Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was expecting the Minister to respond to the first speaker, and I did not realise that I would be called next.
2.45 pm
When the House gave the Bill a Second Reading, it was striking that there was a complete disconnect between the Government and Opposition, which is very unusual on the broadly consensual area of overseas development. There is a real divide, and we can see it in the nature of the Opposition new clauses and amendments that have been tabled.
New clauses 1 and 8 would massively restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to drive forward the CDC. The Bill is the first stage in a process, of which the House will have oversight throughout, of boosting an existing proven aid delivery mechanism. The Bill will enable DFID, if it is given a clear business case by the CDC, to provide it with the necessary funding. It does
not automatically give the CDC any money, and this is only the first in a series of checks and balances that are gone through before any money is provided. The target of these new clauses, which would restrict the CDC’s ability to use external financial sectors, is misplaced. One of the CDC’s aims is to help markets to develop, and what so often holds back the development of market sectors in poorer countries is the lack of a way to get in the seedcorn investment to start with.
The CDC has never invested in a particular way to dodge tax or get round a regulatory framework, and the concern that it would do so seems to me to be misplaced. The financial and regulatory frameworks of developing countries will never develop if we treat them with such suspicion and starve them of investment. The purpose of the CDC is to go into places where conventional investors may fear to tread. We should not be trying to prevent that in legislation. I hope for a time when the regulatory system will be robust enough that we do not have to use offshore centres, but we are not yet at that point.