International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

This motion illustrates all too well the weaknesses of the money resolution process, as both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) have illustrated rather well. As is so often the case, the House is being asked to endorse what amounts to a blank cheque. That would be bad enough in the best of circumstances, but in the case of this Bill it is particularly egregious. The money resolution states that"““it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of . . . any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act; and . . . any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided””." If that is not a blank cheque, I do not know what is. Because we normally know from a given Bill’s Second Reading its parameters and detailed provisions, we can make a rough estimate of such expenditure; indeed, I seem to recall that on certain very rare occasions, Ministers have been kind enough to give the House some idea of the expenditure involved. However, this is a different case altogether. As has already been reflected in the contributions made so far, this Bill, unusually—if I may quote myself, which I am usually very pleased to do—does at the same time"““too much and too little.””—[Official Report, 20 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1114.]" At one and the same time, it contains too many provisions—a point commented on by the Minister and criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness—and too few. Indeed, many contributions on Second Reading suggested, very positively and helpfully, provisions that could be included in it. All these issues will have financial ramifications. We are in the absurd position of being asked by the Government to approve a money resolution for a Bill that we know will be amended, both in Committee and on Report, by Ministers and, I hope, by other Members of the House when we are given an opportunity to do so. How can we possibly, on behalf of our taxpayers, sign up to the incurring of ““any expenditure”” by the Secretary of State in respect of a Bill whose provisions we know will be radically altered by both the Government and the House at large? This surely is an absurdity and we should not be prepared to accept it. I shall therefore be very reluctant to give my support to such a money resolution, but I should point out that I am looking forward enormously to considering the Bill on Report. It is substantial, containing many clauses, and we know from Second Reading that the House will want to debate many aspects of it, probably at length, and to vote on it, probably repeatedly, in order to ensure that it is absolutely right and achieves the objectives set out for it. So although the money resolution is unfortunate, misdirected, mistimed and wrong, I hope that we can correct all that in Committee and on Report.