Students are leading the way on international development

The Warwick International Development Summit provides a platform for the spread of innovative new ideas.

International development nowadays often appears to be a topic that many governments profess to commit to but few actually act in a way designed to meet the needs of the people that they claim to be trying to help. Such non-committance is displayed by the fact that only 5 developing nations have yet to reach the donation target of 0.7 per cent of GNI set out by the UN in 1970.

Funding problems have only worsened following the recent economic crisis and the resulting austerity measures pursued by western governments have tightened public purse strings. Although a few countries such as the UK have committed themselves to maintaining their aid budget despite cuts to other areas of expenditure, such ring fencing has been pounced upon by longstanding opponents of aid. Extreme examples such as India’s receipt of aid despite its pursuit of a space capability are used to attack development budgets in general.

It doesn’t help the development cause that aid has had a problematic history. While there has been a move away from the top down, Western led approach followed in the past in favour of a recognition of localised specific and unique circumstances in developing areas, the pursuit of targets such as the Millennium Development Goals established in 2000 have so far met limited success.

Furthermore, aid has often had a (some may say inevitable) focus on the national interest of donor states. Favoured nations often receive significant grants to the detriment of poorer regions, which according to Oxfam undermines “the effectiveness of aid in meeting humanitarian needs and maximizing poverty reduction.”

Despite these issues with development, there is still a determined drive in the global community to improve the lives of the many millions of people who live in desperate conditions around the world in the 21st century. One increasingly recognised way in which development objectives can be met is by engaging young people.  Young people often have the passion and curiosity to be willing to tackle head on the problems that face developing nations. Such enthusiasm is displayed in the thousands of students that choose to travel the world during their gap year or summer holidays, often taking part in projects in deprived regions to improve the lives of others.

The UK is in an exceptional position to foster such engagement. UK universities are ranked second only to the US in demand by foreign students, fuelled by the prominent position that our nation’s institutions feature in international league tables. Last year there were 428,225 full time undergraduate international students studying in the UK, making up 14 per cent of the student population. Nowhere but in universities is there such a multinational mix of people that have a desire to improve the world as well as the backgrounds to offer a truly global perspective on development. This provides UK universities with the unique opportunity to promote engagement in development issues and ensure that both UK and international students have the ability to learn from each other.

One example of this is the establishment of student societies dedicated to culturing such connections. At the University of Warwick, the Warwick International Development Society is preparing for its 7th annual development summit, organised by students from all over the world. With past speakers including WTO Chief Economist Patrick Low, Under Secretary of State for Development Michael Foster MP, BBC reporter Jon Sopel and World Bank lead economist Branko Milanović, the Summit has attracted the attention of significant individuals within the field of development. This year it is due to feature among its speakers Mahmoud Mohieldin, Managing Director of the World Bank and Jeffrey Sachs, the prominent development economist and UN advisor.

The summit has proved exceptionally popular, with attendees including not just students from Warwick but those from other universities around the UK and Europe as well as members of the public. With such a wide audience, the summit has been able to provide a platform for the spread of innovative new ideas and engage young people from a variety of backgrounds. This year’s summit coordinator, Aleksandra Katolik, explains that “by presenting a large variety of topics and making the content of our conference accessible to attendees new to international development, we will be able to show fellow students, activists and members of the public the immense opportunities and ways of making a difference in development.”

The society has also demonstrated how it can engage students in development work. This year it expanded its reach abroad, forming a partnership with the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines to provide the opportunity for students to contribute to improving sustainable agriculture techniques and policy. Through these opportunities, the society hopes to demonstrate that students can contribute to development in a variety of ways.

Solving development problems such as food scarcity, lack of clean drinking water and rampant disease in the developing world will not be achieved in a short time. While the Millennium Development Goals have made progress, it doesn’t appear that they will all be completed by 2015. To steal a tag line from the 2012 Olympic Games, to solve international development problems we need to ‘inspire a generation’ to continue the progress that has been made over the past years. Encouraging greater engagement in our diverse universities is one way of ensuring that the issue of development is firmly in the minds of future generations.

Farmers planting rice in Cavite, south of the Philippine capital Manila. Photograph: Getty Images.
Getty
Show Hide image

Workers' rights after Brexit? It's radio silence from the Tories

Theresa May promised to protect workers after leaving the EU. 

In her speech on Tuesday, Theresa May repeated her promise to “ensure that workers’ rights are fully protected and maintained".  It left me somewhat confused.

Last Friday, my bill to protect workers’ rights after Brexit was due to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons. Instead I sat and watched several Tory MPs speak about radios for more than four hours.

The Prime Minister and her Brexit Secretary, David Davis, have both previously made a clear promise in their speeches at Conservative Party conference to maintain all existing workers’ rights after Britain has left the European Union. Mr Davis even accused those who warned that workers’ rights may be put at risk of “scaremongering". 

My Bill would simply put the Prime Minister’s promise into law. Despite this fact, Conservative MPs showed their true colours and blocked a vote on it through filibustering - speaking for so long that the time runs out.

This included the following vital pieces of information being shared:

David Nuttall is on his second digital radio, because the first one unfortunately broke; Rebecca Pow really likes elephant garlic (whatever that is); Jo Churchill keeps her radio on a high shelf in the kitchen; and Seema Kennedy likes radio so much, she didn’t even own a television for a long time. The bill they were debating wasn’t opposed by Labour, so they could have stopped and called a vote at any point.

This practice isn’t new, but I was genuinely surprised that the Conservatives decided to block this bill.

There is nothing in my bill which would prevent Britain from leaving the EU.  I’ve already said that when the vote to trigger Article 50 comes to Parliament, I will vote for it. There is also nothing in the bill which would soften Brexit by keeping us tied to the EU. While I would personally like to see rights in the workplace expanded and enhanced, I limited the bill to simply maintaining what is currently in place, in order to make it as agreeable as possible.

So how can Theresa May's words be reconciled with the actions of her backbenchers on Friday? Well, just like when Lionel Hutz explains to Marge in the Simpsons that "there's the truth, and the truth", there are varying degrees to which the government can "protect workers' rights".

Brexit poses three immediate risks:

First, if the government were to repeal the European Communities Act without replacing it, all rights introduced to the UK through that piece of legislation would fall away, including parental leave, the working time directive, and equal rights for part-time and agency workers. The government’s Great Repeal Bill will prevent this from happening, so in that sense they will be "protecting workers’ rights".

However, the House of Commons Library has said that the Great Repeal Bill will leave those rights in secondary legislation, rather than primary legislation. While Britain is a member of the EU, there is only ever scope to enhance and extend rights over and above what had been agreed at a European level. After Brexit, without the floor of minimum rights currently provided by the EU, any future government could easily chip away at these protections, without even the need for a vote in Parliament, through what’s called a "statutory instrument". It will leave workers’ rights hanging by a thread.

The final change that could occur after we have left the EU is European Court rulings no longer applying in this country. There are a huge number of rulings which have furthered rights and increased wages for British workers - from care workers who do sleep-in shifts being paid for the full shift, not just the hours they’re awake; to mobile workers being granted the right to be paid for their travel time. These rulings may no longer have legal basis in Britain after we’ve left. 

My bill would have protected rights against all three of these risks. The government have thus far only said how they will protect against the first.

We know that May opposed the introduction of many of these rights as a backbencher and shadow minister; and that several of her Cabinet ministers have spoken about their desire to reduce employment protections, one even calling for them to be halved last year. The government has even announced it is looking at removing the right to strike from transport workers, which would contradict their May’s promise to protect workers’ rights before we’ve even left the EU.

The reality is that the Conservatives have spent the last six years reducing people’s rights at work - from introducing employment tribunal fees which are a barrier to justice for many, to their attack on workers’ ability to organise in the Trade Union Act. A few lines in May’s speech doesn’t undo the scepticism working people have about the Tories' intentions in this area. Until she puts her money where her mouth is, nor should they. 

Melanie Onn is the Labour MP for Great Grimsby.