European and External Relations Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Official Report 259KB pdf

---

International Development Inquiry

Agenda item 2 is to continue our inquiry into international development. I welcome the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, Linda Fabiani, from whom we will take oral evidence as part of our inquiry. I welcome Lisa Bird, the head of the international development branch, who is accompanying the minister. I invite the minister to give an opening statement.

I have followed with interest the committee's inquiry into international development and I look forward to reading the report. I will provide a brief overview of the Scottish Government's international development policy, which we published on 7 May. The plan forms part of the wider international framework and illustrates the Government's commitment to Scotland being a responsible nation and playing our part in tackling the global issue of poverty and in facilitating economic growth for all. The new development policy illustrates our vision for the Scottish Government's contribution and provides a clear set of objectives, which are to be delivered through six distinct programmes of work. The policy will determine the use of the international development fund, which we have increased to £6 million in the present financial year, £6 million in the next financial year and then £9 million in 2010-11.

I will talk briefly about each of the six elements. First, we have identified a new sub-Saharan Africa development programme that will focus on Zambia, Tanzania, Rwanda and Sudan. Those countries, as do others in the region, experience acute and persistent poverty, characterised by a lack of access to health care, few educational or vocational opportunities and, ultimately, low life expectancy. The comparative situation in each of the four countries is made clear in the latest United Nations human development report. Although Scotland alone cannot solve all those problems, we have a distinct and valuable contribution to make.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have strong links with Scotland, some historical and some more contemporary. The Scottish Government is keen to build on those relations and, importantly, on existing work between organisations in Scotland and the four countries. We will therefore look to established organisations in Scotland to deliver strategic programmes in the countries through a block grant system. We are adopting a very different approach. We will not run regular funding rounds for the programme or establish direct Government relationships or co-operation agreements. Through a competitive process, we will select organisations or consortia to hold block grants, but will then devolve responsibility to them to develop targeted programmes, with the proviso that they must represent the interests and development priorities of those countries and be responsible for monitoring all activity within the block grant.

The second element of the policy is the Malawi development programme. The Government confirmed its commitment to Malawi at the outset and I confirmed the commitment with the Government of Malawi on taking office and during my visit to Malawi in February. We supported the commitment with our early decision to ring fence at least £3 million per year for Malawi from our increased budget. That has been received warmly by the Government of Malawi. Officials are working on the detail of future funding priorities across the four strands of the co-operation agreement.

I stress that the Government will continue to work in partnership with the Government of Malawi. We have agreed that we need to develop a more focused programme of activity across the four areas of the agreement. We have responded to the Government of Malawi's request at the most recent Scotland Malawi joint commission talks for us to invest more in economic development. I am pleased that we have been able to do so by supporting several new programmes, including the Malawi enterprise programme, led by the Scotland Malawi business group, which includes a unique and truly innovative project to work with young Malawians who wish to set up new businesses. We also have supported microfinance through Opportunity International by match funding the contribution of individual donors and thereby unlocking £415,000 of European Union funding. We will continue to ensure that economic development receives due attention.

The third element of our international development policy is to support networking and information exchange in Scotland. I can announce that we have agreed a three-year contribution to the core funding of the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland—NIDOS—and the Scotland Malawi Partnership, of £147,000 and £158,000 respectively. The allocation to NIDOS will support networking, information exchange and, most important, the dissemination of information on best practice.

The support to the Scotland Malawi Partnership will help it to build capacity to act as a resource for any individual or organisation that requires information regarding Malawi. It will also enable the partnership to build further its database of those working with Malawi, including its current database on schools partnerships. Strengthening that information resource will facilitate more effective collaboration and exchange of information in Scotland. For the partnership's work in Malawi, we have allocated a small sum of money to enable it to consider whether a business case exists for additional support for its information exchange activities in Malawi. On a related point, I confirm that a database that covers activity throughout Africa, which was supported from the international development fund, has now been completed by the centre of African studies at the University of Edinburgh. We are discussing plans for the database to be launched—it will be accessible free of charge.

The fourth component of the new policy is the fair trade Scotland programme. The Scottish Government is committed to Scotland becoming a fair trade nation. The commitment will be delivered through the Scottish Fair Trade Forum, which will drive forward the fair trade agenda in Scotland.

The fifth element clarifies the Scottish Government's role in responding to international humanitarian crises. Our response will be unique to each situation and will be considered on a case-by-case basis, in discussion with the Disasters Emergency Committee, the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, relevant non-governmental organisations and, where possible, the advice of the country that is involved. We will be ready to assist when appropriate, as we confirmed recently with regard to the situations in Burma and China.

The sixth element of the new policy is a new programme with the Indian sub-continent. Scotland can be proud of its diverse ethnic and cultural identity. By developing a new programme with the Indian sub-continent, we will continue to build a strong, fair and inclusive national identity, while expressing solidarity with communities that are represented in Scottish society. We have not made final decisions on specific countries or allocated specific funding to the programme at this stage. Although post-disaster work has been carried out in the area previously, the programme is in essence new and officials will hold wide-ranging discussions with key stakeholders in the coming months to develop the programme and consider relevant funding mechanisms. We will also consider existing work and other opportunities.

I will confirm the process for implementing the programmes. Many of them are under way, but officials will meet with NIDOS and the Scotland Malawi Partnership next week to seek their views on the specific funding criteria that should be used to support the sub-Saharan Africa and Malawi development programmes. Work on the Indian sub-continent development programme will begin once those programmes are under way. Funding criteria and the accompanying guidance for all six programmes and relevant funding information will be published on the Scottish Government website.

I hope that that has provided the committee with an overview of our new focus and of the new areas of activity. The needs of developing countries are of paramount importance to us, and we will continue to work closely with organisations in Scotland to help Scotland to play its part as a responsible nation, doing what is right and assisting in the global effort to address the challenges that are faced by the developing world.

Thank you, minister. There will be lots of questions about the various funding streams, but I will ask a broader question to start. Previously, the international development policy was about more than just funding streams, important though they are. Awareness raising and education have been regarded as an important part of policy in this country. When Kadie Armstrong from the International Development Education Association of Scotland came to the committee, she said:

"from an education and awareness-raising point of view, there is not a lot in the international development policy to be positive about."—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 13 May 2008; c 648-49.]

I thought it important to raise that point at the beginning. How would you respond? Could you clarify why the policy does not appear to address awareness-raising issues, which have been a key aspect of the committee's inquiry as well as of the previous policy?

Government has to be realistic about its role. We are funding the Scotland Malawi Partnership. There is a particular reference to Malawi because of the many links that civic society throughout Scotland, in all its forms, has made with Malawi. As a partner that is funded by the Scottish Government, the Scotland Malawi Partnership will be carrying out that role. We have provided additional funding to allow the database that I mentioned earlier to become much more of a resource for members of the partnership. That will be useful in itself.

We are very strong on helping to raise awareness and create links. It is important that any policy is tightly focused on what it wishes to achieve. The practice that develops beyond that will be varied. We continue to work with schools, colleges and universities as part of the wider awareness-raising work.

This is a related question, although it broadens things out. We have heard a lot of evidence to suggest that, to be effective, the international development policy must not stand alone but should form part of a wider strategy within Government policy as a whole. Do you agree with that approach? If so, can you provide details to the committee about how it will work in practice? In particular, does the Government intend to conduct an international development impact assessment of its policies in general and will international development issues be mainstreamed across all Government departments? The last part of that question perhaps refers to education in particular.

International development is part of our international framework, which sits in the First Minister's office. That is a mark of the importance of these issues to the Government, because everything in the First Minister's office is mainstreamed across Government. For example, education colleagues are working on international development issues for education. Health officials working in the department of Nicola Sturgeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, are working on international development issues with health colleagues elsewhere. That work carries on.

I will turn to Lisa Bird on the subject of impact assessment. We are currently carrying out an assessment with Learning and Teaching Scotland, I think it is, which is heading up the monitoring of what has been happening so far and of the continuing impact of the international development policy.

It is actually LTS International, an organisation that was involved in setting grants previously. LTS International is working with us to develop a wider framework for evaluating the programme. It is currently examining a selection of projects that have been funded in Malawi, and we will get results from that work in the summer, which will inform a future programme.

I am interested in developments in the sub-Saharan countries and in the Indian sub-continent. Let me deal with the Indian sub-continent first. Are we talking about India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and also Sri Lanka? Are any other countries in the region included? You rightly said that we are not considering the programme as a funding stream, but as a key part of our strategy, as we build relationships and see what we can do. Could you expand on the Indian sub-continent strand of the policy, please?

We felt that strand to be very important. It will include the countries that you have mentioned. There are hugely strong links between Scotland and the Indian sub-continent that should be recognised. There is also realism. We recognise the vastness of the Indian sub-continent and we do not want to rush into an Indian sub-continent programme. It is very new. We have to take time to consider where Scotland's specific skills can best be used. We have already started discussions with the consuls general of India and Pakistan and the honorary consul of Bangladesh, who are based here. Those discussions will continue.

There are charities and non-governmental organisations in Scotland that have been working in the Indian sub-continent for many years. We are listening to their advice and finding out where we can best help. The communities from the Indian sub-continent who are resident in Scotland are extremely important. It is crucial to work with those communities to best advantage.

I am particularly interested in that, because I was brought up in Patna, which was named after the capital of Bihar state in India. I hope that there will be links between Patna in India and Patna in Scotland.

Turning to the sub-Saharan countries, you mentioned that some recent programmes in Malawi have been structured in such a way as to leverage in additional resources, particularly from the European Union, which I think is a big plus. Could the programmes for the other four sub-Saharan countries be tailored in such a way as to attract such resources—and not necessarily just from the European Union? Given that we have a very small budget for international development in relative terms, we should try to leverage in either private sector, third-party or European Union involvement where we can. I am not saying that we should try to tailor our programmes based on that but, where we can, the more resources that we can leverage in, the better.

As I said, I am interested in the four sub-Saharan countries. I understand why you are not adopting the co-operation agreement method. In determining where we are going to assist, have we had discussions with the four Governments concerned or with NGOs working in the four countries? In other words, how are we determining what people in those countries perceive to be their needs, rather than what we perceive to be their needs, to ensure that what we do is consistent with what the countries themselves are hoping to achieve?

It is incredibly important to seek match-funding opportunities all the time. As you said, that would not be the main criterion for doing work in any of those countries, but we should take any opportunity that is presented. I was particularly delighted about the example that I mentioned in my opening remarks. We managed not just to get individual allocations of match-funding for the Government's contribution, but to get European Union funding unlocked, too. That is the sort of model that we should be proceeding with, certainly in relation to the four sub-Saharan African countries outwith Malawi.

We have not had discussions with those countries' Governments, but we have had discussions with NGOs working in those areas. It is an important element to use the expertise that is already there. In our relationships with those four countries, our work should be outcome driven, as we use the experience of the organisations that are already working in the field. Our relationships with the four countries will be very different from the relationship that we have with Malawi, for which we have the joint working agreement.

Any opportunities should be taken to use one of the four countries for the assistance of another and to keep relationships going. As an illustration, Tanzania has some fairly good universities, and I would think that it would be useful to have a programme for Malawian, Zambian or Rwandan students to tap into the Tanzanian universities, rather than have them go to South Africa—or indeed Europe—for their studies. We have been considering that idea lately. Such co-operation between countries in that region is extremely beneficial in itself.

In our evidence-taking sessions, we have heard conflicting views. We have been told that, rather than being too ambitious, we should use our resources in only one country and, even then, devote them to only one initiative. However, from what you say, I gather that we are going to broaden our horizons and spread the few resources that we have even further. Might we be spreading our expertise and resources too thinly, considering that our resources are small compared to those of other countries?

Leaving Malawi to one side, because we have a specific commitment in that regard, the policy is more focused and tighter than it was before. The naming of the other four countries is a new step. Previously, the policy covered the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, so we have not expanded our reach. We have also doubled the budget over the course of the Parliament, so additional resources will be available.

On Malawi, I have heard it suggested that we should focus on only one thing, such as maternal health or primary education. However, the arrangement that we have with Malawi involves a co-operation agreement between the two Governments. When I was in Malawi in February, I noted the commitment that my counterparts in Malawi had to the four strands that already exist. It might be possible for us to focus on elements within those strands, but, under the co-operation agreement, it is not for us to say what we are going to do in Malawi. Everything must be done in the context of agreement with our partners—at the end of the day, they are the ones who are important.

Targeting within the other four countries will also be important. That is why I want to use the expertise that the agencies that are already working there have built up, whether they are charities, NGOs or the Scottish institutions that have a presence in those places. We are keen to develop a consortium approach that will enable those organisations to work together.

It is easy to say that we should focus only on vocational education, for example, but how can someone study if they are the person who has to work to bring in money to feed the rest of the family? The consortium approach will enable us to consider the broader work that needs to be done to enable the central aspect to be properly carried out.

There is no doubt that the Malawi initiative has been a tremendous success. I hope that the Government will learn lessons from the experience of the previous Executive. From our evidence-taking sessions, it is clear that the beneficial effect of the small resource that we have has multiplied a hundredfold. The Malawi initiative captured the Scottish imagination. However, was that a one-off, or can the experience be repeated, with more resources from commerce, industry, universities and so on factored in? Something really special happened with Malawi, and I would like us to be able to repeat that.

Undoubtedly, there is something special about the relationship between Scotland and Malawi. That has always been the case. We should not underestimate the quiet sense of partnership that has existed between civic Scotland and Malawi since the days of Livingstone, when Malawi was known as Nyasaland. What happened a few years ago was that we managed to pull that together into the co-operation agreement between the Scottish Executive and the Government of Malawi. Regardless of who was in Government at the time, the time was right to re-examine the existing relationship, learn from what had been happening and move forward in a more focused way. That has been welcomed by the Government of Malawi.

With regard to what we might do in other countries, we can learn good practice from what has been done in Malawi. However, we do not have any intention to try to replicate what we have in Malawi elsewhere. We have to approach these things step by step and see how they build up.

The fair trade programme seems to involve support being channelled through the Scottish Fair Trade Forum. That would seem to indicate that consideration is being given to the supply side of fair trade. Is that correct? What do you see the fair trade forum doing with the support that you are giving to it?

The fair trade forum is spearheading the fair trade movement in Scotland, with the ultimate aim of Scotland becoming a meaningful fair trade nation. The fair trade forum is being funded as a sort of service organisation for all those involved in fair trade in Scotland. For example, local fair trade groups look to the forum to head up some of the work that they are involved in. It is almost like a membership organisation, I guess. It also promotes fair trade and raises awareness of the issue, in the interests of international development, which the convener mentioned earlier.

Clearly, the Government should not need its awareness raised. However, when he spoke to us at our previous meeting, John McAllion criticised the Government's public procurement policies because they did not include fair trade in their tender criteria, which he thought that it would be possible to do. What is your view?

There are technical issues under European procurement rules. A House of Commons committee considered the matter and submitted a report, which I understand is under consideration by the Department for International Development.

We know that other European Governments have specified that fair trade goods be sought. We are always investigating such matters. I have had meetings with our procurement people to ask whether we are taking full advantage of how the procurement arrangements work in relation to fair trade and I know that our counterparts in Westminster are doing the same thing. We are constantly looking at how we can improve. Indeed, the First Minister said in the chamber last week that we would monitor this issue. We all want to be able to be fairer with regard to procurement.

I apologise to the committee and the minister for the fact that I arrived late; I had some travel difficulties this morning.

I have two points that I would like to raise. The minister said that the international development advisory group that will be set up will draw on the experience of the external international development sector. Can she give us an assurance about the involvement in the process of the NGOs that have a wealth of experience in this area, such as the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and Oxfam, from which the committee has taken evidence?

The funds have been set up in accordance with the three strands of the international development policy, which involve challenge funds, targeted competitive tendering and block grant funding. How will the money be allocated across those three strands?

The minister might be aware that the committee took evidence from Malcolm Bruce MP, who chairs Westminster's International Development Committee. He said that countries that have a small civil service and a weak civil society should not have to spend too much time preparing bids for challenge funds. Has the minister given any consideration to that view? Has she thought about providing funds directly to the Governments of the countries that we are involved with, so that they can decide how they want to spend the money, or to the NGOs, which have an administrative and social structure on the ground?

I think that you raised three issues.

I said that I had two questions, but perhaps I asked more than two.

I am working out how the two advisory groups can be best used to capture the experience that is out there and inform me about it. I want the group that deals specifically with Malawi to be a close ministerial group; Malawi is special, and I want folk on that group who will bounce around ideas and work out the best way forward. The wider group will include much wider representation and will consider the overall international development policy. I hope to firm up our proposals on that soon and to ask people whether they would like to come on board.

You asked about funding. Lisa Bird will talk about the specifics of that, because she will discuss such matters with NIDOS and the Scotland Malawi Partnership in the next couple of weeks with a view to finding out how we can best work out the funding. Our policy is not to provide funding straight to Governments. The question takes us back to recognising that Scotland already contributes to DFID. Malcolm Bruce would talk about the format that many of the DFID programmes use. What we are doing is additional, enhancing and specific to Scotland. The Government would not consider providing funding straight to Governments. Our policy is to go specifically to the grass roots all the time, through our NGOs.

On civic society and governance, I can give an example from Malawi, where we are funding the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations to work closely with its counterpart CONGOMA, which is, of course, much less strong than the SCVO. The capacity building and working together there seem to be fairly successful, and that is quite a good model. We should use the expertise that we have in this country to help build up and inform similar organisations elsewhere.

Irene Oldfather asked about the allocation of funding for the block grant programme for sub-Saharan Africa. We have not finalised the exact amounts of money for each country yet, but we are looking to have a block grant for three years for each of the countries. We will talk to the Scotland Malawi Partnership and NIDOS in particular about the matter next week; we will then talk to NGOs and other organisations that are involved in the area, because we want to ensure that people can respond to proposals and that we get a feel for the size of the programme that people could manage. The money will, of course, come from the remaining £3 million for each year that is not for Malawi work. We need to work out in more detail with people what is manageable and what will achieve results for us.

Will each of the three funding mechanisms pay out a third of the funds?

Malawi is always separate, of course, and we have said that at least £3 million of ring-fenced funding is guaranteed for it each year. There is no specific ring fencing beyond that for anything. Is that right, Lisa?

That is correct.

Will things simply depend on what bids come in? How will you decide, for example, how much the challenge funding will be or how much the targeted competitive tendering budget will be?

The Malawi programme will operate mainly on the challenge fund model, for which there is a fixed minimum of £3 million. If enough bids are not achieved on the topics that have been agreed with the Government of Malawi, we will move to more competitive tendering. That is how the model will work with the minimum of £3 million. The block grant funding process will be one process at the outset for achieving bids for three years for each country. There is no challenge fund for the sub-Saharan Africa programme—it is purely a block-grant programme.

I am particularly interested in the Indian sub-continent developments. The minister correctly identified the scale of the problem in the Indian sub-continent; a third of the world's poor live there. If we cannot tackle that problem collectively, it is obvious that we will never achieve the millennium goals, never mind anything else. Given that DFID is investing some £825 million over the next three years in the Indian sub-continent, what discussions have taken place to ensure that any moneys that we make available will complement what it is doing and will not simply be lost in trying to deal with problems on such a scale?

I reassure everyone that we have the same very good working relationship with DFID and the FCO as existed previously. Our policy has been advanced in consultation with DFID, because there is no point in doing anything that does not complement what DFID is doing. Similarly, our Indian sub-continent work will be done with reference to DFID's existing programmes. We will talk things through with it.

Have you started to think about areas in which work might be done?

We are formulating things and taking soundings from people who are already working out there.

One of the main purposes of the Scottish Fair Trade Forum is to raise awareness. In light of what you said earlier, is there not a slight contradiction in the Government's overall policy? I am trying to think through what was said. The convener asked whether people in Scotland are still trying to raise awareness, but I got the impression that raising awareness is not a priority. If we are funding the Scottish Fair Trade Forum to raise awareness, is there not a slight contradiction in the policy?

Raising awareness is always a priority, and it happens from day to day as we implement our policies. The Scotland Malawi Partnership, for example, raises a lot of awareness about Malawi. Links with Malawi exist throughout Scotland, and we constantly raise awareness through our education and health departments. The University of Edinburgh's centre of African studies has now completed a database on Africa, which is another awareness-raising tool that will be used. Awareness is being raised all the time.

With hindsight, would it have been slightly more reassuring to organisations that work in the fields of education and awareness raising if awareness raising had been mentioned in the policy?

I will move on. Have you and your department considered when Scotland will become a fair trade nation? I know that there have been significant moves forward on that.

First, we have received positive responses to our international development policy from right across the field. Partners have not raised the issue of a lack of awareness raising.

Secondly, it is, of course, very much in the hands of the Scottish Fair Trade Forum to give us advice on Scotland becoming a fair trade nation. However, I think that a general feeling exists that we should not set a target or say, for example, that Wales is nearly there, so we must hurry up. The issue has always been making such a move meaningful, considering the criteria that have been set and saying, "Right. Let's work towards and beyond those criteria." The view that we should not be tokenistic is held throughout the field, from grass-roots fair trade organisations and communities in small fair trade towns and schools through to the organisations that head up the Scottish Fair Trade Forum. Their view is that it does not matter how long it takes for Scotland to become a fair trade nation, as long as being such a nation means something.

It is reassuring that we are not rushing headlong to try to achieve such a target. We are talking about a journey. The more people we can take with us on that journey, the better it will be.

Who did the Government consult in developing the policy? Have the consultation responses been made public and, if not, will they be?

Lisa Bird will respond, as she has been in the front line of that activity.

The review was open to all organisations and individuals, all of whose responses will be published on the website.

Although that is reassuring, I reinforce Patricia Ferguson's comment. We hear what you have said about not only awareness raising but mainstreaming and other issues, but some people—I will not quantify how many—think it a bit odd that awareness raising was not mentioned in the document. The document can no doubt be supplemented by your remarks.

In response to my question on mainstreaming, Lisa Bird referred to a review of some projects in Malawi. I am not sure whether that has anything to do with mainstreaming, but it is certainly an interesting development. How many projects are being reviewed? When will we receive the results? Any information about the review would be welcome, because I do not think that it has been mentioned in the public realm before.

Lisa Bird will say more about the review, which is being conducted by LTS International.

After reviewing the six-monthly and annual reports of all the projects that have been funded in Malawi, LTS International is looking in more detail at a number of projects with the aim of putting together four case studies, some of which will cover more than one project of similar type. That review will be available some time this summer.

Will you say a bit more about the response to international humanitarian crises? Given the timescales for responding to such incidents, some people raised their eyebrows when they heard about things such as formal proposals and assessment processes.

Our basic response to all humanitarian crises is to consult and take the advice of the Disasters Emergency Committee. For example, in the case of Burma/Myanmar, there are, as we all know, various specific political problems involved in getting international development aid, disaster relief and so on into the country. When we met representatives of the DEC, we were able to assure them that, if it came to us and said, "We think that your Government can help in this manner", we would be ready for action. Every humanitarian disaster has to be looked at individually and, as what has happened in Burma/Myanmar has shown, each case is likely to have very special and specific circumstances.

After the tsunami in Sri Lanka, Scotland sent out a lot of expertise to help with the situation. That is the kind of activity that we stand ready and willing to facilitate and, if necessary, co-ordinate in relation to Burma/Myanmar or, indeed, China.

Gil Paterson spoke about engaging the business community. As someone who was involved in business for more than 30 years but was never particularly attracted to chambers of commerce or some of the other organisations in which one is supposed to posture, I wonder what you think about such engagement. You said that all of this has captured the imagination of people in Scotland, but some of the many Scottish businesses that are still run by Scottish people might not wish to contribute in the ways that have been laid out. Do you think that the route lies in the traditional points of contact such as the chambers of commerce and the Confederation of British Industry, or is there an opportunity to take a fresh approach that appeals to a broader range of businesses that might wish to contribute to something that is as practical in its outcome as you have suggested?

That question is very useful, because this area holds a lot of potential that we can help to unlock. Chambers of commerce and professional organisations in Scotland already have links with their international counterparts—for example, Rotary International is huge—and that work has been going on for decades.

That aside, what can Government do to assist in opening up other links that might bring benefit? In that respect, the Scotland Malawi business group, which involves businesspeople in both countries, has been a success. During my visit to Malawi, I was able to see some of what was going on and I was very much heartened by the emphasis on encouraging young people in the country to set up their own two, three or four-person businesses and to work up from there. In fact, I believe that that is the way forward.

As with everything, we need to look at this in the round. In Malawi, after primary education, those who are fortunate receive secondary education and the really fortunate then receive vocational education. The question is what happens after that. Trying to fill that wee gap by providing people with the facility to set up businesses is a useful way forward. What is particularly good about the scheme is that it is run by businesspeople, who also offer mentoring facilities and hard-headed business sense.

In a scheme with Opportunity International, for which we have managed to unlock other funds, we are providing people with the very basic facility of having bank accounts, which means that they can receive microfinancial services. Moreover, a fairly small business in Fife has, through discussions with and advice from our officers, now become involved with the Chisomo children's club, which works with street children in Malawi. Perhaps Lisa Bird will write down the name of the firm for me so that I can put it on record.

When I spoke recently to the director of that firm—which, I can now tell the committee, is Shackleton Technologies—he told me that his workforce is immensely enthusiastic about making that input and forming such partnerships. That is another way in which we can create important business links.

Another reason why I am happy for NGOs to consider three-year funding blocks is that such an approach will allow me to free up some staff in Scotland to take advantage of these opportunities. Involving businesses of all sizes is, after all, an extremely important and quite natural progression from involving schools, colleges and churches.

As the minister's last example shows, this is certainly an area with huge potential. Some businesses might not want to get sucked into the wider orbit of the committee work that is involved in participation, but they might have workforces that are large enough to become, like schools, involved and engaged in a specific project. They form a particularly strong and as yet untapped resource that needs to be accessed.

The fact that Government funding is involved provides some comfort about the governance and monitoring of projects and helps businesses to get over their reluctance about being involved in something that is not only very new but on the other side of the world.

Such relationships offer great opportunities for both sides to gain in different ways. Have any measures been introduced to encourage the application of fair trade principles? Are you comfortable with what is happening at the moment?

That is a very good point. When, over the past few years, I have visited various places in Africa, I have found awareness of fair trade to be extremely low. However, I have been heartened by recent signs that, after all the work that people have put in for many years, there seems to be much more recognition and understanding of fair trade principles in workplaces in Africa. Indeed, when we visited the south of the country in February, we spoke to two tea plantation owners who had committed to moving to fair trade.

As I said, it has happened slowly, but there is now more recognition of fair trade principles. The member certainly makes a good point: in creating links with Malawi or elsewhere, we should always ensure that we raise awareness of such principles.

If we are encouraging businesses from Scotland to become involved in the work that is being done in Malawi and other countries, are we encouraging them to embrace fair trade principles as part of that?

I am not aware of our having any great relationships over the years with companies that are going out and working in Malawi. However, if we start to have such dialogue, we should certainly take on board the issue that you raise.

I asked you about consultation. Did you make use of the evidence that the committee has taken? We have been undertaking an inquiry for a few months and we should report by the end of June. Was the evidence that we took of any use to the Government?

Yes, of course. The committee inquiry and our policy development have been happening in tandem. Many of the people who gave evidence to the committee were our consultees.

We certainly made good use of the evidence that the committee took.

One of the people who gave evidence was Jack McConnell. He made the straightforward, specific suggestion, which I think was echoed by the Honorary Consul for Malawi, that the Scottish Government should put a Scottish representative in Lilongwe who could assist in the development of Scotland's relationship with Malawi and the execution of our international development policy in that country. Is that being considered?

That has been talked about ever since the then Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament developed an international development policy and it seems to have come up again. I had this discussion with the current British High Commissioner to Malawi when I was out there this year. As far as I am concerned, Scotland pays its taxes; it makes its contribution to DFID and the British High Commission for representation in country. The British High Commissioner to Malawi is there to work for all the component parts of the United Kingdom, so he is there to work for Scotland. I do not think that funding someone to work in Malawi, with all the on-going costs that that would entail, should be part of our international development policy. It is more sensible to fund the building up of the appropriate civic organisations in Malawi to ensure that things work better. That includes, for example, the work that is being done with the SCVO and CONGOMA—the SCVO's equivalent in Malawi. A lot of the different organisations that we use already have people working in the country who are perfectly capable of monitoring the work that is being done.

Jack McConnell also referred to volunteering. He said:

"In the medium term, national support for the pension contributions of public sector professionals who want to volunteer abroad for a year or two would be a great incentive to increase the number of people who do that. That requires a national fund rather than a grant to another body."—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 15 April 2008; c 573.]

Would the Scottish Government consider providing national funding for pension contributions for Scots who volunteer abroad?

That has been under discussion for a long time with the Department for Work and Pensions and its Scottish equivalent. It has been said recently that people who worked for Voluntary Service Overseas were disadvantaged in that regard. A VSO and national health service pilot partnership, which finished in March 2008, was aimed at encouraging NHS Scotland staff to go out to Malawi. However, it was not as successful as expected and the target number of staff going out was not met, so there was an underspend. We have agreed that VSO can carry on with that.

The discussion on pensions in relation to VSO and the health service and the teaching profession is on-going. I think that another pilot scheme was announced recently by the Department for Work and Pensions.

The Department for International Development recently announced a wider scheme, which is for any public sector worker.

I think that Jack McConnell was talking about superannuation, rather than pensions as such. I think that that area was covered by the VSO pilot group. Perhaps he was suggesting that that might be considered further.

So he was talking about superannuation rather than pensions. I do not know the answer to that, but perhaps Lisa Bird does.

No.

I presume that that is what he meant.

We will certainly look into it after the meeting.

How will the Scottish Government measure the impact of the mainstreaming of international development policy across its departments?

I will pass to Lisa Bird to explain the detail of that. We have been discussing the matter. Although different departments are doing different aspects of international development work, it is important that we have someone heading that up—Lisa Bird is doing that—to ensure that we are aware of everything that is happening and that we are not duplicating or crossing over work and creating difficulties.

We will continue with six-monthly and annual reporting. We will refresh the documentation for that in discussion with NIDOS when we meet next week. We will also build on project level reporting and consider what wider evaluation we can undertake. That will be very much informed by the discussions with NIDOS and the results of the initial work that LTS International is carrying out for us.

I thank the minister and Lisa Bird for giving evidence. That was the last session in our inquiry. We will report within the next few weeks and I am sure that we will continue our discussions in the light of our report.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—