International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

My Lords, from these Benches we are happy to support this Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing it. I too pay tribute to Tom Clarke for taking this Bill through the Commons, and to the NGOs that helped to draft it. My colleague in the other place, John Barrett, was a co-sponsor. As we saw in the Commons, and as we see again in the Lords, this Bill commands cross-party support. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her thoughtful and well informed maiden speech. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cotter for his equally committed and very moving speech. The noble Lord has referred to my role as his supporter. I was honoured to be asked by him to dress up in a red robe and support him in that fashion. I do not often get that chance. I am grateful that he has made his maiden speech in support of this particular area. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has so effectively and comprehensively explained, this Bill seeks to bring accountability and transparency to what the UK does in terms of aid and humanitarian relief. Last year, Make Poverty History made a public case for assisting the poorest people in the poorest countries of the world, and by the end of that year, eight out of 10 people in the UK were familiar with its message. That was an incredible achievement. Children like mine wore white wrist bands and knew exactly why they did so. But it would be too easy to let this subject slip. The UN High Level Panel, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was such a notable member, made clear last year that development relates to the security of us all; it is not simply about what we should do to help those most in need, though that is, or should be, the key motivation. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others exactly what that means in terms of the support that is needed. This Bill ensures that governments of whatever colour must report on what they are doing in international development under a number of headings, which, one hopes, would make it difficult to put an inappropriate gloss or spin on things. The Bill aims to increase transparency in reporting in this area so that the level, poverty-focus and coherence of the Government’s international development policy and expenditure, and their contribution towards reaching the millennium development goals, can be readily tracked over time. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has said, DfID produces a comprehensive annual report, but that forces parliamentarians to read and assess it. If the Bill becomes law, it will require the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report to Parliament using information that is comparable over time, including between government administrations. It will also place on the statute book for the first time a specific reference to the UN target—which we signed up to in 1970—for expenditure on official development assistance to constitute 0.7 per cent of gross national income. It will also for the first time prescribe in law how DfID should report on its development policies and use of resources. As I have mentioned, it strengthens the role of parliamentarians in holding the Executive to account. I should illustrate how this might help. It is notable that Ireland made the commitment of having a timetable to meet the 0.7 per cent target when it held the presidency of the EU. It promptly reneged on that as soon as the UK took over from it and the international spotlight was off it. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has mentioned how governments pay tribute to that goal while all the time moving away from it. The Bill would make such slippage less easy, or at least more embarrassing, and that is helpful to us in all parties if we wish to see the MDGs delivered, ever. Would that there were similar Bills going through other Parliaments and within the European Parliament. As my noble friend Lord Chidgey put it, this Bill is one tool in our toolbox. I note that he wishes to add at least one more—his Bill against corruption. I look forward to cross-party support on that. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made it crystal clear how important this is and how much more we all need to do. It has been made clear that this is a straightforward Bill that is fit for purpose and that any slippage in the timetable in the Lords will cause it to fail. I have heard no rumours of people wishing to see changes in it, such that they would jeopardise its passage. Lest noble Lords think that the Bill was simply rubberstamped in the other place, I point them to the inch-thick transcript of the Commons discussions. I have to admire Tom Clarke’s deft footwork in stepping over and round not only a critic or two but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, put it, the expansiveness and lengthy support of some friends. An editorial in the Guardian of 15 June stated:"““Few private members’ bills become law. Fewer still can hope to affect millions of lives. But the international development bill . . . just might””." In the interests of brevity I will not detain your Lordships further and simply say that the Liberal Democrats strongly support this Bill, that we will table no amendments to it in the interests of it passing into law, and that we are very glad indeed that it has been brought forward.