| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin). I am also glad to have been able to speak from the platform at the Birmingham meeting in 1999 in respect of debt relief, which was my privilege as chairman of the all-party group on the Jubilee campaign for debt relief.
It is often thought that commitment to the alleviation of poverty and AIDS in the third world is somehow the prerogative of those from one end of the political spectrum. I would disabuse the House of that notion. The involvement of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and a whole list of Conservative Members shows that it is genuinely an all-party concern, and there are those among us who are deeply and passionately concerned to ensure that the moral dimension associated with international poverty, and particularly the difficulties in Africa, is properly appreciated.
I want to refer briefly to the Prime Minister's statement to the House on the G8, in which he rightly said:
I also want to pay tribute, as I have done previously, to the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the Secretary of State for International
20 Jan 2006 : Column 1098
Development, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and former Conservative Ministers who have taken an active part in promoting such important issues. I want to refer particularly to the acceleration of concern in recent years, which included the cancellation of 100 per cent. of heavily indebted poor countries' multilateral debts through the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development.
Some people were cynical about the Chancellor's trip to Africa, but I am not. It is vital that senior Ministers are seen to be taking an active interest and that they do so. I also commend the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) for promoting the Bill with all-party support, because it is important to provide such information as a step towards improvement of the situation. I also endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Buckingham, the hon. Member for Glasgow, North, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) and others with respect to the need for a debate and for tackling such matters in a nuts-and-bolts fashion.
The Prime Minister, in his statement to the G8, said:
"It was the most detailed and ambitious package for Africa ever agreed by the G8. However, none of it can be implemented or improve the lives of African citizens without significant improvements in standards of governance, transparency and accountability. It is a partnership, not an act of charity. In the end, only Africans can lead and shape Africa. We can help, but every Government in Africa who betrays the principles of good governance betrays Africa."—[Official Report, 11 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 580–81.]
Those were important words. As chairman of the all-party Uganda group, and as vice-chairman of the Tanzania and Kenya groups, I believe strongly that it is in Africa's interests that we speak plainly about those questions. Furthermore, we should do so with the object of improving the lot of those who are governed in those countries, for the moral reasons that the Prime Minister set out, to which many Members of the House are dedicated.
Having said that, I am also bound to say that, on examining the Bill, I feel that however worthy and valuable its objective in terms of the presentation of information, there is a difficult nuts-and-bolts question that we must confront. Where the Bill refers repeatedly to the Secretary of State's assessment of this, that and the other, the real question will be whether that assessment will necessarily lead to sorting out the problems evident not only in Africa but in other countries where questions of aid and international development apply.
I refer, for example, to clause 5, which states:
"The annual report shall include the Secretary of State's assessment of the United Kingdom's contribution both financially and in other ways . . . given through"—
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made that point with respect to her Bill on the Public Accounts Committee. We all know, if we are straight and honest, that a vast amount of money is maladministered through the European Union, and my good friend Sir Bob Geldof, with whom I have discussed the matter on many occasions, has strong views on it, as
20 Jan 2006 : Column 1099
I do. Those views are justified. One only needs to read the Court of Auditors' report to realise that I do not need to elaborate. It is there for anyone to see. But what is done about it? Very little. Therefore, while a lot of money goes to people whom everyone in the House believes passionately should be helped, the amounts are not what they should be.
That raises the question not only of corruption but of maladministration. That problem must be addressed, and my belief is that it could be addressed through rearrangement of the way in which British taxpayers' money, for which Members of the House have an interest and responsibility, is paid over to the European Union and directed to those countries that require aid or help. Our Public Accounts Committee should be able to exercise a more direct control over the way in which it is either maladministered through the EU or ends up in the wrong bank accounts.
Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): I believe that the hon. Gentleman, like me, wants an increase globally in the amount of aid given to poor countries. This country is moving in the right direction, but not every country is doing so. If aid currently administered by the European Union were repatriated to member states, we in this country might well use it better, but other countries might not spend it on aid at all, and overall there might be a reduction in aid. Does he therefore agree that the sensible thing is to tackle inefficiencies in the European Union rather than to repatriate the money to member countries?
Mr. Cash: It would take quite a lot to get me to agree to the latter, but I passionately agree that it is important that procedures are deployed properly at any given time for the right purposes. So it may surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that at the moment, given present arrangements, I would prefer an improvement in the way in which the EU operates in this respect, without prejudice to my general concern that it might be better done by us. However, that is a separate issue.
John Bercow: I realise that one cannot extend the parameters of the Bill without limit. Its purpose of course is to record the help that we are giving, but does my hon. Friend agree that we ought in all honesty to record also the damage that we are doing? Given that currently the European Union is spending €64 billion a year on domestic agricultural support, a very significant proportion of which is the cause of dumping on African countries and damage to them, should not we own up to what is morally wrong, economically counter-productive and politically indefensible?
Mr. Cash:
Indeed; I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. It is very important that such comments should not be seen as some illustration of a Europhobic outburst, which some like to make them out to be. I wish people would grow up for a bit on these matters. We are talking about practical questions and realities. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) gave evidence to the European Reform Forum, as did Will Hutton and Charles Grant and many others from the
20 Jan 2006 : Column 1100
other side, as it were, of the European debate, and Oxfam has agreed to give evidence on behalf of those such as itself who are deeply concerned about these matters on the implications for international development issues, in order to ensure proper analysis of what is going on. That evidence is periodically published. Above all else, we need to get away from the idea, which is quite often suggested, that the remarks of those of us who have reservations about the way in which the European Union functions are driven by irrational, Europhobic views. In fact, they are based on evidence that needs to be properly evaluated.
That brings me to my point about transparency. I have heard much today about the question of accountability. In fact, I think that I have heard accountability mentioned about 30 times. It is a matter of what one means by accountability. It can mean in a rather loose sense that information is provided, which is what the Bill provides for. It can mean that there is a debate. However, there might be a vote at the end of that debate and—surprise, surprise—if that debate is in the Government's name or it is an Adjournment debate, we know what to expect in any vote, particularly if the Government have a majority. So, that does not prove anything. If we want to solve the problems that are inherent in the question of where the money goes in respect of vital matters such as people dying of AIDS, malaria or starvation, let us be grown up about it. It is not enough just to talk about such things or even to be informed about them, important as that is. We need to establish the evidential basis for putting things right. That is what accountability means.
As has been mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee meets only permanent secretaries and officials. It does not meet the Minister and ask him the questions. Let us face it, in International Development questions we do not always get the answers that we would like. We may get the best answer that Ministers are prepared to give, but that might not solve the problem. Clause 8 deals with the issue of transparency, and I would very much like to be added to it provision for an internationally supervised audit, which is the bones of the Bill that I have already proposed. I consulted extensively on my International Development (Anti-corruption) Audit Bill, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for writing to me about it on 23 July. The Under-Secretary replied in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on the subject. Unfortunately, however, clause 8 of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill does not address the questions that need to be addressed. I am not suggesting that we should impose our will without being sensitive to the necessity for other Governments to run their own affairs. However, when we provide substantial sums of money to assist those countries, whether that money comes from international organisations or the United Kingdom, whether it is passed through the channels or conduits of the European Union or otherwise, it is essential that it is properly audited.
That raises the important question of the nature of the public accounts committees of the countries in question. It is no secret that, over the years, substantial sums of money that have been made available through the agencies, Governments and Parliaments of the nations that I have mentioned have gone to countries where the money ends up in the bank accounts of leaders and other
20 Jan 2006 : Column 1101
people. The report by the Commission for Africa entitled "Our Common Interest" faces up to that problem. I need not go into it in detail, as the issue is set out in chapter 4. The report addresses the need to do the job properly, along the lines that I propose in my Bill. I am not criticising the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, as his Bill is a first-class measure, which I support. However, it needs some hard nuts and bolts, such as the external audit that I propose in my Bill.
Such a measure would be required if analysis showed that other countries' public accounts committees and their internally supervised domestic audits simply are not working. There are means to introduce such provisions, and I believe that we should do so. We should impose conditions on assistance provided under the International Development Act 2002 and encourage other countries and the relevant international financial institutions to do likewise. The kernel of my Bill is the requirement to hold an audit of any public expenditure within the country in question arising from assistance under international development arrangements. That audit should be carried out
"by or under the supervision of suitably qualified persons authorised by relevant international financial institutions, undertaken, so far as the Secretary of State deems practicable, in conjunction with those appointed for the purpose of such audit within that country".
Clause 8 of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill states that the annual report should provide an "assessment of transparency". Subsection (2) states:
"The Secretary of State's assessment of transparency shall take account of whether it is possible to . . . make provision for the independent monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of policy and expenditure in achieving its stated objectives".
It is not enough merely to require the assessment to take account of whether it is "possible" to secure independent monitoring and evaluation. It is a wish list—a hope. I invite the Minister to address the matter when he replies.
The clause goes on to state that the assessment shall take account of whether it is possible to
"secure and publish an agreement with recipient countries which will contribute towards the achievement of the objectives listed".
There is a serious practical question which requires a hard, nuts-and-bolts evaluation. That does not detract from the Bill, which takes matters well forward in a constructive manner. I pay tribute to the promoter for that, but I am not satisfied that it does the job of dealing with an independent evaluation, not simply because of its academic approach to the need for better accounting procedures, but because if an evaluation is not carried out properly, as I described, the people who ought to receive the money will not get it and nobody will know why not. There must be a proper Public Accounts Committee that delivers, and a proper auditing arrangement.
There are countries that do undertake proper accounting and there are countries that will want to improve their procedures, so I make this constructive suggestion. For countries that have not complied and will not comply, it is essential that we move from encouraging them to the next stage, which is to make that a condition of our providing assistance. That is in line with the Prime Minister's comments in the G8 statement about the need for Africans to help
20 Jan 2006 : Column 1102
themselves, and in line with good governance and with the thrust of the report , "Our Common Interest". It is imperative that we get to grips with the issue and do not just talk around the subject.
12.1 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |