 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill |
International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill |
|
Column Number: 1 Standing Committee BThe Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairman: Mr. Jimmy Hood †Baldry, Tony (Banbury) (Con)†Balls, Ed (Normanton) (Lab) †Barrett, John (Edinburgh, West) (LD) †Brown, Mr. Nicholas (Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend) (Lab) †Clarke, Mr. Tom (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab) †Connarty, Michael (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab) †Cunningham, Mr. Jim (Coventry, South) (Lab) †Ellwood, Mr. Tobias (Bournemouth, East) (Con) †Hollobone, Mr. Philip (Kettering) (Con) Lancaster, Mr. Mark (North-East Milton Keynes) (Con) †Levitt, Tom (High Peak) (Lab) †McKechin, Ann (Glasgow, North) (Lab) †Mudie, Mr. George (Leeds, East) (Lab) †Norris, Dan (Wansdyke) (Lab) †Simmonds, Mark (Boston and Skegness) (Con) †Thomas, Mr. Gareth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development) †Wishart, Pete (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) Mark Egan, Committee Clerk † attended the Committee Column Number: 3 Wednesday 15 February 2006[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill9 amThe Chairman: Members who wish to do so may remove their jackets. I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the room. I understand that the Committee hopes to conclude its consideration of the Bill at the first sitting. If that should not prove possible, I shall invite Mr. Clarke to move a sittings motion specifying the date and time of our next sitting. I do not intend to call starred amendments. Clause 1 Annual reports: general Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab): I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 4, leave out from ‘Parliament’ to end of line 5 and insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 2 and insert—
No. 16, in page 2, line 18, leave out
and insert ‘31st March each year’. Mr. Clarke: It is an enormous pleasure, Mr. Hood, to sit under your chairmanship. I welcome you to the Chair, and I am sure we all look forward to working under your distinguished chairmanship. The Committee will be aware that on Second Reading I was asked to tighten up the Bill’s provisions. On reflection, the changes outlined in the amendments seem not only sensible and practical but necessary. To that end I have endeavoured to take such advice on board. Above all, these amendments and others to which I intend to speak later this morning are based on numerous discussions with the Department for International Development, with sponsors and supporters of the Bill and with the Clerks, and I am grateful to them for all their advice and support. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. Throughout those discussions, I have genuinely attempted, in the spirit of the United Nations
I believe that considerable progress and improvements will be made as a result of the amendments, largely because I have had access to such a wide cross-section of suggestions. In amendment No. 14 and the others in this group, I seek to outline the importance of the annual report and to spell out, in the detail that I believe is required, the technical nature of the reports. To that end, the amendments are for the purposes of simplification; they will shorten the clause to a summary clause, and the detailed provisions will be set out in subsequent clauses. Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con): I join the right hon. Gentleman in saying how pleased I am, Mr. Hood, to serve under your watchful eye. I and my hon. Friends congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the enormous effort that he has put into his Bill, the excellent way in which he has held a disparate and diverse group of people together in order to progress it, and the excellent way in which he genuinely listened to the suggestions made by Member of all parties on Second Reading. Indeed, in consultation with the Minister, he has taken on board several of those suggestions, which we see in many of the new clauses. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the amendments to clause 1 give us clarity and simplification, and we agree with them. However, I wish to raise two specific points about the wording. First, will the Minister say why the report will be laid before “either House” rather than both? I wonder why that wording was chosen. Secondly, it is important that the report does not stay in a dusty corner—if, indeed, there is one in the House of Commons Library. The Bill should make it clear that the report must be debated in the Chamber. Generally, we support the simplification and clarity of the amendments as we do the changes that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman and the new clauses that will be proposed by the Minister. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I join others who have welcomed the chance to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood, as I do the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) in paying tribute to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) has conducted his efforts to take on board the wishes of the House on Second Reading. We have had extensive discussions in which he pressed forcefully and robustly the various points to strengthen the Bill that were made by many hon. Members on Second Reading. I hope that the amendments that have been tabled in my name and that of my right hon. Friend will be recognised as a way in which to strengthen the Bill. The Government support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend. By way of clarification, I wish to say that the breakdown of bilateral aid by region
The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness asked first about possible debates of the annual report. He will know that I cannot give him a guarantee in Committee that it will be debated annually. However, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will have read what hon. Members said about that on Second Reading. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been shy about debating international development during our ministerial discussions. Mr. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): Will the Minister clarify whether he will support an annual debate on the report? If he could put his thoughts about that on the record today, it would be helpful. Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for Ministers to give such assurances at this stage. Nevertheless, I welcome every opportunity, not only annually, to debate international development in its widest sense. I welcome the chance to hold regular debates in Westminster Hall or at the end of business on the Floor of the House. The more the merrier is my approach. The second point made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness concerned the specific language that has been used. The reference to “either House” was made to combine the annual report that is required under the Bill with any other departmental report that is published. Mr. Clarke: The Minister’s views reflect my own. He has said as much as we would expect him to say in the debate. However, it might be helpful if I say that I would certainly look forward to the report being debated annually in both Houses. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 15, in page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 2 and insert—
No. 16, in page 2, line 18, leave out
and insert ‘31st March each year’.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.] Column Number: 6 Mr. Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 20, leave out from ‘State’ to end of line 24 and insert
Mr. Clarke: As we have re-established this morning, the annual report is a major step forward, confirming Parliament’s role in making the Executive accountable. Amendment No. 17 would allow information to be updated if it was not available or if errors had been made; in moving it, I am trying to protect Parliament’s right to information. Amendment No. 18 emphasises the point already made about the importance of both Houses of Parliament. As I have said, I hope that such an annual report will lead to debates in both Houses, hold the Executive to account and lead to an increased focus on these matters, in accordance with the desires of Parliament. I hope that I have been able to explain why the amendments are important, and I commend them to the Committee. Mark Simmonds: I wish to make a very brief point. We have already strayed into the content of amendment No. 18, but I should like to ask the Minister about amendment No. 17. What thought has been given in DFID to ensuring that there is no unnecessary duplication between the DFID reports already in the public domain and the additional reporting that will rightly have to be done to meet the requirements of this legislation? That issue was rightly raised on Second Reading. Will the Minister assure us that everything will be done to ensure that there will be no unnecessary work to meet the requirements of this legislation? Will he also ensure that DFID’s primary focus in reporting will be that it is for the purposes of parliamentary scrutiny? I am talking about the reporting structures proposed in the Bill, rather than those that already exist. Mr. Thomas: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances he wants. We are certainly not in the business of doing unnecessary work. If, as we hope, the Bill is passed, it will standardise and put on a formal statutory basis the various requirements to report on international development to the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that we publish an annual report for Parliament. We shall have to change the nature of that report in a number of ways, and we shall do that to reflect the wishes of the House if the Bill is passed. Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): I want to say a brief word in support of the amendment, which has been welcomed by the Bill’s promoter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. I have known my right hon. Friend since I joined the Labour party in Coatbridge aged 16; he was a Labour party youth officer and a young councillor. He has accepted this amendment very much in the spirit of the
I support my right hon. Friend’s acceptance of the amendment, and should like to pay him a compliment. I have known him for a long time—I will not say how long—and he has always been the kind of person who would use such a report to the best effect, regardless of which House it is placed before. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 18, in page 2, line 20, leave out from ‘State’ to end of line 24 and insert
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Coherence of United Kingdom contribution to poverty reduction and sustainable development Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: clause 4 stand part. New clause 6—Policy coherence and Millennium Development Goal 8—
And the following amendment thereto: (a), , leave out
and insert ‘general or specific observations’. At the end of the clause 2 stand part debate there will be a vote. The questions on clause 4 stand part and new clause 6 will be put without debate at the appropriate times. If Mr. Simmonds wishes to press his amendment to new clause 6, he can do so when the question is put on that new clause. I hope that that explains the procedure on this and subsequent clause stand part debates. Column Number: 8 9.15 amMr. Clarke: I am sure that the Committee understands with enormous clarity exactly what you have outlined, Mr. Hood. If we get anything wrong, I am sure that you will correct us. I rise to speak to new clause 6, in which I have taken into account what my hon. Friend the Minister said on Second Reading. He was concerned about a possible overlap in the original draft of the Bill, and on reflection I decided to invite the Committee to replace clauses 2 and 4 with new clause 6, which is on policy coherence and millennium development goal 8. The Committee is aware that on Second Reading I gave considerable prominence to policy coherence, which has been a Government objective for some time, and towards which we are making progress. Policy coherence is practised widely in Scandinavia and, as I saw for myself recently, it works in Sweden. It should of course be the subject of the annual report, and that is one of the purposes of the new clause. It is important to include a clear and proactive endorsement of millennium development goal 8. The new clause would be a considerable improvement. How often have some of us attended marches and demonstrations on fair trade? We would therefore be right to make that an issue, which we would if the new clause were agreed to. It is important that the annual report should refer particularly to progress towards
It is right, too, that we should ask for progress on
I sense that the House is keen to monitor debt relief. The new clause would give this and future Governments the opportunity to do precisely that. Such policies must be seen to be consistent with sustainable development, and I believe that the proposals will improve the focus of the annual report. New clause 6(1)(a) emphasises the importance of sustainable development even more strongly than the original Bill. I therefore commend new clause 6 to the Committee. The Chairman: I call Mr— Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Baldry. I have a room next door to you, Mr. Hood. I shall drop in more often to remind you who I am. The promoter of the Bill recognises, as we all do, that to get a private Member’s Bill through the House one must negotiate with the Government to ensure that they are content. The right hon. Gentleman has negotiated ably with the Government’s business managers, and we have a much respected former Chief Whip with us. Negotiating a private Member’s Bill through the Government’s legislation committee and so on, as the promoter has done, requires some skill. The quid pro quo, however, is that the Bill now effectively becomes a Government Bill. Hopefully the Government will therefore give it full endorsement by producing the annual report. Column Number: 9 I say to the Minister that it is pretty scandalous that DFID gets only half an hour once a month for oral questions, whereas the Foreign Office gets a whole hour. When one thinks of the huge number of issues such as Darfur and Afghanistan that straddle Foreign Office and DFID policy, and the fact that DFID questions come on a Wednesday and the last 10 minutes are usually impossible to hear as the House does not have its full attention on the matters in hand, requesting an annual debate on DFID and its annual report is not unreasonable. After all, I think that the Wales Office still has a debate on St. David’s day, even though there is now a Welsh Assembly. The House would think it bizarre if there were not an annual debate on defence, and there are frequently two—one on defence and one on defence procurement. The Minister is right that in the recent past we have had a number of debates on DFID matters in Government time, but that is because in the previous Parliament big United Nations conferences such as Johannesburg, Cancun and so on provided a peg on which Government business managers found it convenient to hang DFID debates. There is a danger that, if the Minister does not take back to his private office and ministerial colleagues the message from the Committee that there will be a riot if we do not get an annual debate on the report, DFID will be shuffled off into cosy little debates in Westminster Hall. It would be a bit like Sunday afternoon discussions with Christian Aid in the back room of the Methodist church hall in Bicester—although I know that those meetings are important, and I would not wish to underestimate them. The point of the Bill is to have a report and a decent annual debate. The Minister should respond to the accommodating and constructive way in which the promoter and sponsors of the Bill have approached the matter. He should also make it clear that DFID will do its utmost to ensure, with the business managers, that we get an annual debate on the report provided for in the Bill and on DFID’s departmental report. Mark Simmonds: I very much agree with the two general points that my hon. Friend made: the necessity for an annual debate on the report on the Floor of the House, and for an improved and extended opportunity for DFID questions. Bearing in mind the size of the budget for which DFID is responsible, I do not think that half an hour is long enough. My hon. Friend makes a good point that in the last five or 10 minutes of questions the House’s attention is sadly not necessarily on the important issues being discussed. In half an hour, and with five questions at the most, it is difficult to get into the level of detail required to hold Ministers to account on the way in which they control and allocate British taxpayers’ money. Ed Balls (Normanton) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while Treasury questions can play a positive role in allowing questions on the financial aspects of the Treasury’s role in development, that can only go part of the way to meeting his needs? That supports the idea of expanding International Development questions. Column Number: 10 The Chairman: Order. Before Mr. Simmonds is tempted any further, I should point out that we are moving away from the Bill. I advise him to come back to the substance of the Bill a bit more. Mark Simmonds: Thank you, Mr. Hood. The issue is whether one gets answers to the questions in any Question Time. At Treasury questions that is not necessarily the case. Clause 2 sets out requirements for Departments other than DFID in their contributions to the reduction in poverty. New clause 6 makes provision for the Secretary of State to make observations about the effect of policies and programmes on the promotion of sustainable development and the reduction in poverty particularly with regard to MDG 8. The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly highlighted some of the key elements of MDG 8, but there are other important areas that I hope the report will specifically address, such as the special needs of landlocked states and small island developing states. There are issues relating to the development of youth policies, and to pharmaceutical companies providing access to affordable drugs in developing countries, in which the Minister is particularly interested. There is also the issue of information and communication technologies, which enable economies to grow in developing nations and thereby alleviate poverty. In general, we agree with the merging of clauses 2 and 4; it creates clarity and simplicity. My amendment (a) relates to the wording of new clause 6. New clause 6 would ask the Secretary of State to include observations on policy and coherence and transparency “as he thinks appropriate”. We are concerned that that means that the Secretary of State would not have to report on these vital issues if he saw fit. The wording makes it optional: it is at the Secretary of State’s total discretion. We believe that it should be at Parliament’s discretion whether he reports on these issues. The other point about new clause 6 is that clause 2 relates to the work by Departments other than DFID to alleviate poverty, thereby meeting millennium development goal 8. Trade is a very good example. The DTI will have a major impact on that. We are obviously all disappointed with the results of the World Trade Organisation meeting in Hong Kong. The Minister made it clear that the money resolution we debated on Monday does not cover the work that will be done by other Departments; it covers only the work done by DFID. If that is the case, new clause 6 would not allow other Departments to participate in the very important work that the joined-up government would have to do to meet MDG 8. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response to those specific points. Mr. Ellwood: I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the focus that is required in new clause 6. When we try to help countries in Africa and around the world to move forward and get off their knees from their debt and other problems it can be almost like dealing with a gambler. We can give them money, but we cannot cure them of the problems that cause their poverty. Many
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 16 February 2006 |