My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

First, I should like to pay tribute to my Right Honourable Friend, Tom Clarke, who piloted the Bill with a winning combination of determination and idealism through the other place, in a manner which showed why he is held in such great respect on all sides. I also welcome support for the Bill from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who regrets that he cannot attend the debate at this late hour, and likewise from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey. She has asked me to say why she supports the Bill, which I shall turn to later. I very much look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lady Quin and the noble Lord, Lord Cotter.

Before very briefly outlining the Bill, I want to say that it comes to us in a much more worked-over form than some. Not only have many of the most prominent NGOs taken part in its drafting; it is the product of support, indeed enthusiasm, from all parties. It has already received a lot of attention to detail and coverage. Your Lordships will wish to be aware of the conscientiousness of the participants in the Committee stage in the other place, and of the flexibility of Ministers.

There is a reason beyond enthusiasm for the subject in this. It is that a Private Member's Bill can become an Act only if its life here as a Bill is short, neat and tidy. If it is not regarded as complete after coming to your Lordships' House, it will fall to the axe of the timetables for government legislation. I am reassured by all parties in your Lordships' House that this fledgling Bill will be able to fly as it did from the other place. But we shall need to keep the process short.

The Bill's purpose is simple. It is to see that the promises of this Government made at Gleneagles, one year ago next week, and any made by future Governments, are kept. Its essence is simple: accountability. Accountability in delivering effectively the aid which thousands upon thousands of people marched for to Make Poverty History. Accountability to that public, through Parliament.

Thus, the first provision of the Bill is for an annual report by the Secretary of State to Parliament. The report must include the year's progress towards the goal of 0.7 per cent of gross national income for official development assistance, and this is even explicit in the Long Title of the Bill. It must include general progress towards achieving millennium development goals 1 to 7 through UK assistance and the multilateral aid to which the UK contributes; the specific effectiveness of UK bilateral aid in no fewer than 20 countries—a number reached after successful challenge by NGOs and by honourable friends of Members opposite—with an undertaking that for the duration of this Parliament the number will be taken to cover the 25 countries in DfID's public service agreement; and, finally, progress in promoting untied aid.

As well as qualitative assessments, the report must also provide the statistical data set out in the schedule—actual sums of aid in various categories, sums of debt relieved, the total percentage of gross national income spent on official development assistance, and the percentage given to low-income countries. Bilateral aid is to be broken down by region, country and sector. Humanitarian assistance must also be detailed—another point successfully made in Committee in the other place. Bilateral official development assistance must be broken down by country, and the imputed UK share of multilateral official development assistance by country must also be given.

And it is not only DfID's own activity which the Secretary of State must report on. He or she must also include a section on the effects of the policies and programmes of other government departments on the promotion of sustainable development and the reduction of poverty in developing countries, especially as this relates to MDG 8. This must specifically include an account of progress towards an open trading system which,

"expands trading opportunities for low income countries", the development of an open, rule-based, non-discriminatory financial system and the enhancement of debt relief for low-income countries.

Very importantly, this section must also cover what other departments do to promote transparency in both the provision of aid and the use made of aid, as well as measures to manage and monitor the use of aid, preventing corruption and ensuring that targets are clear.

So, for recipients the Bill will give the power to see in advance what aid flows come from the UK so they can plan ahead. And it will set an example of good governance in our own disbursement of aid, which will also enable parliamentarians in receiving countries to hold their own governments to account. They will know how much has been received and for what purpose, just as here the Bill will sharpen the responsibility of Members of both Houses to chase progress towards the millennium development goals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has asked me to give her three main reasons for her "enthusiastic support for the Bill". She says:

"First, there is insufficient informed knowledge in our Parliament, let alone among our nation as a whole, about the reality of the world in which we live, and where often by dedicated but limited co-operation with the Government or NGO's in a developing country the United Kingdom can make a huge improvement for the people of that country. Second, there is a need for precise information to assist the debate. Third, it is important that the co-ordination of assistance overseas is clarified by spelling out the amounts and type of aid provided through the many multilateral organisations. The Bill provides well for this to be done".

I am extremely grateful to her.

All this represents a statutory codification which goes beyond current practice and which gives Parliament a much stronger role in ensuring that the considerable sums the UK taxpayer gives really make a difference. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Whitaker.)

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in congratulating Tom Clarke on his tireless work inside and outside Parliament to advance the transparency and accountability that we so desperately need in international development. I also join her in welcoming our two newly ennobled colleagues who are to break their duck, so to speak, tonight. I particularly welcome my noble friend Lord Cotter, who has been a colleague and a friend in the other place for many years. I know he will make a valuable contribution to our proceedings in this Chamber.

As Tom Clarke emphasises, at the heart of his Bill is an annual report to Parliament on progress in aid and millennium development goals, on accountancy, on accountability and on transparency. I welcome the Bill as a tool—a weapon—to address the woes of unfortunate failures in international development aid policy in past years. However, it is only one tool in the toolbox, only one weapon in the armoury. The Make Poverty History campaign last year reminded us of the challenge facing the developed world in empowering poor countries to reach the development goals. The challenge was starkly underlined in Africa.

I declare my usual interest as a vice-chairman of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group and vice-chairman of a number of other African country groups. As the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, said, nearly half the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives on less than a dollar a day. Some 40 million children are not at school and, of those who are at school, far too often the girls do not complete their education. They are taken out of school at the end of the primary phase because culturally their place is considered to be at home, rather than being educated. Some 250 million Africans do not have access to safe water or to sanitation and each year, millions die from HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria and water-borne diseases.

Of the G8 commitments to Africa made at Gleneagles last year, very little—perhaps inevitably—has so far been delivered on the ground. Real change will, I think, take decades. I believe that it would be a mistake to concentrate entirely on aid to lift the grinding poverty that the continent has suffered. Despite decades in which its resources have been ravaged, Africa remains a rich continent. The key to bringing millions of citizens in Africa out of poverty and out of despair is not simply to rely on aid, but to aid Africa in developing its own economy and to develop its trade between African countries as well as with the industrialised world.

A critical aspect of taking the citizens of Africa out of poverty is to break the stranglehold of corruption: corruption in their governments, corruption in their financial and commercial institutions and corruption in their trading partners, including here in the United Kingdom. That is why we should welcome this reporting and transparency Bill, as a step towards enshrining accountability and the crime of corruption in our own Laws.

As I said before, to a degree the Bill provides a tool to help to tackle corruption, but other more powerful legislative tools are coming down the track to complement this Bill once Parliament has had the opportunity to deliberate them. Some noble Lords may recall that in a debate in this Chamber on 19 June, on the Africa All-Party Group's report on corruption, The Other Side of the Coin, I drew attention to the need for a corruption Bill to address the shortcomings in United Kingdom legislation in the battle against corruption. This Bill cannot address those shortcomings, and that is not its fault. It is a short Bill, which will hopefully have a rapid passage through this House. By definition, it cannot address the wider issues.

I am grateful that, within three days of that debate, the Government published their response to the recommendations made in that report. In particular, I welcome the announcement of the appointment of the Secretary of State for International Development as an anti-corruption champion. I look forward to seeing the gentleman in that role. I am sure it is a capable fit.

I also welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to find funding for a new international corruption task force. It is all to the good. But we still need progress with legislation such as a corruption Bill; for example, that prepared by a well known NGO, Transparency International, in draft form. It has taken a lead by helping with the preparation of a ten-minute rule Bill introduced in Another place. It is ready, as noble colleagues and the Minister will know, to be presented as a Private Member's Bill in this House should the need arise.

The positive elements of the Government's response to the Africa group's report are welcomed. But it remains to be seen whether it will lead to the degree of effort required to prosecute corruption legislation in its entirely. For example, the United Kingdom is one of 14 parties to the OECD anti-bribery convention, under which not a single prosecution for foreign bribery has been made in recent years. That is surprising, given the United Kingdom's substantial involvement in sectors and countries with a high risk of corruption. It is not enough for the Government to say that it remains committed to introducing a corruption Bill in due course.

Earlier this year, DfID took the initiative of consulting widely on its new white paper on development. In response, TI has submitted a comprehensive paper, setting out how anti-corruption measures could improve the effectiveness of our development policy and assistance. The Bill is, in many ways, a scene-setter for an approach supported by the TI submission and many others. The draft corruption Bill sets out the actions that can be taken in legislative form.

Finally, while I welcome Tom Clarke's Bill and genuinely wish it speedy progress into law, I urge the House to note and consider that much more remains to be done before we have a comprehensive box of tools to tackle corruption in development aid and other funding.

My Lords, I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Whitaker so ably detailing the Bill's provisions and strongly commending this humane and long-overdue measure to your Lordships' House. She did so with compelling concern, commitment and charm. Her speech alone justifies a Second Reading for the Bill. With my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, I very much look forward to the maiden speeches in the debate of my noble friend Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Cotter.

Like my noble friend Lady Whitaker, I congratulate and pay tribute today to my Right Honourable Friend Tom Clarke on steering the Bill through the House of Commons with such skill and success. Speaking as a serial legislator—both as a private Member and a Minister—I hold his achievement in admiration. By all the tests of the good MP, he is an outstanding parliamentarian. For me this is a deeply evocative moment. It calls to mind the warm all-party support he received in enacting his Private Member's Bill that became the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. My roles then were as Tom's co-sponsor of his Bill, and secondly, to lead for Her Majesty's Opposition at all stages of its progress through the House of Commons. I described him at that time as a young parliamentarian of high promise. Now he is one of even higher performance.

Very few parliamentarians have succeeded in taking two Private Members' Bills—and in different policy areas—to the statute book. I believe Tom Clarke will soon become one and this measure, like Tom himself, deserves well of this House. One would not have had to out-prophesy the prophet Isaiah to predict—after his success in the ballot for Private Members' Bills for the current parliamentary Session—that Tom's chosen measure would again be one to relieve and reduce preventable human suffering.

At Report in Another place on 16 June, Tom wisely reflected that Private Members' Bills are defeated not only by determined opponents but often also,

"by their friends and supporters".

He advised his supporters to,

"stick to the brevity to which I have committed myself".—[Hansard, Commons, 16/6/06; col. 1008.]

Even more important today is the fact that there is now no parliamentary time-allocation left for debating further amendments to this Bill in the House of Commons. Thus amending it here would end any realistic prospect of it becoming law. That is the backcloth against which this debate is taking place.

In her speech, my noble friend Lady Whitaker emphasised the Bill's importance in making executive government more accountable. Unquestionably also its enactment will help parliamentarians more effectively to discharge their duty—some would say sovereign duty—to subject policy-making in this deeply sensitive and crucially important field to much more detailed scrutiny than is possible today.

Who among us here can have any doubt that the combined wisdom of this House in scrutinising the annual report the Bill requires will improve policy-making on issues such as aid, debt and trade; or have any doubt that more accountability will benefit those most in need provided, of course, that it is not just about listening and responding to well-heeled lobbyists but hearing the cries of those now unheard?

Improved accountability, transparency and scrutiny can and must be about ensuring that most help from the resources we provide reaches those most in need. That this is not happening now was graphically illustrated by UNICEF's classic report The State of the World's Children 1994 which stated:

"When so much could be done for so many and at so little cost, then one central, shameful fact becomes unavoidable: the reason that these problems are not being overcome is not because the task is too large or too difficult or too expensive. It is that the job is not being given sufficient priority because those most severely affected are almost exclusively the poorest and least politically influential people on earth".

Today that "shameful fact" is well exemplified by the incidence of blindness across the world. Four out of five blind people live in the third world and four out of five of them are preventably blind. Yet as that inspired crusader against avoidable disabilities, my friend the late and still widely mourned Sir John Wilson, so clearly demonstrated, the cost of saving people in the third world from preventable blindness has been falling as dramatically as the incidence of preventable blindness in many of the poorest countries has increased.

Dr Samuel Johnson wrote:

"How small of all that human hearts endure, That part that Lords and Kings can cure".

By hastening Royal Assent to this Bill—the Tom Clarke Bill—this House can refute that cynical assessment of what parliamentarians acting together can achieve in righting the wrongs endured by the weak and vulnerable.

It will not be the first refutation of Dr Johnson's cynicism—take the case of Wilberforce and human slavery—but never was it more necessary than it is now to wield all the influence we have to ensure that right is done in transforming endurance into lives worth living for the poor, vulnerable and afflicted people this Bill can help.

We were reminded by my Right Honourable friend the Prime Minister only this week that too few aid pledges are made for real and too many for show. This Bill is about being real and I, too, commend it unreservedly to the House.

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak for the first time in this House on a Bill that relates to two of the greatest challenges facing us—tackling world poverty and doing so in a way that can be environmentally sustainable. I concur wholeheartedly with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Whitaker in presenting the Bill to us today.

I am also very glad that the Minister participating in this debate will be my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon. She and I go back quite a long way, having both worked together within the Labour group of MEPs in the years immediately after direct elections in 1979. Indeed, I sometimes reflect that she and I could write an entertaining memoir of those days, although I hope and expect that she is fully occupied with her ministerial duties and therefore will not be contemplating such a project in the near future.

I come to the House having spent 18 years in Another place. Some colleagues in the new intake into your Lordships' House have said to me that they think that the experience will prove most useful. I hope it will be useful, although I must say that so far I have been struck by the differences between the two Houses and the need for me as a new girl to learn the procedures in this House. I have also been struck with the ease in which I have managed to get lost in this end of a building I thought I knew well, and by the number of new rooms, corridors and staircases I have discovered in this magical Palace of Westminster. Furthermore, I have been struck by the warmth and friendliness of the reception that I have been met with, which I think is common to all new Members.

I come here with, as we all have, views about the composition of this House. Indeed, as a Commons Member of the Joint Committee on Lords Reform set up in 2001, I probably have got more form on this issue than people think I should have. However, I have always been a strong believer in the important role of the second Chamber and the need to have a second Chamber that can prompt the primary Chamber to think again. I remember, as will many ex-Ministers, with pleasure the evidence sessions I had with committees in this House. It was "with pleasure", except for the few occasions—I hope they were few—when I turned up feeling not entirely well prepared and being reminded yet again of the expertise and collective wisdom that there is in this House, to which I would like to pay tribute.

Like many Members who have come from another place, we are often anxious to retain our old Constituency links in our choice of title. My constituency was named Gateshead East and Washington West. That title confused many of the good voters of that area, so I settled very happily for the formal title of "Quin, of Gateshead", which gives me a public association with the town and the local authority, which has done so much for its inhabitants in recent years, especially in the spectacular cultural projects with which it is now nationally associated.

There is a link between Gateshead Council and the Bill, because Gateshead Council was one of the authorities which took a lead in the establishment of an organisation called Council Aid in the 1980s. That was not just about channelling aid to communities in developing countries; it was also about council officials sharing their administrative knowledge and expertise with their counterparts in developing countries. I know that many people in Gateshead Council who were involved in that initiative are very committed to the goals of the Bill.

As a supporter of the governing party, I am delighted publicly to be able to applaud the Government's record on aid and development from the establishment of DfID in 1997; through the work of its two dynamic Secretaries of State; the increased level of aid; the commitment to the 0.7 per cent target; and to the pioneering work on debt relief and the initiatives taken within the G8 and the European Union. As my noble friend Lord Morris has just mentioned, the Prime Minister this week set up the Africa Progress Panel, which we all hope will have every success in its work in the coming months.

I am glad that the Government respond positively to this Bill, which I feel is important in a number of ways. First, it obliges the Government to report annually not just on the quantity but on the quality of their aid and to do so in an open and transparent way. It also calls for government to respond consistently and in a co-ordinated way. I was very much struck in a debate on corruption in Africa held in this House a couple of weeks ago, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, referred, by the stress on the importance of having co-ordinated government policy on such issues. As those of us who have served in government know, co-ordination is a day-to-day challenge to governments, but it is vital if policies are to be effective.

The Bill also stresses the importance of the millennium development goals, to which I believe we are all very attached: the goals of tackling world poverty, of promoting the education of women, and of doing so in an environmentally sustainable way.

The Bill is capable of responding to public interest. There is massive public interest on this issue, as we have seen in the success of the Make Poverty History campaign and the genuine and generous public response to events such as the Asian tsunami. The public rightly want to know that the money they contribute is well spent. They also want to know that money given to government aid programmes is well spent.

I believe that the Bill can also be a catalyst or stimulus for other groups and organisations. I hope that it will encourage European Union countries which at present do not have such a reporting mechanism at present to adopt one. I am sure that it will be welcomed by recipient countries—especially those where in the past there have been concerns about the quality of aid, including many of those mentioned in the Africa debate a couple of weeks ago, which are democratising and making their own procedures more open and accountable than they were. That is an important stimulus for them.

It is also important as an example to non-governmental organisations, many of which are fully committed to their own accountability charters, because they know that the public who give to their organisations want to be assured that the money they give is well used.

The Bill can be a good example to the private sector as well in its dealings with developing countries and the need to operate in a more open and transparent way than has been the case.

Clause 6 refers to the partnership principle to which I believe the Government are committed in their relationship with developing countries in administering aid for the future. I am glad the Bill stresses that and brings it to the forefront of its composition. All in all, the clauses are very helpful and worthwhile.

In conclusion, the Bill is an excellent example of the initiative that private Members in both Houses can take. I will certainly be very happy if, by supporting the Bill in my first contribution to this House, I can help to ensure its smooth legislative passage and to ensure that it reaches the statute book as soon as possible.

My Lords, it is a duty, but it is also a pleasure, to follow immediately after the maiden speech in this House of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and for me to welcome that excellent speech. I do so all the more cheerfully as the noble Baroness has chosen the same subject—international development—as I did for my own maiden speech here some five years ago.

I had the pleasure of working with the noble Baroness first as a Member of the European Parliament, then when she was a Front-Bench Speaker on foreign affairs in Opposition, and when she became Minister for Europe while I was successive Governments' special representative for Cyprus. I hope she will not mind my saying that she was a much appreciated and most effective Minister for Europe, not least because she took the trouble to speak the languages of more than one of our EU partners.

In Cyprus, she and I had an experience that could well end up in the Guinness Book of Records when Mr Rauf Denktash spoke for 49 minutes without giving her a chance to get in even an opening remark—not something, I am glad to say, that could happen in your Lordships' House. Anyway, her contribution to the debate will leave us with a lively expectation of her further participation in the work of this House.

I shall speak briefly in support of the Bill, which I believe to be an admirable and necessary measure. I do so in particular to show support for it from the Cross Benches, signifying I hope that here, as in Another place, this Bill enjoys the support of all parties and of those, like me, with no party allegiance. For many years, the British Government paid lip service to their commitment to the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP to be devoted to official development aid. UN conferences came and went and we continued to subscribe to the target. Meanwhile, our actual disbursement of aid moved away from the target, not towards it. This was a discreditable way of behaving, which undermined not only our own credibility and reputation but that of the United Nations.

In more recent times, we have begun to move effectively towards achieving the target, and now the Government have committed themselves to a precise timetable for that. The Bill will underpin that commitment by obliging the Government to chart each step of the course. It will thus greatly increase the credibility of our position, and if it inspires other countries, which are also now committed to a precise timetable for achieving the 0.7 per cent, to do likewise, as I hope it will, it could have a multiplier effect and will facilitate the crucial task of monitoring the commitments, which is so essential.

In that context, the Bill is of a piece with the very welcome announcement by the Prime Minister earlier this week of the establishment of a panel, to be chaired by Kofi Annan, to work on the follow-up to the commitments to Africa made last year. It is also of a piece with the publication next week of the report by your Lordships' own EU Select Committee on the European Union strategy for Africa, and in particular on that strategy's effective implementation. But the measure will do more than that. By linking our overall aid performance to progress towards achieving the different UN millennium development goals, in particular towards goal 8—the reduction of poverty—it should increase the pressure on receiving countries to be able to demonstrate clearly and transparently that Britain's aid really is going to support programmes in health, education and other vital objectives set out in the millennium development goals.

The reference to preventing corruption is particularly important. Nothing undermines the general case for overseas aid more insidiously than the widespread belief that it will end up in the wrong hands and is not going to be applied effectively to the objectives identified for the grant of the aid in the first place. We need now to build up an effective alliance between the donors and the recipients to resist corruption and to convince the recipients that it is as much in their long-term interest as it is in ours to be able to demonstrate that aid is helping to achieve the millennium development goals. That measure should help to achieve that aim.

On a purely procedural point, I would urge, along with noble Lords who have already spoken, that Members of this House do not move any amendments in Committee. The peculiarities of the procedures here and in another place would mean that any such move would be likely to result in the Bill being lost, which would be a miserable outcome. In any case, to my relatively untutored eye, the provisions of the Bill seem to be admirably clear and concise. I understand that it enjoys the enthusiastic support of the Secretary of State for International Development. I hope that we can today wish it on its way to speedy adoption.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, on her maiden speech. I shall have to strive very hard to match the ability and fluency that she achieved a short while ago. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am for this opportunity to speak in your Lordships' House for the first time, in particular when we are talking about worldwide events. Most important, I thank enormously all concerned for the support and help that I have been given up to and after my introduction on 5 June, especially the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who is here today, for introducing me on the Floor of the House. I also thank the many noble Lords from all quarters who have made me most welcome, as well as the official staff and everyone for being so supportive.

I should like to mention the introduction packs and information leaflets given to new Peers, which describe the working background and responsibilities of this House. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that this information reaches the highest standards of presentation and content. Very few commercial firms or other organisations could do better. This information undoubtedly reflects the smooth efficiency and high standards of this House. I hope to do all that I can to justify the encouragement and help that I have received.

I would especially like to avoid an experience that I had early on in my eight years as a Member in the other place. During Prayers, I remember hearing the familiar sound of a mobile phone ringing. I looked around, thinking, "This is outrageous". But wait—the sound seemed to be rather close. In fact, it was coming from my pocket. Imagine my embarrassment when Prayers finished and there were cries from the opposite Benches, led by the redoubtable Dennis Skinner: "It's him. It's him". Fortunately for me, the Speaker, now the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, chose to ignore it and proceeded with business. Today, I have not only switched off my mobile phone but left it in my office just to be sure.

I am glad that my title "of Congresbury" enables me to speak about the village where my wife and I live. It has a lively and caring population, a real community, which dates back to the 12th century.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate because the subject is dear to my and many other people's hearts. In particular, I would like to speak about an event of a horrifying nature in 1994—the genocide in Rwanda. I declare an interest as the patron of SURF, a charity that was set up in 1997 to aid and assist survivors—widows, women, children and families—of the Rwandan genocide. In 1994, in only 100 days, more than 1 million people were slaughtered.

In all adversity there are heroes, and I would like to talk about some of them. My first is Fergal Keane, the well known TV journalist and fellow patron of SURF. He was a prime mover in letting the world know of the genocide, risking his life and continuing to tell the story since. He is a hero because it takes both physical and moral courage to do something of that nature. It is a role, of course, that is still being played courageously even today by many other journalists throughout the world.

My second hero is Mary Blewitt, who set up and runs the charity SURF. Supported by many good people, she is an inspiration and a survivor herself. I know that she would want me to refer to many others who work heroically for this cause, but mostly she would say—and I agree—that there are other heroes, those who survived and to this day struggle to cope and recover. The work of SURF includes practical aid, while a big aim is to establish a resource and testimony centre to provide an archive and a sanctuary for survivors in Rwanda. Work goes on to respect the dead. Over the past year, 22 mass graves have been built and a further 23 are planned for 2006 so that people can pay their respects.

Speaking of heroes, there are many testimonies, and I shall refer to just one, that of a young girl called Valentina, who was 11 years old when the events took place. As she said, she came from a,

"happy family who did not want for anything".

But on 12 April 1994, killers entered the church where they had taken refuge, killing her family for no reason.

Finally I want to speak of another hero, Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire, the general in charge of the UN force entrusted to stop the killing. He was not given the troops he needed and his warnings were not heeded during the run-up to the genocide. The killing could have been stopped and the general strove heroically. But because of lack of support and troops, we see a record of United Nations failure and the moral cowardice of many, allowing the genocide to take place.

What is my reason for mentioning this today? I make a plea once again that the genocide in Rwanda must not be forgotten. We have natural tragedies in this world which are usually unstoppable, but we must renew our efforts to stop human killing human. I should like to end with some words from Lieutenant-General Dallaire:

"In Rwanda I shook hands with the devil".

But in his remarkable testimony, he says that he still believes in good in the world. I know that in this House great efforts are made to address these issues. Please may we carry on doing so. As the general said:

"Sometimes humanity is called into question, but we have a duty to value all lives equally".

He has expressed the hope that this century should become the century of humanity. We as humans need to rise above race, creed, colour, religion and national self-interest. I thank noble Lords for ensuring that today we are doing a little something to help to achieve that aim, but the international community still has a long way to go.

My Lords, I have interests to declare as a trustee of Saferworld, a former director of Oxfam and a current member of the Oxfam Association, and I suppose that I should mention as relevant in this context ministerial experience long ago both at the Foreign Office and in overseas development.

My first real joy is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, on his maiden speech. By any yardstick it was an outstanding and moving speech, and it augurs well for the contributions that he will make to the future deliberations of the House. He brings to us his industrial experience; his service in local government and in the other place as a respected spokesperson on trade and industry; his continuing interest in green issues, which will be more and more dominant in all that we seek to do in politics; and, as we have heard today, his proven support for justice in the world. I was deeply affected, as I am sure other noble Lords were, by the way in which he described his experiences of Rwanda. If I have learnt anything in life about development, it is that the key is people. All over the place there are recognised and unrecognised heroes, and what he said rang very true to me.

In congratulating the noble Lord, I hope it is in order for me to say how delighted I am that my noble friend Lady Quin is with us. I have had the highest regard for her contribution in the other place, both in government and out of it. I felt that Westminster was the loser when she seemed temporarily to disappear into the north-east region. It is good to see her back; we hope that she will remain as committed as ever to the north-east, but she will bring to all that we are doing very special qualities and experience. It really is good to have her here.

This is a practical and highly relevant Bill. I join in thanking my noble friend Lady Whitaker for having introduced it so well in this House. I also pay tribute to my old personal friend in the other House, Tom Clarke, for his long-standing commitment to development issues, evidenced in what he has made possible in the Bill.

The Government's commitment to fulfilling the 0.7 per cent within a specific timescale has been a very important record. It sets standards, as has been said, for other parts of the world. The Bill will be helpful in ensuring the effective delivery of this aspiration—in other words, it will ensure the fuel for the task.

As has already been suggested, success in the cause of eliminating world poverty will depend on other key contextual issues as well. Perhaps I can refer briefly to some of them. Governance is crucial; the quality, character and calibre of governance in any particular country are key to success. In this context, it is right to mention corruption. I make only one other point in mentioning corruption: I hope that as a society we hold the mirror to ourselves and we do not only tell other people to do as we say they should do but that we ask ourselves whether we are setting the standards, in all respects, that we are asking them to follow. How far, when corruption occurs in impoverished countries, is its origin traceable to activities by people in this part of the world?

There are the issues of multilateralism and bilateralism. I am unashamedly a multilateralist, again for very practical reasons. I think it makes a nonsense of development to see hard-pressed Administrations and Ministers striving to establish a strategy when people are queuing at their door and coming up with—competing, even—different programmes, trying to persuade them to link up to their particular interest and approach. The more one can get a cohesive approach, the sounder will be the approach to development. If we are to see a continuing emphasis on multilateralism, we will need to know a little more—perhaps the annual reports will provide a good vehicle—about the conditionality that applies in multilateral programmes. Fortunately, in this country, we have seen the light and set our face against tied aid, but in multilateral programmes there is a good deal of tied aid still, and we need to know more about the conditions, as we do about the arrangements for our aid going through other people's bilateral programmes.

There are also issues relating to the European Union. One of the tasks of the European Union is, surely, to play an active role in helping to co-ordinate the bilateral programmes of the members of the European Union, so that we are not inadvertently pulling against each other but are always together trying to ensure that we are pulling alongside the governments of the developing world.

There are the issues of climate change, and all that we are trying to do in the third world can very rapidly be undone by what is happening in the context of climate change, which hits poor economies particularly hard and the poorest people extremely hard. Responsibility for making a success of policies on climate change rests with the kind of domestic policies that we have in countries such as the United Kingdom in the relevant spheres.

There is a need for preventive measures against disasters, because the poor particularly suffer from disasters and catastrophes when they occur. There are issues of the globalisation of pandemics. I was concerned, as I am sure were other noble Lords, that discussions about pandemics that we have been having of late tend to focus on how we will protect the wealthy and privileged people of the world. What will be the consequences for the Majority of humankind out there in the countries to which we are referring? Of course, if pandemics strike, they strike the economies of the countries with which we are concerned, as we have seen tragically with AIDS.

Then there are the issues of conflict. When I was director of Oxfam, I was struck by the fact that more than half our programmes in the world were dealing with the consequences of conflict. If we are serious about development, we must give pride of place to measures to combat the arms trade, control the small arms that do so much of the killing, tackle conflict resolution, support peace building and ensure effective reform of the security sector.

Perhaps the most important issue of all is that of the systems of global finance and trade within which we operate. It is not simply a matter of ensuring that the agendas of the international financial institutions address the issues of poverty and of the poorest people in the world. We must ensure that the agendas of the international financial institutions reflect the priorities of the disadvantaged people and disadvantaged nations of the world. They should feel a sense of ownership of those agendas and not find themselves in a position of simply responding to the agendas of the relatively privileged.

If we are to see sustained development and sustained success in the cause of eliminating world poverty, security and stability are essential. Grotesque differentials in wealth and the exclusion of highly intelligent—sometimes, well educated—people from any influence over power in the international community are highly relevant to the issues of sustained development. If those feelings of alienation and frustration continue unabated, there will be insecurity: there will be conflict. Therefore, we have to tackle the issues of the redistribution of political power in the world if we are to make sustained success in building society in the future. Those are imperatives if we are to get it right.

I welcome the Bill. It is a refreshingly practical, targeted Bill. It will ensure that we have the wherewithal for the task. I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for having brought it into the House. I am sure that we must respond to the entreaties of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. We should give it a quick and clear passage, but in so doing, let us face up to the strategic contextual issues without which it will not be able to achieve its objectives.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for taking forward her Right Honourable Friend's Bill. I speak as another veteran support of the aid programme, from the NGO perspective. Friends should also be constructive critics, and I shall make a few comments that will not delay the passage of the Bill. Meanwhile, I add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers on their very sincere and eloquent contributions and their remarks about this House, which will be much appreciated.

Most of us remember the old ODA and the mistakes and distortions of aid under previous administrations. From groundnut schemes to giant power projects, we blundered our way through developing countries in the name of poverty eradication when really we were establishing post-colonial elites to the detriment of the poor and of our own political relations with those countries. That was not that long ago. I personally credit the NGOs and universities—notably the Institute of Development Studies and the Overseas Development Institute—with many of the positive changes that have gradually percolated into departmental policies since those days.

The new broom Government of 1997 had already learned a lot from the reforming era of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned a number of challenges, and there will be many. He mentioned climate change, trade and conflict. There are also the inequalities in aid giving and the problems of absorptive capacity. These will continue in future, but now we have a much more balanced, better targeted and more rights-based programme than we have ever had. The recent Development Assistance Committee peer review was in itself testimony to the quality of our aid programme. It said that the UK programme was at,

"an historic high point of political and public support".

I am glad that through this Bill, measuring performance against the millennium development goals, the Government will be able to report more fully and honestly to Parliament—or to the magical Palace of Westminster, as the noble Baroness put it. The present DfID departmental report has grown to 300 pages, and is already quite comprehensive in terms of MDG progress. Does the Minister expect the new one to duplicate this or replace it? I hope that it will not be too heavy with statistics.

On the subject of aid reporting, many will be pleased to see that the Prime Minister has set up yet another group to monitor the Gleneagles targets, but I hope that DfID will continue to fund low-level civil society monitoring groups, especially in HIPC countries, as they can usually do this debt monitoring work much more effectively. This was because an urgent priority since the World Bank's independent evaluation, which showed that at least eight countries have slipped back to dangerous levels of debt when we thought that they were through the process.

The DAC review noted "substantial movement" towards the 0.7 per cent target. We have all watched progress towards the UN targets go into loops under successive governments and the graph is now steeply up, but it seems highly unlikely that it will ever be more than a target. I am more interested in seeing the MDGs in the Bill, because individually they tell the story of our aid programme much more accurately. Incidentally, the DAC review questioned whether a 10 per cent reduction in staff was wise in the context of a fairly rapid budget increase. Perhaps the Minister will have a ready answer to that.

A good deal of our aid budget is, rightly, spent in this country. It is 10 years since I introduced a debate in this House on the development of education—perhaps the first of its kind. Since then, and through the influence of the Development Education Association, both DfID and the DfES have moved a long way towards the building of awareness of international affairs and citizenship in schools and local communities. I could give many examples, but my key point is that the public have not until now been given the chance to comment properly on our aid programme. Diversion of aid and corruption have long been easy targets, and a preoccupation of those who always find reasons to dampen down enthusiasm. The much bigger development budgets tend to operate behind screens of jargon, official spin and mystique, and it is rare that the media expose scandals which have occurred in our aid programme on the scale of Pergau or Narmada. I doubt that the innocuous language of this Bill will reveal much more, but it should improve the public's general awareness of the detail. Will the Minister confirm that both DfID and the DfES, and perhaps other joined-up departments, will report annually on development education and development awareness? Perhaps DfID, as the lead agency, could take on this role within the terms of the Bill.

In the spirit of greater transparency I would like to introduce an idea that has probably already been considered by the Government and rejected. Under paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Schedule the report has to include a list of aid recipient countries. I recommend that, here or elsewhere, the UK itself is included on the list of recipients. I say that in all seriousness as one who has worked for most of his life in the aid business. For fear of admitting too much, we have repeatedly failed to acknowledge the contribution of our own country in the annual statistics. Through our policy of untied aid, which I commend, we have thereby neatly dodged any traces of our own involvement. How many people, for example, are employed in the UK in all our aid programmes, including those of the NGOs and churches? I doubt the Government could answer that, but I believe they should take steps to do so if they are going to be transparent.

Surely this of all Governments should be brave enough to admit, under Clause 6(1) of the Bill, to the retention of some of our aid in this country. Not only do we support a larger department—and there are some statistics in the annual report already—but there are a host of consultants based in the UK working for DfID, the EU or one of the many international and UN aid agencies. Even if we have ended our tied aid, many of our overseas operations still require technical support from home, and that means jobs for people in British industries. Then there are the many UK-based media, local community and education projects I have already mentioned that are supported by DfID and the DfES. There are the British Council and BBC World Service aid programmes, funded by the FCO. It would be healthy if these projects were all reported and audited in a separate column to give the public a truer picture of how aid benefits the givers as well as the receivers. I would not be surprised to learn from this exercise that the UK is one of our own leading aid beneficiaries.

There was a time, when I was on Christian Aid's staff, when I could be cynical about government spending at home. We in the NGOs always told the public that we deducted 2 or 3 per cent for administration and a little more for fundraising, and all the rest would go to the poor. I have come to appreciate the true costs of aid administration, and now of awareness-building. I genuinely believe the public have a right to know exactly what those costs are. I too wish this Bill a fair wind.

My Lords, from these Benches we are happy to support this Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing it. I too pay tribute to Tom Clarke for taking this Bill through the Commons, and to the NGOs that helped to draft it. My colleague in the other place, John Barrett, was a co-sponsor. As we saw in the Commons, and as we see again in the Lords, this Bill commands cross-party support. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her thoughtful and well informed maiden speech. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cotter for his equally committed and very moving speech.

The noble Lord has referred to my role as his supporter. I was honoured to be asked by him to dress up in a red robe and support him in that fashion. I do not often get that chance. I am grateful that he has made his maiden speech in support of this particular area.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has so effectively and comprehensively explained, this Bill seeks to bring accountability and transparency to what the UK does in terms of aid and humanitarian relief. Last year, Make Poverty History made a public case for assisting the poorest people in the poorest countries of the world, and by the end of that year, eight out of 10 people in the UK were familiar with its message. That was an incredible achievement. Children like mine wore white wrist bands and knew exactly why they did so.

But it would be too easy to let this subject slip. The UN High Level Panel, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was such a notable member, made clear last year that development relates to the security of us all; it is not simply about what we should do to help those most in need, though that is, or should be, the key motivation. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others exactly what that means in terms of the support that is needed.

This Bill ensures that governments of whatever colour must report on what they are doing in international development under a number of headings, which, one hopes, would make it difficult to put an inappropriate gloss or spin on things. The Bill aims to increase transparency in reporting in this area so that the level, poverty-focus and coherence of the Government's international development policy and expenditure, and their contribution towards reaching the millennium development goals, can be readily tracked over time. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has said, DfID produces a comprehensive annual report, but that forces parliamentarians to read and assess it.

If the Bill becomes law, it will require the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report to Parliament using information that is comparable over time, including between government administrations. It will also place on the statute book for the first time a specific reference to the UN target—which we signed up to in 1970—for expenditure on official development assistance to constitute 0.7 per cent of gross national income. It will also for the first time prescribe in law how DfID should report on its development policies and use of resources. As I have mentioned, it strengthens the role of parliamentarians in holding the Executive to account.

I should illustrate how this might help. It is notable that Ireland made the commitment of having a timetable to meet the 0.7 per cent target when it held the presidency of the EU. It promptly reneged on that as soon as the UK took over from it and the international spotlight was off it. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has mentioned how Governments pay tribute to that goal while all the time moving away from it. The Bill would make such slippage less easy, or at least more embarrassing, and that is helpful to us in all parties if we wish to see the MDGs delivered, ever. Would that there were similar Bills going through other Parliaments and within the European Parliament.

As my noble friend Lord Chidgey put it, this Bill is one tool in our toolbox. I note that he wishes to add at least one more—his Bill against corruption. I look forward to cross-party support on that. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made it crystal clear how important this is and how much more we all need to do.

It has been made clear that this is a straightforward Bill that is fit for purpose and that any slippage in the timetable in the Lords will cause it to fail. I have heard no rumours of people wishing to see changes in it, such that they would jeopardise its passage. Lest noble Lords think that the Bill was simply rubberstamped in the other place, I point them to the inch-thick transcript of the Commons discussions. I have to admire Tom Clarke's deft footwork in stepping over and round not only a critic or two but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, put it, the expansiveness and lengthy support of some friends.

An editorial in the Guardian of 15 June stated:

"Few private members' bills become law. Fewer still can hope to affect millions of lives. But the international development bill . . . just might".

In the interests of brevity I will not detain your Lordships further and simply say that the Liberal Democrats strongly support this Bill, that we will table no amendments to it in the interests of it passing into law, and that we are very glad indeed that it has been brought forward.

My Lords, it is an unusual delight to take part in debating a Bill that has such wide support all round the Chamber. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on introducing the Bill with her usual flair and commitment. I also congratulate our two maiden speakers. Their loss to Another place is our gain. Now that they are fully fledged, I look forward to hearing many contributions from them in the future.

The Bill stimulated a well informed, interesting and passionate debate which my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lady Chalker will be sad to have missed. They have asked me to offer their apologies for their absence. It is clear that there is support from all Benches for the Bill's general principles. The recent Unstarred Question on corruption in Africa, following the APPG report on the subject, highlighted only one of the most significant problems to affect international aid and the imperative need for the UK to act in a transparent and accountable manner.

It is easy to see why corruption is considered the greatest obstacle to global development. We therefore understand the importance of knowing exactly where the money is going. In our many discussions over the years on the financing of aid, we have always considered the effectiveness of UK aid and our contribution through EU funding. It is clear that aid is effective at reducing poverty only if it is targeted and reaches those who need it most, without, one hopes, compromising the potential for local and national services to step into place once they are on their feet. In simplistic terms: why bother to grow your own food if you cannot sell the excess on the market, as it is flooded with food aid? There is always a question of the effect that aid in any form can have in the long term on development, and that comes even before we consider the pockets it may be lining on the way.

Our long-term goal must be to assist the developing world in graduating from dependence on aid to strong democracies with vibrant economies, civil society, good governance, the rule of law and fairer trade, to name but a few aspirations. We must provide the leg-up that is needed for the most vulnerable to help themselves.

It is timely and interesting that, at the start of this week, the Prime Minster confirmed plans for his Africa Progress Panel to monitor the progress of the promises on poverty made by the G8 last summer. Save the Children and the World Development Movement, among others, have expressed criticism and concern that the panel's reports will be null and void without the G8's agreement to adhere to those suggestions and that the Prime Minister is to some degree,

"picking his own panel to hold himself accountable for his own promises".

I hope that the Minister will make time to respond to those charities' concerns.

Perhaps by accepting the Bill and enabling its report to lead to an annual debate on this aspect of development, the Prime Minister will be able to demonstrate that he and his Ministers are prepared to be held accountable in Parliament for their actions, and in turn for parliamentarians to be held accountable to the people. I commend the work of the Department for International Development. As your Lordships have stated, however, there is always room for improvement. Indeed, an internal DfID report states:

"While there are many examples of positive contribution to development progress, there is generally insufficient information on the link between DfID's inputs and interventions on the one hand, and positive outcomes observed on the other".

The report also states,

"there is no single, overall strategic plan which guides the allocation and deployment of DfID resources".

Despite the changes, I still have outstanding concerns that the Bill focuses on inputs rather than outputs. I hope that it will be the foundation for a major shift towards assessing the results of aid to make clear the effect of taxpayers' money on the actual alleviation of poverty. As noble Lords have highlighted, the Bill does not enable easy comparison of different funding schemes' effectiveness. I hope that the Minister will consider that further as the Bill progresses through the House.

Several changes were made to the Bill in the other place which have helped to make it clearer and simpler. We welcome those changes and, in particular, the requirement that DfID report every year on humanitarian assistance. I need not remind your Lordships that DfID spent £437 million on this aspect of aid in 2004–05, a sum that we should make certain is well spent. We also welcome the increase in the number of countries to be assessed for aid effectiveness, mentioned in Clause 4, from 10 to "not fewer than 20", in response to our comments in the other place. We are the first to acknowledge that there is sometimes a fine balance between bureaucracy and the need for transparency in the name of good governance, but we believe that there was a strong case for extending the number of countries to be covered by this Bill, not least because a country's situation can change so much in a year. I hope that the noble Baroness will reiterate the commitment that, for the lifetime of this Government, 25 countries will be monitored.

There is overwhelming support for the strengthened links between the millennium development goals and aid, in addition to the significant statutory footing that this legislation provides for the spending target of 0.7 of our gross national income on international development.

I have only touched on the main issues raised. It is clear that there is still a strong feeling that DfID is too focused on inputs not results—brownie points for money spent rather than its effectiveness. It is telling that NGOs argue that it has been,

"a year since Gleneagles and we have seen little that demonstrates unity of purpose from G8 leaders".

This Bill is not the whole answer but it is a positive step in the right direction and, as such, we support it and wish it a fair wind as it makes its way on to the statute book.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for taking this very fine Bill through the Lords, and I am delighted that it has been warmly welcomed by all noble Lords who have participated in today's debate and those who could not be present—the noble Baronesses, Lady Chalker and Lady Rawlings.

I also pay tribute to my Right Honourable Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill on his skill and dedication in drafting this clear and concise Bill; it was, indeed, deft footwork, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said. As my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester informed us, Tom Clarke has a fine track record in this area. Important changes were made in the other place and I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that the report will cover 25 countries, as was agreed there.

It was a real pleasure to listen to the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Quin, who I have known and held in high esteem since we worked together in 1979, when we shared interesting, enjoyable but incredibly frustrating times, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, who I do not yet know—but I have spent many happy hours in his former Constituency of what we used to call, "Weston-super-mud". I note that we also share the same recreational interests. Both speakers will add greatly to the expertise and collective wisdom of this House and I look forward to their valuable contributions.

This is undoubtedly an important Bill. It may be only one tool in the toolbox of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, however it is a welcome and innovative tool. It will enhance parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers in delivering on our pledges to help the poorer countries and peoples of the world. Also, through Parliament, it will ultimately make Government accountable to the people. Personally, I fervently hope that the annual reports that will result from the Bill will inform, stimulate and reinvigorate public debate and build on the strong public support for international development already engendered by such initiatives as the Make Poverty History campaign. Indeed, I hope that it will be a means of enhancing democratic engagement.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about the form of the report. This matter is still under discussion in DfID, but we hope that there may be one report encompassing the annual report and the report demanded by the Bill. In answer to one of his earlier questions about 10 per cent cuts, DfID has invested in a programme of modernisation of its administrative systems that will release 10 per cent of its support staff by 2008 and will result in significantly more efficient and effective processes for planning, accounting and monitoring, allowing us to devote more resources to front-line delivery.

The efforts of Make Poverty History campaigners helped to ensure that an unprecedented level of attention was focused on international development in 2005—with splendid results. This allowed the UK, as president of the G8, to strongly advocate real change leading up to the G8 Summit at Gleneagles. I take this opportunity to commend an excellent little booklet entitled G8 Gleneagles: One Year On—Turning Talk into Action. It is packed full of useful facts and figures. I note the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, about the G8 and accountability of commitments. I assure her that the Prime Minister's panel, established this week, has been warmly welcomed globally. That is very good news.

As my Honourable Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development made clear in Another place, the Bill also provides a powerful model for other countries—developed and developing—to follow. It provides a clear example of how the democratic process can be advanced by ensuring that Parliaments, on behalf of the peoples they represent, have the ability to examine and influence the development policies and programmes of their countries and, in turn, hold their Governments to account.

As noble Lords have said, one of the key elements of the Bill is that it establishes, for the first time in UK law, the importance of a date by which to achieve the UN target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income to be devoted to official development assistance. As your Lordships will know, it is vital that all donor countries meet this crucial international target, and I am proud to say that this Government will do so, at the latest, by 2013. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I trust that it will have a multiplier effect.

However, reporting is not just about money. It is about how British policies and programmes are changing the lives of people in poor countries for the better. I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill highlights the importance of policy coherence across government departments in promoting international development. Reporting is about the impact of our endeavours on the ground, and we have, through the millennium development goals, a powerful mechanism to deliver that. We need the Bill so that progress towards making poverty history and achieving the millennium development goals can be set out and scrutinised.

The year 2005 represented a milestone—notably at Gleneagles, where the G8, spurred on by the Make Poverty History campaign, came together as never before. Important commitments were made at Gleneagles and we now have to deliver on those. We have an obligation to the world's poor but also to our own taxpayers. As my noble friend Lady Quin said, people want to know that their money is being well spent. Our aid must be effective and well targeted. We know that, given the right circumstances, development works. The Bill will help us to demonstrate that things are changing for the better.

Ultimately, progress depends on the ability of individual partner Governments to deliver on poverty reduction for their people. The commitments made in 2005 were predicated on a commitment to better governance in partner countries. My noble friend Lord Judd was right to emphasise the importance of good governance.

The Bill highlights the need for greater transparency in the provision of aid and in the way that it is used with partner countries. Only national Governments and their citizens can build states and improve their political governance to the point where corruption is stifled. Donors, of course, can play a support role in that process through funding, support for capacity building and diplomatic engagement. We are active in all those areas. We are also working in more targeted ways to support national strategies and to fight corruption. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, is absolutely right to say that we have much more to do in the fight against corruption. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will remain active on this issue, with my Right Honourable friend Hilary Benn championing the issue across Government. We in this country have to ensure that we adhere to the highest possible standards.

On fighting corruption, we need enforcement actions such as strong and effective anti-corruption agencies and preventative measures. Such measures include strengthening public sector budgetary and financial management, procurement, accounting and auditing, reforming Civil Service management, enhancing public oversight through strengthened parliamentary committees, developing measures to reduce judicial corruption and supporting civil society to promote transparency and accountability in public life. The best people to promote good governance and to help to fight corruption are those who live in the country and are most affected by such issues. That is why we hope that this Bill will be taken as a model for such Governments to engage with their peoples and parliaments and to be held to account.

We are at a crossroads. I have set out reasons for us to be optimistic but there are real challenges ahead. Progress towards achieving the millennium development goals is uneven. So many of the world's poor lack enough food to eat, enough water to drink, a roof over their heads, a job, a school for their kids and medicine and care when they are sick. One in six human beings has to live on less than a dollar a day; 30,000 children die needlessly every day; half a million women still die each year in pregnancy or childbirth; over 40 million people already live with HIV; tuberculosis and malaria persist; and new problems like avian flu require concerted international action. Above all, there is the overarching need to manage the planet sustainably and fairly for all.

The noble Lord, Lord Cotter, said that we have a duty to value all human lives, the poorest included. The population continues to increase but many of the natural resources on which we rely are already becoming seriously depleted. Climate change is the most serious and urgent problem that the world faces. Disaster prevention measures, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Judd, are also a challenge, as are conflict resolution and the strategic issues that he mentioned. We need this important Bill to track precisely and in detail how the Government will in the years ahead tackle these major challenges. It is a very welcome tool in our toolbox, and I warmly commend the Bill to the House.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords on the Front and Back Benches most warmly for their support. I too was impressed by the splendid maiden speeches. I was taken by the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Quin that the Bill could be a model for other countries and organisations, and by her appreciation of the importance of co-ordination across government departments. Who better to know about that?

My noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester has asked me to explain his unavoidable absence for medical reasons. I thank him for his kind words and for his understanding of what the Bill is about.

I would like to pick up four short points. First, a recurring theme has been the importance of transparency and the avoidance of corruption. The noble Lords, Lord Chidgey, Lord Hannay and Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, all mentioned that. As the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, said, the Bill enables transparency, but it goes far wider and I agree that we shall need specific legislation on corruption as well.

For my noble friend Lord Judd, I add that the DfID white paper may provide an occasion to respond to his important concerns about power in a couple of weeks or so. To him and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I offer the thought that the Bill obliges an account of the reduction of tied aid everywhere. As for the novel suggestion of a spin-off for the UK from aid activity, that is outside the concept of the Bill as I understand it, which is about the effect on developing countries. Perhaps it is a subject for another debate.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, asked if there was not insufficient focus on the results of aid. We hope that the parliamentary debate on the annual report, as specified in the Bill, will provide an opportunity for that. I draw her attention to Clause 4(1), where "effectiveness" is used more than once. I hope she and her noble friends will challenge the Government on that. I was most grateful for her support.

The Bill will help to make public and parliamentary accountability and public enthusiasm motors for the continued change needed to achieve a fair world order. It is a Bill for the future. It is modern, in that it inserts an audit function into the heart of expenditure, and sensible because every taxpayer naturally and reasonably wants to be assured that their money not only goes on what was voted for in Parliament, but achieves the objectives for which it was meant.

On Question, Bill read a second time.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.