International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

I intend to be brief. The House will understand that private Members’ Bills can be talked out by their friends and supporters as well, so I hope that I am giving a lead to the many who I believe support the Bill when I stick to the brevity to which I have committed myself. I do so with perhaps more confidence that might have been the case earlier today when I recall the intervention from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), which I welcomed. I related that to what he said at the end of the Committee sitting. That sitting was comprehensive and did not involve a single Division. It has led to the Bill being presented to the House in the shape that it is today. He said then:"““We have had, on Second Reading and today, a most comprehensive debate. We have pretty well rewritten the Bill. There can be no excuse…for any hon. Member from any party to try further to amend this Bill, which has been examined exhaustively.””" That remark comes from a former Chair of the International Development Committee. He went on to say:"““I hope that Opposition and Government Members and the Whips will make it clear to everyone that there will be no patience with any Member of Parliament who seeks to filibuster on Report and Third Reading.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 February 2006; c. 33.]" I intend to take the hon. Gentleman’s advice. I will, however, respond briefly to the debate that we have had so far. You very rightly pointed out that there was more than a degree of repetition in at least one of speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What worried me a little more was the repetition of point after point that was made on Second Reading and dealt with in detail in Committee. In response to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who talked about this being a Government Bill, I have to say that, whereas I welcome the clarification and the assistance that my hon. Friend the Minister offered comprehensively in Committee, in my view it would be the most dreadful slur on the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) to imply that he was not acting as the principal spokesman for the Opposition and doing his job in scrutinising the Bill. I believe that he did his job very well.