International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

Due to the length of the contributions from some hon. Members, I was beginning to wonder whether their attention to detail and enthusiasm would lead not only to me not being called, but perhaps to them inadvertently talking the Bill out. I am glad that that has not happened. I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill, and indeed to show my solidarity with the community that we have here in the House involving those of us on both sides who are passionately committed to development issues. More importantly, I am happy to stand in solidarity with the global community, which is the community that is particularly involved with the Bill. However, I am disappointed that doing so means that today I am unable to serve the community that I represent—my constituency. I am having to miss surgeries to be here. I hope that the Government consider that issue in terms of the scheduling of private Members’ Bills. As has been said, 2005 was a year that began with huge hope, energy and enthusiasm by what I call the coalition of hope—the global community mobilising to try to do something about the scandal of global poverty. Unfortunately, in the end it was a year of limited promises and huge disappointment. The Bill, which I support in its entirety, is about openness and honesty. We therefore have to start by being honest about what was achieved last year at the G8 summit and the WTO. Behind the back-slapping of the pop stars and politicians, the reality of what emerged from the global commitments made last year has been exaggerated; it was disappointing and substantially inadequate. Of the $48 billion of aid that was promised, only $20 billion is new money, and of that some may come from future aid budgets. It is five years too late. Although some of the debt settlement is of course very welcome, it will in reality be about $1 billion a year, whereas the UN has said that $10 billion a year in debt relief is needed to make any difference, and that is without its being conditional. I am glad to say, however, that the Bill marks a positive start to 2006, and all those of us who are involved in campaigning for international development must retain our sense of optimism, or the cause will be lost. I therefore welcome the Bill; it is a small but significant step in bringing more openness and honesty into both Government and global policy on international development. The Bill is important for two reasons connected with the general public, as well as being important to Members, as has been stressed. There are really two sorts of people in this country: the first group is made up of those who are, frankly, largely ignorant about international development issues and those who not only are ignorant but question the effectiveness of the UK’s aid programmes. How many times have we heard people ask, ““How do I know that the money will get to those who need it?””? We need to engender confidence in those people that aid is indeed being directed where it should be spent and to those who need it. The Bill, I believe, would do that. The second group of people are those of us who are genuinely committed to challenging the global apartheid of injustice and poverty. The Bill would allow us to see whether the rhetoric is matched by reality. It would give all of us in the House and outside the chance to see whether the promises are being kept and whether the millennium development goals have a chance of being achieved, not in 150 years, which is the current position in one case, but in 10 years. We know that it will not be the latter. The Bill is about openness and accountability. There is will on both sides of the House and outside, and in the NGOs. The Bill is very simple in its aim: it will see that the promises of this Government and of world leaders are kept and that they lead to the progress that will lift millions out of poverty. I welcome it.