---

Greg Mulholland (Leeds, North-West) (LD): Due to the length of the contributions from some hon. Members, I was beginning to wonder whether their attention to detail and enthusiasm would lead not only to me not being called, but perhaps to them inadvertently talking the Bill out. I am glad that that has not happened.

I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill and, indeed, to show my solidarity with the community that we have here in the House involving those of us on both sides who are passionately committed to development issues. More importantly, I am happy to stand in solidarity with the global community, which is the community that is particularly involved with the Bill. However, I am disappointed that doing so means that today I am unable to serve the community that I represent—my constituency. I am having to miss surgeries to be here. I hope that the Government consider that issue in terms of the scheduling of private Members' Bills.

As has been said, 2005 was a year that began with huge hope, energy and enthusiasm by what I call the coalition of hope—the global community mobilising to try to do something about the scandal of global poverty. Unfortunately, in the end it was a year of limited promises and huge disappointment. The Bill, which I support in its entirety, is about openness and honesty. We therefore have to start by being honest about what was achieved last year at the G8 summit and the WTO. Behind the back-slapping of the pop stars and politicians, the reality of what emerged from the global commitments made last year has been exaggerated; it was disappointing and substantially inadequate.

Of the $48 billion of aid that was promised, only $20 billion is new money, and of that some may come from future aid budgets. It is five years too late. Although some of the debt settlement is of course very welcome, it will in reality be about $1 billion a year, whereas the UN has said that $10 billion a year in debt relief is needed to make any difference, and that is without its being conditional.

I am glad to say, however, that the Bill marks a positive start to 2006, and all those of us who are involved in campaigning for international development must retain our sense of optimism, or the cause will be lost. I therefore welcome the Bill; it is a small but significant step in bringing more openness and honesty into both Government and global policy on international development.

The Bill is important for two reasons connected with the general public, as well as being important to Members, as has been stressed. There are really two sorts of people in this country: the first group is made up
 
20 Jan 2006 : Column 1111
 
of those who are, frankly, largely ignorant about international development issues and those who not only are ignorant but question the effectiveness of the UK's aid programmes. How many times have we heard people ask, "How do I know that the money will get to those who need it?"? We need to engender confidence in those people that aid is indeed being directed where it should be spent and to those who need it. The Bill, I believe, would do that.

The second group of people are those of us who are genuinely committed to challenging the global apartheid of injustice and poverty. The Bill would allow us to see whether the rhetoric is matched by reality. It would give all of us in the House and outside the chance to see whether the promises are being kept and whether the millennium development goals have a chance of being achieved, not in 150 years, which is the current position in one case, but in 10 years. We know that it will not be the latter.

The Bill is about openness and accountability. There is will on both sides of the House and outside, and in the NGOs. The Bill is very simple in its aim: it will see that the promises of this Government and of world leaders are kept and that they lead to the progress that will lift millions out of poverty. I welcome it.

12.43 pm

Ms Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity to put on the record my support for this valuable initiative by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). I welcome the cross-party support for the Bill. It shows how far we have come that all political parties are setting targets for when we are to meet the target, set so many years ago, for the amount of aid that we should provide to developing countries, which, as we are all so well aware, are suffering from such extreme poverty and inequality.

When I first came to this place in May after the general election, I experienced a short two months when the issues in the Bill were very much at the top of the political agenda. That, of course, was because of the Labour Government's inspired decision to put debt, aid and, in particular, Africa at the top of the agenda for the G8 summit in Glenrothes. That period showed how important it is that politicians put the issue at the top of the agenda. We are all aware of powerful political lobbies in all our constituencies who put articulate cases on why the issue has to be tackled. It is, however, only when politicians and our political leaders recognise the importance of the issues that we are able to galvanise the kind of demonstration that we saw in Edinburgh last July when 250,000 people marched through the city in what was probably the biggest political demonstration ever seen in Scotland.

Like many in the House, I was one of the many on that march. It was a moving occasion, but one of the more significant issues arising for me was the number of young people there. They were engaging perhaps for the first time on a political issue. They went on that demonstration in the genuine belief that the Government would do something to change things and take the issues forward. I believe that we did achieve many things last year in Glenrothes, but of course we have a long, long way to go.
 
20 Jan 2006 : Column 1112
 

The Bill provides an important way to try structurally to make sure that the issues become far more central to debates in the House. For that reason, it is an important initiative.

The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) talked about the strong moral case for making sure that we tackle the issues. Of course, it is an outrage that 50,000 people die every day as a result of poverty. That is one third of the deaths in the world every day. There is a huge moral case for tackling the issues. More than that, though, there is a strong political case for taking the issues on, full frontal. It is in none of our interests to have such inequality and extreme poverty in the world. If we allow it to continue, and if in an age of high-level communication and television we do not make sure that the western world takes the issues on and finds the political solutions, the political problems that they create will come back to haunt us.

The types of inequality and the extremes of poverty even within countries in the developing world—never mind the differences between the UK and many of the poorer countries—create a political inequality and injustice that will lead to political problems for us all. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill is making a proposal that would enable us to make sure that our moral outrage at the injustice that we see and the political and economic injustice are addressed.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady is making an eloquent speech. I agree with her; she is absolutely right. Does she agree with me in turn that the peoples of the developing world who are suffering so much will have reason over a period to be ever more resentful of us in the rich part of the world on the ground of neglect, in terms of the inadequacy of development assistance, but perhaps even more on the ground of exacerbation of their problems through trade policy? That is not an accident; it is deliberate.

Ms Clark: The hon. Gentleman brings me on to my next point, which is that I believe it is very much in our economic interest to address the issues we are debating. When countries exist with which we cannot trade in any normal or meaningful way, and when huge parts of the world live in such poverty, we all suffer economically. It is in all our interests to do all we can to encourage those countries' economies.

I hope that today's debate results not only in a decision to produce a structured report each year as a mechanism to enable the House genuinely to debate the issues but in the emergence of political consensus. The question is not whether we dedicate funds and resources to aid; that should be a given on both sides of the House. However, it is reasonable to discuss how we spend that money and use those resources. I hope that the significant political moves that we have seen recently have increased the degree of political consensus on the need to deal with international development issues, and that the debate will now move away from quibbling on whether we spend money to deciding how much money to spend and ensuring that we provide money for projects that will help to prevent problems in future.

I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill for giving us the
 
20 Jan 2006 : Column 1113
 
opportunity to do so. The Bill provides a way for all of us to ensure that international development issues move far higher up the political agenda.

12.51 pm

---