International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill

My Lords, it is an unusual delight to take part in debating a Bill that has such   wide support all round the Chamber. I add my      congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on introducing the Bill with her usual flair and commitment. I also congratulate our two maiden speakers. Their loss to another place is our gain. Now that they are fully fledged, I look forward to hearing many contributions from them in the future. The Bill stimulated a well informed, interesting and passionate debate which my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lady Chalker will be sad to have missed. They have asked me to offer their apologies for their absence. It is clear that there is support from all Benches for the Bill’s general principles. The recent Unstarred Question on corruption in Africa, following the APPG report on the subject, highlighted only one of the most significant problems to affect international aid and the imperative need for the UK to act in a transparent and accountable manner. It is easy to see why corruption is considered the greatest obstacle to global development. We therefore understand the importance of knowing exactly where the money is going. In our many discussions over the years on the financing of aid, we have always considered the effectiveness of UK aid and our contribution through EU funding. It is clear that aid is effective at reducing poverty only if it is targeted and reaches those who need it most, without, one hopes, compromising the potential for local and national services to step into place once they are on their feet. In simplistic terms: why bother to grow your own food if you cannot sell the excess on the market, as it is flooded with food aid? There is always a question of the effect that aid in any form can have in the long term on development, and that comes even before we consider the pockets it may be lining on the way. Our long-term goal must be to assist the developing world in graduating from dependence on aid to strong democracies with vibrant economies, civil society, good governance, the rule of law and fairer trade, to name but a few aspirations. We must provide the leg-up that is needed for the most vulnerable to help themselves. It is timely and interesting that, at the start of this week, the Prime Minster confirmed plans for his Africa Progress Panel to monitor the progress of the promises on poverty made by the G8 last summer. Save the Children and the World Development Movement, among others, have expressed criticism and concern that the panel’s reports will be null and void without the G8’s agreement to adhere to those suggestions and that the Prime Minister is to some degree,"““picking his own panel to hold himself accountable for his own promises””." I hope that the Minister will make time to respond to those charities’ concerns. Perhaps by accepting the Bill and enabling its report to lead to an annual debate on this aspect of development, the Prime Minister will be able to demonstrate that he and his Ministers are prepared to be held accountable in Parliament for their actions, and in turn for parliamentarians to be held accountable to the people. I commend the work of the Department for International Development. As your Lordships have stated, however, there is always room for improvement. Indeed, an internal DfID report states:"““While there are many examples of positive contribution to development progress, there is generally insufficient information on the link between DfID’s inputs and interventions on the one hand, and positive outcomes observed on the other””." The report also states,"““there is no single, overall strategic plan which guides the allocation and deployment of DfID resources””." Despite the changes, I still have outstanding concerns that the Bill focuses on inputs rather than outputs. I hope that it will be the foundation for a major shift towards assessing the results of aid to make clear the effect of taxpayers’ money on the actual alleviation of poverty. As noble Lords have highlighted, the Bill does not enable easy comparison of different funding schemes’ effectiveness. I hope that the Minister will consider that further as the Bill progresses through the House. Several changes were made to the Bill in the other place which have helped to make it clearer and simpler. We welcome those changes and, in particular, the requirement that DfID report every year on humanitarian assistance. I need not remind your Lordships that DfID spent £437 million on this aspect of aid in 2004–05, a sum that we should make certain is well spent. We also welcome the increase in the number of countries to be assessed for aid effectiveness, mentioned in Clause 4, from 10 to ““not fewer than 20””, in response to our comments in the other place. We are the first to acknowledge that there is sometimes a fine balance between bureaucracy and the need for transparency in the name of good governance, but we believe that there was a strong case for extending the number of countries to be covered by this Bill, not least because a country’s situation can change so much in a year. I hope that the noble Baroness will reiterate the commitment that, for the lifetime of this Government, 25 countries will be monitored. There is overwhelming support for the strengthened links between the millennium development goals and aid, in addition to the significant statutory footing that this legislation provides for the spending target of 0.7 of our gross national income on international development. I have only touched on the main issues raised. It is clear that there is still a strong feeling that DfID is too focused on inputs not results—brownie points for money spent rather than its effectiveness. It is telling that NGOs argue that it has been,"““a year since Gleneagles and we have seen little that demonstrates unity of purpose from G8 leaders””." This Bill is not the whole answer but it is a positive step in the right direction and, as such, we support it and wish it a fair wind as it makes its way on to the statute book.