International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin). I am also glad to have been able to speak from the platform at the Birmingham meeting in 1999 in respect of debt relief, which was my privilege as chairman of the all-party group on the Jubilee campaign for debt relief. It is often thought that commitment to the alleviation of poverty and AIDS in the third world is somehow the prerogative of those from one end of the political spectrum. I would disabuse the House of that notion. The involvement of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and a whole list of Conservative Members shows that it is genuinely an all-party concern, and there are those among us who are deeply and passionately concerned to ensure that the moral dimension associated with international poverty, and particularly the difficulties in Africa, is properly appreciated. I want to refer briefly to the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on the G8, in which he rightly said:"““So Africa is an immediate moral cause that commands our attention.””—[Official Report, 11 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 580.]" I also want to pay tribute, as I have done previously, to the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the Secretary of State for International Development, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and former Conservative Ministers who have taken an active part in promoting such important issues. I want to refer particularly to the acceleration of concern in recent years, which included the cancellation of 100 per cent. of heavily indebted poor countries’ multilateral debts through the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development. Some people were cynical about the Chancellor’s trip to Africa, but I am not. It is vital that senior Ministers are seen to be taking an active interest and that they do so. I also commend the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) for promoting the Bill with all-party support, because it is important to provide such information as a step towards improvement of the situation. I also endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Buckingham, the hon. Member for Glasgow, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) and others with respect to the need for a debate and for tackling such matters in a nuts-and-bolts fashion. The Prime Minister, in his statement to the G8, said:"““It was the most detailed and ambitious package for Africa ever agreed by the G8. However, none of it can be implemented or improve the lives of African citizens without significant improvements in standards of governance, transparency and accountability. It is a partnership, not an act of charity. In the end, only Africans can lead and shape Africa. We can help, but every Government in Africa who betrays the principles of good governance betrays Africa.””—[Official Report, 11 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 581.]" Those were important words. As chairman of the all-party Uganda group, and as vice- chairman of the Tanzania and Kenya groups, I believe strongly that it is in Africa’s interests that we speak plainly about those questions. Furthermore, we should do so with the object of improving the lot of those who are governed in those countries, for the moral reasons that the Prime Minister set out, to which many Members of the House are dedicated. Having said that, I am also bound to say that, on examining the Bill, I feel that however worthy and valuable its objective in terms of the presentation of information, there is a difficult nuts-and-bolts question that we must confront. Where the Bill refers repeatedly to the Secretary of State’s assessment of this, that and the other, the real question will be whether that assessment will necessarily lead to sorting out the problems evident not only in Africa but in other countries where questions of aid and international development apply. I refer, for example, to clause 5, which states:"““The annual report shall include the Secretary of State’s assessment of the United Kingdom’s contribution both financially and in other ways . . . given through””—" for example—"““the European Union””." My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made that point with respect to her Bill on the Public Accounts Committee. We all know, if we are straight and honest, that a vast amount of money is maladministered through the European Union, and my good friend Sir Bob Geldof, with whom I have discussed the matter on many occasions, has strong views on it, as I do. Those views are justified. One only needs to read the Court of Auditors’ report to realise that I do not need to elaborate. It is there for anyone to see. But what is done about it? Very little. Therefore, while a lot of money goes to people whom everyone in the House believes passionately should be helped, the amounts are not what they should be. That raises the question not only of corruption but of maladministration. That problem must be addressed, and my belief is that it could be addressed through rearrangement of the way in which British taxpayers’ money, for which Members of the House have an interest and responsibility, is paid over to the European Union and directed to those countries that require aid or help. Our Public Accounts Committee should be able to exercise a more direct control over the way in which it is either maladministered through the EU or ends up in the wrong bank accounts.