International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill
Debate between Mark Hendrick and Peter Bone(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The world is in a state of continual change, with economies being reshaped and new Governments being formed, but the one constant is the stain on the conscience of the developed world: poverty. Having succeeded in the private Members’ ballot, I decided to introduce a Bill to ensure that the Government’s commitment to enshrine in law development assistance spending of 0.7% of gross national income was honoured. That pledge was made in the election manifestos of all three main political parties, and after the election it was included in the coalition agreement. The Bill would also toughen the remit of the independent body established to monitor the effect of aid spending.
The Secretary of State for International Development has stated that the Government Bill to implement this pledge is drafted and ready to go, and that the delay is due only to limited parliamentary time.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Would it not be a good idea for this measure to come forward as a Government Bill in the time in September that would have been allocated to Lords reform, but will not now be spent on Lords reform?
Mark Hendrick
All Governments, including the last Labour Government, have tremendous pressures on their time. However, this pledge was made by all three main political parties before the election, so there should not be a great deal of controversy. The Minister will speak for himself, but I know that the Government are keen for legislation to be passed on this matter, like all other mainstream political parties. I am sure that the Government would not want to be seen to be using the lack of parliamentary time as an excuse for not getting the Bill on to the statute book before the next election. We certainly do not want that to happen.
This Bill gives the Government the opportunity to legislate on this matter. The draft of the Government Bill was not forthcoming, so I put my Bill together based on a similar draft Bill that was published before the last general election by the previous Secretary of State for International Development. I have added other measures which, having spoken to the Minister earlier today, seem to be acceptable to the Government. Obviously, minor amendments may be needed if the Bill makes it through to Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I hope that he and his colleagues will give the Bill a safe passage today.
The Bill would not only reaffirm Britain’s commitment to the world’s poorest people, but take party politics out of the debate about aid spending for the long term. That is important because the measure of any society—we are talking about the human race as a whole—is the degree to which it helps and works with its disadvantaged people. The fact that all three parties agree with that makes me optimistic that the Bill will make progress. I genuinely want an all-party approach. This issue must not be kicked into the long grass because of ideology or electioneering. Politicians from all parts of the House must realise that by supporting the Bill, they would be fulfilling the hope and trust that millions of the world’s poorest people have put in Britain to make their lives better.
With the current economic hardship in Europe and the world’s wealthiest nations, it would be easy to dismiss a commitment on international aid spending, but those problems pale into insignificance compared with the fight for basic survival of people in the developing world.
For the Opposition, putting an international aid commitment into law would fulfil our values and our belief in helping those who need it most. Our history is built on battles against injustice, and until we make commitments backed by action, we will continue to let down those most in need of our assistance.
Let us imagine being unable to pay for the drugs necessary to help a sick child, or medicines not being available at all. Let us imagine not knowing where our next meal will come from, or living in a war-torn country with no basic infrastructure to support communities. Those problems are vast. The solution is not easy, but we can neither shirk our responsibilities nor shrink from the monumental task before us. The people snared in poverty’s trap cannot afford inaction.
In 1970, United Nations General Assembly resolution 2626 committed all economically advanced countries to providing 0.7% of their gross national income as official development assistance. The coalition agreement states:
“The Government believes that even in these difficult economic times, the UK has a moral responsibility to help the poorest people in the world. We will honour our aid commitments, but at the same time will ensure much greater transparency and scrutiny of aid spending to deliver value for money for British taxpayers and to maximise the impact of our aid budget.”
It continues:
“We will honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013, and to enshrine this commitment in law.”
As I have said, there is concern that given the parliamentary agenda, there may be difficulty in getting time to secure that legislation. The Bill presents an opportunity to do that.
The UK remains committed to meeting the 0.7% target, but as we know, it has not yet done so. The Bill would therefore impose a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the UK meets the 0.7% target in 2013 and each subsequent calendar year. It provides that whether the target has been achieved will be determined by reference to the overseas development assistance and gross national income figures reported to Parliament annually in accordance with the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.
The Bill would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament in the event that the UK failed to meet the 0.7% target in any calendar year from 2013. That would mean that the Secretary of State’s accountability for his duty to meet that target would be to Parliament alone.
Clause 1 covers the duty on the Secretary of State to meet the 0.7% United Nations target from 2013. Clause 2 sets out his duty to lay a statement before Parliament if that target is not met. It states that he must do so if his annual report laid before Parliament in 2014 or any subsequent year shows that the UK has not reached the target in the year to which the report relates. It also provides for the possibility that figures in an annual report may be revised. Subsection (2) states that if a revision is made to any year’s figure meaning that it no longer meets the 0.7% target, the Secretary of State must then lay a statement.
Clause 2(3) provides that a statement must explain why the 0.7% target has not been met, and that it may refer to economic or fiscal circumstances that have had an impact. It may also refer to the impact of
“circumstances arising outside the United Kingdom”,
for example the failure of a foreign Government to achieve the targets necessary to trigger debt relief. On the requirement for the Secretary of State to lay the statement before Parliament, he or she must describe in it any steps that have been taken to ensure that the 0.7% target will be met in the following calendar year.
Mark Hendrick
Yes, it does. We are talking about percentages. If we have growth, the overall budget will increase in real terms, but the percentage will stay the same. If GNI contracts because we are in recession, the real amount will fall, but the percentage will stay the same. The Bill maintains a percentage commitment, not an absolute commitment in real terms.
Clause 4 provides for the repeal of the Secretary of State’s duty in section 3 of the 2006 Act to forecast when the 0.7% target will be met. That repeal takes account of the Secretary of State’s new duty—in clause 1 —to ensure that the UK meets the 0.7% target from 2013 onwards.
Finally, clause 5 sets up a new body, which for the purposes of convenience I have called the independent international development office. The new body would bear a great deal of relation to the current Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which the Secretary of State rightly set up just over a year ago to answer to the Select Committee on International Development so that it can oversee the effectiveness and efficiency of aid administered throughout the world. The new body would keep a much closer eye on the Department and its performance, and it would have a statutory footing—it would be established in law.
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend makes a powerful intervention, but she is absolutely wrong. The whole point of Parliament is that we discuss these matters in detail and hear every point of view. I am not saying that this is an admirable Bill; the Minister has said that it has serious flaws.
Mark Hendrick
Is the hon. Gentleman not making the best the enemy of the good by insisting that the Bill should be introduced as a Government Bill?
Mr Bone
I am taking a purely parliamentary view of the matter at this stage. I do not think that major changes in policy should go through in half an hour on Second Reading. There are Government hand-out Bills that can, of course, go through in half an hour on Second Reading, but we should not do that with a measure that seeks to change policies that Governments have dealt with for years and years.—
Taxation Freedom Day Bill
Debate between Mark Hendrick and Peter Bone(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)
Debate between Mark Hendrick and Peter Bone(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bone
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. If we do not get it right today, this coalition Government and future Governments will use the same trick again and again.
What I am doing is not a wrecking manoeuvre; nor is it about stopping the Bill from making progress. All we need to do is defeat the guillotine motion now, and then there will be a full Second Reading debate, followed by the Committee stage and Third Reading. The current situation is an abuse of Parliament and its democracy. Normal rules are being abandoned so that the Government can get things through on the nod. Surely I am not mistaken that the only possible reason for proceeding today would be if the Minister had written a cheque for £3.25 billion last night and handed it to the Irish Government. Then I might be inclined to agree that we should get on with things today. However, the Minister does not seem to be leaping to the Dispatch Box to confirm that.
One argument for pushing the Bill through could be the lack of space in the parliamentary calendar and an inability to spare any more time to debate it, but we all know that that is not true. Even with recess upon us, we could have abandoned the Backbench Business Committee debate tomorrow—Thursday—and had the Committee stage and Third Reading instead. However, if that was not the flavour of the will of the House, we could have used Monday, for which a general debate is listed. If the general debate were abandoned, Government business would not be lost, and the debate could be rescheduled for another time. Alternatively, if there really is an emergency and the Bill really does need to be progressed now, let the House sit this Friday until the business is complete.
Parliament could be allowed a full day on Second Reading, which would occur after the allocation of time motion were defeated, and the Government could then choose Thursday, Friday or Monday for Committee and Third Reading. That would in no way hold up progress; nor could it be interpreted as letting our friends in Europe down. Indeed, the idea that they do not take our word for it that the Government are serious is also, I have to say, not believable. If the Government say that they are going to give £3.25 billion to Ireland in a loan, they know that that is what will happen, so that argument is just an excuse to push the Bill through in one day.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Clearly the issue at hand is not whether the Government will give £3.25 billion to Ireland. However, the Minister did not necessarily make it clear in his response to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) whether money would be going just to Ireland, or to Portugal or Spain in future too. Could the hon. Gentleman give us his views on that?
Mr Bone
Mr Speaker, you would rightly tick me off if I answered that question. That is a matter for the Second Reading debate, because it is to do with the issues in the Bill. I am expressing no view on that at the moment. However, unless we have adequate time to discuss those issues, the hon. Gentleman’s point might not be clarified.
Lack of parliamentary time cannot be an excuse for this motion. The advantage of splitting the debate over two days is that it would allow a proper debate on Second Reading today. I believe that many Members would like to take part in such a debate. It would also allow amendments to be tabled in the normal way, and enable us to have a proper debate in Committee, with time for a debate and votes on each of the amendments. There would also be time for a Third Reading debate.
I understand that the Government have tabled a manuscript amendment today, although I have not seen it. That amendment has been tabled without allowing Members the time to consider it. That just shows the weakness of this procedure. If the allocation of time motion were defeated, we would have a full Second Reading debate and the Government would have to rearrange their business to provide for the Committee stage and Third Reading. The loan would still go through, but the Bill would have been properly debated and, if necessary, amended. Defeating the allocation of time motion would not wreck the Bill; it would simply give more time for proper scrutiny so that the Bill could be improved. We have already seen that the Government have tabled a manuscript amendment. What will happen if, during the 15 minutes of the Second Reading debate, a Member decides that they want to table an amendment? They just will not have time to do it.
How does the motion fit in with the principles behind parliamentary sittings? The present timetabling of our sittings is broadly based on the Jopling reforms and encompasses three principles. It is against those three principles that we should judge the Bill today. The first is that the Government must be able to get their business through, and, within that principle, ultimately control the time of the House. Secondly, the Opposition must have the opportunity to scrutinise the actions of the Government and to improve or oppose legislation as they think fit. Thirdly—this is of more interest to me—Back-Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber should have reasonable opportunities to raise matters of concern from their constituents. A number of my constituents have contacted me with concerns about this Bill.
A major role of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise and review legislation. It is a well-known fact—I doubt that anyone in the House would disagree with this—that the better the scrutiny, the better the Bill. It is also a major role of Members of Parliament who are not members of the Executive to hold the Executive to account, whichever party or parties make up that Executive. That is one of the most important roles we have as Members of Parliament. This motion removes that role. It is appalling that the coalition Government should try to stifle that essential function. I have long campaigned for more transparency and debate in Parliament. I strongly believe in strengthening the role of the Back Bencher. The erosion of parliamentary power to scrutinise legislation has been a long-adopted approach by successive Governments. This motion, I am afraid, is a step too far. Individual Members of Parliament attach a great deal of importance to scrutiny and accountability, and problems arise when the Executive try to deny us that right.
The Government have declared that amendments must be tabled before Second Reading, which is ludicrous. They ask MPs to table amendments before we have had a chance to hear what the Minister has to say. How can MPs properly table amendments when they have not heard the details and the arguments? Despite that difficulty, 11 amendments have already been tabled. The Government were forced to produce a three-page document—I have it with me—of amendments, and another five-page document on their justification for rushing the Bill through. These documents were produced only in the last few days. How can they, and the amendments, realistically be scrutinised if the Bill goes through all its stages today? It is just not possible.
The House of Lords got rather fed up with the Commons bouncing it, so it has now come up with a procedure whereby the Government have to answer a number of questions—I think it is eight—before they can get a Bill such as this through. Those questions are printed in the explanatory notes to the Bill. Let us look at some of them for a minute, and see whether the answers hold up to scrutiny.
The first question is: “Why is fast-tracking necessary?” The notes go on to explain that the proposal is for a bilateral loan, and that the timing of the UK’s proposed loan is currently unclear. They state:
“It is necessary to fast-track the Bill so that the UK’s international partners can be confident that the bilateral loan will be implemented.”
That is an absolutely hopeless answer to the question. It does not tell us why the Bill is being fast-tracked. It is ridiculous to suggest that our international partners would think that, because we had not taken another day or two to debate the Bill, the Government were not going to proceed with the loan.
The next question is:
“What is the justification for fast-tracking each element of the Bill?”
Again, there does not seem to be an answer. The notes state:
“The Bill is a short Bill, with few substantive provisions other than to provide for sums required by the Treasury”.
Yes, the Bill is short because many of the provisions deal with statutory instruments and affirmative resolutions. It is an important Bill, but it is short because many of the provisions do not go into detail. That is exactly why we need a proper Second Reading debate. I do not think that the Government have answered that question either.
The next question is a good one:
“What efforts have been made to ensure the amount of time made available for parliamentary scrutiny has been maximised?”
The answer is:
“The Bill is being published on the same day it is introduced and arrangements are being made for amendments to be accepted in advance of second reading in the House of Commons.”
How on earth does that answer the question about making time available for parliamentary scrutiny? It is like the Prime Minister being asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions and giving an answer to a completely different one. It might be a good answer, but it is not the answer to the question that was asked.
The next thing that the Lords want to know is this:
“To what extent have interested parties and outside groups been given an opportunity to influence the policy proposal?”
The answer talks about our European Union colleagues, but the key is in the last sentence, which states that
“there has been limited opportunity to give interested parties and outside groups an opportunity to influence.”
By the Government’s own admission, they have failed in regard to that question.
The next question asks whether the Bill includes a sunset clause. The Government can argue, with some justification, that it does, because it stipulates a period of five years. It does not tell us when the loans are to be repaid, but it places a five-year limit on the period in which they can be made. That is not what is normally understood by a sunset clause, however. Sunset clauses normally stipulate that in, say, a year’s time, Parliament will look again at the legislation to see whether it is correct.
The next question is:
“Are mechanisms for effective post legislative scrutiny and review in place? If not, why do the Government judge that their inclusion is not appropriate?”
The answer states:
“The Bill provides for regular reports”.
On that one, I will give the Government a tick. So far, they have passed one of the six tests. The next question is:
“Has an assessment been made as to whether existing legislation is sufficient to deal with any or all the issues in question?”
The Government do not really answer that one. They say:
“Statutory authority for such expenditure is required in accordance with the Concordat of 1932 between the Government and the Public Accounts Committee.”
I am unclear as to what that means, but it does not seem to answer the question that has been asked. The final question is:
“Has the relevant Parliamentary committees been given to opportunity to scrutinise the legislation?”
The explanatory notes were drawn up in such haste that the spelling of the question was incorrect, but the simple answer to it, as I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) might confirm, is that no such scrutiny has taken place.
In concluding my opening remarks, I want to say a few words about what I think is wrong. Let me state to the House how this mother of Parliaments should work in relation to timings of debates. The driving principle of reform should be the redistribution of power—from the powerful to the powerless. That means boosting Parliament’s power to hold the Government of the day to account. The House of Commons’ historic functions were to vote money for Governments to spend, and to scrutinise laws. It now barely bothers with the first, and does the second extremely badly. There was a time when legislation that had been formulated after months of civil service and ministerial deliberation was sent to the House of Commons which would pore over it, shape it and send it back, get it back, look at it again and improve it some more—Bill by Bill, clause by clause, line by line. Every piece of legislation would be put under intense scrutiny. Is it legally sound? Will it be effective? Is it worth the cost?
Let us compare that with today. Let me take Members on the journey of a piece of legislation as it passes through the modern House of Commons. It is likely to have been dreamt up on the sofa of No. 10. A Bill is drafted and it is sent to the House for a couple of hours of routine debate among a few MPs. Then the bells ring, the whips are cracked and suddenly, out of nowhere, all the Members turn up to vote. More often than not, they do not even know what they are voting for. The Bill limps through. Then it goes into Committee. The Committee’s duty is to look at the detail clause by clause, but it is packed full of people that the Whips have put there. So, surprise, surprise, the Government rarely lose a vote on any of the individual points of detailed scrutiny. Then it is back to the House to do it all again—debate, bell and then vote to wave the legislation through.
Every Bill now has a programme motion setting out how much time can be spent scrutinising and debating each part. There are automatic guillotines, and the time allowed for scrutiny is set in advance, before anyone can see whether or not a particular issue is contentious or complex. Watching a Minister in the Commons drawing out one point for an hour to fill the time, to an audience of dozing Back Benchers—that is not accountability. How can the mother of all Parliaments turn itself into such a pliant child?
Unfortunately, I cannot claim credit for that last section of my speech. It was in fact from a speech on fixing broken promises delivered on 26 May 2009 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron). I do not think that Ministers on the Front Bench today want to upset the Prime Minister. So they have an opportunity, before the conclusion of the debate, to say that they will withdraw the allocation of time motion, and that we will have proper debate.
For many years I have sat on the Back Benches imploring others to give more time for Parliament to scrutinise legislation. I believe that to be the fundamental role, not only of the Back Bencher, but of Parliament itself.