International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Mike Weir

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and recall the visit that she and I made to Uganda. I welcome the positive news now that most of those people have been able to return to their homes, after an appalling period as refugees. I also follow the shadow Secretary of State, who is not in his place, in his tribute to Jim Dobbin, with whom I visited Bangladesh a couple of years ago when he was looking at the cold chain for a vaccination against pneumonia. He was dedicated to his work and a thoroughly decent man, and I think the House will miss the further contributions he could have made.

I am pleased to support the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore). I am glad he has been able to bring it forward, generate support across the House and fulfil the promises that all three main parties and the coalition agreement made. I think the Bill is timely. Some might say, “If you’ve already met the 0.7% target, why bother to put it in law”. It is precisely because we have achieved it that people need to know that the commitment will continue, not least because, contrary to what people might think, there is a rising need for development assistance.

The crisis in the middle east has led to a substantial demand for humanitarian relief, of which the UK has been one of the most important sponsors: £600 million of our funding has gone to support refugees in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and of course continues to go to Israel and Palestine. It is unfortunate that other countries with a similar interest to ours in that region—France, in particular—have come nowhere near our level of commitment. It is important that we continue to pressurise these countries to accept their share of the responsibility. Being the first G7 country to deliver 0.7% and then enshrine it in law would be a clear statement to our allies that we expect more of them. We should continue to pressure them to rise to the challenge. Unfortunately, however, as the humanitarian demand increases so some of our bilateral programmes are having to be cut. If we can maintain a rising aid budget, we should be able to maintain the bilateral programmes and deliver the humanitarian relief, and not have to choose between the two, as is currently the case—a concern expressed by the International Development Committee, which I chair.

As the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) said, our commitment helps to draw out further commitments from our development partners. My Committee today published a report on health systems strengthening, which DFID does well within our bilateral programmes, but which others are not so good at. The problem is that many of the countries in which we are operating with bilateral development programmes are not matching their own commitments on health. Under an international agreement, they are supposed to be spending 15% of their Government budgets on health, but only about two countries in sub-Saharan Africa are doing that. We can use our leverage to say, “We will put money in, provided you match it, and between us we can help to deliver sustainable health systems.” DFID has not done that everywhere, I am afraid, but it has the power to do it where nobody else can, and this kind of commitment will enable us to do so.

That brings me to another point. Our meeting the 0.7% target is not just about showing the country’s macho commitment to compassion; it enables us to deliver real leadership in the world. I have had the privilege of being Chair of the International Development Committee for more than nine years, and I have made nearly 30 visits to developing countries. I know what the UK looks like from the other end of the telescope. It is treated with much greater respect and regard than we often recognise ourselves, and that is because—I give credit to Labour, actually—our aid is untied and focused on poverty, which gives it a much cleaner edge: people see that it is not about the UK’s short-term commercial interests, but about a genuine desire to eradicate poverty, improve living standards and deal with humanitarian crises. Yes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) said, it is in our national interest to do this in the long run, but it is a long-term objective, not one we measure in the short term. It is based on recognising that the development of these poorer countries helps our development, which helps their development—and so the cycle continues.

I have no compunction whatever about defending our commitment. I have been challenged on it on many occasions. People frequently say how much they would like the money to be spent on something else. During the floods in Somerset, for example, people were saying we should divert the aid budget to deal with that. On a live programme when I was standing next to a woman standing up to her thighs in water in her home, a politician—of a party not represented by any currently elected Member—said, “We should take the aid money and give it to this lady”. I said, “I would rather take this lady to some place in sub-Saharan Africa to meet a woman who has had three children who did not live to their fifth birthday and invite her to tell me that she would rather have the money than let that family have it.” I am glad to say that the woman said, “Of course I wouldn’t”. We know where the difference is. Poverty in these countries does not compare to poverty here; we should make no such comparison.

In passing, it is worth saying that DFID delivers what it does with a remarkably small staff and low administrative costs from offices around the world and its shared headquarters in London and East Kilbride. I have visited both centres on a number of occasions. I think the system works extremely well. It is sad that many people in Scotland do not realise how much activity on the development front is delivered by 600 people in East Kilbride, or appreciate its quality.

If Scotland were to vote to leave the UK next week—I hope it will not, and I do not believe it will—it would have an immediate disruptive effect on DFID. For a start, DFID would lose £1 billion of its budget—the Scottish share, effectively—and would have to redesign its programmes, readjust and, over time, relocate its headquarters. That would be a distraction from delivering poverty reduction where it is most needed. Much more to the point, it would weaken what I think is the transformational capacity that the UK has in development, of which Scotland is an integral part. I would personally hate to see Scotland breaking away and setting up another agency, which would take years and would weaken the one we have got, by no means delivering one as comparably good in any short order. People need to understand what would be lost if we did that. It is just one other aspect of what breaking up the UK would do, which, to my mind, it is not in the interests of the people of Scotland or of the people in the rest of world that we are seeking to help.

[Mr Weir]

I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman going down this road, as I agreed with him up to that point. Does he not understand and accept that the Scottish Government are committed to writing in the 0.7% figure and that Scotland’s international development would add to overall international development? There is absolutely no reason why this should lead to a reduction; it would lead to an increase. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept my earlier point that small, north European, independent countries have always been in the lead with this?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I am sorry I gave way, because the hon. Gentleman had already made that point. I thought I had made the point that we would be breaking up a world-class organisation, damaging and distracting it. I do not think Scotland will be able to come up with anything comparable any time soon.

Universal Postal Service

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Mike Weir

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Weir]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What else could Ofcom do? It could look at section 46 of the 2011 Act, “Contributions for meeting burden”, which we have already discussed, and recommend that all competitors contribute to the cost of running the universal service. As Ofcom has pointed out, however, it is debarred from doing that for a period of five years unless the Minister specifically directs it. Even if the Minister were to direct it, how long would it take to set up such a system, set out the level of contribution, and get it up and running? If the universal service is now in such a condition that Royal Mail is worried about its continuation, do we have time to implement such proposals?

Under the Act, the Government might try to find a company other than Royal Mail that is willing to take on the universal service, but how many of us think that is likely given what we already know about the operation of other companies in the postal market? They are cherry-picking the profitable services, not building a system to compete with Royal Mail throughout the country.

Royal Mail suggests that the way forward is to introduce general universal service conditions that would impose conditions on its competitors to prevent them from cherry-picking urban routes, but also mean that they have to deliver to a much wider geographical area. Again, I leave it to Members to decide whether that is likely, but, even if it is, how long will it take to do that when we are told that we are facing an imminent crisis?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the biggest threat to the universal service obligation for Scotland is independence, and will he tell the House exactly what a universal service obligation would mean in an independent Scotland? What would it cost to post something from Carlisle to Dumfries?

[Mr Weir]

The right hon. Gentleman is being typically ridiculous. The universal service is under threat not because of Scottish independence but because of what is happening in this House. It is under threat now—that is what Royal Mail is saying to us—and it is privatisation, supported by him and his colleagues, that is leading to that. Under independence we have committed to bring Royal Mail operations in Scotland back under public ownership, where they should have stayed, and ensure that there is a Royal Mail service in Scotland. If we stay in the Union, we are told not only that we may not have a universal service, but that prices may go up and things may disappear. The right hon. Gentleman should consider a bit more before making such daft interventions.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Mike Weir

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Malcolm Bruce]

That was precisely the point of my illustration about Apache and the Forties field. It wants to invest, and I believe it will continue to invest, but it is actively reviewing the extent to which it will invest in the light of these tax changes, which clearly make the investment less attractive.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Malcolm Bruce]

Before I do, I want to point out that today I received the Oil and Gas UK index of confidence in the industry, which is to be published tomorrow. It is not surprising to note that the index reveals a very sharp fall in confidence within the industry in the first quarter since the Budget. For example, exploration and production companies’ confidence has fallen from an index level of 71 in the fourth quarter of 2010 to 46 in the first quarter of 2011. Even the confidence of supply chain companies has fallen, albeit less so, from 61 to 54, and when asked why the fall was less sharp, they said it was because their business was now much more international and they expected to pick up business elsewhere that they would otherwise have lost in the North sea. That gives a clear indication that the industry is facing a loss of confidence as a result of these changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Bruce]

At this stage, I am not here to attribute responsibility for the decision. My concern is—[Interruption.] With great respect, Members should acknowledge that, speaking as someone who represents a major North sea oil and gas constituency, I know my own industry and my own constituency. I also know the need for the Government to engage with the industry and I hope to persuade them that they can retrieve the situation to a degree by so doing.

Let me refer to a table that will appear in the UK Oil and Gas publication tomorrow. It shows something of which Labour Members should be fully aware—the correlation with the past. Interestingly enough, in 2009, North sea oil prices peaked at $145, yet within 12 months they were down to $35. At that peak level of production, investment had fallen £3 billion a year as a direct result of negative tax changes in 2006. The time lag, Ministers should be aware, is two to three years, after which investment falls away; it is then several years beyond that when we see job losses, lost investment and lost opportunities.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good case, but he will know that it is not just the immediate impact that is important. With these mature fields, we need to make sure that the infrastructure remains in place, particularly if we are serious about carbon capture and storage, for example, which relies on much of the infrastructure from depleted fields in order to work in the North sea.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Mike Weir

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Malcolm Bruce]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me proceed with my speech, he will receive the answer, precisely because I took part in the constitutional convention when it was set up in the 1980s. At that time, we and the Labour party were in opposition, but the Conservative party largely ignored the convention and the SNP boycotted it. Yet that constitutional convention carried out detailed and thoughtful work that laid the foundations for the first Scotland Bill and, in my view, for this Bill and probably the next one. The difference between my party’s approach and that of the SNP is that we, as a single party with an ambition, recognise that we cannot achieve on our own everything that we want; we have to work with others who do not necessarily share all our views. By working with them, however, we can progress towards what we want to achieve; if we refuse to co-operate, we cannot.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Malcolm Bruce]

I shall make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.

At the time when the constitutional convention was established, there was a minimalist position. Many people in the Labour party were prepared to consider an assembly. I accept that many were passionately in favour, but others had reservations, and the minimalist position involved an assembly, elected by first past the post, funded by a block grant and operating with even fewer powers than the then Scotland Office.

The process—this is the real point that the SNP should take on board—of the constitutional convention meant that we finished up with a Parliament, with all the powers of the Scotland Office at that time, with a proportional voting system to make it much more nationally acceptable and, in fact, with non-defined reserved powers attached to the Parliament. That was a much more radical outcome than the original agenda, and one that would not have been achieved if my party and others had not engaged. At the time, I challenged the SNP to take part, because I wanted it to be there, knowing that it wanted independence but accepting that the party probably would not get it. The SNP’s involvement, however, might have helped us to gain more powers than we did. That is why I continually regard its all-or-nothing approach as damaging to Scotland and, ultimately, to the party’s own interests.

We got quite a lot of agreement, and that is relevant to this debate. Indeed, I think we got agreement in the convention on tax-raising powers, but they did not follow through into the original Scotland Bill. I remember that Donald Dewar even renewed his passport to travel to Germany, and Jim Wallace, Ray Michie and I went to Spain to look at that country’s arrangements. On our return, we more or less agreed on the proposal to assign half of all income tax revenues, and VAT and excise duties, to the Scottish Parliament. The fact that those proposals did not carry through into the first Scotland Bill—I think; I suspect—owes a lot to the resistance of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). The convention largely agreed to them, however, so I am particularly pleased that the Bill before us moves in that direction and will allow them to be introduced.

I also firmly believe—the Scottish National party ought to give thought to this—that those of us who have brought forward and will take forward this legislation are working with the grain of majority opinion in Scotland, in terms of wanting both more power and a step-by-step approach. Those of my constituents who are sympathetic to the SNP cause are puzzled as to why it cannot work with other people and take a step-by-step approach. We could all decide at what point we wish to get off, but that does not happen because the SNP knows that the majority of people in Scotland would get off long before it did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Bruce]

They published the line of route for both that and for the A90. It took the SNP four years to make no progress at all. It has not indicated how it will find the money or when the scheme will ever start.

I do not know what it is about the SNP, but it has a total hostility to railways. It either scraps, delays or fails to take forward every rail project. Part of the transport needs of Aberdeen, and part of the proposal for our bypass, was a commuter rail service to restrict the growth of road traffic and give people choices. Progress was being made with that, but not even the provision of one additional station has progressed under the SNP, in spite of cross-party support from all other quarters. We have had an SNP Government for four years, and they have had the powers to do things to grow the Scottish economy—limited those powers may be, but they have had them—and they have not done so. They should prove that they can do that before they demand more powers that they do not appear competent to use.

[Mr Weir]

The right hon. Gentleman has just made an outrageous attack on the subject of rail. He should ask the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) about the reopening of Laurencekirk station, for example. What about the Bathgate rail line? What about the Alloa-Stirling line stations? All those things happened under the SNP Government. What he said is simply incorrect.