International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill — House of Lords, 2015-02-06
Topic: International Affairs
William Astor (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, my amendment is, I hope, a modest and helpful one that might find some favour with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and which addresses some concerns that I raised at Second Reading Perhaps I should say again that I support the principle of our foreign aid budget being 0.7% of GDP. I hope that that is clear enough to the noble Lord opposite so he will not have to address his Twitter account about those of us who are speaking from this side of the Committee. The issue has always been whether that figure should be a target or enshrined in law. The Government have encouraged the Private Member’s Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has brought forward, which indeed enshrines the percentage in law. We therefore have to consider the Bill, what it achieves and whether it can be improved or amended during its passage through your Lordships’ House My main concern is that in order to achieve the spending required, the department will not always be able to have a reserve for emergencies, particularly humanitarian emergencies, or be able to account for programmes that go over from one year to the next. Emergencies are always important, whether they are due to war, famine or disease. As we have heard, humanitarian aid is a very small part of the total budget of the department. There must be funds available for the expected and the unexpected; there must be a reserve fund The Minister also wrote to me about the difficulties of having two year-ends—the calendar year-end and the financial year-end. She said in her letter that, "it is not unusual for accounts to be converted from calendar to financial years across a range of public and private sector activity" That is entirely true, but what is not usual is for them to be converted on an annual basis. That would be an auditor’s nightmare What my modest amendment is designed to do—I accept that it might not be as well drafted as it should be—is give the department some flexibility in the way it operates without in any way affecting the aims of the Bill. Although the Minister was kind enough to write to me, one issue that she did not address—perhaps she can do so today—was answering the question I asked at Second Reading about what portion of our contribution to the EU budget is spent on aid. It is substantial and is something we should perhaps be proud of. Why should the amount not be stated in the report that the Secretary of State brings before Parliament My amendment relates to Clause 2(3); and your Lordships will see that in the Statement that has to be made to Parliament if the target has not been met, various reasons have to be given, which include, "(a) economic circumstances and, in particular, any substantial change in gross national income … (b) fiscal circumstances and, in particular, the likely impact of meeting the target on taxation, public spending and public borrowing", or, (c) circumstances arising outside the United Kingdom" My amendment would add a small extra paragraph saying, "the fact that expenditure on a programme has been rolled over into a future year" That would allow the department, when looking at its budget, to say, "We haven’t spent all the money this year. We will roll it into the following year", which means that it does not have to engage in what has been described as the "ugly rush" to spend all its money before the year end, and thus would have flexibility. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my question and that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will consider that the amendment is helpful to both the aims of the Bill and the way that the Secretary of State will report to Parliament. I beg to move.