International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

I too congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) not only on his good fortune in securing a high place in the list of private Members’ Bills, but on making such good and effective use of that opportunity. I congratulate those who have spoken: the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), the hon. Members for Buckingham (John Bercow), for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin), for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and for City of York (Hugh Bayley), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I am pleased to have the indication, particularly from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, that the Bill will succeed in getting into Committee. I agree with him that at that point it will require further amplification, clarification and strengthening in order that it achieves the objectives that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill intends. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right that private Members’ Bills should not merely be warm-hearted. We must discharge our responsibilities to look hard-headedly at these issues and ensure that private Members’ Bills are fit for purpose. We need to ask not only whether the Bill has a beneficial purpose but what is the problem for which it is intended to be the solution. Is it sufficient to justify the effort and parliamentary time put into bringing it into law? I believe that it is justified and I shall give a couple of primary reasons for supporting it. There is a need for clarification of the effectiveness of UK aid in poverty reduction, which to an extent the DFID report attempts to cover. The report does not however address properly the kind of issues that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill intends to include in an annual report. When I asked the Secretary of State for clarification of the effectiveness of aid, I found that such information was not available. In a written question answered on 9 January, I asked:"““what assessment he has made of the number of people lifted out of extreme poverty as a result of pro-poor funding by his Department to developing countries””," and the answer came back:"““DFID has not produced such an assessment.””—[Official Report, 9 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 207W.]" That answer exposes the need for further work. One of the Bill’s intentions, although it is hidden in clause 2, is to achieve clarification of the interdepartmental nature of Government aid to developing countries and the effectiveness of joined-up government. That intention needs to be amplified, as it is implied, but not made clear, in clause 2, and I welcome the opportunity to do so through the legislative process.