International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

Indeed; I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. It is very important that such comments should not be seen as some illustration of a Europhobic outburst, which some like to make them out to be. I wish people would grow up for a bit on these matters. We are talking about practical questions and realities. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) gave evidence to the European Reform Forum, as did Will Hutton and Charles Grant and many others from the other side, as it were, of the European debate, and Oxfam has agreed to give evidence on behalf of those such as itself who are deeply concerned about these matters on the implications for international development issues, in order to ensure proper analysis of what is going on. That evidence is periodically published. Above all else, we need to get away from the idea, which is quite often suggested, that the remarks of those of us who have reservations about the way in which the European Union functions are driven by irrational, Europhobic views. In fact, they are based on evidence that needs to be properly evaluated. That brings me to my point about transparency. I have heard much today about the question of accountability. In fact, I think that I have heard accountability mentioned about 30 times. It is a matter of what one means by accountability. It can mean in a rather loose sense that information is provided, which is what the Bill provides for. It can mean that there is a debate. However, there might be a vote at the end of that debate and—surprise, surprise—if that debate is in the Government’s name or it is an Adjournment debate, we know what to expect in any vote, particularly if the Government have a majority. So, that does not prove anything. If we want to solve the problems that are inherent in the question of where the money goes in respect of vital matters such as people dying of AIDS, malaria or starvation, let us be grown up about it. It is not enough just to talk about such things or even to be informed about them, important as that is. We need to establish the evidential basis for putting things right. That is what accountability means. As has been mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee meets only permanent secretaries and officials. It does not meet the Minister and ask him the questions. Let us face it, in International Development questions we do not always get the answers that we would like. We may get the best answer that Ministers are prepared to give, but that might not solve the problem. Clause 8 deals with the issue of transparency, and I would very much like to be added to it provision for an internationally supervised audit, which is the bones of the Bill that I have already proposed. I consulted extensively on my International Development (Anti-corruption) Audit Bill, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for writing to me about it on 23 July. The Under-Secretary replied in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on the subject. Unfortunately, however, clause 8 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill does not address the questions that need to be addressed. I am not suggesting that we should impose our will without being sensitive to the necessity for other Governments to run their own affairs. However, when we provide substantial sums of money to assist those countries, whether that money comes from international organisations or the United Kingdom, whether it is passed through the channels or conduits of the European Union or otherwise, it is essential that it is properly audited. That raises the important question of the nature of the public accounts committees of the countries in question. It is no secret that, over the years, substantial sums of money that have been made available through the agencies, Governments and Parliaments of the nations that I have mentioned have gone to countries where the money ends up in the bank accounts of leaders and other people. The report by the Commission for Africa entitled ““Our Common Interest”” faces up to that problem. I need not go into it in detail, as the issue is set out in chapter 4. The report addresses the need to do the job properly, along the lines that I propose in my Bill. I am not criticising the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), as his Bill is a first-class measure, which I support. However, it needs some hard nuts and bolts, such as the external audit that I propose in my Bill. Such a measure would be required if analysis showed that other countries’ public accounts committees and their internally supervised domestic audits simply are not working. There are means to introduce such provisions, and I believe that we should do so. We should impose conditions on assistance provided under the International Development Act 2002 and encourage other countries and the relevant international financial institutions to do likewise. The kernel of my Bill is the requirement to hold an audit of any public expenditure within the country in question arising from assistance under international development arrangements. That audit should be carried out"““by or under the supervision of suitably qualified persons authorised by relevant international financial institutions, undertaken, so far as the Secretary of State deems practicable, in conjunction with those appointed for the purpose of such audit within that country””." Clause 8 of the right hon. Gentleman’s Bill states that the annual report should provide an ““assessment of transparency””. Subsection (2) states:"““The Secretary of State’s assessment of transparency shall take account of whether it is possible to . . . make provision for the independent monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of policy and expenditure in achieving its stated objectives””." It is not enough merely to require the assessment to take account of whether it is ““possible”” to secure independent monitoring and evaluation. It is a wish list—a hope. I invite the Minister to address the matter when he replies. The clause goes on to state that the assessment shall take account of whether it is possible to"““secure and publish an agreement with recipient countries which will contribute towards the achievement of the objectives listed””." There is a serious practical question which requires a hard, nuts-and-bolts evaluation. That does not detract from the Bill, which takes matters well forward in a constructive manner. I pay tribute to the promoter for that, but I am not satisfied that it does the job of dealing with an independent evaluation, not simply because of its academic approach to the need for better accounting procedures, but because if an evaluation is not carried out properly, as I described, the people who ought to receive the money will not get it and nobody will know why not. There must be a proper Public Accounts Committee that delivers, and a proper auditing arrangement. There are countries that do undertake proper accounting and there are countries that will want to improve their procedures, so I make this constructive suggestion. For countries that have not complied and will not comply, it is essential that we move from encouraging them to the next stage, which is to make that a condition of our providing assistance. That is in line with the Prime Minister’s comments in the G8 statement about the need for Africans to help themselves, and in line with good governance and with the thrust of the report , ““Our Common Interest””. It is imperative that we get to grips with the issue and do not just talk around the subject.