International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) for inviting me to sponsor the Bill. It seems a long time ago when he telephoned me and outlined what he had in mind in framing the Bill. I was only too willing to say yes. As the right hon. Gentleman has so eloquently explained, the Bill will genuinely make a difference. I hope that it will make a great difference to people in developing countries. On a more practical front, I hope also that it will make a big difference to the way in which the House conducts its debate. Furthermore, I hope that the Government of the day will take decisions about how we spend money that is allocated for development purposes. When we have debates on these matters, they tend to be ministerial statements about what the Government will spend and how they intend to spend the moneys; or rather worthy but lengthy debates, often a whole day debate on the Adjournment of the House, during which we take the subject matter around the course—indeed, around the world—in identifying the areas of need, the countries and the particular challenges and problems that they are facing. We never quite get to the intention that lies behind the Bill, and that is to have detailed accounting and reporting to the House so that factual information can inform not only our debate, but the way in which decisions are made about how the moneys are spent to best effect. We see reports in the House, in newspapers or elsewhere—international reports—that sometimes raise doubt about whether money that is spent for aid is being spent properly or to best effect. When these discussions take place and when articles appear in newspapers, they do not have an impact only on how the Government spend money. There is a huge read-across into how the public decide to contribute, especially to charities and non-governmental organisations. If there is a feeling that somehow there is not a grip on this spending, that tends to make people very cautious. We all receive applications from many charities across the spectrum of issues, and we decide which ones we shall prioritise. The decision on where we put money is influenced by whether we think that the money will be spent well and whether there is proper prudence in the way in which the money is managed. This is bringing together the money that the Government spend and allocate on behalf of taxpayers, but there is a huge read-across into the voluntary sector. The aid and development money that goes to developing countries—this is set out at the beginning of the Bill—is not only a matter of what the UK Government do, as money spent through the European Union and the policies and the spending of international development organisations and United Nations agencies are also involved. There is also the vast range of NGOs and charitable bodies that do so much good work in this area. The Bill would require, quite properly, that when we debate these matters annually and hold the Executive to account—which is our proper function, whether we are in Government or in Opposition—the debate is informed by an annual report to which Ministers will answer. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee; indeed, I greatly enjoy being a member. Last April, we took evidence and brought forward a report on a National Audit Office report on HIV/AIDS in developing countries. The permanent secretary from the Department for International Development and others were scrutinised in the robust way for which the PAC has a reputation. We produced a report that made specific recommendations about what Government Departments should do in future. The problem of doing things only through the PAC is that we hold only permanent secretaries to account. The PAC cannot call Ministers to account. They may be relieved about that. However, the Bill would ensure that the House has an opportunity to hold a similarly robust and informed scrutiny debate. It does not matter whether one belongs to one political party or another, or whether one is a member of the party that happens to be in government in a specific year. The cross-party support and the overwhelming support of many outside the House for the Bill show that we are dealing with the biggest issue that cuts across party politics. At last there is a recognition nationally and internationally that unless Governments and non-governmental organisations can work collectively on the matter, we shall not make the progress that we would like. I believe that the Bill means not only that the Government will be in a position to inform the House, but that the House can use the information to assist the Government—I genuinely mean assist—to set priorities or to make changes in the way in which money is spent. One of the recommendations in the PAC report of 6 April states:"““Only an estimated £19 million of the almost £1 billion the Department provides to the European Union annually is spent on HIV/AIDS.””" It goes on to make clear and specific recommendations about what the PAC believes the Government should do about the money that goes through the EU for HIV/AIDS spending. The final recommendation in the paragraph states:"““The Department should be prepared to reduce or withdraw support to the European Development Fund where it has evidence that funding would be used ineffectively.””" That is one of many specific recommendations from a report and evidence that were based on the specifics. The report is an analytical examination of how HIV/AIDS money is spent.