Department for International Development

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 20 August 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-09923, in the name of Margaret McCulloch, on the future of the Department for International Development in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises the contribution that the Department for International Development (DFID) staff based in East Kilbride make in administering the world’s second largest aid budget; notes that approximately 600 people are employed at the Abercrombie House office, where work is undertaken on a wide range of areas, including development policy and research, African and Asian regional programmes and the eradication of world hunger and malnutrition in addition to key corporate services for the department; welcomes reports that the UK has at last become the first country in the G8 to spend 0.7% of its gross national income (GNI) on overseas development assistance; considers that, while there are legitimate differences of opinion among political parties and between those campaigning on different sides of the constitutional debate about the future of international development, there is also a welcome consensus on the importance of Scotland and the UK’s international obligations, including honouring the commitment to spend a minimum of 0.7% of GNI on overseas development assistance and enshrining this commitment in law; believes that the wider debate on independence would be enhanced by thoughtful, informed consideration of the implications of independence on international development; therefore notes remarks by Dave Fish, who, it considers, as a former head of DFID in Scotland and former director of DFID’s Africa programme, can be regarded as an authority on international development, who warned that DFID jobs in East Kilbride would be “relocated back to the residual United Kingdom” in the event of a Yes vote in September 2014 and that “the suggestion by SNP ministers that the United Kingdom would continue to employ hundreds of people in what would be a foreign country is – like so much of the case for independence – simply not credible”; further notes the findings of the House of Commons International Development Committee, which expects DFID’s aid budget to fall by around £1 billion as a consequence of independence; considers that the costs of establishing an independent Scottish development agency would likely require a greater share of development spending to be allocated toward administration instead of frontline aid; believes that the development policies set out in the white paper on independence could lead to the fragmentation of aid spending, which is overwhelmingly pooled and resourced across the UK at present, and believes that Scotland continuing as part of the UK is key to safeguarding civil service employment at Abercrombie House in East Kilbride and securing Scotland’s role in shaping global development and supporting 28 countries across Asia, Africa and the Middle East through DFID.

Photo of Margaret McCulloch Margaret McCulloch Labour

The Parliament is most united when showing solidarity with parts of the world in poverty or distress. Nobody here could or should try to monopolise concern for the world’s poorest: it is something that we share.

Whatever the outcome of next month’s referendum, the challenge of poverty in the world will still be with us, and people of conviction and good conscience will keep on working, fighting and campaigning until the day that it is not. The purpose of my motion is not to snatch the moral high ground as part of a wider referendum debate, nor is it a blanket endorsement of the aid policies of the present United Kingdom Government—or even those of the previous one. It is to make sure that the Parliament does not adjourn tomorrow without hearing what the implications of the decision that we might make next month could be for our international aid effort and the people tasked with delivering it.

DFID’s East Kilbride office at Abercrombie house supports a total workforce of 600, of which around 550 are UK-based home civil servants. That is 43 per cent—almost half—of civil servants who work for DFID in the UK. East Kilbride is home to the department’s second headquarters, which is responsible for policy and research, supporting regional programmes for Africa and Asia and leading on Government priorities such as tackling hunger and malnutrition. Half of UK aid is delivered through DFID in East Kilbride.

The establishment of an international development fund in this Parliament was informed by DFID specialists. That is an example of what the best of both worlds means in practice.

In the event of a yes vote, DFID would review its presence in Scotland. The Secretary of State for International Development has said that there is “no logical reason” why DFID would remain in Scotland. The House of Commons International Development Committee expects the East Kilbride office, which contributes £30 million to the local economy, to close within five years of a yes vote. East Kilbride-based staff, many of whom are in valuable, specialist, high-quality jobs, could face relocation or redundancy. There is little to substantiate assurances to the contrary.

Photo of Margaret McCulloch Margaret McCulloch Labour

No, I do not have time. In any case, the member’s questions should have been answered in his white paper.

In evidence to the House of Commons International Development Committee, the Minister for External Affairs and International Development, Humza Yousaf, guaranteed that there would be “ample opportunity” for staff who are based at Abercrombie house to continue in employment, either with the UK Government, if it retains a base in East Kilbride, or with the Scottish Government.

That is not much of a guarantee. I will explain why. First, the idea that DFID would continue to run half its aid programme out of a foreign country is, as one of its former top civil servants Dave Fish said, “simply not credible”. There are examples of countries that pool expertise, and DFID staff work with multilateral agencies in Geneva and New York, for example, but there is no precedent for the UK employing almost half of a department’s home civil servants in a single foreign country.

Secondly, the headquarters of an independent Scottish development agency would require fewer than the 550 civil servants who are currently employed at Abercrombie house.

Photo of Margaret McCulloch Margaret McCulloch Labour

No. The Government had its opportunity in its white paper.

On the basis of a population share of 8.3 per cent—[Interruption.] Presiding Officer, will you ask Scottish National Party members to be quiet while I finish, please?

Our share of DFID’s 1,300 UK-based civil servants comes to around 110. That is more in line with the staffing figures of aid agencies in small independent countries such as Ireland, which the European Centre for Development Policy Management provided to the European and External Relations Committee.

If the remaining workers are to be offered jobs elsewhere in the Scottish Government, what will those jobs be? What will they pay? At what grade will they be? Where will they be based? Does the minister dispute the figures that I have given? If so, can he tell us—

Humza Yousaf rose—

Can he tell us later how many people will be employed in a Scottish aid agency—[Interruption.] Let me finish. Can he tell us why none of that has been set out or costed in the white paper? Is the minister really suggesting that an independent Scotland will need 43 per cent of DFID staff, to spend 8.3 per cent of the budget? He can answer that when he winds up the debate.

There is a month to go until the referendum, but the future of civil servants in my region remains unclear. That uncertainty is unacceptable.

Thanks to the work of DFID, the UK is now widely regarded as a global leader in development and has cemented its position as the world’s second biggest aid donor. The commitment to development index, or CDI, which the Scottish Government often cites, makes a balanced critique of UK aid while placing the UK in the top third of its rankings and setting out some of our key strengths—high net aid volume, no tied aid and financial transparency.

Photo of Margaret McCulloch Margaret McCulloch Labour

No. Sit down.

Last year, the UK became the first of the G8 nations to meet the target to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on aid—[Interruption.] SNP members never answer our questions; we are not answering theirs. The current Government completed a journey that was started by the previous one. There is even a consensus in support of enshrining the target in law.

The white paper makes welcome statements about overseas development, although it has only three pages on the subject, but it also glosses over important facts. If Scotland were to become independent, DFID’s budget would be expected to fall by £1 billion and it is far from clear how Scotland and the UK would manage the transition period and minimise the impact on existing aid commitments.

A new, independent aid agency would face set-up and administration costs, as would a restructured DFID. The costs of fragmentation and duplication would inevitably eat into front-line aid spending.

Of course, it does not have to be that way. As part of the UK, we pool and share our resources and we can use our global reach, our influence and our combined wealth to shape the world around us. As the second largest aid donor on the planet, we have a powerful voice in the world, which we use best when making rich countries confront poverty and sustainability. The creation of DFID, the growth in the aid budget and our emergence as a global leader in international development would not be possible without the combined efforts of public servants working in Scotland, in London and around the world.

What we have achieved, we have achieved together. That, surely, is a positive, progressive, humanitarian reason for continued union between Scotland and the UK.

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

Normally in a members’ business debate, I would thank the member for lodging the motion and support it. I could not do that today because there are things that are very wrong with the motion. Two statements in the motion, in particular, are completely erroneous; one is about the job losses in East Kilbride and the other is about the fragmentation of aid spending. I will go on to say more about those.

For a couple of years, there has been an on-going campaign by better together in East Kilbride, telling civil servants both in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is also based there, and in DFID that their jobs will go if they vote yes. That is shameful scaremongering, and it has been going on for a long time. It is abhorrent to scare people like that—it is on a par with the advice that was given to civil servants at the Department for Work and Pensions by the permanent secretary, which emerged yesterday.

When the Scottish Government makes things clear, it tends to carry them through—I think that our record stands on that—and the Scottish Government has made it clear that it will offer continuity of employment and that it has a no compulsory redundancies policy in place. That is more than the UK Government has. Let us face it: Labour and Tory UK Governments have cut civil service jobs right across Scotland, so the real threat to DFID jobs in East Kilbride is a no vote.

The UK Government has been committed to cutting jobs in DFID from 2014. Westminster’s International Development Committee—which includes Margaret McCulloch’s friend in the no campaign Michael McCann—concluded in one of its inquiries that the number of DFID staff in East Kilbride will decline from 2014. Mr McCann himself has been asking parliamentary questions about DFID for quite a while. Speaking of a recent one, he said:

“I warned that ... the UK Government had drawn up secret plans to axe a third of the workforce at the Department for International Development in East Kilbride.”

He said that he had heard that the UK Government

“was preparing to sacrifice staff in East Kilbride in order to protect the department’s London HQ.”

The threat to jobs at DFID in East Kilbride is coming from the UK Government. Yet again, the Labour Party is more than happy to tell one story down the road and another up here because it considers it more important to do down the SNP and the yes campaign. To do that, Labour will even cover up what the Tories and Lib Dems are doing. I find that absolutely appalling.

The motion quotes Mr Dave Fish, whom I met some years ago and had a lot of respect for. He has been writing for the better together campaign, on its website. He is entitled to do that, but a lot of holes can be picked in what he is saying, particularly about the fragmentation of aid. The evidence that is given by the non-governmental organisations in Scotland and by many respected people who have worked in international development for years is that it does not matter what size an aid programme is; the important thing is how effective it is.

Let us face it, the commitment to development index, which ranks overall contributions to development and their effectiveness, has the UK in eighth place. The top three ranked countries are Denmark, Sweden and Norway—small independent countries that work together to deliver good international aid. Are we hearing from Margaret McCulloch that the UK cares so much about international aid and poverty world wide, but that it would refuse to work with its neighbour Scotland to make sure that countries in poverty were getting the best deal?

I want Scotland to be independent. I want our international development budget to be part of a wider international strategy. That means none of the illegal wars, such as the ones that the Labour Party took us into; that means no locking up asylum-seeking families, an approach that the Labour Party took us into and that the Lib Dems and the Tories have carried on. That is how we can transform poverty, development and fairness in our world.

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour

I congratulate Margaret McCulloch on securing this important motion; I also commend her for her concern for jobs in her constituency.

It is not terribly well known throughout Scotland—less well known than it is in East Kilbride, obviously—how many DFID jobs there are in East Kilbride. Nearly half of all DFID jobs are based there. That fact should be publicised to everyone in Scotland. I certainly understand Margaret McCulloch’s concern for the jobs, particularly for the individuals involved, and her motion points out the massive contribution that those jobs make to the local economy more generally.

I hear what Linda Fabiani said. Clearly, there are a lot of promises in the white paper. Some of us have been saying that not all those promises can be delivered if there is a yes vote. I hope that that particular promise would be kept, but I think that it is a simple fact that not every promise in the white paper could be delivered any time soon after a yes vote, simply because of the fiscal difficulties that an independent Scotland would face.

Margaret McCulloch is certainly right to say that DFID jobs would not remain as UK Government jobs in the event of a yes vote. Dave Fish, to whom both previous speakers have referred, said:

“The suggestion ... that the United Kingdom would continue to employ hundreds of people in what would be a foreign country is ... simply not credible.”

That just seems to me to be an obvious statement of fact.

To move on from jobs to the wider issues, Dave Fish made another interesting comment when he said:

“A Yes vote would massively reduce Scotland’s ability to impact and influence efforts to reduce world poverty.”

I am not dismissing what an independent Scotland would aspire to do and I hope that the Government would be able to keep its commitment on international development, although the same caveat about the fiscal difficulties applies. I certainly do not underrate what the Scottish Government has done when all is said and done.

I was a member of the Administration that started the devolved Scottish dimension to international development. However, it is a simple fact that the UK has achieved remarkable things in international development. Its work has been described as transformational change. There has been remarkable progress.

Photo of Humza Yousaf Humza Yousaf Scottish National Party

I do not take away anything from the good work that the UK Government has done; indeed, I have always been fair in giving it credit where credit is due. However, why are eight of the top 10 countries in the CDI, which Margaret McCulloch mentioned, small and independent countries of Scotland’s size? If they can do well, why on earth could Scotland not do well and make transformational change?

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour

I do not take away from the contribution of small countries, and I indicated my hope that an independent Scotland would do that, too. I am just saying that Scotland cannot, in the nature of things, have the impact that a large country such as the UK can. We should praise the UK in that regard.

To be briefly party political, Labour tripled the health budget between 1997 and 2010. To the credit of the Conservative Party, it has also committed to contributing 0.7 per cent of gross national income on international development assistance, which most countries in the world have not achieved. The simple fact is that the UK is the world’s second biggest aid donor. When members remember that the top donor is the United States, which spends a massively smaller percentage of GNI, one can legitimately argue that the UK is the number 1 aid donor in the world.

The UK has played a massive part in the development of the international development agenda. It is that contribution to the big debates and decisions about international development that a smaller country simply cannot make. Obviously, we can, like other small countries, make a practical contribution, but we cannot have that massive impact on the policy agenda or make the transformational change that many people talk about in relation to the UK.

Finally, I want to pick up Linda Fabiani’s point about international affairs more generally. As we know, the Scottish National Party likes to remind us of the negative side of that issue—I have been known to do the same myself in relation to Iraq and one or two other matters—but I think that there is a very positive story to tell about the UK and about the international development agenda as part of that, and it leads to the conclusion that, on potentially a whole range of issues, the UK can be a massive force for good in the world. An independent Scotland might be able to make a small contribution, but the reality is that, on many of these issues, it would be only an observer. We need to remember the positive contribution that the UK makes and might make for decades to come and not throw that away.

Photo of Mark McDonald Mark McDonald Scottish National Party

I must begin with an apology, Presiding Officer, because I will not be able to stay for the remainder of the debate. I have to leave at the end of my speech.

First of all, I find it unfortunate that the members’ business system has been used to shoehorn in this debate. Let us be clear that this debate has been designed not to highlight local issues but to be part of the wider referendum campaign.

I also find it rich that we are talking about the 0.7 per cent contribution to the international aid budget. After all, despite having this large economy that we keep hearing about, the UK failed to achieve that target in 43 years. Indeed, it did not manage to do so even when Malcolm Chisholm was a UK Government minister.

Moreover, that discussion misses the point that the 0.7 per cent target relates to the share of a country’s budget, not its actual monetary terms. The target recognises that economies across the world vary in size, and it is all about countries putting aside a specific share of their own budgets to help the aid budget across the world. I find it unfortunate that people are suggesting that, because Scotland’s economy is not of the same magnitude as that of the wider UK, our efforts to contribute to international aid and international development would be diminished. It is a very neat encapsulation of the “too wee, too poor” argument.

We should also be clear that, in the grand scheme of international populations, we are not small; we are mid-table, and I think that we should be wary of always referring to ourselves as a small nation. Undoubtedly we are smaller than some of the world’s nations, but we are still capable of punching above our weight in a range of areas, including international development. The minister is on record as saying that, for him, 0.7 per cent is only the beginning of the aspirations that Scotland should have for its contribution to international development, and I find that goal pretty inspirational. I think that we absolutely should be aiming to achieve 1 per cent in very short order.

I am also concerned by this idea that we have to be either all in or all out—in other words, if we are not all for what the UK is doing in international development, we must be dead set against it. We on these benches are not saying that everything that the UK Government is doing or has done in international development is wrong; we are not suggesting that and are not seeking to characterise the issue in those terms. What we are saying, however, is that an independent Scotland might choose to pursue different priorities for expenditure and different priorities with regard to the way aid itself is defined.

The definition of aid is an interesting issue. A debate on the matter is currently taking place within the UK Government, with David Cameron suggesting the possibility of factoring in military expenditure to the contribution to the aid budget. I do not think that we should aspire to that sort of approach; indeed, we should be deeply troubled by and hesitant about accepting any notion that arms sales to regimes, for example, could count as aid.

On jobs, I do not have a local interest in the matter, as I do not represent East Kilbride or Central Scotland, but the idea that somehow we would not require jobs and expertise after independence is fanciful. It is not true to say that the international development budget would drop after independence because Scotland would be an independent country. Scotland would have an aid budget and an international development budget, which it would require to fund appropriately. The idea that nothing would be spent and no one would work in these areas in Scotland is fanciful, and it borders on being misleading.

We have the opportunity to put Scotland on the world stage, to advance the values that we hold and to pursue the priorities that we would have as an independent nation across the world. We could use the figure of 0.7 per cent as a starting point, and the minister has aspirations to go further, which I share.

In addition, we would be in a position to work with other countries. The one thing that really irritates me in the referendum debate is the conflation of independence with isolationism, and the idea that being independent means that Scotland would only ever do stuff by itself and would not work with others. The difference that independence would make is that we would work together and collaborate with others on our own priorities and on our terms, which does not currently happen. If, after independence, we sought to work with the rest of the UK on a particular issue, that would be fine—we could do that—but we should also be able to take our own path and lead the way in other areas.

Photo of Margaret Mitchell Margaret Mitchell Conservative

I welcome today’s debate on the future of the Department for International Development in Scotland, and I thank Margaret McCulloch for lodging her motion.

I am extremely proud of the fact that DFID is based in East Kilbride, not least because last year it provided more than 43 million people in other countries with clean water, better sanitation or improved hygiene conditions, and it reached more than 11 million people with emergency food assistance.

The chair of the House of Commons International Development Committee has acknowledged that almost half the UK’s aid programme is delivered from the department’s headquarters in Scotland, where a number of senior DFID staff are based. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that, as the motion confirms, 600 people are employed at Abercrombie house in East Kilbride, almost 60 per cent of whom live within 10 miles of the office. That means that many local businesses not only benefit from but have—especially in these difficult times—come to rely on DFID’s headquarters being in East Kilbride.

At present, as part of the UK, Scotland can be proud that the international aid budget is a staggering £11.4 billion and that the UK, with a population of 60 million, is the first country to honour the commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of its gross national income on overseas development obligations.

Photo of Margaret Mitchell Margaret Mitchell Conservative

I would like to make some progress first.

In an independent Scotland with a population of just 5 million, that vital work in global development in some of the world’s poorest countries with some of its most vulnerable people would be adversely affected by a fall of around £1 billion in the DFID aid budget.

Photo of Humza Yousaf Humza Yousaf Scottish National Party

The member seemed to suggest, perhaps inadvertently, that the UK was the first country to meet the 0.7 per cent target. That is not correct, of course. Small independent European countries met it before the UK. The UK is far behind in that respect.

Photo of Margaret Mitchell Margaret Mitchell Conservative

I will take the minister’s word for that, but the UK was certainly the first of the G8 nations to meet the target—that was confirmed earlier.

Worse still, if Scotland chose to separate from the rest of the UK, it is inevitable that the DFID headquarters would relocate south of the border, which, in turn, would have a devastating impact on the local economy. The Scottish Government's assertion that an independent Scotland would be able to protect and maintain those 600 jobs is simply not credible. Furthermore, the future of the lesser-known work that DFID supports, such as the international citizen service, would also be affected.

Earlier this year, I had the privilege of meeting two young people who had volunteered with the ICS when it held a photography exhibition in the Parliament building. The ICS programme helps 18 to 25-year-olds from throughout the UK to volunteer overseas and gives them the opportunity to gain valuable skills and experience, regardless of their income, qualifications or work history.

The ICS is led by VSO but funded through DFID, which recognises the positive impact that volunteering overseas can have not only on the communities in which the organisers are involved but on those who volunteer.

The Scottish Government’s white paper is silent on whether such a programme would continue to be funded. There is therefore a legitimate concern that, in the event of Scotland choosing to leave the UK, young Scots would lose out on what is sometimes a life-changing experience and the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to fighting poverty overseas.

The UK is a force for good in the world, with a disproportionate amount of influence overseas for a nation its size. It makes no sense to seek to weaken that influence by fragmenting the UK and, in so doing, putting at risk 600 jobs and the viability of local businesses in East Kilbride, all of which rely on DFID’s HQ being located there.

Photo of Maureen Watt Maureen Watt Scottish National Party

I refer to my convenership of the cross-party group on Malawi.

I, too, am pleased to take part in the debate, although I am perplexed about why it qualifies as a members’ business debate. I note that very few members have signed the motion.

The motion is just the latest part of project fear, which better together is running hard at every level of the campaign—on the doorsteps, in the media and in here. It has no vision of how the UK can improve the lives of Scots at home or the people we help abroad.

As other members have pointed out, the workers at East Kilbride are civil servants and, as such, are often moved about and required to move. As others have noted, the rest of the UK—Westminster—does not have a no compulsory redundancy policy, as we have in Scotland. Indeed, DFID’s annual report and accounts for 2011-12 stated:

“The numbers of staff in both locations increased from March 2011 and will increase to March 2013 and thereafter decline.”

We know that UK civil service jobs in Scotland have declined under successive UK Governments. In 2005, there were 35,300 civil service jobs in Scotland. In 2010, there were 33,000, and in 2014, there were 27,000. There has been a decrease of almost 25 per cent, with more to come. We know already that Scotland in no way gets its share of civil service jobs. Successive Westminster Governments have said that we will get our share but, despite the promises, nothing happens.

I am sure that, rather than being fearful for their future, many of the civil servants in East Kilbride relish the prospect of using their skills and flexibility in the wider context of Scottish international development or international affairs, or in other departments of a new, exciting civil service.

I was interested in the European and External Relations Committee’s inquiry into international development, during which many of the witnesses highlighted areas in which Scotland can take a leading role in international development, such as renewable energy, climate justice, governance or public finance management.

I attended the International Development Committee’s evidence-taking session, here in this Parliament, on the implications of Scottish independence. The clear message that NGOs in Scotland gave Malcolm Bruce and his two committee colleagues was that they liked the type of international development work undertaken by the Scottish Government, even with its very limited budget. The committee’s report said:

“Many Scotland-based NGOs think that the Scottish Government is more effective than DFID at engaging with them.”

That is even with DFID staff in Scotland.

Having met so many NGOs and others through my involvement with Malawi, my experience is that very many relish the prospect of 0.7 per cent of an independent Scotland’s budget being spent on international development. That has been SNP policy since the beginning of the 1970s and it is one of the main reasons why I joined the party back then.

In contrast, the prospect with the union, as David Cameron has suggested and others have mentioned, is of international aid money being spent on overseas military interventions. Tobias Ellwood MP, the Prime Minister’s envoy to NATO, has drawn up what he calls “detailed proposals” for Downing Street, suggesting that there is an overwhelming case for military spending to count towards the 0.7 per cent target. That fills me with horror. I am sure that it fills many other Scots with horror, too, and I am sure that it will influence many people’s choice on 18 September.

Photo of David Stewart David Stewart Labour

I congratulate Margaret McCulloch on securing this evening’s debate and on her thoughtful opening speech.

Presiding Officer, 1997 was a crucial year for international development. Labour was swept to power in the Westminster landslide victory and it was committed to a step change in both foreign aid and debt relief. The Overseas Development Administration was scrapped and replaced by the Department for International Development, and the UK Parliament was one of the first in the world to have a fully fledged Cabinet minister for international development at the heart of Government.

At the time, I was a young, fresh-faced back bencher, strange as that may seem now, and I was on the all-party group for international development. I knew the Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, well. She was passionate and committed to development, and she was very well served, I might say, by my friend George Foulkes, who was a very able deputy over the years at the Department for International Development.

The success and significance of those times can be measured by what was achieved. Between 1997 and 2010, the last Labour Government, as we have heard, trebled the UK’s aid budget and committed the UK to spending 0.7 per cent of gross national income on official development assistance by 2013. More important, I think, it freed 28 countries from debt through debt cancellation and debt relief and untied UK aid so that developing countries were given more of a say on how to spend that aid.

Other members have touched on some of the successes. We provided 43 million people with access to clean water, better sanitation and improved hygiene, supported more than 10 million children to attend primary and lower secondary education, ensured that 3 million births took place safely with the help of nurses, midwives or doctors, reached more than 11 million people with emergency food assistance and provided 45 million people with access to financial services to help them work their way out of poverty. The make poverty history campaign at the G8 in Gleneagles, which many members in the chamber would have been closely attached to, was a very important campaign.

By the time that Labour left office in 2010, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s development assistance committee had recognised the UK as a world leader in international development. I emphasise the breadth of DFID’s operations around the world, including the regional programmes in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, the support for 28 countries across Africa, Asia and the middle east and the humanitarian assistance.

Photo of David Stewart David Stewart Labour

I am really short of time. I apologise to Linda Fabiani.

The UK also hits above its weight in multilateral aid through global organisations such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the World Food Programme.

On coming to this Parliament, I sustained my interest in our global aid effort. I was asked—and was proud—to become convener of the cross-party group on international development. I was extremely impressed by the work that the group had done in the past and the work that the Parliament had done, particularly triggered by Jack McConnell and parliamentarians across the party divide, to forge stronger links between Scotland and Malawi, with genuine cross-party support.

At that time, the Scottish Executive’s international development policy was new. Today, our contribution to the developing world is even greater and our relationship with the countries that we partner is even stronger. It is worth reflecting on the role that DFID played in supporting the Scottish Government at that crucial time. Today, the two Governments’ combined aid efforts are complementary. What we have achieved, we have achieved together.

Photo of Clare Adamson Clare Adamson Scottish National Party

Like my colleagues, I would normally say that I was pleased to speak in the debate but, on this occasion, I am afraid that the debate that the Labour member has called, with the support of Labour’s better together partners, is simply a cynical ploy to pour fear into the hearts of hard-working civil servants. I take that personally, because my mother worked for the Inland Revenue for her entire working life and my brother has worked for the Procurator Fiscal Service for his. Both of them are Public and Commercial Services Union members, and my brother has served as a shop steward for PCS.

It would be helpful if, instead of brandishing copies of the white paper, members actually read it and the answers and information that are in it. Many of the workers in DFID and the HMRC office that has been put under fear today by the UK Government will be members of PCS. PCS has made some key demands for answers from people who are campaigning in the independence referendum. I cannot go through them all, but it is important that we look at some of the key issues.

One of the demands is to end austerity cuts. Alistair Darling has said that, if there is a no vote, we will have tougher and deeper cuts than those of Margaret Thatcher, and Ed Balls has committed to continuing the austerity agenda that the Tories have set. However, in the section entitled “Early priorities for action within sound public finances”, the white paper states:

“This Government will ensure that Scotland has stable and sustainable public finances, underpinned by the discipline of a framework designed to ensure that Scotland’s finances are appropriate for the country’s economy, and able to withstand changes in economic circumstances.”

PCS also says that public services should not be for private profit. In the section on “Gains from Independence”, the white paper states:

“Public services can be kept in public hands. The Scottish Parliament has the power to keep the NHS in public hands but it could not stop other services such as the Royal Mail being privatised by Westminster”.

The direction of Westminster is a reduced public service and a reduced civil service. We should not ignore the possible consequence of a no vote.

Photo of Clare Adamson Clare Adamson Scottish National Party

No, thank you. Opposition members would not take interventions earlier.

PCS also wants us to invest in renewable energy. The white paper states:

“Scotland can also look forward to a further energy bonus from our green energy resources, with expected sales of £14 billion by 2050 from offshore tidal and wind energy”.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I suggest that you confine yourself to the motion. It is a broad motion, but I do not see renewable energy mentioned in it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I am not seeking a debate on that, please.

Photo of Clare Adamson Clare Adamson Scottish National Party

I will take on board what you say, Presiding Officer, but to me the motion is an attack on civil service workers, many of whom belong to PCS, and I am talking about what PCS wants to hear in the independence debate. It was not the Scottish National Party that turned the issue into a debate about independence.

Taking on board what you have said, Presiding Officer, the final PCS demand is for a repeal of all anti-trade union laws and a charter of trade union rights. The white paper gives a commitment to work with the Scottish Trades Union Congress and companies for employee representation on boards. In 13 years of a Labour Government, we had a failure to repeal any of the anti-trade union laws that Margaret Thatcher brought in. Had we had a real Labour Government, that might have been different. I use that term appropriately, because Roy Hattersley used it on Radio 4 this morning in describing the Blair years and a Government that did nothing to improve international relations but simply damaged the UK’s reputation in the world with its illegal wars.

Our civil servants demand our support. They do excellent work, and independence gives us the opportunity to continue that great work and to use their expertise. They must consider the future and how a no vote might impact on their jobs. Do the people in DFID want to support the inclusion of military intervention as part of the UN target, as the current Tory Government wants? We have a choice between two futures—one that is set out in the white paper, which gives commitments and answers the questions that PCS and the civil service have asked, or one that leads us down the road of Tory cuts, Tory austerity and a continuation of threats to the civil service in Scotland.

Photo of Humza Yousaf Humza Yousaf Scottish National Party

The motion and the opening speech by Margaret McCulloch are nothing but an exercise in scaremongering, fear baiting and the politics of cynicism all rolled into one. However, the debate gives me, if nothing else, the opportunity to offer my assurances and reassurances once again on commitments that the Scottish Government has given in relation to the UK Government Department for International Development.

From what I have previously said in Parliament and from what I have said everywhere that I have spoken on the public record, people will be able to see that I have given fair credit to DFID for the good work that it does. I have also met the staff who work in Abercrombie house on a number of occasions at various events. There is absolutely no question in my mind as to their commitment to the cause of international development.

My concern has always been that much of the good work that DFID has done, even when it has not met the 0.7 per cent target, has been undermined by the UK Government’s other policies in foreign affairs and trade—some of which have been mentioned—whether it has been arms and defence sales to Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, General Suharto and the Argentinian military junta, to name just a few, or foreign policies such as the illegal invasion of Iraq, which has been mentioned by members.

We have offered reassurances on jobs to DFID. I offered those reassurances when I was questioned by the Westminster International Development Select Committee during its inquiry on the future of development in the event of independence. I said then and I reiterate now that we would work with the UK Government to preserve continuity of employment of all civil service jobs in Scotland. We have said that before in terms of defence and jobs in other reserved functions, and we say it again in relation to the 604 jobs in DFID in East Kilbride. Those people make a massive contribution; I do not doubt that for a second. Their expertise is a great asset to a future Scottish international development function and even an external affairs function. They would be a fantastic asset.

Margaret McCulloch said that DFID in East Kilbride would not be the same size. She used Ireland as an example. The problem is that if we are to compare like with like, we must compare countries that have the same ambition as Scotland has for its international development function. We have said clearly in our white paper—which the member has on her desk, if she wishes to open it—that we have committed to spending at least the 0.7 per cent target and that we aspire to go beyond that target.

On countries that have a population the size of Scotland’s, Denmark, for example, has a population of 5.59 million and meets the 0.7 per cent target. In fact, it exceeds that target. Denmark has 846 international development and external affairs staff. Sweden has a population of 9.52 million—which is, of course, bigger than Scotland’s, but is still under the 10 million population bracket—and has 735 staff because it meets that 0.7 per cent target. When we look at countries that have the ambition that Scotland has and the number of such jobs that they have, we see that we could maintain those jobs. Not only would we be able to maintain and continue the employment of those people, but other opportunities would be available, including an external affairs function.

Photo of Margaret Mitchell Margaret Mitchell Conservative

Although I do not doubt the sincerity of the minister on what he hopes to do and the assertions that he has made, the difference is that at present we do not know what currency an independent Scotland would have, we do not know the start-up costs, we have fluctuating oil prices, and we have a defence policy that would see the loss of thousands of jobs. With that tally of uncertainties, I do not think that it is credible that the 600 jobs or the 0.7 per cent target would be protected.

Photo of Humza Yousaf Humza Yousaf Scottish National Party

I will not go into set-up costs. I have here, of course, the figure that the UK Government came up with when it came up with set-up costs, which is 12 times the cost that was estimated by Professor Patrick Dunleavy. Of course, his figure of between £150 million and £200 million for set-up costs was well rehearsed. Also, it was mentioned that those costs would be recouped through efficiency savings.

The point about uncertainty is what I want to move on to. Although we have said that we will preserve continuity of employment and have cemented that by saying that we have a policy—as members are aware—of having no compulsory redundancies, no such commitment is forthcoming from the UK Government. That is where the uncertainty about the DFID jobs lies. In fact, even members in the Opposition parties have not committed to having no compulsory redundancies. Those in the Labour Opposition have not committed to no compulsory redundancies. Ed Balls has not committed to having no compulsory redundancies. If he has, please would members intervene and tell me otherwise? I did not think that he had.

When it comes to the threat to DFID jobs, that threat comes from the UK Government. Here are some of the things that Margaret McCulloch’s good friend, Michael McCann MP, has said.

He has said:

“I have also made it clear that compulsory redundancies should be avoided at all costs”— he does not realise that his party has not quite made a commitment to that—

“and have asked the Minister to keep me updated with any developments.

It seems to me that the Government isn’t doing all it can to protect British jobs.”

Margaret McCulloch’s very good friend Michael McCann has also said:

“Today my worst fears have come to pass, despite the department’s previous denials. Staff” at DFID

“were called to a meeting and told in excess of 140 jobs will go ... But more than that”

Andrew Mitchell

“owes it to the staff to reverse this crazy decision.”

If Margaret McCulloch does not believe me, perhaps she will believe Michael McCann, and if she does not believe her very good friend Michael McCann MP, perhaps she will look at DFID’s accounts, as other members have. The International Development Select Committee examined and scrutinised those accounts, which show clearly—in the graph that I am holding up—that the number of staff will reduce in 2014-15. The threat to jobs comes not from a yes vote but from the status quo.

The Scottish Government has an ambitious vision of the role that Scotland could play as a good global citizen. We have committed to the 0.7 per cent target that the UK has finally met—I have been fair in commending the UK Government on eventually getting there. It took a Conservative Government to get us there; in her motion, Margaret McCulloch says that the UK Government has “at last” reached the target.

It is important to realise that the 43 years for which the target was missed represent £87.5 billion of missing aid. That is not something to be proud of. In the 1970s, Sweden was the first country to reach the target, in 1974. In 1975, the Netherlands met it. In 1976, it was Norway and in 1978, it was Denmark. All four of those countries have consistently met the target. What do they have in common? They are of course small independent European nations.

Malcolm Chisholm said that there is no way that Scotland could have the same impact as the UK; he almost questioned the audacity of Scotland even to think that it could have the same impact as the rest of the UK. My point is simple—we should look at contributions to development according to the CDI, which is the index that his colleague Margaret McCulloch mentioned. On that index, the UK is in a commendable eighth position, but the other nine of the first 10 countries on the index are small independent nations. That index does not rank countries by their size in monetary terms; it ranks them by their impact—their contribution—and what they have achieved on the world stage in tackling poverty.

Our vision for international development goes above and beyond what some members have suggested a small country should seek to do. We want to legislate for the 0.7 per cent and we want to do aid better. We will of course work with the UK Government to do that, and with any Government that wishes to achieve that.

I am disappointed that a members’ business debate has been used for such a distasteful motion, which is intended to scare hard-working civil servants across the country. I give the absolute assurance again that, in the case of a vote for independence, we will preserve continuity of employment for not just DFID staff but hard-working civil servants across the country.

Meeting closed at 17:58.