it will progress over the next six months. We hope that colleagues from Malawi will come here in six months' time. Further reviews of that kind will take place at regular intervals wherever it is possible to do that. At those meetings, a range of issues will come up, including civic governance and society. We will discuss those issues openly and frankly with our colleagues from Malawi.

I would like to come down to the local level with this and ask about something that I have asked you about before but which is still bothering me—the involvement of local authorities and organisations at the local level, through our communities, with the Malawi initiative. I feel strongly that we will be seen as truly partnering Malawi in whatever way we can only if everybody recognises that that is what we are trying to do. There are benefits to be gained on both sides.

The town of Blantyre, which lies within the area that I represent, seems to have an obvious linkage with Blantyre in Malawi because of the history of David Livingstone. However, no special initiative is going on between the Blantyres because South Lanarkshire Council has never applied for any special funding through a concept note, which is what the Executive requests from local authorities for that kind of thing. The last time that I asked about the involvement of local authorities, no concept notes had been received from any local authorities. I found that shocking, as it is local authorities that deal with schools and education, which are an important element of any international development policy. How is that work going? What is the Executive doing to encourage local authorities to get involved at all levels? Are there discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, on behalf of most of the local authorities in Scotland? Is COSLA represented anywhere?

Most of the work that is being done by local authorities is being done through the Scotland Malawi Partnership, which is one of the stakeholders that we work with. A number of local authorities are active in the partnership, which seems to have been the conduit for their work in Malawi.

We have had discussions with local authorities about secondments and that kind of thing, and we are working with them on that. COSLA was interested in the work that was being undertaken around the tsunami area and had some ideas about what it might do. I do not think that that has come to anything as yet, although it may well do.

We are always happy to encourage anyone to get involved in the work; it is not exclusive to us. Local authorities must judge what it is appropriate for them to do. A large number of schools are now twinned with and have a special relationship with schools in Malawi, and work is going on at local authority level to take that forward. In other areas, work is being done in areas in which local authorities have a particular expertise or something that they want to be involved in. Work is going on. The fact that local authorities have not applied for any of our funding perhaps means that the money is coming from elsewhere, which allows us to focus our money somewhere else. There is nothing to prevent a local authority from applying to get involved. We would encourage that and work with local authorities on that.

Going back to the final budget, which you have already dealt with in your reply to Bruce Crawford, I see from the paper that it is your intention to have an advisory group to make recommendations to ministers on strategic matters. Has that group been established and, if so, who is on it?

We have a group, and John Henderson has just handed me a note of the members—I would never remember them all otherwise. They are Dr Andrew Goudie, a senior official in the Scottish Executive; Professor Jim Love, pro vice-principal at the University of Strathclyde and a development economist; Dr Neil Thin, a senior lecturer in international development; Mrs Alison Davies, former chair of the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland and former director of Save the Children Scotland; Sheila Lumsden, deputy director of the British Council Scotland; Guy Mustard of the Department for International Development; Dr Dorothy Logie, a consultant microbiologist; Josephine Munthali, director of the child support project; and Des McNulty, convener of the cross-party international development group of the Scottish Parliament.

I am glad that you mentioned him. It is useful to have that list on the record. It sounds like a big organisation, so it might be difficult to reach consensus.

Let us hope that it manages to do so.

There is another point that I wanted to touch on. I am not entirely comfortable with the juxtaposition of disasters with Scottish sport and Scottish culture.

Neither am I.

Well, I think that you are because, if I may say so, you are dealing with the responsibilities of your job very well indeed. Has any thought been given to any change to the title of your department or office to take account of the fact that that is an important part of your responsibilities?

I should clarify that I was responding directly to Mr Home Robertson's comment about the juxtaposition of disasters with tourism and sport and culture. It is not that I want to move that present responsibility to anyone else, or that I do not guard it jealously, as I do, but I have to tell members that I cover the historic environment, architecture and a number of other things too, so I suspect that my title could be even longer than it currently is, and it is probably already long enough.

I hope that I have made a point of engaging as widely as possible with the stakeholders involved, so that they know whom they are dealing with and who is responsible. In the end, that probably matters more than what my title is. Although I accept that the change that you suggest would perhaps give the issue an added importance, I feel that its importance is derived from the fact that, although I might deal with such matters on a day-to-day basis, all my ministerial colleagues are firmly committed to that agenda and all contribute from their own areas in any way that they can; they are often good at making suggestions about other areas that we should be considering.

John Home Robertson asked about the advisory group. I noticed that an issue that was previously raised by the committee—before I was a member, although there are a couple of current members who may remember it—was about whether the role of the European and External Relations Committee in the advisory group should be to act as an interface between the Scottish Executive and non-governmental organisations.

I am not sure that we would want to have an interface with NGOs—we would prefer to meet them face to face rather than doing it through a third party. However, I am more than happy to talk at any time to the committee, formally or informally, or to individual members about any issue relating to that. The more often we have the opportunity to discuss such issues and to air them, the better. We also work closely with the cross-party international development group and with the cross-party group on Malawi. I believe that a number of members of the committee are involved in one or both of those groups, so it is fair to say that there is already a fair degree of involvement, and I hope that we can support that and encourage it to flourish. At the moment, however, we are not looking to change the make-up of the international development expert group.

I can see that, so you would not envisage the committee being directly involved with the advisory group. How will the meetings of the advisory group be reported? Will information be available on the website, or could it be sent to the committee regularly?

It is an expert group rather than a development group.

What are you trying to say, minister?

The group would give me advice on whether to support one project rather than another, for example, so it is important that we have that kind of expertise and that it operates to provide advice to me on such areas. The result of the group's guidance and wisdom will be seen in the decisions that are made about funding.

Thank you for that clarification. I take it that the remit of the group will be published, now that it is up and running, so that everybody is completely aware of what it is doing.

I am not sure whether it has already been published. If it has not, it will be.

I thank the minister and Mr Henderson for their time.

I thank the committee for its support, which is much appreciated.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—