International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

I accept that. I simply make the point that there is interweaving between the money made available by charitable organisations and Government money, simply because those organisations, through their administration, receive public funds from the Department. I should like to consider corruption, with which amendment No. 23 deals, and its definition. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) proposed the inclusion of ““corruption”” and its definition in the Bill. The Prime Minister’s initiative, the Commission for Africa, reported in detail on corruption in ““Our Common Interest””. The matter was to be considered at the Gleneagles summit on that tragic day when the bombing in London happened. The Prime Minister had to come back at short notice to attend to his duties in Westminster and at No. 10. Governance and corruption were on the agenda for that day but were sidelined by other events. What corruption would be reported under the Bill if the amendment were accepted? If corruption is included in the annual report, it is clearly important, as my hon. Friend said, that we know exactly what it is. ““Corruption”” appears in some emanations from the European Union, for example, in relation to the European arrest warrant, but without a definition. There is a way in which to define corruption. Another private Member’s Bill, which is about corruption, contains such a definition. I am glad that the promoter of the Bill that we are discussing is a signatory to the other measure, although it is a pity that he did not include more effective provisions for dealing with corruption in his Bill. I wait with interest to hear from the Under-Secretary why the Government are so anxious to avoid my proposals for dealing with corruption. As amended, with the inclusion of ““corruption””, properly defined, the Bill would enable us at least to get information, thus allowing us to ascertain the relevance of corruption to dwarfing aid and debt-reduction moneys. The fact that the Bill does not deal with corruption, even in the schedule, raises serious concern. If the measure proceeds to the House of Lords, will the Government be prepared not only to tackle the definition of corruption but to include in the schedule arrangements to ensure that statistics on corruption are made available as a contribution to the transparency arrangements, for which clause 6 provides, and to do something about it? It is not credible for the Government, who are doubtless grappling with corruption behind the scenes, to eliminate from discussion provisions for external audit, for which new clause 1 would have provided, when corruption is the kernel of the problems of people in developing countries, especially in Africa. It is therefore a moral question. However, there is also a practical question of why we are left only with information and reporting. Even that is insufficient on corruption. That would be true even if amendment No. 23 were accepted. I have been a Member of Parliament long enough to understand that Bills are not perfect and I do not suggest that we should expect them to be perfect. However, the object of our debates is to improve the quality of Bills and the intent, purpose and effect of our legislation. People would become disillusioned if they supposed that there was a deliberate attempt to exclude proposals to deal genuinely with corruption in such an important Bill. It is inconceivable that the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, all of whom I have commended, would be party to excluding corruption from the Bill by rejecting amendment No. 23. If the Secretary of State intervened now to answer that point, I would be glad. We all know that corruption exists, and we all know that the Bill does not address it. We know that my hon. Friend’s amendment would provide some measure of improvement in terms of providing information. We also know that people outside the House are deeply concerned to know why all this poverty still exists despite the fact that huge sums of money—including their own—are being provided to the countries. If the amount of corruption dwarfs the amount of aid and debt reduction, that should be the No. 1 question that a Bill of this importance should answer for people. Fortunately, it so happens that we have a House of Lords. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give me an assurance, either himself or through his Minister, that they will deal with this question. It is as big a question as any that faces the world today. We need to solve the problems that are reported on our television screens and our radios. Given the number of times that the Secretary of State appears to talk about such matter, it seems that it is not just information in an annual report that he will have to deal with. There is also the question of what he is going to do about it. I do not say that in a critical fashion, although I am somewhat suspicious, given the time that I have devoted to trying to get the issue across, as to why it has been sidestepped. I am not suggesting that it has been sidestepped by the selection of amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the reasons; it was because the scope of the Bill was changed in Committee. However, that does not alter the fundamental question. We must not get hung up on the procedural questions when the real question is whether in substance the Bill deals with corruption. The amendment that my hon. Friend has tabled would certainly improve matters, but the Bill should deal with the issue in a more substantial manner. The report of the Commission for Africa contains a number of important statements that should be part of the information on corruption and which would be included in the annual report under my hon. Friend’s amendment. For example, page 14 of the Commission for Africa’s report states:"““Improving accountability is the job of African leaders. They can do that by broadening the participation of ordinary people...They can also help build accountable budgetary processes””." In that way, the people of Africa could see how money was being raised and where it was going. How are people to see how the money is raised and where it is going if they are not able to get to the bottom of the matter through the provisions in the Bill or through the amendments and new clauses? My proposals are that there should be an external audit of the Public Accounts Committees in each of the countries involved, and an assessment made by the Secretary of State of whether those countries are doing the job properly. That is not a form of colonialisation of their Public Accounts Committees. Our taxpayers have a direct interest in the issue, as do all those who make contributions. The world at large also has an interest in ensuring that those countries are governed in what the Commission for Africa and the African Union insist is the right way. The Commission for Africa report goes on to state:"““That kind of transparency can help combat corruption, which African governments must root out. Developed nations can help in this too. Money and state assets stolen from the people of Africa by corrupt leaders must be repatriated. Foreign banks must be obliged by law to inform on suspicious accounts.””" How will they be able to inform on suspicious accounts if the information is not made available in the annual report? The Bill’s very title specifies a requirement for reporting and transparency. In other words, it cries out for further information and action. The report goes on:"““Without progress in governance, all other reforms will have limited impact.””" Chapter 4 of the report deals with the kind of information one would expect to find in the annual report under my hon. Friend’s amendment. Its summary includes the question of"““Increasing transparency of revenues and budgets, especially in countries rich in natural resources; this also makes a powerful contribution to conflict prevention””." It goes on to refer to tackling corruption as a main item, including the repatriation of stolen assets. Accountability is part of the transparency referred to in clause 6, of the new clause that my hon. Friend has so ably described, and of his amendment on corruption.