International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He took part in the Second Reading debate, and he takes an extreme and consistent interest in these matters. I look forward to his contributions on Report. This debate is vital. The Government are considering extending the Bill to include a provision allowing the effectiveness of British bilateral aid spending to be assessed in more than just the 10 largest recipient countries as specified in the Bill, and possibly doubling the number. As I am sure all Members will agree, the money resolution would greatly strengthen the assessment of aid effectiveness. It would ensure accountability for more than just 44.2 per cent. of bilateral aid spending and would include countries such as Mozambique and Kenya—which are currently excluded—as recent allegations demonstrate the necessity for increased accountability and transparency. Such an amendment may involve a corresponding increase in costs, which may or may not be covered by the resolution. Similarly, a proposal to increase the Bill’s scope to include humanitarian aid—to which reference has already been made—could have a varying impact on its financial implications, particularly as the number and extent of humanitarian aid programmes are unpredictable. I hope and trust that the resolution will authorise general expenditure resulting from the Bill, probably covering issues that I and others have raised, such as independent monitoring and assessment criteria relating to the millennium development goals. However, I think it is still important to consider how such expenditure may arise, and the nature of any proposed amendments is therefore of great importance. While I understand the generic nature of the money resolution, the Minister said that he had an idea of the maximum charge that must not be extended. Can he also tell us whether he expects the estimate for future financial years to be the same as the first-year estimates? Are the costs front-loaded, or will they increase over time as the aid budget grows exponentially towards 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product? The Minister spoke of plans for expenditure covering only three years. Why should that be the case, given that the 0.7 per cent. will not be reached until 2013, seven years from now? Can the Minister assure us that the cost of the Bill will be financed by the reduction in leakage that its implementation will facilitate, and will not have a negative impact on poverty alleviation? As it stands, the motion will not prevent any amendments tabled after Second Reading from being discussed in Committee. However, it would have been useful if the Minister had tabled Government amendments earlier, so that their possible implications could have been discussed during this debate. Neither the Minister nor any other Member may amend the motion. That preserves its generic nature, and the guarantee that it covers all eventualities. If it has to be altered, the original version must be withdrawn and resubmitted with its scope extended. Such action would hinder the Bill’s progress, and Conservative Members do not want that. I trust that the Minister will confirm that there are no circumstances in which such an eventuality would arise. Conservative Members support the Bill’s general principles and therefore, along with the Minister, commend the motion to the House.