I beg to move amendment No. 16A, in page 3, line 35, leave out from `agreements' to end of line 2 on page 4 and insert
`consistent with the aims of this Act set out in sections 1 and 3'.
This is a simple amendment. It is designed to simplify clause 9. We had an extensive debate on the Bill's aims, as set out in clauses 1 and 3. I was looking to provide a more specific application of those aims; my previous amendments would have added another five subsections. I thought that it would simplify the Bill if clause 9 condensed the aims set out in those clauses. They do not need to be reiterated.
I will try to brief. The hon. Lady has said that the amendment is simple. The difficulty is that it could have a number of undesirable effects, depending on how the wording was read. If it was interpreted in a narrow way, it would ensure that statutory bodies could act only under clauses 1 and 3 and therefore that they could enter into and carry out agreements using development assistance provided by the Secretary of State only under those clauses, and that it would be channelled to them under clause 8. Clause 9 is intended to allow statutory bodies to engage in activities in other countries that promote sustainable development, improve the welfare of people or alleviate the effects of disasters using resources from anywhere—their own, the Secretary of State's or someone else's.
The other consequence that could arise from a narrow interpretation of the amendment would be that the statutory bodies listed in schedule 1, though not those able to act in other countries under their existing powers, could not make agreements to work in the overseas territories under clause 2. It would be rather strange to include a provision that would impose the strict poverty criterion, from which assistance to those territories is generally exempted, only on assistance provided to them through the statutory bodies. For instance, one of the tourist boards listed under schedule 1 might wish to work with one of the overseas territories. It would be unfortunate if we imposed a stricter requirement on it to give that assistance than we impose on ourselves by virtue of clause 2.
For those reasons, I shall urge the Committee to resist the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.
We have no desire to make life any more difficult for British overseas territories than it already is. That would have been an unforeseen disadvantage of my attempt to simplify the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
This is something that we are concerned about. International development is not a devolved responsibility, and we were a little surprised to find that the Bill required the Secretary of State to give consent to Scottish statutory bodies only with the approval of Scottish Ministers and to Welsh statutory bodies only with the approval of the National Assembly for Wales. We do not see the need for such a provision. It is not that we are opposed to devolution; it is here, and it is working for those areas for which devolved responsibility is agreed, but international development is not one of them. It seems to us to be devolution by stealth. It also, surely, increases the bureaucracy of providing assistance. I fail to see why a simple conversation cannot take place between the Secretary of State and the equivalent person in Wales or Scotland to clarify the benefit or otherwise of granting decisions on statutory bodies in those countries.
DFID has correctly identified development education as an essential part of its work. Development education affects the school curriculum, which affects the work of the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly. The Department carries out a great deal of development work. It is in active contact with schools and civic communities and forums. It holds forums, as the hon. Lady may be aware, throughout the country. As a result, it is involved with the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly. That is why the provisions were included.
I am a bit surprised to hear that that is the purpose behind the provisions. I do not think that people reading them would immediately spot that. The provisions would create a wider power, under which a huge amount of approval seeking would have to go on. The purpose behind our amendment is to reduce rather than increase the amount of bureaucracy that surrounds the involvement of other statutory bodies in the provision of development assistance. We have spent a lot of time discussing how we want to make assistance more effective, ensure that it gets there quickly and is successful when it gets there.
We want to ensure that not too much time is spent pushing papers around before such assistance is given. For that reason, I remain rather unconvinced that subsection (4) should remain in the Bill. The education-related matters, such as what is expected under the national curriculum and how that is interpreted in Scotland, could be dealt with through the Department for Education and Skills. The provisions will open the floodgates to a huge amount of additional bureaucracy. The questions could be resolved by conversations that must in any case take place among the relevant Ministers in Wales and Scotland and the Secretary of State in England.
The hon. Lady is right that international relations and development assistance are, in general, reserved matters for the UK Government, but the issue, as the amendment demonstrates, is slightly more complicated than that. Schedule 5(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which none of us have before us—so no one can gainsay what I am about to tell the Committee—clearly places competence with Scottish Ministers on matters relating to the provision of such assistance by Scottish bodies. That is because Scottish Ministers are responsible for ensuring that the bodies listed in schedule 1 of the Bill carry out their domestic duties effectively. How could they assure that when the bodies could, in an extreme case, have their attention diverted abroad at the behest of the Secretary of State for International Development?
By the same token, although there is no similar statutory provision in the Government of Wales Act 1998, the National Assembly has to be able to account for the activities of Welsh bodies. That is why clause 9 includes provisions safeguarding the interests of Scottish Ministers and of the National Assembly. As the hon. Lady acknowledges, the amendment would have the effect of removing the need for the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers—or, as the case may be, the National Assembly—about activities undertaken under the Bill that relate to statutory bodies that fall within their jurisdiction. It would also remove the need for the devolved Administrations to determine whether the statutory bodies under their jurisdiction should be empowered to act under clause 9.
The amendment would therefore run counter to the spirit and the letter of the devolution settlements reflected in the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The affected provisions have been drafted to respect the settlements, because the Bill will provide for consultation and consent. Knowing what I do about devolution and the passion of many hon. Members for the subject, far be it from me to suggest that we interfere in the settlement by agreeing to the amendment.
That was a wonderful peroration, which almost persuaded me not to bother speaking at all. I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Minister said. This part of the Bill seeks to recognise the decentralisation that already takes place, of which I understand that we are all in favour. Were we not to recognise that, we would not accept that the Scotland Act 1998 ever happened.
The hon. Member for Meriden suggested that the Department for Education and Skills should have some say in how development education was conducted in Scotland.
Mrs. Spelman indicated dissent.
If international development and the assistance given under the Bill is a reserved matter, it is a reserved matter—full stop; end of argument. If a Government tried to channel some international development assistance through bodies subservient to the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, surely it would be for the Parliament and Assembly to decide whether they wanted those bodies to play a role in international development? Having decided that, they should not then be allowed to second-guess every time that the Government, with the reserved power in the Bill, wanted to channel some assistance through those bodies.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I find that argument disingenuous. It has been argued that charities and NGOs should have responsibilities, an argument that I have accepted, but we are not prepared to confirm—I emphasise that word—the responsibilities that the House has devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. As we decided to devolve such matters, we have the right to take them back. That is not what is proposed in the Bill, which recognises the reality of the 1998 Acts on Scotland and Wales.
To say that we should simply confine all such matters to DFID was never the intention even of those who warmly support the Bill. No Department is more concerned about decentralisation than DFID. The existence of the Department's offices in East Kilbride are a wonderful example of job dispersal in the civil service, with wonderful work done there for the whole United Kingdom. The Department has warmly embraced decentralisation. To go back on that via the amendment would send the wrong message. It would be most unwelcome not only to Scotland but to the UK, which believes in decentralisation, believes that it is compatible with internationalism and believes that we should honour what was said when Parliament passed the Scotland Act 1998.
I must confess that I am not intimately acquainted with the statutory provisions to which the Minister referred a moment ago.
It seems eminently sensible and appropriate that consent should be sought and given before such expenditure is undertaken, so I oppose the amendment.
To satisfy the concern of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), there is no question but that we accept devolution. However, we see limits to it, and foreign affairs and international development are reserved matters. Our concern is that the clause departs from that principle, and the issue of development education in schools seems to be a tangential reason for opening that whole debate.
It might be helpful if I tell the Committee that schedule 5(7) to the Scotland Act 1998 is an exception to the general reservation of international development to the United Kingdom.