International Development Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2001.

Standing Committee D

Clause 1 - Development assistance

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert:

`Subject to subsection (1A) below.'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 15, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—

`(1A) Assistance under this section in relation to matters of population control, family planning, or sexual and reproductive health care, may not be provided to any programme of a person or body that assists, finances, practices or promotes (either directly or indirectly) forced abortion or forced sterilisation or forced contraception or which facilitates (either directly or indirectly) any form of coercion in relation to those said activities, in any country where evidence exists of coercion.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A) above, coercion includes intimidation of a physical, psychological, financial, penal or other kind.

(1C) Subsection (1A) above is without prejudice to the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion to provide assistance to any person or body not specified therein.'.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I repeat the welcome that has already been given to you, Mr. Griffiths. I hope that our debate on the policy of forced abortions in China will be positive. I certainly intend to pursue it in a non-partisan way to avoid any direct criticism of the Government. I say straight away, so that everyone may relax, that I do not intend to force a vote on these matters. This is a useful opportunity to have a real debate on a controversial subject that has exercised the minds of many who care about international development and comment on it.

One cannot equate our proceedings with a Select Committee inquiry, which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has called for and which I feel would be the best way of dealing with these matters, as we could summon witnesses and get to the truth. However, that may also be possible in the more relaxed atmosphere of a Standing Committee, where hon. Members may speak more than once, if they catch your eye, Mr. Griffiths, or make interventions.

This is a complicated matter but I want to narrow down the debate. I take it as read that every hon. Member is against any policy based on forced abortions, forced sterilisation, forced contraception or forced anything. It is the ultimate denial of a woman's right to choose. That is not a phrase that has often leapt from my lips, but I acknowledge that the Government are as opposed to the policy of forced abortions as I am.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I have not really got going yet.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I know that, but it is important to establish that everyone would agree that there should be no coercion for a woman to have an abortion. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is every woman's right to choose whether she has an unwanted child?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Let me say straight away, before I am ruled out of order, that this is not a debate about abortion. Everyone knows my views, just as everyone knows the hon. Lady's views. I shall not get involved in discussion of whether women want to have abortions. We should simply take it as read that we have different views on abortion and on what the legislation in this country should be. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is the subject of the forced abortions that are taking place in China. I put it that way to try to narrow the debate and shed some light on the matter. We do not need to be too controversial or to have two sides facing each other. This is not the anti-abortion lobby in England trying to make a great statement against abortion; it is my attempt to persuade the Committee and the Government to look at what is going in the context of aid to agencies that might be complicit in a forced abortion policy. That is what we must decide today. We must sift through the evidence.

The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that no UK development assistance—hence the relevance to today's debate—goes to programmes that involve coercive population control practices such as forced abortion, forced sterilisation or infanticide. I am concerned that £20 million of unrestricted UK grants, given every year to the United Nations Population Fund—henceforth referred to as UNFPA—and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, is helping to perpetuate such practices in China. Our debate this morning centres on that narrow issue, which has already been debated in another place. The Minister will reply shortly.

We all accept that China has one of the worst, if not the worst, human rights records in the world and no one denies that these practices go on. We all know that the UK provides aid to the bodies, so the debate is simple: is the aid given to these bodies by the British taxpayer effectively financing activities that are contrary to every notion of what the House would recognise as human rights and civilised behaviour?

It is indisputable that the population control process occurs, so how is it enforced? It is enforced by a nationwide apparatus of so-called family planning officials, part of whose motivation is the penalising, imprisoning, torturing and even executing—there have been well attested cases—of anyone who opposes any detail of the Chinese Government's inhumane population control policy. These are facts, not mere allegations, as respected bodies such as Amnesty International, the United States State Department, the BBC and other international media, dissidents and refugees—and testimony given to Select Committees and to the United States Congress—all confirm.

However, the amendment is not designed to condemn China, or to affect the Government's attempts to develop good relations with China. I do not want to engage in Committee this morning with the general strategy that the west should adopt to improve human rights in China. That would be out of order.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I accept some of what the hon. Gentleman says and we all acknowledge that much that happens in China is appalling. However, it is disingenuous of him to say that he does not want to impinge on human rights. It is always easy to say what one does not like; it is more challenging to say what one intends to do about it. If we are not to engage in funding and co-operation, what does the hon. Gentleman believe that this country and the world should be doing to influence family planning policies in China?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

That is a fair point and I shall come to it. The hon. Gentleman is expressing the central contention of the Government and those who advocate funding of these agencies. They believe that it is possible to wash one's hands of these appalling practices. They claim that aid sometimes trickles down, in a way that cannot be controlled, to areas that we do not like, but that involvement is the only way to influence the debate. That is a perfectly fair argument, as attested to by the hon. Gentleman, and I shall deal with it later. I hope that I can convince the Committee that we are having precious little influence—some, but not enough to make a serious or effective impact on the Chinese Government in respect of these appalling practices. However, the hon. Gentleman's intervention was very fair; this is an important part of the debate. Such comments are constantly made when issues relating to international development are discussed. There are many nasty regimes around the world; do we have nothing to do with them or do we hope that by giving them aid we exert influence? It is a grey area and there is no black or white, which is why these debates are so important.

The one-child policy has been in operation for more than 20 years and—this is where we get down to the nuts and bolts—UNFPA and IPPF have been partners, or been complicit, in the one-child policy since its beginning. We help to fund those bodies; hence my amendments. The year before the one-child policy was introduced, UNFPA signed a ``memorandum of understanding'' with the Chinese Government; in 1980, IPPF also began involvement in the Chinese programme. In 1983, as the one-child programme became increasingly coercive, the China Family Planning Association, a Chinese body and an organ of the state Government that was running the programme, became an IPPF affiliate, so the body in China running the operation became an affiliate of a body that we are funding. The Minister probably does not have many good things to say about the CFPA; I shall be interested to hear his comments but I accept that he is not responsible for that body or for what it is doing. The CFPA, although ostensibly a non-governmental organisation, is run by Chinese state officials; the nature of the society and the Government is such that there is no effective non-governmental organisation in the field.

The CFPA admitted that its role was to

``supervise that the awarding and punishing policies relating to family planning [are] properly executed''.

It admitted, too, that the CPFA

``volunteers sometimes collect the occasional fine when a couple breaks the birthplan rules''.

The Secretary of State has said that IPPF and UNFPA can monitor the worst excesses of the Chinese regime and expose it to international condemnation, which was precisely the point made in an intervention by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). However, DFID admitted in 1995:

``Critics of this position argue that several years of UNFPA and IPPF involvement in China has not led the Chinese to moderate their policies or stop abuses in the implementation of policy. This is true.''

That was said some years ago so we shall look for examples to bear out the Secretary of State's contention that her involvement in the bodies is resulting in real influence for the better. We shall examine the evidence as the debate progresses. If the Minister can convince us, that will colour our conclusion.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State claimed:

``Birth quotas have been dropped in all of the counties where UNFPA is working.''—[Official Report, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 285.]

That was the central contention; the right hon. Lady was saying, in brief, ``All right, we are giving aid. Where UNFPA, a body that we are supporting, operates we are having real influence in the counties in dealing with these matters.'' However, as recently as September, a team of investigators from the US-based Population Research Institute travelled to China to interview women and officials in those counties where UNFPA is active. Interviews were recorded in notebooks and on audio and video tape, and additional photographic evidence was gathered. The investigation concluded that

``there is no real distinction between the one-child policy as carried out in the 32 counties where the UNFPA is active and the one-child policy found throughout China as a whole . . . The UNFPA, contrary to its own statements, is participating in the management and support of a program of forced abortion and forced sterilization in China''.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

For information, would the hon. Gentleman tell us about the United States-based organisation that did the investigation? I should be interested to see its evidence.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I certainly can provide the evidence. I understand that the hon. Lady is saying that it is parti pris or, perhaps, that it holds a particular view about abortion. I do not have the evidence with me but, if I can find it before the debate adjourns, I shall bring it for the hon. Lady. The organisation's contention should be listened to, at least. I realise that we should not listen to the views of only one organisation; thus, I shall discuss in more detail other evidence of what is happening on the ground. It is complicated—I do not want to take too much of the Committee's time—but these are precisely the facts that we must consider in this important debate.

In 2000–01, the Department for International Development gave £50 million to UNFPA and £5.5 million to IPPF. Those two organisations gave money to two agencies in China: the State Family Planning Commission and the China Family Planning Association. The CFPA is a full member of IPPF. It is run by Government officials and has the declared aim of implementing Government population policies. The Chinese Government remain firmly committed to the need for coercion in family planning. On 13 October 1999, Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji—I apologise if my pronunciation of Chinese names is not up to scratch, but I do not suppose that anyone in the Room will draw me up on it—said:

``China will continue to enforce its effective''

—I emphasise that—

``family planning policy in the new century in order to create a favourable environment for further development.''

In its White Paper on population released on 19 December 2000, the People's Republic of China avowed to continue the one-child policy for another 50 years. Oh that British policy making could be so determined that we would be able to base our policies on the next 50 years. I am sure that the Minister thinks that this Government will ensure their will for the next 50 years—perhaps not.

International human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture have consistently highlighted the appalling human rights programme. On-the-ground evidence demonstrates that UNFPA and IPPF are complicit in it.

We now consider a crucial aspect of the debate: the agreement that UNFPA signed with Beijing, under which it would operate in 32 counties throughout China. In each of those counties, the central local authorities agreed that there would be no coercion or birth quotas and that abortion would not be promoted as a method of family planning. Naturally, our Government place great faith in that agreement. According to an answer given by Baroness Amos in the other place:

``UK assistance for all family planning is provided in line with the principles of free and informed choice upheld at the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1341.]

Indeed, the Government consider that UNFPA is a positive force for change in the counties in China in which it operates. The Secretary of State said:

``UNFPA's programme in China is designed to demonstrate that people can be provided with modern services and make their own choices about family size without coercion . . . the work of UNFPA and the IPPF has led to real advances.''—[Official Report, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 285.]

I do not blame the Secretary of State in any way. I know that she tries to do her best in a difficult situation, but it is my contention that her faith in the UNFPA is misplaced. The evidence from China directly contradicts the Government's assertions.

We are trying to build up the evidence from reliable sources, and are not just relying on evidence from one set of people who may have a particular view. On 17 October 2001, the US Congress Committee on International Relations held a hearing into

``Coercive Population Control in China: New Evidence of Forced Abortion and Forced Sterilisation.''

After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence that was collected in September 2001—so it is up to date—the Committee Chairman concluded that

``after three years, the new arrangement is not working''.

Whatever one might think of the United States Congress, it is a serious body that is well resourced and bipartisan. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is smiling, but US Congress Committees deserve to be heard. Forced abortion, forced sterilisation, the rigid enforcement of quotas and the widespread use of fines and imprisonment to punish those ``in breach'' of Government programmes are still commonplace.

Reinforcing that conclusion, the US State Department—a serious body with reasonably good access to information—reported that UNFPA involvement in China had met with ``mixed success''. It may have had some success, but it is only mixed. Some counties have made ``relatively little'' progress, whereas others have not begun to eliminate strict birth quotas. The Secretary of State said:

``Birth quotas have been dropped in all of the counties where UNFPA is working.''— [Official Report, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 285.]

The evidence that has been provided to congressional Committees does not support her answer. It is a pity that we do not have a similar procedure in the House to sift through the evidence. I contend that the Government remain unclear about the number of counties in which UNFPA operates.

Lord Grocott said in the House of Lords on 25 October 2001 that UNFPA operated in 47 counties, but the Secretary of State in the House of Commons on 7 November 2001 spoke of a service being developed in 860 counties. There appears to be some confusion. It may be that more detailed proceedings are possible in the House of Commons but, whichever figure is correct, given that there are 2,500 counties in China, it is clear that even if some progress is being made in some counties, it is just a pinprick. The policy is continuing throughout those 2,500 counties.

We contend that UNFPA is complicit in that policy. Lord Grocott said that

``the work of UNFPA has had a clearly beneficial effect in China . . . we are convinced that it is essential to maintain the ability of bodies such as UNFPA to engage in policy dialogue with countries where reform is so much needed, as in China.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 2001; Vol. 627, c. 1119-1120.]

That is the Government's contention, but we believe that UNFPA simply does not know what is going on in any detail. It has been said that the point of UNFPA's involvement and our aid is that they should influence what is happening. However, UNFPA now claims, incredibly, to have no representatives in its programme counties, perhaps out of embarrassment in the light of evidence that is coming out of China. What is going on? Is UNFPA in there, keeping an eye on what is happening and stopping what we all condemn? If so, why does it have no representatives in its programme counties?

If the hon. Member for Richmond Park will forgive me, I shall refer again to Stephen Mosher of the Population Research Institute. He contends that the UNFPA feigns ignorance of the real state of affairs and is sending a delegation to find out. Mr. Mosher claims also that Rob Gustafson, a UNFPA representative, acknowledged that UNFPA was unable to locate its office in Sihui county, one of the counties that both it and our Government insist is free from all involuntary population control policies. Sihui county is one of 2,500, and given that the Government claim that, because they provide money, they have influence and knowledge, it would be interesting to find out what is going on there. I cannot believe this information, but I have been given it so I must pass it on: some reports suggest that UNFPA has only three workers in China, all of whom are now in Beijing. What is happening?

UNFPA was invited to attend the aforementioned congressional Committees in the United States. It declined the invitation, but has now approached the PRI and others for the names and addresses of the Chinese women who testified about coercive population control. I am glad of that, but, unsurprisingly, its approach was rejected as it would have violated the women's right to privacy and put them at grave risk from the Chinese Government, to whom UNFPA appears to have delegated all its authority. UNFPA was not at the congressional hearings and did not have any dealings with women who testified. I am not saying that there are bad people in UNFPA or that they want anything to do with coerced population control. For the sake of argument, I will accept that they do not want to get involved in the matter in any shape or form. The Government do not seem to know what is happening, and the contention that, by giving considerable aid, we can affect what happens on the ground is misplaced.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report of the international review team, which is an independent team put together by UNFPA, following the presentation to Congress on 17 October? The team, which seems respectable and independent, was led by a former Netherlands ambassador to the United Nations and went out on a week's notice. UNFPA has listened to the concerns of the organisation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The team reported, and to a certain extent it seems to have been obstructed by that organisation. I have looked at that review, but has the hon. Gentleman? A considerable amount of satisfaction would be gained from it.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

One advantage of the Committee is that we can have genuine debate. The hon. Gentleman will be able to share that report with us so that we may sift through the evidence. I hope that I am a reasonable person. If I am wrong and it can be established that UNFPA is having an impact on the ground, I will accept that. However, the evidence is conflicting, and I doubt whether we should be providing aid to a body when, at best, its activities are controversial and the evidence of its influence for the good is conflicting. That raises serious questions about what is going on and what we should do.

There is enough evidence to suggest that there is at least a real possibility that bodies to which we, British taxpayers, give money are in some way complicit in, or have an influence on, a barbaric programme of coercive population control. However, we continue to fund them. My amendment is simply designed to stop that funding.

Let me say what the US Government have done.

Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour, Crosby)

I believe that I share some of Committee members' concerns about the nature and integrity of statistics and reports that we are asked to consider. The hon. Gentleman clearly said that a number of substantial reports had been produced on the so-called activities that are on-going in some counties. However, I have a great deal of sympathy for the idea of establishing a proper review, conducted in the United Kingdom, about what is going on in China regarding the money that we provide for programmes.

Political involvement and, indeed, the involvement of organisations that receive funds in a report's development is inappropriate. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree—I believe that he alluded to this but did not deal with it specifically—that a Select Committee inquiry in the UK would be advantageous? A considered, reflective period and expert evidence would allow us to form a more coherent view, which would, I hope, influence future discussions.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am very grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention; I cannot see how anyone could disagree with it. I would gladly give way to the hon. Member for Richmond Park if she wishes to intervene. I accept that we probably have different views on these matters, but I am sure that even she, who comes from the other side of the argument, would accept the sheer reasonableness of what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has said.

We can spend a great deal of time debating such issues back and forth. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we cannot operate more like the US Congress and why we always have to pursue matters in a confrontational manner. There is no confrontation this morning, because I am deliberately trying not to be confrontational. I do not know why the House cannot say, ``This is a real issue and there are obviously strong views either way. Let's set up a Select Committee and listen to all the evidence. Let's get an all-party group of the House of Commons sitting to find out what's going on.''

My amendment is slightly different from the one that Baroness Cox and Lord Alton promoted in the other place. My amendment would not entirely cut off funding for organisations complicit in coercive population control, such as UNFPA and IPPF; it would merely cut off funding for programmes that involved coercion. What could be more moderate than that?

We advanced our arguments in the other place, and I am making them again in this House. We no longer seek to cut off all funding for UN bodies that are presumably doing a good job throughout the world. What could be fairer than cutting off funding for programmes that involve coercion?

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Does not my hon. Friend feel that that last concession would drive a coach and horses through the principle that he is advocating? If we cut off funding only for particular programmes to which we object, so that funding is used for programmes to which we do not object, we are freeing up other resources in the organisation that can then be used for programmes to which we do object. Does he not see a problem with the concession that he has so generously made?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am having some difficulty in following my hon. Friend's reasoning.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Most people do.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

My hon. Friend is highly intelligent and has been a personal friend for the past 25 years, but I simply do not accept his reasoning. If one has a moral and ethical foreign or international development policy, one does not try to second-guess those organisations. One simply says that we will do what is right. Is not that the sole point of the Bill? We will not give aid on the basis that we shall acquire influence or help British companies to operate here and there. We give aid on the basis that we shall relieve poverty. It is perfectly ethical, sensible and reasonable to say that the British taxpayer will not give aid to any programme that can trickle down to coercive population control programmes.

What has been happening in the US? It has been paying attention to the matter for a long time. For the past 25 years both United States administrative directives and congressional actions have severely restricted US population assistance in various ways. More recent executive regulations and appropriation orders have prohibited indirect support for coercive family planning. Let us look at the history. People will immediately suppose that it is the Bush regime and a Republican Congress and a Republican President who are influenced by their own political imperatives. In fact it is far more complicated. I shall go through the evidence as quickly as I can. What I propose is similar to what President Clinton proposed, and he was not an anti-abortion fanatic: I am not coming at this from a mid-west, right-wing point of view.

At the 1994 Mexico City conference, the then US Administration—dare I say it, the Reagan Administration; I hope that that will not upset hon. Members too much—established the requirement that UNFPA provide

``concrete assurances that [it] is not engaged in, or does not provide funding for, abortion or coercive family programmes.''

Concern then was highest over UNFPA's activities in China's coercive family planning practices. At the time the Reagan Administration reportedly held up $19 million allocated for UNFPA until the organisation could provide the necessary assurances.

Subsequently, Congress legislated a more restrictive UNFPA policy, aimed at coercive Chinese family planning programmes and UNFPA's continuing operations in the country, by enacting the Kemp-Kasten amendment. Its language prohibited the use of appropriated funds for any organisation or programme supporting or participating ``in the management'' of a programme of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilisation. Accordingly, in September 1985, $10 million of the $46 million that had been earmarked for UNFPA was redirected to other programmes. That partly answers my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). Obviously the US Congress was trying to find a way through these difficult matters and to help UNFPA in other ways.

Between 1986 and 1993, no US funding for UNFPA was granted. Following the election of President Clinton, US funding for UNFPA was resumed. However, even under President Clinton, Congress reduced the US contribution by the amount that UNFPA spent in China. When UNFPA started its current so-called voluntary programme in China, Congress prohibited American support for the financial year 1999. Congress resumed UNFPA funding in 2000–01 but under the condition that the $25 million earmarked would be reduced by whatever amount UNFPA programmes for China cost.

That is the decision of the US Congress, a body that has huge amounts of research material available to it. My amendment would effect an arrangement similar to that of the Clinton Administration. The Minister will be pleased to hear that I am approaching the end of my remarks—[Hon. Members: ``Hear, hear.''] I am sorry to take the Committee's time but I have tried to consider the evidence reasonably.

The Minister must ensure that United Kingdom grants do not fund programmes involving coercive population control, such as those in China. Currently, all DFID's funding is unrestricted for UNFPA and IPPF. It comprises one big cheque with no strings attached. My amendment would insist that the Secretary of State specify programmes for which UNFPA and IPPF could spend DIFD grants, thus excluding any use of money in China. That is a sensible policy, which would not prevent the Secretary of State from funding population programmes. I have views on such programmes, but my views are irrelevant. The Secretary of State should not provide a big cheque without knowing what it is for. I want to attach strings to that cheque.

The Government claim to have an ethical foreign policy. The House has a duty to scrutinise that policy and to insist that not one penny of UK taxpayers' money funds appalling practices.

This is not just a dry debate in a Committee Room in the House of Commons. The director of the Channel 4 programme ``The Dying Rooms'' described an orphanage in China:

``Every single baby in this orphanage was a girl . . . the only boys were mentally or physically disabled. 95 per cent. of the babies we saw were able-bodied girls. The most shocking orphanage we visited lay, ironically, just 20 minutes from one of the five star international hotels that herald China's emergence from economic isolation.''

That is just one example. A newspaper article based on evidence from the respected organisation Amnesty International reported:

``A retired doctor had rescued the newborn child from the cesspit of a men's lavatory, where he had been tossed to die. Liu Juyu took the baby to a clinic where she was confronted by five birth control officials. Amnesty says they snatched the baby, threw him to the ground, kicked him and took him away to be drowned in a paddy field.''

The debate is not dry, intellectual or academic; it is about real people and suffering. British taxpayers' money should not fund such abominable practices.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on one thing: he has advanced a reasoned argument. However, I will try to demolish it.

I understand his point, but he initially questioned the subject of the debate. He said that it was not about a woman's right to choose. The debate is about non-governmental organisations throughout the world that help to secure that right to choose for women. That is so vital to everyone, not just women. Women having fewer babies means better education, growth in the economy and developing countries doing much better in the long term, so the proposals have vast implications throughout the world. The debate is about a woman's right to choose and about those organisations that are trying so hard to give her that choice.

The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment that, on the grounds of malpractice in China alone—we have all heard stories about those malpractices—would disadvantage women all over the world. I was listening carefully and I do not think that he mentioned any country other than China. As someone who has worked in this field for many years, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it would be almost impossible to guarantee that every single doctor, counsellor, nurse and worker in a particular project would obey the rules all the time. I could bore the hon. Gentleman with countless examples of well qualified and well trained doctors and nurses in the United Kingdom who do not always obey the rules and who allow their own feelings to creep into their judgments on patients. That happens all over the world, so it would be impossible to determine what programmes were pure in the hon. Gentleman's sense.

The debate is about a woman's right to choose and, to some extent, about how we view abortion and family planning. We all know that there are huge religious objections in some quarters to those practices. It is legitimate for people to hold those views, and I do not object to their doing so, but they should not impose their views on others. Doctors in the United Kingdom and all over the world often dictate to people, on the grounds of their religious belief, what patients should do with their life. That is totally wrong. I shall probably not return to practice now, after my sojourn in this place, but I hope—touch wood—that I would never allow, and have never allowed my personal views to affect how I treat my patients.

I, personally, find abortion very difficult to stomach. The hon. Gentleman might find that surprising, but I have strong moral views too, and I had a religious upbringing. However, I have never had to make that choice for myself. I was well educated and well trained and have worked in reproductive health all my professional life, so I never became pregnant when I could not have a baby. Therefore, how can I possibly judge what a woman wants to do in those circumstances, given that I have never experienced that dilemma?

Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour, Crosby)

I am benefiting from the hon. Lady's comments, but she is confusing religious matters with bureaucratic matters. Does she not agree that China has an overt and blatant position on coercive abortion? Would she care to comment on the choice that that position offers women? Will she also comment on the role that UNFPA plays in providing a choice to women who have no choice?

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I shall come to that, but I wanted to clarify a few issues to begin with. It is important that we are clear in our head about where the proposers of the amendment, both here and in the other place, are coming from. It is important to understand the different views that people hold on the subject.

If one visits many developing countries, one finds that for social, cultural and religious reasons, women are condemned to a life of childbirth. They do nothing else but give birth and then give birth again, until they eventually die. I remember hearing, in a village in Bangladesh, the famous quotation that goes all around that country, that

``lucky is the man in Bangladesh who loses his wife and not his land.''

The reason for that attitude is that he can always replace his wife, but not his land. That is how women are regarded. Bangladesh has the highest maternal death rate in the world. If they give birth and they lose their life, well, that is too bad.

It is important to examine the work of the NGOs. They are doing family planning work, of course. They are giving women the right to choose whether they get pregnant or not, which can be very difficult in developing countries. It is a delicate business, which crosses many cultural boundaries. The organisations are trying to improve maternal health and improve child mortality, which is so terrible in developing countries. They are trying to improve the genital health of many women who on many occasions contract HIV/AIDS because they have other infections that make them more prone to catching the disease.

The organisations are battling against HIV/AIDS. They are battling, in many countries against the aversion to men using condoms because they are banned by the Roman Catholic Church. There are many worries in that area that we must take into account, and the NGOs are doing fantastic and stalwart work in the field. They are tackling education, maternal health, reproductive health and family planning, which are so important to the future of those countries. I have seen the projects of organisations such as UNFPA, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International all over the world and I salute them for their work.

Some NGOs do menstrual extraction, which is a form of very early abortion. Many people would object to that, but the alternative in those countries is to have an unwanted pregnancy terminated illegally in the villages using bits of twigs and branches, rubbish and chemicals and other practices. That is to return to a far worse situation than that which existed in this country before the Abortion Act 1967, because women's health in the developing countries is poorer to begin with. I was a medical student and a junior hospital doctor in the days before that Act. I had to look after women who had come in after illegal abortion and I had to watch them die of septicaemia or a ruptured uterus. There was sheer desperation in those women, because they could not contemplate a pregnancy.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

With the best will in the world, I cannot see what that has to do with the amendment. The hon. Lady is talking about women who are desperate to have abortions. The amendment concerns women who do not want to have abortions being forced to do so.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

Indeed. I am, just as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) did, giving you a lot of background to put the matter into context. I do not apologise for that, because it is very important for you to understand what the organisations are battling against and the work that they are doing. You are asking for funding to these organisations to be stopped—

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I am not, actually.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

The hon. Member for New Forest, East is asking for funding to these organisations to be stopped on the grounds that in some areas of China, coercion may be occurring with respect to abortion and sterilisation.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I specifically said that I was not trying to cut off funding for those organisations. The amendment does not cut off funding for the organisations but for programmes that involve coercive population control programmes.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

But does not the hon. Gentleman understand that an organisation practising in China will not only be doing abortion or coercive abortion? It will be involved in a range of activities in a particular area. That is why I went into the background of reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health and family planning. If funding for an organisation is cut off on the grounds that some little corner of it is engaged in coercive practices—I have evidence, as does the hon. Gentleman, that that is decreasing and is now almost non-existent—all the other work will be stopped. The organisation will not be allowed to operate. That disadvantages the vast majority of women for the sake of the examples that the hon. Gentleman has given us.

I also want to refer to the research. An independent internal review team from the United Nations, not a United States review team, visited in 1997, August and November 1999 and between May and June 2001. Its report is available from the all-party group's adviser, and the hon. Member for Gainsborough could e-mail her today to ask for it. It clearly states that reforms have begun in China since 1994, where there has been a big change in thinking and methodology, and a transition from a bureaucratic, coercive approach.

UNFPA continues its good reproductive health projects in China, and the indicators show that birth rates have decreased since 1998 from 11.44 to 10.62 per thousand. The hon. Gentleman may not like that fact. The abortion ratio has decreased from 0.18 to 0.11. The maternal mortality rate has decreased from 62.9 in 100,000 to 52.2 in 100,000. The female sterilisation rate has decreased from 35.8 to 25.5. I do not know whether that last decrease is because women prefer other methods of family planning, or because coercive sterilisation has stopped. The UNFPA projects appear to have influenced senior and mid-level Government officials significantly, especially as a vehicle to introduce strategic thinking and sexual reproductive policy changes.

It is important to try to solve the dilemma that faces NGOs in such matters, which is whether they stay in a country where there is abuse of human rights. They may not like everything that goes on there, but they either stay and try to bring about change and make lives different, or they withdraw completely and allow the relevant Government to carry on as they will. The first option seems by far preferable. It is important to support the work of such organisations in a way in which the US has not. We can emphasise the priorities that we want them to have, but we should support their work on changing attitudes, as education is the only factor that will make change happen. People will have to work as medical missionaries in reproductive health to change the attitudes of Governments and patients if we are ever to have change.

I am convinced that education to free women from the burden of continual childbirth would be good not only for individual women, but for the economic growth of a country. Ultimately, it would be good for us, as we would not have the problems associated with poverty in the third world.

UNFPA, Marie Stopes International, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Family Planning Association are doing some of the most essential work for humankind. We should support them rather than condemning them on the grounds that abuse may go on in some corners of China.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

I shall be brief, and shall not repeat arguments that have been made. I agree with the opening remarks made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough. Coerced abortion and sterilisation has taken place for many years and continues in large parts of China. It has nothing to do with religious belief. No one of any religious persuasion is in favour of it.

Some information gives the impression that UNFPA has little or no influence in China, but the hon. Member for Richmond Park gives us plenty of evidence that it has a tremendous positive influence, and is a force for change and for good. There is some evidence to suggest that the abortion rate is lower in areas where UNFPA is working. Can the Minister give us information to persuade us that the UNFPA programme is a force for good and a force for change in China?

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

We all agree that we do not want anyone to be coerced into abortion or sterilisation. I hope that we also agree that women should not be coerced into keeping an unwanted pregnancy and men should not be coerced into not using condoms that would prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and further pregnancies. We must remember the other side of the coin. I have seen many examples of coercion the other way.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

There will be all sorts of arguments in that respect, from various sources, but I want to focus on the amendment, which is about coerced abortion and sterilisation. Can the Minister assure us that the UNFPA programme is a force for good and for change, and can he give us an assurance that no money from British taxpayers will be used to fund coerced abortion or sterilisation now or in the future?

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, whom I have known and admired for 20 years—25 is a slight exaggeration—does not intend to press the amendment to a vote, because if he did so, I should be very torn. Despite the apparent obscurity of my first intervention, somewhere in my comments is a germ of common sense; I fear that if we do not like one of the practices of an organisation that is engaged in multifarious practices, we shall fail in our aim of stopping the practice that we do not like unless we cut off all funding from that organisation. If we cut off funding only from the activity of which we disapprove, the organisation will shuffle its finances, and use its untied contributions to make up for the reduced contribution from the international development budget.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough must face up to the fact that if the amendment became law and Britain withheld funding for programmes of which we disapproved, organisations would simply use the money that we gave them for programmes of which we did approve to release money from countries that did not restrict its use and use that money to fund the programmes of which we disapproved. I say that from an agnostic position; I am purely looking at the matter analytically.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I do not think that my hon. Friend is helping UNFPA. If it were represented here—as it could be at a Select Committee inquiry—it would make it clear that it was opposed to coercive population control programmes, and would probably tell us that it was not involved with such programmes. I am not saying that it is a bad organisation. My hon. Friend is wrong; I do not suggest that if we stop providing money for any one programme, UNFPA will secretly use the general pot to finance it. We are trying to make a moral point, as is the United States Congress. I am suggesting that we do the same as the US, which is putting moral pressure on bodies such as UNFPA to make certain that none of their work involves coercive population programmes. Is that clear?

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

That is clear, but it still leaves the practical snag, from my hon. Friend's point of view, that if the amendment were passed, the Department for International Development would have to distinguish between programmes proposed by an organisation that

``assists, finances, practices or promotes (either directly or indirectly) forced abortion''

and other non-objectionable programmes practised by the same organisation. Therefore, if he is saying that the organisation does not approve of forced abortion, he will not be able to identify any such programmes from which money will need to be withheld.

I stand by my central point. I understand the moral force behind the proposal, but the practical applicability of the remedy that he suggests leaves a lot to be desired.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Gainsborough for raising the issue and for the manner in which he did so, which will unite the Committee. He spoke with genuine passion and sincerity, which all hon. Members will acknowledge, and so did the hon. Member for Richmond Park and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham).

I am also grateful that the hon. Member for Gainsborough has given me the opportunity to offer reassurances. I take the opportunity to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who is unable to attend this morning as he is attending a funeral in his constituency, has also raised the matter with me. I believe that he was reassured by the explanation that I gave him, which I will now give the Committee.

I should begin by clarifying the issue of the practices mentioned by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, to which all of us are resolutely opposed. Hon. Members will recall that on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear the Government's views on coercive population policies such as those pursued in China. We condemn coercive fertility control unequivocally; we do not support it, we do not and will not fund it, and I can conceive of no circumstances in which a Government of the United Kingdom would do so. I am sure that we all agree on that point. I hope that that answers directly the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. It is precisely because we oppose such practices that we support and will continue to support the work of UNFPA and IPPF.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough referred to funding. In 2000–01, the total United Kingdom funding to UNFPA was £40 million, with £15 million of core funding for its worldwide activities and £25 million to help to prevent a global shortage of contraceptives.

UNFPA is the largest United Nations provider of sexual and reproductive health assistance to developing countries, and works in poor countries throughout the world. The work of the fund enables millions of women to go through pregnancy and childbirth more safely. The hon. Member for Richmond Park made that point. As the Committee will be only too well aware, reducing maternal mortality is one of the millennium development goals to which we are all committed. UNFPA and IPPF are also playing leading roles in helping to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. IPPF, in particular, provides much-needed family planning and reproductive health services through its family planning associations in many poor countries. Without those associations, women would not have any choice in matters relating to their sexual and reproductive health.

It is because of their track records that we believe that it is important to support those organisations. They are working to reform practices that we all find abhorrent, such as those that still occur in parts of China, even though the central Government forbids enforced abortion or sterilisation. The state family planning commission has issued national guidance prohibiting family planning officials from coercing women into having an abortion or being sterilised against their will. However, the state authorities in China, among others, recognise that those abuses have occurred.

Promoting reform in China is precisely what UNFPA and IPPF are attempting. The hon. Member for Gainsborough was kind enough to acknowledge that that is the nub of the argument: do we do more good than harm by engaging in the task of promoting reform?

The UNFPA programme in China is designed to demonstrate that people can make their own choices about family size without coercion. As hon. Members may know, the UNFPA programme in China took almost two years to negotiate. UNFPA insisted that the programme had to be consistent with the fundamental principles of voluntarism and non-coercion affirmed by 179 countries at the 1994 international conference on population and development. It was a precondition of UNFPA's involvement in the 47 counties where it is working in China that targets and quotas for births, which are the drivers of coercive fertility control, should be done away with. It reports that that has happened in those counties.

Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour, Crosby)

Has my hon. Friend received any independent verification of the statistics and comments in the UNFPA report?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come on to that very point. Before I do so, I want to mention the allegations made by the Population Research Institute, to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough referred. It is important that members of the Committee should know that it is not the first time that the PRI has made allegations about UNFPA's work. For example, in August 1999 the Population Research Institute accused UNFPA of launching stealth ethnic cleansing campaigns in Kosovo. In fact, it was providing emergency reproductive health supplies to Kosovan refugees.

It is important that every complaint should be investigated, but I have provided an example in which the allegation was without foundation. The accusations to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough referred have not been substantiated. UNFPA does not support coercive family planning. I think that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that point. When the allegations were made, UNFPA, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset mentioned, sent a high-level team, headed by Dr. Nicolas Biegman, a former Dutch ambassador to the United Nations, to investigate. It did so precisely because it took the matter so seriously.

The team members found no evidence to support the allegations of abuse, although they acknowledged in their report that they had some difficulty in investigating because, despite requests, they were not given information that would have allowed them to question the people who were questioned by those who made the allegations. It may help the Committee if I say that I have arranged for a copy of the report to be put in the Library so that hon. Members can examine in detail what the UNFPA investigation team found.

To reinforce the point, I should say that UNFPA has made it clear to Chinese officials that it will not operate unless allegations of coercive abortion and sterilisation are investigated and those responsible are punished.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned the monitoring of the UNFPA's programme in China. It is probably one of the most scrutinised among its family planning and reproductive health support programmes. UNFPA staff monitor every programme county at least once a year. UNFPA executive board members—including the UK, the US, the EU and developing countries—have visited programme counties in China at least twice in the past two years. There has been a US congressional staff visit, and US embassy staff monitor the programme frequently. UNFPA and the Chinese authorities have said on several occasions that they would welcome visits to monitor the programme's progress. That invitation stands for any member of the Committee who is interested, and my Department will be happy to do what it can to facilitate such a visit.

I now turn to the evidence that suggests that progress has been made in influencing what happens in China. The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to the reduction in abortion rates. It is reported that the abortion ratio in the Sihui municipality—the focus of Ambassador Biegman's investigations—declined from 0.46 in 1998 to 0.21 in 2000. By comparison, the abortion ratio is about 0.48 in Europe and 0.26 in the United States. Therefore, the abortion ratio in 2000 in the county to which the allegations relate was lower than that in Europe or the United States.

Family planning clinics in the programme area have expanded the range of contraceptive methods to include not only IUDs and sterilisation but oral contraceptives, condoms, foam and injectable contraceptives.

Recent information shows that the infant mortality rate has decreased, which I am sure all hon. Members welcome. That is a millennium development goal to which we are all committed. Evidence also shows that the rate for the in-hospital delivery of babies has increased significantly in some programme counties. Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, maternal mortality and the female sterilisation rate have declined in Qianjiang.

Those tangible improvements are beginning to have an impact in parts of China outside the 47 counties where UNFPA runs its programme. A question arose about whether 47 counties, 860 counties or 2,250 counties were involved, and the figure is roughly 2,250. In referring to 860 counties, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was talking about the development of services outside the UNFPA programme area to give men and women information and choice in their sexual and reproductive health care. By comparison, only five counties were piloting that approach in 1995.

For the reasons that I have given, it is unlikely—I put it no higher than that—that such progress would have been made without UNFPA's influence. We must be honest about the fact that difficult judgments have to be made. The hon. Member for Gainsborough highlighted one, and we must tackle many others through our overseas aid programme. We must decide when the situation in a country gets so difficult that we must disengage from directly operating with the Government and work through NGOs, or, in the worst circumstances, offer only humanitarian aid because we do not wish to be complicit in practices or policies of which we disapprove.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am grateful for the Minister's serious and careful response. Is he saying that in these counties UNFPA is using our money to campaign against the coercive programme and is exerting a real influence? Is it going out and campaigning against the programme rather than ignoring it?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I have already referred to UNFPA's negotiation of an arrangement to start work in the 47 counties, to the attached conditions, and to the clear statement that, if the people responsible for these practices are not called to account and punished, it will not operate, so I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. UNFPA has set itself a clear objective of seeking to engage in order to change practices that we all find deeply objectionable. If I recall correctly, even the hon. Gentleman acknowledged at the start of his speech that we might have had some influence. The Government believe that the programme has had an effect. The hon. Gentleman also quoted the US State Department as saying that success had been mixed, so there must have been positives as well as negatives. It is worth quoting the independent review committee on the fact that progress had been made. It said:

``This view was reinforced by officials at the US Embassy in Beijing, who noted that UNFPA was definitely a positive force in moving China away from precisely the kinds of practices and abuses alleged by PRI. By this measure, they said, the UNFPA programme has been extremely successful.''

Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour, Crosby)

I must return to my earlier point. The Minister referred extensively to the report in the Library and I am grateful to my colleagues for furnishing me with a copy. The independent report commissioned by UNFPA was funded by UNFPA, yet it takes a dismal view of organisations that seek to justify their actions by commissioning and paying for reports on those actions. As I said earlier, independent scrutiny of UNFPA would make me feel far more comfortable about its activities. A self-confessed report about its activities is tainted by its involvement in them.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

None could disagree with my hon. Friend on the principle of independent scrutiny. However, UNFPA would have been open to understandable criticism if, having received the allegations, it did not, as a responsible body, immediately take steps to investigate. If I understand correctly, the allegations were made in October and, judging by the dates on the cover of the report, UNFPA sent a team to investigate at the end of October. The report stands or falls by what it says. UNFPA encourages scrutiny; the Chinese authorities encourage scrutiny. Anyone can take up the offer to look at what is happening and form an independent view. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby. Nobody underestimates the difficulty of bringing about change. Change and reform take time, but there is evidence of progress.

The amendment could be interpreted in different ways. An exchange between the hon. Member for Gainsborough and the hon. Member for New Forest, East teased out some of the difficulties. If it were accepted, the amendment would undermine our perfectly proper support for the work of UNFPA and IPPF to promote reform in China. Under one interpretation of the amendment, their work elsewhere in the world would be at continual risk of being ruled unlawful. The Committee is being asked to prohibit concepts as broad as directly or indirectly assisting or directly or indirectly facilitating certain activities; that would make it all too easy for a legal case to be made against any form of engagement. The Bill must not lay the Secretary of State open to challenge. The Government and the bodies that we are discussing engage with those countries and pursue our policies precisely because we wish to persuade them of the need for reform.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

This is where we get to the part of the Minister's speech, which is drafted by the civil servants, that rubbishes the wording of the amendment. I know that that is what Ministers have to do. I knew that Ministers would not accept the amendment, which was drafted by amateurs. We cannot get it right. However, there is a serious point behind the amendment. Can the Minister assure me that he will continue to take the matters seriously? Although the amendment will not end up as legislation, will he use the power of his office and the work of his officials to monitor UNFPA closely and put pressure on it? Will he seek independent scrutiny and really find out what is going on? He has the resources to do so; we do not.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

The Minister may be expected to rubbish amendments, but that is not the spirit in which I approach the task—I did not take the hon. Gentleman to mean that it was. However, since we can consider only the wording before us, it is worth briefly going through some of the difficulties that it would create. It is hard on the one hand to engage genuinely in encouraging reform and on the other to have legislation on the statute book that would impede reform. That is in the context of the Government having, as I set out at the beginning of my speech, made it crystal clear that we unequivocally condemn coercive fertility control and that we do not and will not fund it. It is inconceivable to think of circumstances in which a future Secretary of State would do so. If that happened—as it could only under the most extreme interpretation of the powers available in the Bill—it would be susceptible to challenge in the courts, which might be expected to take account not only of the wording in the Bill but of the UK's commitments as signatories to the European convention on human rights.

I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough recognises from the content and spirit of my remarks that we take seriously the opposition that we have expressed to coercive practices. We wish to continue to work with UNFPA in promoting reform and in doing what it has explicitly said that it seeks to do. It, too, resolutely opposes coercive practices; the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that he was not accusing it of doing otherwise.

I hope that members of the Committee agree that the best way of reducing and then eliminating such practices in the long term is to continue to engage with reform in China, with all the difficulties and problems that that brings. It is right and proper that we continue to support the work undertaken by the UNFPA and the IPPF.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I chose to wait to hear what the Minister had to say before speaking. I believe that it is important for me to do so because the discussions have demonstrated that there are different views on all sides. I consider this very much free vote territory. I hope that the Minister feels that it was a good decision to encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough to voice his concerns in the Committee. He feels deeply on the matter and his concerns are to some extent shared by some Labour Members.

We thought long and hard about how to facilitate the airing of such important views. As I am sure the Minister recalls, I asked on Second Reading for a Special Standing Committee in which we could hear the evidence. The hon. Member for Crosby underlined how special such a committee would be. Without it, any discussion at this stage in the Bill is a compromise. I hope that the Minister will understand that and try to facilitate the hearing of evidence.

I strongly urge the Minister to consider how proper hearings can be undertaken in the House. Hon. Members of all parties believe that it is important to investigate the matter properly, as acceptance or rejection of the points made often hinge on second-hand evidence. The truth is more likely to come out in an extended inquiry into the matter.

Last month, the US-based Population Research Institute sent a team to China to observe the so-called voluntary programme and interviewed women and officials in the very counties where UNFPA is active. The institute found the statements to be misleading, because although the quotas were said to have been removed, the policy persisted. That is one illustration of the confusion that surrounds the issue and the need for genuine investigation that would inform Parliament. The US Congress has held its own hearings, but because British taxpayers' money is involved, it would be right for Parliament to hold a similar in-depth inquiry. I reiterate that request to the Minister, whom I thank for the spirit in which he replied. The tone on both sides of the House reveals how keenly we know that the issue touches on free vote territory.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am grateful to hon. Members for taking part in the debate. It is important that the House has the chance to discuss the matter in detail. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, and especially grateful to the Minister for the seriousness with which he has approached the task. He is a good and skilful Minister who has made an effort to respond to some of my concerns. We cannot now, with the resources available to the Committee, take the process much further. We have given it an airing, but there is a dispute about what is going on in Sihui county. One research institute, whose findings have been criticised, is critical of the United Nations programmes in the county. It says that it has evidence to show that little or no progress is being made; however, the Minister advanced evidence that suggests the opposite. The hon. Member for Crosby made a powerful point: what is needed is independent evidence from an organisation that is not involved in the process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden is right; we shall have to return to the issue, which I suspect will be raised again on Report. If it is—I apologise to the Minister for saying that it might be—we may have a clear idea of the evidence. We have had a useful debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, after `contribute', insert `directly, or indirectly'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 12, at end insert

`or—

(c) promoting good governance in one or more such countries'.

No. 3, in page 1, line 12, at end insert

`or—

(d) reducing conflict or the potential for conflict in one or more such countries'.

No. 4, in page 1, line 12, at end insert

`or—

(e) putting into place the framework necessary to attract private and foreign direct investment in one or more such countries.'.

No. 6, in page 1, line 16, at end add—

`(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Secretary of State may fund public awareness campaigns in developing countries for purposes consistent with this section.'.

No. 12, in clause 4, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

`(d) promote, or assist any person or body to promote, the awareness of good governance and of the means of achieving good governance,'.

No. 13, in page 2, line 28, after `(b)', insert `(c) or (d) or (e)'.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I can reassure the Minister if he is getting worried about how long we are spending debating some of the issues. The selection of amendments means, inevitably, that we will have a substantial discussion in this clause about the objective and focus of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will bear with us; we shall have to take our time over this part of the Bill because of the grouping of amendments. However, that may enable us to proceed more swiftly in relation to other clauses.

The group of amendments is pulled together by our concern that, because of the Bill's laudable purpose and focus on poverty reduction, other important aspects of international development work might suffer from too much focus on a single aspect. As international development legislation does not come along often, we must take the opportunity to ensure that the Government get the balance right.

I shall speak to the amendments in order. When we come to the stand part discussion, we may discuss the clause in more general terms. Amendment No. 1, an overarching amendment for those that follow, seeks to allow the Secretary of State to provide development assistance to a country or countries, provided she is satisfied that the action will lead, directly or indirectly, to a reduction in poverty. It seeks to allow her the ability to provide assistance to organisations or projects that work to lay foundations for poverty reduction but that cannot be described as directly contributing to a reduction in poverty.

There is a danger that the term ``poverty reduction'' could be used to mean a small number of policies that alleviate poverty in the short term rather than the broad, multi-sectoral approach needed to change systems of government and establish political stability. I am sure that we are all thinking about the Bill's workability in respect of a country such as Afghanistan. Poverty reduction is a key focus there, but many aspects of development work are needed if that country's population are to know relief from the deprivation, poverty, starvation, war and civil unrest from which they have suffered for so long.

The United Nations Development Programme has highlighted the fact that some agencies have used a narrow definition of poverty in their programmes. The UNDP's poverty report for last year stated:

``Some anti-poverty plans continue to treat poverty as though it were a sectoral issue''.

We should take note of other organisations' experiences with an overfocus on poverty reduction, to the exclusion of other beneficial activities.

We are concerned that, if there is no formal recognition in clause 1 of indirect ways to reduce poverty, the Government could be restricted to a narrow set of policies that treat the effects of poverty rather than its causes. The UNDP explained in its report that

``poverty is a multidimensional problem requiring comprehensive, multisectoral programmes linked to national policy-making.''

The Department's work is multi-sectoral, and we want it to continue that way. That is one of the reasons for debating direct and indirect relief of poverty and why we are calling for recognition in the Bill of the many policies required to combat global poverty.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Lady spoke about the work of the Department and the multifaceted nature of tackling poverty. Does she not think that attempting to define the work in a series of amendments, as she has done, carries a risk that we miss some facets and, thus, limit the Department's room to manoeuvre?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

When I provide the hon. Gentleman with examples of what we should like the Bill to tackle, he may understand my perspective. I am anxious that no important aspects are in any way relegated. Let us imagine a different time: economically, times are harder and it is more difficult for the Government to fulfil its spending programme commitments. I want to ensure that, when the spotlight falls on the Department and difficult choices have to be made, the good work of the Department does not suffer.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

The intervention by the hon. Member for South Dorset went in the opposite direction to our amendments. We are examining a clause that focuses solely on a reduction in poverty and, by moving amendments that would draw attention to the need for good governance and the prevention of conflict, for example, we are widening, not narrowing, the potential for help.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am sure that he agrees that poverty reduction should be the implicit objective of all the Department's work. It should be a given. In tabling our amendments, we do not wish to convey the impression that we do not believe that poverty reduction should be the objective of development assistance work. I do not want that misunderstanding to creep into this exchange.

When the Bill becomes law, Government programmes will have to demonstrate that they can satisfy the demand for the necessities of life of the poor in developing countries and make those people wealthier. It is difficult to imagine that all Government aid programmes, particularly governance and more technical training programmes, will be able to demonstrate that beyond all shadow of doubt. That is why we want recognition that some Government work to reduce poverty may be done far away from the lives of the poor. It is vital that all programmes that help to lay the foundation for a reduction in poverty are fully recognised in the Bill. They include all governance programmes that work on the principle that strengthening government institutions and the rule of law leads indirectly to better government and policies, more participation in the democratic process and, consequently, political stability and economic growth. Nowhere is that truer today than in Afghanistan.

Amendment No. 2 is one of a series that highlights matters that we believe are important. It would place in the Bill the promotion of good governance in developing countries and stress its importance as the key to poverty reduction. It would allow the Secretary of State to provide assistance to projects or programmes that focus on good governance or lay the foundations for good governance, if the programmes cannot be described as contributing directly to a reduction in poverty.

Encouraging good governance is an indispensable part of the British aid programme. Several agencies have stressed the major impact that good governance has had on poverty reduction. The United Nations Development Programme report said:

``A missing link between anti-poverty efforts and poverty reduction is governance''.

That highlights not only that governance is the missing link in the development chain, but that anti-poverty efforts are useless without responsible and effective Governments. The report continues to say that

``for many countries it is in improving governance that external assistance is needed.''

That is why good governance needs to be at the heart of the Government's aid and development policy.

The World Bank world development report of 2000 said:

``Poorly functioning public sector institutions and weak governance are major constraints to growth and equitable development in many developing countries''.

It sets out also the importance of good governance for poverty reduction. The World Bank has said that it

``needs to focus even more than it has in the past on helping governments develop the process and incentives to design and implement good policies themselves. Only through such institution building will countries achieve the ultimate goals of poverty reduction''.

The fact that there are no financial or banking institutions in Afghanistan, for example, is a major difficulty for the agencies that are working and have worked there.

In the Government's 1997 White Paper ``Eliminating Poverty'', they said:

``Some countries will make more rapid progress towards the international poverty targets than others. The most likely to succeed will have effective Government, enlightened legislation, prudent budgeting and an efficient administration.''

The Secretary of State has said:

``World Bank research shows that if aid is focused where the poor are and where the national Governments are committed to reform, the effectiveness of the US $50 billion or so in the international development system is increased by 50 per cent.''—[Official Report, 6 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 159.]

That effectiveness is well worth having. If the Government truly believe that good governance is key in the battle against poverty, the Bill should state that.

It is worth linking that amendment with amendment No. 12, which is probing and also deals with good governance and the need to raise public awareness of it. In choosing to focus on poverty reduction, we should not shy away from the need to raise public awareness of what changes are needed indirectly to bring that about. It is crucial to raise awareness of good governance in a country such as Afghanistan at this time.

Amendment No. 3 relates to another important aspect of development work: the reduction of conflict, or the potential for conflict, in developing countries. We are anxious not to see a reduction in the importance that is attached to the reduction of conflict as part of the Department's work. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to provide assistance, whether financial or technical, to reduce the potential for conflict in developing countries.

The amendment would also provide help to countries such as those in central and eastern Europe to assist with the control of the supply of small arms from those areas to countries of conflict, as many small arms that fuel conflict come from central and eastern Europe. It would also allow the Secretary of State to provide assistance to hold a consultation exercise with a view to setting up a register to monitor the activities of UK arms brokers, or to take any other action to reduce the potential for conflict. I give those examples, as they are indirect to poverty reduction, but none the less are practical and effective suggestions for ways to try to reduce conflict, which is one of the causes of misery and poverty in large parts of the developing world.

It is vital that the narrow terms of the Bill and its focus on poverty reduction do not make illegal any measures to prevent the potential for violent conflict in developing countries. Explicit reference must be made to conflict, as it is often the root cause of poverty and political instability. The Government agree with that. The globalisation White Paper stated:

``The promotion of peace and stability is indispensable if countries are to attract investment and trade, and promote pro-poor development. Violent conflict is one of the biggest barriers to development in many of the world's poorest countries.''

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that countries will struggle to make the necessary commitment to poverty reduction and economic growth if they are affected by conflict. Action to prevent the proliferation of small arms in developing countries could legitimately mean that British aid money is used to help strengthen customs and excise or economic diversification in countries from which those arms originate. Those tend to be countries of central and eastern Europe. We are concerned that the poverty focus of the Bill may render such assistance illegal.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

My hon. Friend has made an important point, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister's early response. If the Bill's whole emphasis is on reducing poverty, it might be illegal if the Department for International Development had a programme to strengthen customs and excise. We must bring out that important point in today's proceedings.

Hilary Benn indicated dissent—

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The Minister's shake of the head will be confirmed in the record and no doubt he will return to the matter, but I thank my hon. Friend for underlining its importance.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the work of Saferworld, which is a foreign affairs think tank that works to identify, develop and publicise more effectively ways of tackling and preventing armed conflict. Its key programmes include those to reduce proliferation and illicit trafficking of arms and to tackle conflict prevention. That organisation beat a path to my door, because it was concerned about the issue. It feels that conflict prevention work should not be relegated as part of an over-focus on poverty reduction. In its view, there is no doubt that poverty and inequality are inextricably linked with conflict, as a consultation document entitled ``Department for International Development: The Causes of Conflict in Africa'', which was published in March this year, said.

Prioritising poverty reduction and the reduction of group inequalities within development assistance programmes is a primary concern for reducing conflict and addressing potential conflict. However, development assistance can be targeted at a number of other spheres to address the root causes of conflict. That would not necessarily be classified as poverty reduction.

For example, the security sector's role is an essential element to consider when addressing the root causes of violent conflict, which the Government openly recognise. Part IV of the DFID paper to which I referred states a commitment to

``continue to identify countries where British involvement in security sector reform and increased accountability of the security forces to democratic authority will enhance peace and security and help to reduce conflict.''

We in no way wish to see that work undermined.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

I cannot stress enough the importance of conflict prevention. I remember being in Ethiopia and Eritrea three or four years ago. It was fairly clear that there was about to be a war, but very little was done. In one battle, 80,000 people were killed. Those are two of the poorest countries in the world—they are in the bottom six—and that conflict has probably put back their development by 20 years.

When we talk about good Governments and conflict prevention, we are often talking about what the UK and the north can do as regards the south. Would not the hon. Lady agree that it is just as important to enable good Governments in African countries to help to support good Governments in another African country? We could enable the Organisation of African Unity or another body to help in preventing conflict on the African continent, as opposed to considering only how the UK can deal with such issues.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The hon. Gentleman makes a wise point. When asked, many poor nations say that they always feel that we try to ``do to'' them rather than to ``do with'' them. We must pay more attention to that fundamental point. The hon. Gentleman made the point about Africa, which leads conveniently to some examples from DFID's work that I wanted to highlight. I am referring to the support that the Department has given to the reform of the army in Sierra Leone and the police in Malawi. I particularly wish to commend the Department on its initiatives in those countries.

I am conscious that we are approaching 11.25 am, when hon. Members will wish to repair to the Chamber to pose their questions, and that we are only halfway through our examination of a series of amendments that are about ensuring, and reassuring ourselves about, the Bill's focus. We are seeking throughout to ensure that the focus on poverty reduction does not indirectly exclude other good work. I have come to the end of my speech on amendment No. 3, which is about conflict reduction. Given the time, it may be better if I do not deal with the amendments on a different subject in this group.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock. {**vert_rule**}

Standing Committee D

Clause 1 - Development assistance

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 12, at end insert

`or—

(c) promoting good governance in one or more such countries'.

No. 3, in page 1, line 12, at end insert

`or—

(d) reducing conflict or the potential for conflict in one or more such countries'.

No. 4, in page 1, line 12, at end insert

`or—

(e) putting into place the framework necessary to attract private and foreign direct investment in one or more such countries.'.

No. 6, in page 1, line 16, at end add—

`(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Secretary of State may fund public awareness campaigns in developing countries for purposes consistent with this section.'.

No. 12, in clause 4, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

`(d) promote, or assist any person or body to promote, the awareness of good governance and of the means of achieving good governance,'.

No. 13, in page 2, line 28, after `(b)', insert `(c) or (d) or (e)'.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. It is a great pleasure to serve under you for the first time.

I was in the middle of presenting a group of amendments that probe the Government on the objective and focus of the Bill, which is clearly stated as being poverty reduction. I expressed our concern that important aspects of development assistance should not be downgraded because of that primary focus. We discussed the need to ensure that conflict reduction and prevention continue to receive the same attention from the Department.

I move now to foreign direct investment. Amendment No. 4 would put in place the framework necessary to attract private and foreign direct investment into developing countries. It would allow the Secretary of State to provide assistance for measures that were designed to do so. It is based on the assumption that attracting such investment is a major purpose of development aid and provides Governments with more tax revenue to boost the local economy, create jobs and bear the risk if investments fail.

Underlying the amendment is the belief that attracting foreign direct investment into developing countries is an essential element of poverty reduction. The Government have said:

``the progress which has been made over the last few decades in reducing the proportion of people living in poverty has been largely the result of economic growth: raising incomes generally, including those of poor people. Economic growth is an indispensable requirement for poverty reduction.''

That passage is lifted from the Government's White Paper ``Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor''.

Foreign direct investment by multinational companies can boost the local economy, create jobs and help to alleviate poverty. It is far more important to developing countries in the long term than small increases in overseas aid. Foreign direct investment helps to take away some of the financial risk that the Governments of developing countries face when they borrow money from banks. Companies bear the risk if their investments fail, but if they are successful, the host Government benefits from increased tax revenue, and the investor benefits from the resulting profits, in what one might describe as a virtuous circle.

The Government have stressed the importance of foreign investment in the globalisation White Paper, noting:

``The attraction of capital inflows is an essential element of a strategy to speed up sustainable development and poverty reduction.''

The White Paper continues:

``A central feature of globalisation has been the substantial increase in movement of capital around the world.''

Over the past seven years, it has increased to more than three times the level of development aid.

Attracting foreign direct investment is, therefore, vital to development, and the Bill must reflect that reality. That is especially pertinent in the context of the successful preliminary talks in Doha on a world trade agreement. If the outcome in three years' time is successful, markets will become more open to developing countries and there should be greater opportunities for foreign direct investment. To take an optimistic view of the outcome of the talks, foreign direct investment should contribute more than three times the level of development aid. It should be a growing feature of the relationship between developed and developing nations, and we sincerely hope that it will close the gap between us. That is another of the important elements that we want to be reassured will not be lost by focusing on poverty reduction.

Amendment No. 6 draws the Government on their understanding of the use of development assistance to fund awareness campaigns. The amendment would allow the Government to fund awareness campaigns in developing countries. When I spoke to amendment No. 2, I stressed the importance of good governance. I was seeking reassurance that focusing on poverty

reduction would not preclude initiatives that could lead indirectly to poverty reduction. We strongly believe that, in the important areas highlighted in our amendments, programmes for direct poverty reduction should go hand in hand with public awareness campaigns. The amendment would be consistent with the aims of the Bill. That is not directly poverty reduction; it is an obvious example of indirect assistance. Public information campaigns have a key role, directly and indirectly, on a range of issues related to poverty reduction.

Hon. Members may recall the topical but tragic case of Victoria Climbie—I am sure that the results are present in the memory of each one of us. That case uncovered a considerable amount of trafficking between west Africa, the United Kingdom and other European destinations. We welcome some of the initiatives that the Government sought to put in place to deter traffickers. The most important is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery and corruption, which will be incorporated in emergency legislation. Having pressed so hard for it in this Bill, we are glad to see that it will be enacted relatively quickly. It will deter British nationals from engaging in the loathsome trade of trafficking by going to seek children—particularly from west Africa. Another important factor in dealing with that problem is to make parents aware of the dangers that their children face. The Climbie case underscores the need to ensure that development assistance can be given in the form of public awareness campaigns, which is why I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Investigations into what appeared to be a much larger problem of trafficking than was originally thought, uncovered some horrifying statistics. Children are sold in the Ivory Coast for as little as £15. To understand fully how parents could bring themselves to sell a child, we would need to understand what it means to live in abject poverty. The real problem is that parents in such countries are often completely misled; they are led to believe that, if they sell their children to European nationals, their children will have a better life in this country. I am afraid that it has proved to be quite untrue.

It is of the utmost importance that resources should be made available to put a deterrent in place, and that parents should not be duped by the hype. They should know that their children will not necessarily be coming to a better life or a better education here. The sheer hard fact is that many of the children trafficked into this country go on to receive absolutely no education. Worse still, many of them have a life of abuse and depravity. There is a clear pathway through British airports to other parts of Europe. I am sure that the Committee is aware of the statistics—of the 469 children who entered through Gatwick airport and the 65 who went missing, some of whom turned up in Turin working as prostitutes. Parents in developing countries need to be warned in the strongest possible terms against such organised crime.

Other measures would go hand in hand to help overcome that horrible trade. Our colleagues in the European Parliament will seek to introduce cross-border controls on the children being trafficked, who obviously cross several European borders before finding their ultimate destination. Those colleagues agree that development resources should be put into public awareness campaigns in developing countries, which is why I want to emphasise the importance of that initiative.

Another important project that I warmly commend to the Minister is the starfish initiative, of which I am sure that he has heard although it is comparatively new. It is an example of a public awareness campaign that could indirectly reap important dividends in terms of poverty reduction in the developing world. It was set up by Helen Taylor-Thompson, the founder of the Mildmay trust, of which hon. Members may have heard. The particular aim of the initiative is to make girls and young women aware of the dangers of prostitution, which many often sadly resort to as almost their only means of earning a living. In places such as sub-Saharan Africa, they entertain the considerable risk of contracting AIDS.

The starfish initiative is a public awareness campaign that takes the simplest possible form. It supplies to a community a container that contains teaching tools on DVD. The language of the country, or even of the region, is used in the DVD to convey important points of public awareness to adults and children. No text appears, as the women and children are often illiterate. The initiative tackles the difficulty of working with a population that needs to be made aware of things that we take for granted, and that is unable to read warnings. We want to ensure that such initiatives will not be precluded from benefiting from the assistance given by the Department for International Development.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

Does the hon. Lady agree that the problem affects not only women from developing countries who come to this country, but young women, especially from rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa, who are enticed to cities? They are often told that there is a better life there, and jobs waiting for them in cafes or restaurants. Then they find themselves subject to prostitution. The problem relates to movement not only from developing to developed countries, but within developing countries.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. He will see how powerful such a simple public awareness tool could be if located in a rural area. It could impart basic information and perhaps the rudiments of education in terms of literacy and numeracy. The incentive to quit one's roots and seek a better life in a city might be negated. Those of us who are older and wiser know that cities do not always provide a better life, certainly not in environmental and perhaps not in economic terms. Such initiatives could provide good opportunities to tackle distinct problems of lack of awareness and educational opportunities in some of the poorest parts of the world.

I mentioned amendment No. 12 earlier and will not cover that ground again. It would highlight the importance of public awareness in relation to good governance for exactly the same reasons as amendment No. 6, interwoven with the need to reinforce good governance and civil society and bring about political stability as a precursor to poverty reduction. Amendment No. 13 is consequential to the group of amendments.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that he can reassure me about my underlying concern that the Bill's focus on poverty reduction should not relegate such important aspects of development work.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I call Mr. Jim Lester—sorry, Mr. Jim Knight.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I welcome the speech by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I believe that there is a consensus in the Committee on her analysis and on the spirit in which the amendments were tabled. The hon. Lady said that support for poverty eradication was implicit in the amendments, and that is accepted. I also believe that the Committee accepts that good governance, conflict prevention, public awareness and investment are intrinsic to poverty alleviation.

That recognition goes to the heart of the question whether we should support the amendments. It is a question of how we interpret clause 1. Do we tell the Secretary of State that the aim of all development aid is poverty eradication and leave it at that? I echo the hon. Member for Meriden. If good governance, foreign direct investment, private investment, conflict prevention and public awareness campaigns are all part of poverty eradication, can we leave the Bill in all its purity and simplicity, claiming that poverty eradication includes all those aims and therefore we do not need to specify them? Or do we need to specify them because we are worried about their being missed out?

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that not specifying those aims might make them illegal. That is the nub of the question whether we go with the amendments. As has been successfully argued by the hon. Member for Meriden, poverty eradication is all about encouraging all the things that I have listed and that are listed in the amendments. Therefore, because, as she said herself, poverty eradication is multifaceted, we should not specify the things that we require in case we miss anything out. It is important to give the Secretary of State room for manoeuvre on the explicit understanding that the goal is poverty eradication.

I can give examples of how good governance and poverty eradication are intrinsically linked. The hon. Member for Meriden used the example of Afghanistan and I cannot better that. On conflict prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) mentioned Ethiopia, I thought of Sierra Leone and the hon. Member for Meriden mentioned the work of Saferworld.

A couple of years ago, I was in Belarus as part of an interesting relationship that Mendip district council, of which I was a member, has with the city of Svetlagorsk. Since Chernobyl and the fall of the Soviet Union, the city has had a problem with HIV/AIDS, which has reached epidemic proportions. As a result of its relationship with a local authority in Somerset the city council, which has a very difficult job, understood the need for a public awareness campaign. That campaign has resulted in a levelling off of the epidemic, largely because agencies such as the police and the council have ensured that the general population understand some of the dangers involved. I saw an extraordinary amount of poverty associated with the spread of HIV/AIDS in Svetlagorsk, and it was being dealt with by public awareness. I see the link between public awareness and poverty reduction, but I do not see the need to specify it in the Bill.

I refer members of the Committee to the wording of clause 1(1), which states:

``The provision of . . . assistance is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.''

That leaves it wide open for the Secretary of State to address all the issues raised in the set of amendments that we are discussing. All we need is reassurance from the Minister that his definition and his Department's definition of poverty reduction will address all the items listed in the amendment. Perhaps the reassurances referred to by the hon. Gentleman may be given, and we can be relaxed about letting the amendments go.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for getting his name wrong. As he knows, because I sat next to him the other evening, I know who he is. I was thinking of Mr. Jim Lester, who was a Member for many years and was very interested in international development.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. As a partially deaf person, it is wonderful to be able to hear you so clearly. Fortunately, we do not get much barracking in the Committee Rooms, so things are easier.

I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who was going to be here this afternoon but now cannot attend. When we talked hurriedly at lunchtime, we agreed that he would deal with this group of amendments, as he was a new member of the Committee and I had done it all before, during the summer. Interestingly, the points that he made to me were similar to those that I made in those earlier proceedings, although he had not yet read the record, which shows that Liberal Democrats are united on this matter.

First, we are worried about amendment No. 1. We could not possibly support it because it substantially weakens the Bill's clarity of purpose. The word ``indirectly'' seems to me and to my hon. Friend to create a large loophole for Ministers. In that way, my favourite old chestnut ``tied aid'' could be reintroduced by an unscrupulous Minister, who could say, ``Ah, yes, all these British industries will be involved with the project, but indirectly it will be terrifically good for the country and for sustainable development.'' It may not be good for sustainable development, in fact, but the Minister would be able to give that reason. We are unhappy about the amendment, and feel that it could re-legitimise tied aid. I have done hours of work in assuring myself that tied aid would no longer be possible under the Bill.

I cannot help being political, because that is my nature. The Tories made so many mistakes, and the Pergau dam stands out in our minds. They cannot see how dangerous it could be to allow such a loophole in the Bill.

I now turn, as I did in the summer, to the group of amendments that single out good governance, conflict prevention, attracting investments and public awareness campaigns. I cannot understand why those issues have been singled out. Whenever I talk to groups or give lectures about international development, as I am sometimes called to do, one major point that I make is that there are 10 or 11 important factors in development that are interlinked.

``You can't have one without the other,''

as the old song says. How can there be good governance if there are no educated people to govern? Education is crucial, as the Government have repeatedly recognised. As an ex-medic, I believe that it is impossible to have a good education unless people are healthy enough to make the most of it, so health is also important. Therefore, good governance is impossible unless there is a good health service and an education system to deliver the people who can deliver that good governance.

Even if all those things are in place, who will define good governance? In the summer, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and I took a trip down memory lane. We visited Uganda several years ago and discussed whether, in our terms, it had a good Government. It had abolished the party system, and, by our standards, its Government were curious from the bottom up. There were also lots of opportunities for skulduggery. When we debated the issue again this summer, however, Uganda appeared to have done jolly well under what is pretty dodgy governance by western standards. It will, therefore, be difficult to decide what is good governance. In any case, it will not exist if the other elements are not in place.

It is a joke for us to talk about conflict prevention when we remember what is going on in Afghanistan and southern Sudan or when we recall Ethiopia and Eritrea. There has been a civil war in the Congo for years, and 2 million people have died. Six other countries in the Great Lakes region have been sucked into that terrible whirlpool of conflict and poverty. We see the old cycle going round and round again. Conflict prevention should be important, but not only for the Department for International Development. It should also be important for the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office and No. 10 Downing street, for goodness' sake. Unless the Government intervene early, introduce a proper foreign policy with an ethical dimension and persuade our American friends to do likewise, we shall never prevent conflict. We need a complete change of tack in our approach to such issues. Conflict prevention is important; it should not be an exclusive concern.

People will not invest in a country unless there are educated people to do the jobs and manage the businesses. I thought that the Tories would table amendments about corruption, but their measures are corruption-free. They beef on about it constantly, and I expected it to be covered. Corruption is important, and we must deal with it.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that the Government conceded that they would incorporate corruption provisions into the emergency legislation on international terrorism. My advice from the Clerks Office is that it will be on the statute book before the Bill.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

The hon. Lady is right. I thank her for reminding me, especially because I was in the Chamber last night. She is right that that is why corruption did not feature. I thought that that was strange.

Investment depends on a stable work force. Business men and Government officers in some countries in the Great Lakes region of sub-Saharan African say that they build a 25 per cent. wastage rate into their business plans because of HIV/AIDS. That means that 25 per cent. of their work force die from HIV/AIDS in one year. That does not attract investment, and it means that we must include the war against HIV/AIDS on our list, as well as general health issues.

Public information was the most interesting item on the hon. Lady's list, and her point was well presented and interesting. I am not trying to belittle what she said: she singled out certain issues, even though others are just as important. Public information can be absorbed only if people have education and reasonable communications. In the third world countries that I have visited, communication is a big problem. In the area of southern Sudan that I visited, communication was carried out by drums—that is still the standard way of communicating. I was told that drums were the original mobile phone, and they are very effective. However, I worry a little about spending development aid on public information campaigns that might not be widely disseminated and which, in any case, should be undertaken by the Government concerned. We saw the most brilliant public information campaigns on HIV/AIDS that were undertaken by the Ugandan Government. They have managed to slow down the awful rise in AIDS cases in Uganda by focusing on education and public information. It is very important but difficult to deliver. It should be done at country level, not imposed from a foreign country.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

I have travelled extensively in Africa too and I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying. Not all of Africa is like southern Sudan. A country like South Africa has a massive AIDS problem. One of the ways of dealing with that is to run a public awareness campaign. To suggest that it has its limitations because people are communicating via drums in Sudan is misleading because there are large parts of Africa—South Africa is just one example—with quite educated populations that have real problems with AIDS and where a public awareness campaign would be extremely beneficial.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In some African countries like Uganda it would be telling people how to suck eggs. We are guilty of not having a decent public information campaign about HIV/AIDS. We could learn a thing or two from countries like Uganda. Who are we to tell people how to run their public information campaigns when we cannot get it right ourselves? I take the hon. Gentleman's point about not all countries being at the same level but I do not think that it is an appropriate use of aid money. Countries could decide themselves, probably at a more local level than national Government, whether it was appropriate to run a specific campaign.

The hon. Member for Meriden has done a lot of work and is extremely diligent about the question of child slavery and sex slaves. But it made me smile wryly when I thought about our debate this morning about funding the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International. Those organisations are all desperately trying to get out those messages and to save young girls from prostitution and sexual slavery and to spread the messages about HIV/AIDS and maternal health. One only has to look at that debate to realise that there is an awful lot more to public information than first meets the eye.

In conclusion, I fully appreciate the amendments and the reasons why they have been tabled. However, as I said in the summer, one simply cannot single out a few development factors and put them all down on the face of a Bill. One must either put them all down and be sure not to miss one out or encompass everything in the alleviation of poverty and sustainable development. That says it all. That is why I wanted sustainable development on the face of the Export Control Bill too, but the Government would not accept it. It is an important phrase, which encompasses all the things that the hon. Member for Meriden mentioned, and many more.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I shall confine my speech to a few short comments. I concur with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that simplicity is key here. A simple statement of poverty reduction is a most important principle. I am pleased that the Government have incorporated that in the Bill. It is part of a general trend that is now coming into world organisations. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have similarly accepted a basis of poverty reduction and it is certainly to be hoped that other international organisations and other countries will accept similar statements in their policies.

The hon. Member for Meriden made an interesting and informative speech this afternoon. However, I believe that amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 6 fall within the definition of sustainable development in any event. No one would argue that sustainable development is possible without the cessation of conflict within a country's boundaries. The promotion of a public awareness campaign—regarding health, harm and luring into criminal activities—likewise falls easily within the definition of poverty reduction. Picking out particular topics has the danger of emphasising them at the expense of other, perhaps even more important, policies for poverty reduction.

On amendment No. 4, attracting private and foreign direct investment may contribute to poverty reduction, but not necessarily in every instance. In many well documented instances, private and foreign investment does not achieve poverty reduction or sustainable development. One thinks of the exploitation of clothing workers in the far east and the exploitation of natural assets in Papua, New Guinea: neither of these types of investment have made any contribution to the people living in those areas. Equally important are better policies on trade and investment, to which the Government are committed. We should also deal with the control and regulation of multinational companies. The amendment raises other questions that would have to be addressed. Simplicity here is a virtue. The hon. Lady raised interesting, well thought-out points, but I support the Government in rejecting the amendment.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

We are all trying to achieve the same objectives. The debate about what should be in the Bill is largely conceptual. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) argues that concepts such as reducing the risk of conflict or promoting good governance are themselves included within the concept of sustainable development. We would argue that they are necessary conditions for stable development, but are not necessarily included within the definition of sustainable development itself. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that, so that it may not be necessary to press the amendments so hard.

I was disappointed by some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tongue). She has an encyclopaedic knowledge of these issues and I was pleased that she acknowledged the work of my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden and for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) in pressing so hard—consistently and successfully—for tightening up the provisions on ending bribery and corruption. The products of their labours are not to be seen in this Bill, but they are in another Bill—and, thank goodness, one of its less controversial aspects.

When the hon. Member for Richmond Park came to the main body of her speech, I expected to hear a long list of things other than good governance, reducing conflict, increasing investment and public awareness. Other than her point about bribery and corruption, which has been acknowledged and dealt with, her comments focused mainly on education and medicine for HIV. It is clearer that the concept of relieving poverty includes within it the promotion of education and the supply of medical assistance to combat the scourge of HIV than it is that the concept of sustainable development contains within it the concept of preventing conflict and promoting good governance.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Improving the welfare of the population is the provision that adequately addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Other elements could be added to the list under the multifaceted approach: debt relief springs to mind. Although it is not covered in any of the clauses, it is something that we should address.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

It is an arguable point, but I think that the two things above all that have destroyed the prospects of advancement for developing countries that have gone off the rails and suffered so greatly in recent decades are bad governance and the outbreak of conflict. Those are far and away the most prominent negative factors. Our purpose in proposing the amendments in what we hope is a constructive and probing way is to seek reassurance from the Minister that future projects that are put forward, given the Bill's provisions and available funds, will not be ruled out on the grounds that they are more concerned with politics, government, international affairs and security matters than they are with international development. The definitions concern us; if the Minister can satisfy us on those points, I am sure that he will not be disappointed by our reaction.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. As you know, we came to Parliament together. It is humbling to see you rise to such important heights in parliamentary affairs, and I congratulate you on your appointment as Committee Chairman. I am sure that you will have a distinguished career in that capacity.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

My hon. Friend puts me to shame. I, too, should have congratulated you, Mr. Amess, but I felt that if I did so, it would inevitably remind you of our first meeting in the late 1970s. To your credit, you were a Conservative in Newham, North-West, and I was an active member of the Labour party in the next-door constituency.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. This has gone far enough.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Very interesting, Mr. Amess, but we must now return to international development.

We are discussing the essential core of the Bill and, through the amendments, trying to tease out exactly what the Government intend by it and the central clause, clause 1. The amendments allow an important opportunity for a vital debate on definitions. Lawyers will read the Bill and will take into account what is said, particularly by the Minister, when they interpret it, so we must find out exactly what the Bill is designed to do.

When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden this morning, we saw nods and shakes of the ministerial head. I hope that we shall do much better this afternoon and have words from the ministerial mouth that will finally resolve the question whether the amendments are necessary. The point that I raised with my hon. Friend is that, surely, the Bill covers the many valuable initiatives that she suggested. For instance, the Bill could allow the Government to provide aid that promotes, in the words of amendment No. 2,

``good governance in one or more such countries'.''

Nothing in the Bill—leaving aside the amendments for the moment—prevents the Government providing aid with the intention of

``reducing conflict or the potential for conflict in one or more such countries'.'',

in the words of amendment No. 3. Nothing in the Bill would stop the Minister from

``putting into place the framework necessary to attract private and foreign direct investment'',

in the words of amendment No. 4. Nothing in the Bill indicates that the Minister cannot

``promote, or assist any person or body to promote, the awareness of good governance'',

in the words of amendment No. 12.

I have some experience of how Ministers reply to debates and, if I understand the ministerial shake of the head, I suspect that he will say that the intentions underlying the amendments are worth while and that he has no argument with any of their laudable aims, but that he must tell the Opposition that they are not necessary. He may also say that they are incorrectly drafted or that they are not necessary because the Bill already covers those points.

I do not know what the Minister will tell us, but I have been in that position so I know how these matters are dealt with. That is fair enough, if he is trying to tell us that nothing in the Bill will prevent the Secretary of State from doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden wants him to do. That leads me directly to my next point. If there is nothing in the Bill that will prevent the Secretary of State from doing all the excellent things that my hon. Friend wants him to do, what is the Bill's purpose? It is so widely drafted and so open to any interpretation, that I am not sure what it will achieve.

Will the Minister assure us that the Bill is not so widely drafted that, in the words of the hon. Member for Richmond Park, an unscrupulous Minister could use the present wording to bring back tied aid? I presume that the Minister will say that the wording does not permit that. I am not a parliamentary draftsman, and the Minister has much better advice than I have, so I presume that he can convince us that, although the Bill is sufficiently widely drafted to cover the laudable aims enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, it is not so widely drafted that an unscrupulous Secretary of State could use it for his own ends to bring back tied aid.

I do not know how the Minister will square that circle. If he cannot do so, what new dynamic does the Bill introduce? How will it significantly change the culture in his Department? It is no bad thing for the Committee to study the wording closely. The Bill is so widely drafted that the Secretary of State can provide assistance

``if he is satisfied that the provision of the assistance is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.''

That could mean anything. Can that include all the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has mentioned? We need more help, which is the value of these proceedings, because during the proceedings Members can pin down Ministers in the Committee Corridor and ensure that they come up with satisfactory answers about the meaning of the wording.

What exactly does ``sustainable development'' mean? How would the courts interpret those words? What does the phrase

``improving the welfare of the population''

mean?

The exercise should be valuable, and that is why the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend are important. One cannot argue with any of them although, in her inimitable way, the hon. Member for Richmond Park did start to argue with them. I do not know why the hon. Lady has such an objection to our proposal to allow the provision of assistance that is likely to contribute directly or indirectly to a reduction in poverty. I do not claim to have the hon. Lady's experience or expertise in international development, but surely a lot of useful work can be done both directly and indirectly.

On amendment No. 2, we would surely all be convinced that the promotion of good governance in developing countries is vital and central. We are not just picking out one subject from a long list. The purport of the hon. Lady's speech seems to be that there is no point in having a list of good things that one wants to do because one is bound to leave out one or two things and it is better to have an all-embracing definition. I pointed out why such a definition might be dangerous. We are not debating a narrow little list that can be added to or subtracted from; good governance is central to the debate. Poverty exists in much of the third world because government is corrupt.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I repeat that good governance is not possible unless educated people can govern, which is why education is the most important factor in development. I am glad that the Government regard education as a top priority. Good governance is essential. We know that countries fail because of bad governance, but that is largely because they do not have enough educated people.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I agree. The hon. Lady may be satisfied that the clause allows the Minister to promote education. The wording is so wide that I am sure that it will, but it does not mention education. The clause mentions ``reduction in poverty'', ``furthering sustainable development'' and

``improving the welfare of the population''.

The hon. Lady might respond that education and good governance are included because they contribute to the welfare of the population. However, the clause does not preclude the Minister from undertaking any activity by the clause. The wording is so broad that the Minister can do whatever he pleases. I am not sure of the point of these proceedings or the Bill. I may have misunderstood the Bill's purpose, but that is my personal view. The Minister's response will be useful.

The other matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden mentioned need to be flagged up. Apart from telling us that good governance is important, it would be useful if the Minister said that he would use the Bill to promote awareness, and attract direct foreign investment in such countries. I hope that he will explain how, without our helpful amendments, the Bill will create a framework to attract direct foreign investment.

However, if that is the purport of his argument, is it a loophole through which a Pergau dam type investment might creep in the future? Will the Minister assure us that that will not happen? Has he drafted the Bill tightly enough to ensure that he has not only tied his own hands—he personally has no intention of repeating the Pergau dam experience—but those of a Minister with different priorities in the future? Such a Minister might think that it is vital to get British investment into a certain country that is resistant to it. That Minister may not be promoting investment to help the country, but he may think that it is vital and start to apply pressure on that country. He might then say that poverty exists in a region because of a lack of investment, and it so happens that X company plc in Britain is capable of providing such investment and that Mr. Minister, in the developing country, should therefore give careful consideration to providing contracts or opportunities to this British company. However, I believe that that investment would reduce poverty. So we return to where we were. Surely those who criticise what happened in the Pergau dam disaster do not argue that everyone involved was corrupt or did not have people's best interests at heart. Some people presumably felt that it would lead to a reduction in poverty.

I think that I have made the point. We need reassurance from the Minister. I hope that he will not just dismiss the amendments and say that they are unnecessary because he will do all the good things that they propose; we want to tie him down to saying precisely what the Bill will achieve and how it will promote good governance, a reduction in poverty, education programmes, awareness programmes and so on while ensuring that we do not repeat the tied aid of the past.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

I spoke earlier about the importance of using the Governments, non-governmental organisations and other executive bodies of developing countries. That brings me to the argument made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park that we could learn something from Uganda and so on. I was not suggesting that we should tell such countries how to run their public awareness campaigns, but we can facilitate such campaigns by providing support and funding. That happens with conflict prevention and in many other areas. What we are doing in terms of conflict prevention in Sierra Leone, for example, is extremely laudable.

We have talked about the amendments, about what is and is not included and about whether sustainable development covers our objectives and so on. If I were asked what single factor would help bring developing countries into the developed world, I would say the education of girls and women. That would deal with good governance, conflict prevention and everything else. However, no amendment includes that. I support what the Government say. A catch-all is provided that includes many of the factors that we have spoken about. I am happy with that.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

While I accept the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says, does he really think that the education of girls would itself end or reduce conflict? It is true that there is conflict between the sexes and the insertion of more women into public life might be beneficial in that respect. However, most of the conflicts that have disfigured so much of the developing world in recent years would surely not have been more than marginally affected by such a welcome step forward.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

I disagree with that most strongly. I mentioned this morning one of the most recent conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the conflict between Ethiopa and Eritrea, during which I had the dubious honour of talking to the leaders of both countries. All of them were men; those were the people taking the decisions. I believed at the time that if those Governments had contained men and women, they might not have been so eager to go to war. Balancing the genders in Governments, Parliaments, the medical profession and so on would go a long way to improve the chances of developing countries of becoming developed.

Piara S Khabra (Labour, Ealing, Southall)

The difficulty with the high principles of good government, democracy, human rights and the prevention of corruption about which we talk is that while Britain has given aid to many countries, no progress has been made in them, as I know from my membership of the Select Committee on International Development.

Let me take the example of the recent conflict in Afghanistan, with which we are involved. The Government had laid down principles for Pakistan: it is a dictatorship, and there are no human rights. Ethnic minority communities have no rights at all. Suddenly, the international situation and our foreign policy and other commitments changed. We made a commitment to help America in the process of ensuring that terrorism was removed from the face of the earth. As a result, we lifted all the restrictions that we had placed on aid to Pakistan. We are giving more and more aid, but where are those principles? They have all gone overboard.

It is not as simple to have good government, democracy and human rights and to remove poverty as people have tried to convince us that it is. We do not live in an ideal world, and this Committee cannot really make a judgment on that situation today.

Mrs. Spelman rose—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Has the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) finished his speech or is he giving way?

Piara S Khabra (Labour, Ealing, Southall)

I have finished.

Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour, Crosby)

I am forced to get to my feet following the comments by the hon. Member for New Forest, East relating to the role that women play in democratising and managing nations. Even with limited observation, we can see that there is a direct correlation between the extent of conflict and the lack of women's involvement in the political and bureaucratic structures of a nation. Those statements stand on their own, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to support them with statistics, I shall be pleased to do so. However, I think that this is an opportunity to enlighten him about the role that half the population play and, moreover, could play, if only they had the opportunity and the education to do so.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

On those occasions when women have risen to the top of the Governments of their countries, they have not necessarily been any less warlike than their male predecessors.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

He is thinking of Boadicea.

Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour, Crosby)

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but I maintain my position that, generally, when more than one woman has reached a particular position through enlightened democracy, there is a benefit that we all enjoy.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

May I join other hon. Members in welcoming you to your first stint in the Chair, Mr. Amess? We look forward to working with you as the Bill makes its way through Committee.

I feel that I should begin by saying that the hon. Member for Gainsborough has given the Committee a precis of the remarks that I was about to make. I know that you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Amess, if I say that I first met the hon. Gentleman almost 20 years ago, when we debated together at the Durham union. I particularly remember the occasion because during his speech he produced a shoe from somewhere and put it on the dispatch box, for reasons that I am afraid are now lost in the mists of time. The hon. Gentleman made an impression on me at the time and continues to do so.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden for her comments about the amendments. We have been able to have an interesting debate on a range of issues that, in the words of several hon. Members, go to the heart of the Bill. I hope to offer reassurance on the points that she raised.

I shall pick up on a phrase that she used at the beginning of her remarks. She spoke about the narrow focus of the Bill. I would prefer to describe it as a clear focus. The clear purpose of the Bill is poverty reduction, which is to be achieved through sustainable development and improvements in welfare. A clear focus enables a wide range of activities to be undertaken to achieve the objectives.

I also wish to respond to her point about thinking ahead and what might happen if a different Secretary of State were to occupy the office. The hon. Lady referred to the choices that would be open to the Secretary of State. However, clause 1 is a permissive power. The hon. Lady's amendments would not require a future Secretary of State to do certain things in respect of good governance, for example. The Bill says that

``The Secretary of State may provide'',

as opposed to ``shall provide.''

That brings me to the heart of the hon. Lady's amendments. I agree with every point that she made. Her excellent speech made my job easier, because she made my points for me. The examples that she chose, and the way in which she presented them, succinctly made the case for the Bill and described the nature of the work that the Department for International Development undertakes and will, I hope, continue to undertake.

We heard two contrasting arguments. The contributions of the hon. Member for Meriden can be characterised by the question, ``Can the Minister assure us that the purposes set down in the Bill are not too narrow?'' whereas the hon. Member for Gainsborough asked, ``Can the Minister assure us that the purposes set down in the Bill are not so wide as to render any activity possible?'' These are the two Goldilocks arguments. I shall attempt to reassure the Committee that the Bill is just right—neither too narrow nor too wide.

The hon. Lady asked whether the Government had a multidimensional view of poverty, and she sought reassurance that the term ``poverty'' was used in a multidimensional way. I am happy to give that reassurance. I refer her in particular to paragraphs 1.10 and 1.11 of the excellent publication by the Department for International Development, ``Halving World Poverty by 2015'', which clearly demonstrates the multidimensional nature of both poverty and the Government's response in seeking to overcome it.

I shall now discuss the amendments. Amendment No. 1 deals with the issue of direct or indirect contributions. It is unnecessary, and I am concerned that it would create difficulties, as outlined by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. As the clause is drafted, the Secretary of State can provide development assistance if it is likely to contribute to the reduction of poverty. The Bill does not say whether the contribution must be direct or indirect, but it is clear that there must be a demonstrable link between giving assistance and a reduction in poverty.

If the Bill were to say that the contribution may be indirect, as the amendment proposes, the Secretary of State could be satisfied even if the extent of the contribution to the reduction of poverty were accidental—a mere knock-on effect. That would dilute the overarching requirement of poverty reduction. In particular, there is a risk that inserting the word ``indirectly'' would open up the possibility that schemes such as tied aid would again become lawful. I am quite sure that that is not the Opposition's intention, but I take this opportunity to welcome the commitment given by the hon. Member for Meriden on Second Reading that a future Conservative Government would not seek to reintroduce tied aid.

That gives me the opportunity to answer the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who asked to be reassured that that was not the case. Having taken a policy decision to get rid of tied aid—it was implemented in April—the Government believe that the most effect way to ensure that aid cannot be used for improper political and commercial purposes is to rely on the clear statement of the principles and purposes of development assistance set out in clause 1.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Secretary of State may provide development assistance only if she is satisfied that such assistance is

``likely to contribute to a reduction of poverty''

through sustainable development promoting the welfare of people. Any use of aid that does not respect the primacy of the poverty requirement, when it applies, and the two development purposes would fall outside the provisions of the Bill, and any such use would therefore be challengeable in court.

Tied aid is the best-known example of the improper use of development funds. Hon. Members have referred to the Pergau dam, which is very much in our minds. I am pleased that we were eventually able to offer sufficient reassurance to the hon. Member for Richmond Park that she was able to say on Second Reading that she was now satisfied that the Bill would no longer permit tied aid. However, to avoid doubt, a policy of tying aid would not be allowed under the Bill and any Government wishing to re-establish the link between aid and trade or political influence would need to return to Parliament to argue their case.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Would a future Minister not be able to rely in court on the fact that his primary purpose was, as set out in the Bill, to reduce poverty, even though a subsidiary purpose might be to promote the interests of a certain political or commercial outcome beneficial to a company in this country? I want a reassurance that such subsidiary purposes would not be covered by the primary purpose of reducing poverty.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

The answer is that the Minister can have regard only to the purposes laid down in clause 1. If a Minister in the hypothetical circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes were to have in mind the secondary or lesser consideration of promoting the interests of British companies, it would not be permissible and would indeed be challengeable in court. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, a great deal of care and thought has gone into the drafting of this provision. We are very clear about the objective that we wish to achieve, which is to ensure that tied aid cannot be reintroduced. The application of minds far greater and more experienced than mine have been given to the problem in order to achieve the outcome that we desire. In that spirit, I offer the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I want to ask a question in relation to something that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall said earlier. Once the Bill is enacted, would future Governments not be able to give the sort of extra aid and debt relief to Pakistan that the present Government recently gave that country for political purposes—or would that not be covered by the Bill?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

No, that is not the case. That aid and assistance was given first to support the communities in Pakistan that have welcomed and given shelter to refugees from Afghanistan and secondly to support the Pakistan Government in their development programme. Both of those are entirely appropriate purposes under the Bill. That aid and assistance would be permitted under the Bill, but I repeat that the granting of that aid would have to be for the purposes set out in clause 1, which is the heart of the debate.

Piara S Khabra (Labour, Ealing, Southall)

I want to find out whether the Department will pursue the principles of the Bill with the Government of Pakistan in order to ensure that that Government restores democracy—not in the diluted sense in which the President of Pakistan says, ``I am holding elections.'' They are not proper elections; all the parties are not involved. By holding any election, he is trying to hoodwink the international community. He says, ``I am introducing democracy.'' He is not introducing democracy at all. Will the Department, with the help of the Foreign Office, ensure that Pakistan restores democracy, human rights and the rights of the ethnic minority communities, before the Government take a final decision to continue to give aid to Pakistan irrespective of what happens there?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

We are doing so. Most importantly, we were doing so prior to the events of 11 September. Members might recall that on—I think—14 August, President Musharraf made a speech in which he set out what he described as his road map towards the return of democracy. That is an essential part of what the Government are seeking to do to encourage good governance, which applies to Pakistan as well as to many other countries with which we work.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I hope that it is helpful to mention that clause 3 refers to humanitarian assistance and seems relevant to the help given in Pakistan and in Iran in recent months, largely before 11 September as well as after. It refers to

``alleviating the effects of a natural or man-made disaster'',

and we have seen both in the context of Afghanistan and the refugee crisis that has had an impact on Iran and Pakistan. That provision would give adequate powers to the Secretary of State.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He anticipated what I was about to say, but his intervention is helpful because he is absolutely right in his reading of the Bill. That is why it is drafted as it is. All the areas that are the subject of the amendments are, as I think all Committee members accept, vital to development. The sustainable reduction of poverty requires good governance, a lack of corruption, the absence of conflict, private sector growth and foreign direct investment. As one would expect, the Department is heavily involved in all of those areas as a means of achieving sustainable development and the improvement of welfare.

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Meriden that, for those reasons, the amendments are not necessary. The Bill has been drafted to ensure that the Secretary of State can support activities that strengthen governance, reduce corruption, tackle the causes and consequences of conflict and promote private sector growth from foreign investment in developing countries, as well as promoting health and education and all the other points to which members of all parties have drawn attention. All such support is possible in the context of the two purposes of, first, sustainable development and, secondly, welfare, under the overarching poverty requirement. To that extent, further specific purposes are unnecessary.

The Bill imposes no constraints on the type of activity that the Secretary of State can support. Indeed, it increases the range of instruments that is available to her. However, it does impose a clear test of the purposes for which assistance can be provided. As has been pointed out, with the exception of two cases—humanitarian and emergency assistance in the case of a disaster, and assistance to overseas territories for which we have a specific responsibility—assistance can be provided only if it is likely to contribute to the reduction of poverty by furthering sustainable development or promoting the welfare of the people. In other words, the Bill will enable a wider range of activities to be followed in pursuit of a more focused purpose.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I want to pursue what might be called the Ealing, Southall point, because I think that it is terribly important. Let us take the case of Burma, an impoverished country, which is in that state because of a brutal military regime and for all the reasons that we know. In future, will a Minister be able to use the Bill to say to the Burmese military junta, ``I believe that your country is impoverished. I want to help you. I am prepared to give you money, but there must be steps towards democratisation or you must treat some of your ethnic minorities better''? How will the process work?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

That dilemma is not new so far as international development is concerned. In making a judgment under the current and new powers, Ministers have to weigh several matters in the balance, including those to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As he will be aware from our stance in certain circumstances, when we fundamentally disagree with the activities of a Government because we think that their policies do not contribute to sustainable development and the reduction of poverty and do not enhance the welfare of their people, we are left with the decision to give only humanitarian aid.

That decision is made for the good reason, which the hon. Gentleman will understand, that in those circumstances it makes no sense to penalise the people of the country—he cited Burma as an example, and Afghanistan would be another—for a Government whom they had no part in choosing. That is why the Government have invested £32 million in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan since 1997, and aid had been given before that as well. We made the judgment and decided that we wanted to continue to provide support to people in difficult circumstances without condoning the activities of their Government.

We debated engagement this morning. A balance has to be weighed and a judgment made of what is best in the circumstances. Another current example in which such considerations are being carefully weighed is Zimbabwe.

Tony Cunningham (Labour, Workington)

Let us say we reached the point at which we said that we would penalise the people of a country because their Government were not to our liking. They would already have been penalised by having to live under that Government, so humanitarian aid should continue. Could we not provide that aid through non-governmental organisations—multinational organisations such as the Red Cross—as opposed to the Government, to ensure that humanitarian aid was received by those whom we wanted to receive it?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because he highlights another mechanism that the Government can use to promote development without necessarily using Government agencies. In several developing countries, NGOs play an important part in helping to promote the principles that the Bill aims to enshrine in law.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset cited another topical example: Sierra Leone. The Bill will enable the Government to continue our work there, which is designed to end the vicious circle of poverty by promoting security, supporting the police—that aim was mentioned by the hon. Member for Meriden—helping civilians, making the country's defence ministry accountable and helping to reintegrate ex-combatants into civil society. We provide budgetary support to help meet the direct costs of running the country and delivering Government services. We also seek to strengthen governance by supporting the Anti-corruption Commission to reform the judiciary and help in the conduct of elections. The Secretary of State will be able to continue to support all those interventions under the Bill, because they are all aimed at reducing poverty through the two tests in clause 1(2).

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

I have visited Sierra Leone recently and seen how people in the amputees' camp struggle to make themselves artificial limbs. Will the Minister suggest whether he regards it appropriate, under the provision of such aid as he envisages, for us to send some specialist teams to assist people to recover? If the Bill does little more than its predecessor to help that tragic group of people, perhaps it is not all that it is cracked up to be.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is confusing two separate things. The Bill provides an updated legal framework to govern the work that we do. The important thing about the issue of Sierra Leone is the type of assistance that we give. I cannot answer the questions that he raises about that type of support, but I am happy to look into the matter and to reply to him. As he knows from his visit, the country has suffered grievously, but it is at last making difficult, slow and uncertain progress, due to the nature of the intervention that the United Kingdom has made, partly for historical reasons that derive from our past relationship with that country.

I hope that by addressing the case of Sierra Leone, I am addressing the points that the hon. Member for Meriden raised at the start of the debate. That case provides a good example, because it involves all the policies that are undoubtedly permissible under the Bill and which we would continue to want to pursue, because they help to establish the preconditions—peace, security and stability—that will allow that country to prosper in the future.

I want to address a point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, having already drawn his attention to the fact that the clause does not require the Secretary of State to give aid—it is a matter for the Secretary of State to exercise her judgment in doing so. If she chooses to give aid, she can set conditions, which are dealt with under clause 7. Those conditions must respect the objectives in clause 1, and the aims and purposes; they are not to be used as a backdoor way of reintroducing tied aid, as the hon. Gentleman put it. They do not exercise undue political leverage but provide a mechanism for promoting welfare reform.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

What does ``undue political leverage'' mean, as opposed to ``political leverage''?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

What I mean is having regard to considerations that would be improper for the purposes of the Bill, especially of clause 1. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, a Secretary of State must eventually make judgments about whether to give aid, to which countries it should be given and then, in relation to the Bill, in what circumstances and form we want to give it. That practice is right and proper, has been followed in the past and will be followed in future, and allows us to exercise judgment in the difficult areas of influence and engagement to achieve the purposes to which we all subscribe.

The establishment of specific additional purposes, as the amendments suggest, would be a statement that they do not have to comply with the requirement to further sustainable development or improve the welfare of the people. In other words, it would imply that they could be done for their own sake. If we were to admit that, we run the risk of undermining the legislation and our policy on development assistance.

We should follow the principle that nothing in legislation is said unless it is necessary to say it, although Parliament has not always been good at adhering to that stricture. On that principle, if we elevate such areas for support to the level of specific free-standing purposes, every additional purpose would run the risk of casting doubt on the breadth of the two core purposes. To be precise, if support for good governance is not, as we believe, implicit in action to further sustainable development and improve welfare, what do those two core purposes cover?

On amendment No. 3, which deals with the reduction of conflict and of the potential for conflict, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington made a succinct point about the devastating impact that conflict has on communities and the hon. Member for Meriden referred to Saferworld. I met people from that organisation a couple of months ago to discuss their good work in relation to arms, and small arms in particular. However, inserting the reduction of conflict as a purpose of development assistance would allow the Secretary of State to support such activities without consideration for the welfare of the population of the country. That would open up the possibility of development assistance being used to shore up undemocratic regimes and the possible suppression of human rights, whereas the provision as drafted allows assistance to promote the welfare of the population, which encompasses conflict resolution, but with proper regard for the interests of the people. There is no need or place for a power of assistance that does not recognise those interests. I am sure that that rather strange effect of the amendments is not intentional, but I hope that I have reassured the Committee that it demonstrates the dangers involved in setting up specific additional purposes in clause 1 that do not have to comply with the requirement either to further sustainable development or to improve the welfare of the people.

I should like to speak about the difficulties that we would face in trying to define terms such as ``good governance''. That is a genuine practical difficulty, which was mentioned in debate on the Bill's previous incarnation. The Government do not take the view that the term has an easy or natural meaning. It would therefore have to be defined in the Bill. Any errors in our definition might mean that interventions that we wanted to support would fall outside the definition, leaving us unable to support them. Those are genuine risks, which we do not wish to take. I hope that the Committee will accept my reassurance that, under the Bill, we can support good governance activities, pursue conflict resolution as we are doing in Sierra Leone and elsewhere, and promote private sector investment.

I should like to discuss the two amendments that deal with awareness. The hon. Member for Meriden raised the matter and—the hon. Member for Gainsborough again took the words out of my mouth—we are extremely well disposed towards the intention of the amendments, which is why clause 4(2)(c) includes a provision allowing the Secretary of State to

``promote, or assist any person or body to promote, awareness of global poverty and of the means of reducing such poverty''.

The hon. Lady drew the Committee's attention to the example of the starfish initiative. That is an imaginative way of trying to raise the issue. I was in Malawi recently, where we are supporting a safe motherhood project. Part of that project is about raising awareness of the need to ensure, as I said on Second Reading, that women in labour at risk of complications get to skilled help as quickly as possible. That raising of awareness has included poster campaigns.

The amendment adds nothing to the power in clause 4(2)(c). On the contrary, it creates a free-standing purpose for the spending of money. Because of the nature of the amendment, it would not be constrained by the poverty criterion or the two purposes of clause 1. It would serve only to make possible spending on awareness on a broader basis than that on which the Secretary of State could provide development assistance. That might be regarded as a rather odd result, at the same time casting doubt on the meaning and extent of the power in clause 4(2)(c), which we included because of our agreement with the hon. Lady's points.

Finally, Amendment No. 12, dealing with the awareness of good governance, is unnecessary because, as the hon. Member for Meriden said, that good governance is a means of reducing poverty.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

For the sake of clarity, amendment No. 6 refers to

``public awareness campaigns in developing countries for purposes consistent with this section.''

``This section'' means clause 1. The commitment to awareness campaigns was not completely open-ended. It extended to awareness campaigns that are consistent with furthering sustainable development, the welfare of the population and poverty reduction.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds Central)

I am grateful for that clarification, but I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that clause 4(2)(c) provides the means and the powers that she and I are looking for to ensure that development awareness can be properly funded under the Bill.

Mr. Amess, I would like to say in conclusion that I apologise for the length of my response, but a number of points were raised in the discussion, which has been very useful. I hope that I have been able to offer members of the Committee the reassurance that they seek. The debate has been important because it has gone to the heart of the Bill's purpose. I hope that it has given hon. Members the opportunity to reflect on the fact that the Bill, as currently drafted, would permit this and future Governments to do the things that all Committee members agree that we should be seeking to do.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I have listened carefully to the Minister. He has done a better job than did his colleague in another place. I have carefully read the House of Lords Hansard on this point because, as far as possible, we should not duplicate what has been done in another place. Rather, we should probe deeper and further and use the opportunity to build on some of the arguments that have already taken place.

I was struck that, in another place, my colleagues were expected to be satisfied with an assurance that the Government had taken the advice of Parliamentary Counsel on the merits and demerits of trying to introduce amendments such as those that I have attempted to propose today, and had been told that they were unnecessary. The Minister has done a better job by giving specific examples to show us how the Bill might work.

Several hon. Members have given practical examples in terms of the durability of the Bill. The intervention by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall came perilously close to pressing the Government into an area that was becoming greyer by the moment in seeking decisions to give development assistance to countries that promised to make steps in future in terms of good governance. I accept that that is a difficult area. No one would deny that the President of Pakistan has made significant steps in terms of good governance, in relation to freeing the press and—I am sure that this was not lost on the hon. Member for Richmond Park—ensuring that a third of the representatives in the Pakistani Parliament were female.

I accept completely that it is a difficult matter of judgment for any Secretary of State to disentangle the appropriateness of giving British taxpayers' money—in the form of development assistance—to countries that anticipate their governance improving all the while. The examples that have been given today have enabled us to think about how the Bill would work in relation to future decisions of that kind.

I thank the Minister for clarifying the Scylla and Charybdis of our arguments, in that the Bill seems both too narrowly and too widely defined. He has reassured me on the point that it is necessary to strike a balance between those two.

I should like to place it on the record that there is no way in which, through our amendments, we wish to reopen the question of tied aid. If that would be a real danger through the incorporation of amendment No. 2, it should be avoided at all costs.

We should continue, as an Opposition, to test what is in the Bill against practical examples that we know. I was interested in what the Minister said about awareness campaigns. It is significant that, in a written answer to me about awareness campaigns on the Ivory Coast, the Secretary of State confirmed that the NGOs that we support in Ivory Coast are primarily environment focused. I found that difficult to square with the needs of addressing child trafficking from that country, as I did not see how NGOs primarily there to serve environmental improvements would be brought into the picture of awareness campaigns relating to the criminal trafficking of children. That kind of practical example—between us we probably know many—leads us sometimes to question what is stated here. For example, the Minister said to me that my amendment on the promotion of awareness would be made unnecessary by the fact that clause 4(2)(c) specifically states that the Secretary of State may

``promote, or assist . . . awareness of global poverty and of the means of reducing such poverty''.

However, someone might not spot at first reading that the interpretation of that could be wide enough to encompass a public awareness campaign on something as specific as child trafficking.

The purpose of tabling a set of probing amendments is to thrash out the meaning of the clause and to record the discussion. We have heard about the potential dangers that would result if our amendments were accepted, and we wish to avoid the dangers of reopening tied aid that would result from too wide an interpretation of the Bill. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 16, at end add—

`(4) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report on the performance of the development assistance programme against stated poverty reduction targets and shall lay a copy of the report before Parliament.'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 1—Reduction in poverty: co-ordination within government—

`(1) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to promote a focus on reduction in poverty throughout all government departments and agencies in their relations with developing countries.

(2) The Secretary of State for International Development shall, jointly with ministers responsible for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, prepare and lay before Parliament an annual report on the work done in pursuance of the arrangements made under subsection (1).'.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

We now move to a new group of amendments on the publication of information on which we can judge the success of the Bill and more readily understand the work of the Department for International Development. We call on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the performance of the development assistance programme against stated poverty reduction targets and to lay the report before Parliament.

The amendment would link more closely the activities of the Government with clearly defined and measurable targets. The Government publish a public service agreement and progress towards achievement, but that is often too vague for the Opposition to assess whether there is enough evidence to back up the claims. The projections have sometimes lacked accuracy.

The World Bank said:

``To know what helps alleviate poverty, what works and does not, what changes over time, poverty has to be defined, measured and studied''.

The Bill does not define poverty or demonstrate how progress will be reported or measured. Although I can see out of the corner of my eye that the Minister is going to produce a departmental report, without a clear statement in the Bill that such a report is produced and that it contains specific targets for measurement, a lack of will may ensue at some point and such a report may not be forthcoming.

The United Nations has said of western donors that the great majority of the agencies lack monitoring systems to hold themselves accountable to their declared poverty objectives. They can present no convincing evidence on how their interventions have benefited the poor. We are concerned that the Bill does not set down how the Government's progress towards those targets will be met, or how progress could effectively be measured. If there is little evidence and accountability concerning the use of aid money and no effective measure of its success, the poverty reduction focus of the Bill, with which we sympathise, could prove to be little more than a paper tiger.

The public service agreement that existed before the targets that were set down by the Government for 2002 in their annual report of 2000 appeared to be a way of holding DFID to account through clearly defined and measurable targets. Unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case. Data on primary school enrolment could not be found, whereas targets for reducing maternal mortality have not been met.

The globalisation White Paper shows that not enough progress has been made on any of the key international development targets for 2015. The Department simply states that primary school enrolment figures

``have not risen fast enough''.

The Opposition would like to know more precisely what that means. On eliminating gender disparity by 2005, the Department states that

``girls' enrolments remain persistently behind those of boys'' .

It would be interesting to know how far behind that enrolment is. On reducing infant mortality, the Department states that

``the fall is not enough to meet the target''.

Progress towards reducing maternal mortality is also well off course. Those are vague terms, and we should like future reporting to be more specifically measured.

Those statements bear little relationship to the Department's description of its public service agreement targets. It gave a worded response to each: primary enrolment—``no comprehensive new data''; eliminating judge disparity—``on course''; reducing infant mortality—``on course''; and reducing maternal mortality—``only modest progress''. Those are all descriptive words and, although I am no great mathematician, I would like to see those targets expressed in a more concrete way so that we can understand where ground must be made up.

The Department has set a target of 70 per cent. of projects meeting its objectives. However, the small print states that few projects have been completed yet. It is difficult for us as an Opposition to discern from that how effective the Department is being. The Bill calls for sustainable development to be a major focus of the aid budget, but the only way to tell whether a project has been sustainable is to measure it several times, several years after completion. That is the only true measure of sustainability, and it might not appear in a short-term report. Retrospective reporting will be important if we want to judge the effectiveness of the Bill in one of its primary objectives.

Government targets must be both achievable and measurable. We all know what happens with public support for targets if they are set at an unrealistic level. The annual report for which we are calling should contain such realistic targets and ensure that they are measurable so that ordinary members of the public can understand them. Sector-wide programmes cannot fully account for the impact of British aid money. As the Department's research said, when using sector-wide aid programmes, individual donor programmes are difficult to disaggregate from others. The Department should find a way to resolve that problem.

Amendment No. 5, which proposes the publication of an annual report, has been grouped with new clause 1. Subsection (1) of the new clause would force the Secretary of State to

``make arrangements to promote a focus on reduction in poverty throughout all government departments and agencies in their relations with developing countries.''

Subsection (2) would make the Secretary of State for International Development,

``jointly with ministers responsible for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, prepare and lay before Parliament an annual report on the work done in pursuance of the arrangements made under subsection (1).''

Therefore, new clause 1 would ensure that all Departments that were responsible for overseas activities were focused on poverty reduction. The report would chart the progress made towards poverty reduction and give some practical meaning to the phrase ``joined-up government''. That is a popular phrase, but too often we find that it is difficult to put it into practice. The concept behind such a joint report is to focus departmental minds on working together to show that they share the all-important focus of international development work in poverty reduction.

If the Department for International Development is committed to the elimination of global poverty, it must be backed up by a similar commitment from other Departments. The Government have accepted that they must take a cross-departmental approach to poverty reduction, and in a preface to the 2000 White Paper, the Prime Minister said:

``This White Paper sets out the UK Government's policies in all these areas. It reflects our commitment to work across all parts of Government in order to help eliminate world poverty, and to cooperate with other governments and international institutions as part of a broader international effort.''

It is vital that that works in practice, but over the past four years we have seen examples of where the joining-up process has failed. Controversially, the Foreign Office did not appear to promote human rights in Turkey in the Ilisu dam case. Events have moved on, and Balfour Beatty has pulled out. Ultimately, the human rights aspects of that project may prevail by default. The Government's globalisation White Paper stressed that we must strengthen the voice of the poor and help them realise their human rights in order to make political institutions work for them.

The Foreign Office did not raise the issue of human rights with the Department of Trade and Industry during the Ilisu dam affair. On 1 February 2000, the DTI Minister responsible, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), told the Select Committee on International Development:

``The DTI is not responsible for human rights. It will take the advice of other Government Departments. I would say, to the best of my knowledge, that this was not a question which was raised when we circulated to other departments. That is DFID, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and indeed others. It was not raised to the best of my knowledge.''

That gives us cause for concern, which is why we seek to make joined-up thinking work more effectively via our new clause.

The Ministry of Defence did not demonstrate a commitment to poverty reduction in March 2000 when it charged the Department for International Development the full market price for four Puma helicopters to assist in the Mozambique floods. The selling of spare parts to Zimbabwe also showed the failure of Government Departments to commit themselves to poverty reduction—further examples that provoke our concern. My amendment is intended to strengthen joined-up government and to make the poverty reduction focus of the Bill more effective. The Government, led by the Prime Minister, are committed to that. We hope that the Minister will welcome a joint annual report that would remind Government Departments of the poverty reduction focus.

Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour, Crosby)

I am in broad agreement with the amendment and echo the hon. Lady's concerns. Following this morning's debate, it is clear that evidence to support a particular view often does not exist. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for digressing, but for each new piece of legislation in this country, a regulatory impact assessment is required. That assessment details the impact of legislation on business. It is an important document that allows us to assess the impact, and allows those affected by the Bill to understand that we are satisfied that its consequences are neither onerous nor disadvantageous.

We all welcome those methods of scrutiny. Many of us are frustrated when we send reasonable questions to various Departments and receive only the standard answer that information is not available or is too expensive to collate. If one asks for important information, but cannot get it and base an objective opinion on it, a degree of activity is outside our control. I am not happy about that.

For that reason, I sympathise with the hon. Lady's request. Many scandals associated with the United Nations and other third-party agencies have brought those organisations into disrepute, but asking for a report may be optimistic. Several of the organisations that we deal with—and smaller ones delivering aid—find it impossible to provide the information that we require for our auditing gene, simply because they do not have the wherewithal to do so. They do not have auditing procedures or even the equipment to write reports. Many of our relationships with these people must be taken on trust, but that does not preclude us from putting down a marker to receive information that substantiates the uses to which the money is being put. We must have some evidence.

Sooner or later we are accountable to the people who sent us to this place for the way in which these moneys are used; otherwise, when scandals arise, we are not best placed to defend ourselves. That is why the amendment contains some valid observations. I recognise the difficulty of achieving the right sort of report, but it is crucial to challenge the organisations to demonstrate that they understand the requirement and that they will pursue arrangements to secure this information in the fullness of time.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I, too, sympathise with the amendment and I am inclined to support it. If my memory serves me correctly, we did not get as far last time round: our proceedings ended before a proper discussion and vote on the subject.

In my naive fashion, I always assumed that annual reports were a statutory requirement, that they had to be there and that we would always have them, but that is not so. It would be good to build into the Bill a requirement to produce an annual report and we should insist on seeing it. We should also insist on an annual debate on the annual report. I believe that we have not debated development since 1997; someone will correct me if I am wrong. It is important for Members to see the annual report and, as suggested by the hon. Member for Meriden, to discuss targets.

It is so difficult to assess how we are progressing in international development and it is important to keep looking at the 2015 targets to measure progress. We understand the difficulties, but it is a crucial issue, so I back annual reports and I hope that the Leader of the House will allow us to debate them.

Joined-up government is dear to my heart. As a new Member of Parliament, I remember that when the first of the White Papers on eliminating poverty was produced, I asked the Secretary of State whether other Departments agreed with it and whether she was happy that they would implement the same provisions. I was told off in a way that only a Secretary of State can tell off, and was informed that a White Paper would not be published unless all Departments had agreed on it. It was rather amusing.

Mrs. Spelman indicated assent.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

The hon. Lady nods. She and I know many cases where it is perfectly obvious that other Departments are not in agreement with the aims of the White Paper on development, which is why it is so important to keep pressing for joined-up government. I suspect that the Chairman will call time before we properly finish our debate, but numerous examples could be mentioned. I remember the fiasco at Montserrat during the early years of the new Government. They inherited a mess, but co-ordination between the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office was poor. The Ilisu dam—thank goodness the contractor has seen the light and pulled out—looked as though it might be another example. The Department of Trade and Industry seemed to be overruling the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office on issues such as the environment, displaced people, water wars and granting export credit guarantees for the dam.

The amendment and the new clause are worth while. I am happy for the Liberal Democrats to support them.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock till Tuesday 27 November at half-past Ten o'clock.