Select Committee on International Development Third Report


IV. Other areas of activity

Major appointments

30. We have not had the occasion to interview any new appointees to major posts in the last year. As DFID has no associated public bodies, the Secretary of State makes very few major appointments. The heads of multilateral organisations such as UN agencies, are appointed by the member governments and as such the Secretary of State does have a role to play. We have taken formal evidence from the Director of UNOCHA and held informal meetings with the Heads of the World Bank, IMF, UNDP and USAID in the context of the inquiries and visits which were underway at the time.

Associated public bodies

31. DFID has no associated public bodies.

Examination of draft legislation

32. The Department has not produced draft legislation.

The Quadripartite Committee

Seventh Report of Session 2002-03, Strategic Export Controls (HC 474)

33. We described in last year's annual report our participation, together with the Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade and Industry Committees, in the 'Quadripartite' Committee on strategic arms export controls. That scrutiny continued in 2003, when the Quadripartite Committee published two reports. The first of these was a detailed examination of the Government's proposals for secondary legislation under the Export Control Act (see paragraphs 36 and 37 below) and the second was its regular examination of the Government's Strategic Export Controls Annual Report. The latter report built on the work done in previous years, which had resulted in the establishment by the Government of a system for scrutinising and approving (or refusing) applications to export armaments to certain destinations.

34. The 2003 Report on the latest Government's Strategic Export Controls Annual Report (for 2001), as in previous years, examined a wide range of issues related to the UK export control regime, as well as scrutinising specific licensing decisions. The Committees looked at new rules on the export of components in multilateral manufacturing projects, the Government's regulation of defence sales by British industry and the operation of the Export Control Organisation, which is responsible for administering the export control system. Among other recommendations, the Committees urged the Government to clarify the sustainable development criterion against which an export licence would be refused on the basis that it would hamper development in the recipient country. Some improvements have been made since the Committees last looked at this issue. Guidance has been published but we considered it to be couched in such a way that it is unlikely to be much help to industry in judging whether a licence application is likely to be approved. We also looked closely at the potential impact of the export of small arms to certain countries and examined the particular case of Nepal.

35. We look forward to continuing this collaboration with our fellow Committees on this important subject and have already begun the initial scrutiny of the Strategic Export Controls Report 2002, which was published in 2003. In particular, we intend to continue our dialogue with the Government on how best Parliament may become more involved in the prior scrutiny of export licences.

Sixth Report of Session 2002-03, The Government's Proposals for Secondary Legislation under the Export Control Act (HC 620)

36. Working with our colleagues on the Quadripartite Committee, we also conducted a detailed scrutiny of the Government's proposals for introducing a regulatory system under the Export Control Act 2002. The Committees took oral evidence from NGOs and the Government, and recommended a number of important improvements to the proposals contained in the consultation paper. We identified several areas in which the Government could have been more visionary and less bureaucratic.

37. The four Committees concluded that the legislation needed to be targeted more effectively towards deterring the irresponsible proliferation of military equipment by British citizens and companies wherever they are in the world, while at the same time ensuring that the burden on industry was kept to a minimum. They also recommended that the Government's proposals needed to be more flexible and extend beyond controlling physical exports to other activities, such as electronic communications and brokering. We were very pleased to contribute to the formulation of such key legislation, and will continue to scrutinise the impact of the regulatory system it introduced in the future.

Visit to Washington D.C. and New York

38. In March, as the conflict in Iraq began, we visited Washington D.C. and New York. The Committee met representatives from the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, USAID, the US Administration, NGOs, think-tanks and members of both Houses of Congress. Formal evidence was not taken, but extensive discussions were held on: Iraq and the role of the United Nations; trade, including agriculture; the role and organisation of US development assistance, including the Millennium Challenge Account; debt relief; poverty reduction strategies; and the need for developed countries' policies on trade and other issues to support development policies and efforts to work towards the MDGs.

39. We place considerable value on building a consensus for development among parliamentarians in both donor and recipient countries. There are numerous channels through which we can share information and raise concerns with parliamentarians in Europe. But the US is a different case. There is a challenge to be met in persuading the United States that aid works and should be focussed on poverty reduction. The US visit enabled us to speak to our counterparts in the USA and to meet the key players in US development assistance and the multilateral financial organisations. Civil society groups have a vital role to play in the formulation of Poverty Reduction Strategies. But all too often parliamentarians are overlooked in this process. We have sought to use our recent visit to Africa to help promote the role of developing country parliamentarians as partners who have a crucial role in holding donors, as well as their own governments, to account for the aid they both spend.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 24 February 2004