I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 17, leave out `(wholly or partly)' and insert `wholly'.

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 18, leave out `(wholly or partly)' and insert `wholly'.

Good morning, Mr. Benton. I welcome you to the Chair and I hope that I will give you no more trouble than I gave your co-Chairman, Mr. Butterfill, on Tuesday.

The substance of the Bill is extremely serious and the Opposition have no fundamental objections to the principles behind it. Through amendment No. 10, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and myself, we are trying to probe the thinking in the Department for International Development and raise some of the issues that we have not had an opportunity to discuss over the past four years, in the absence of any substantial debates on the Floor of the House.

Let me at once set the Minister's mind at rest—

My mind is already at rest.

Well, that is a matter of opinion. Far be it from me to accuse the Minister of having a lazy mind, but I think that he had better wake up quickly. This is a probing amendment, and if the Minister puts his brain on alert, he might be able to answer some of my questions. The spirit of co-operation during the previous sitting was amazing: the Liberal Democrat spokesperson joined the official Opposition in a vote on an amendment. That may happen again—who knows just how far I could take the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)?

The amendment is designed to ensure that this country does not make any subscription to an agency that does not subscribe to the same development principles as the United Kingdom Government. It would stop subscriptions to organisations that only partly work towards poverty reduction. The Minister will know that the explanatory notes to clause 4 state:

``This clause provides (in subsection (1)) for the Secretary of State to undertake activities or enter into arrangements which, while they might not in themselves meet the tests set out in clauses 1, 2 and 3, are preparatory to, or will facilitate the provision of, assistance under these clauses. An example of such activity is the commissioning of research.''

I query why, in the explanatory notes, only one example is given—that of commissioning research. The Minister and the Secretary of State have laid so much emphasis on the poverty reduction focus that it is quite surprising suddenly to find that little let-out clause—actually, an enormous let-out clause that drives a coach and horses through the main purpose of the Bill. The Bill is intended to confine and focus the activities of the DFID to poverty reduction—an aim that we all regard as commendable—but clause 4 allows it to do everything else.

I query the underlying rationale for the legislation. On Second Reading and in some interesting Committee debates we have had the opportunity to question the Minister and probe the Department on the rationale for the Bill's introduction. We do not resent its introduction, but it seems to be a piece of gratuitous legislation at the end of a Session. It is ridiculous to lay such emphasis on the poverty reduction focus and then to add a substantive clause whose effect is to allow the Department to forget the rest of the Bill and do what it wants. If the Government decide that poverty reduction should be the overriding goal of development, it is contradictory for them to take out subscriptions to organisations that do not wholly contribute to that goal.

We are concerned that the word ``partly'' may be construed too broadly. Only the Minister can tell me what his understanding of ``partly'' is, but I believe that it might lead to the use of the aid budget to support agencies and organisations that do little to contribute to poverty reduction.

``An example of such activity is the commissioning of research.'' presumably means any research in any country, so the Secretary of State will at any point be able to spend valuable aid money and DFID budget money on commissioning focus groups and research data from MORI or some other organisation. We need to know what the Minister believes is meant by ``the commissioning of research'', as mentioned in the explanatory notes.

The Secretary of State supported the general point when she said on Second Reading:

``In all Government systems, people regard the development budget as a residual to fund their particular concerns. Those may be completely proper and honourable matters, but they are not always to do with the reduction of poverty.''—[Official Report, 6 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 173.]

By so saying, she has driven a coach and horses through the first three clauses of the Bill, by saying, in effect, that spending on matters that do not contribute to a reduction in poverty, no matter how noble, should both be found and not be found out of the aid budget. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will make clear which of the two emphases is correct and on what purposes he plans to spend aid money in future.

As the Minister knows, the clause is about subscriptions and agencies' funds, which are dealt with by amendments Nos. 10 and 11 respectively. The Government fund subscriptions to at least two agencies that are not classed under official development assistance. They are the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, better known as UNESCO, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, which is known as the FAO—I suspect that we will sink in all the initials. Those two organisations were given DFID funding of about £13 million last year, which did not count as aid.

According to departmental statistics on international development for 1999-2000, only part of the United Kingdom subscriptions to the FAO and UNESCO are defined by DAC—the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—as official development assistance and shown as multilateral contributions to developing countries. The subscriptions in question have to be accounted for as ``non-aid multilateral''. We need to question how the Government can justify funding the relevant subscriptions from the aid budget if they are not wholly related to poverty reduction, given that such action contradicts Government policy and the objectives of the Secretary of State, who has said that the development budget should not be regarded as a residual to fund particular concerns, but that it exists to contribute to a reduction in poverty.

I studied the departmental report that some Committee members helpfully pointed out to me earlier in the week. It was suggested that I was not in possession of the report, but, sadly for my accusers, I had it in my papers, so the challenge passed me by. I refer to pages 136 and 137—[Interruption.] I shall give way if a Labour Member wants to speak.

I apologise—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) and I were just discussing how much we admire the way in which the hon. Lady expresses herself.

Labour Members do not say much in this Committee, but when they do, they speak beautifully and with style.

I read pages 136 and 137 in that extremely weighty and glossy document, the departmental report 2000, to find out about the organisations to which we pay a subscription. I know that I am capable of getting things wrong, so I hope that the Minister will confirm that I have the full list of organisations to which we pay a subscription within the terms of the Bill. I hope that the relevant names are those that are marked ``(Subscription)''. As we know, Government Departments have recently made quite a few mistakes and that there has been little joined-up government—I refer to the quadripartite Committee report published yesterday, which mentioned factually inaccurate replies from the Government. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will forgive me for wanting to check the detail of the report.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that the four relevant organisations are: UNESCO, on which we shall spend the not inconsiderable sum of £12,431,000 this year; the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, UNIDO, on which we shall spend £3,900,000; UNFAO, on which we appear to be spending £12,400,000; and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, EBRD, on which we shall spend £11,680,000 this year. Those are considerable sums, so it is right to ask the Minister for confirmation. Are those currently the only organisations in the relevant category? Will the Minister assure the Committee that before next year, even closer evaluation of the work of those organisations will be carried out? Next year similar amounts will be spent, although we are to reduce our spend on UNIDO from £3,900,000 to £3,300,000.

I hope that I have read the figures correctly: although I wear glasses for seeing things in the distance, I do not yet use them for reading, but the print in these publications, which have cost a great deal over the years, was very difficult to read. Will the Minister confirm that the sums that I mentioned are being spent on those four organisations—and that the money is increasing next financial year? I should also like to see the four organisations shown clearly on a separate table as they are specifically mentioned in the legislation.

Is the list complete? Which organisations are in line for subscriptions and which other organisations could join the list? Can a separate schedule be produced? On what grounds and under what terms and conditions would DFID cancel or reduce subscriptions to those organisations? What criteria would be used when making the decision to subscribe to an organisation or to remove it from the list? Who audits the organisations to find out how they contribute to poverty reduction? While the Bill is being scrutinised, it would be helpful to hon. Members to learn about the internal workings of the Department and how such decisions are reached.

Labour Members have remained silent, apart from the odd intervention, so I feel as though I am asking questions of the Government on their behalf. The organisations I am discussing are very worthy, but there is a special clause to separate them out and to enable us to pay money to organisations that are wholly or only partly involved in poverty reduction. We need more details about our involvement, the sums we spend on such organisations, how we can remove ourselves from their lists and how we analyse and evaluate their performance. I hope that my probing amendment, No. 10, will give the Minister the vehicle he needs to enlighten us about his Department's thinking.

Amendment No. 11 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon and myself. We were advised by the Clerk who helped us to draft our amendments that it would provide a similar vehicle for discussion. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the UK does not provide assistance to any fund that does not subscribe to the development principles of the UK Government. It limits the resources that can be allocated to funds that only partly work towards the Government's objective of poverty reduction.

The same tenets apply as to the previous amendment. It is reasonable to ask why the aid budget should be used to support a fund that only partly contributes to a reduction in poverty. We should like more information about which funds that only partly contribute to a reduction in poverty the Government envisage supporting. The phrase ``wholly or partly'' is far too broad: it could mean that substantial amounts of UK aid were placed in funds that do not share the Government's objectives. That would be unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us. Clause 4 appears to allow the Government to ignore the fact that poverty reduction should be the sole aim of development assistance. That is inconsistent with the Secretary of State's remarks, so an explanation is necessary.

Page 136 of the departmental report 2000 lists the funds to which the Government subscribe. I hope that the Minister will go through the figures and tell us what falls within the ambit of the clause and what criteria are used to decide how much money should go to the various organisations.

The African Development bank, for instance, does not receive a large amount. In 1996-97, the Conservative Government put in only £71,000, but no more money was put in during the first three years of the present Government. Now, suddenly, £860,000 is being paid in, and the same amount is envisaged for next year. The African development fund will receive a more substantial sum—more than £29.5 million. The Asian Development bank will receive £910,000, but the Asian development fund will have about £25 million. The Caribbean Development bank will have nothing, but the Caribbean development fund will receive £2.6 million. The United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, will receive £13 million and the International Fund for Agricultural Development will have £3 million.

It would be extremely helpful if those organisations and funds could be identified in the Bill. There seems to be a pattern in the layout of the information on pages 136 and 137 of the report, but the Bill may change the way in which we consider the funding of some of those organisations. Will the Minister examine the way in which the information is presented?

What will prevent those funds from departing from a poverty focus? Once the Bill is enacted, and we are happy that the Department's spending should focus on the reduction of poverty, what guarantees does the UK taxpayer have that those funds will partly or even entirely be used for other purposes? It will be too late: we shall have given them the money. What safeguards do we have to ensure that our money is spent on those who most need the aid? What is the minimum poverty reduction requirement that would allow the Secretary of State to provide development assistance to support it?

Are the Government content that they will not be acting illegally by using aid money for such funds if the funds do not fully contribute to poverty reduction—or even depart entirely from that function? We do not want to discover that action can be taken against the Department and the Secretary of State. How will they be protected?

We are content, but if we accept the amendment, we could well find ourselves in the position that the hon. Lady describes, which is one reason why I shall argue that we should not accept it.

If the Minister does not mind me saying so, he is being a little naive about the Committee process. I said that this is a probing amendment. Earlier this week I noticed that he addressed himself strictly to the wording of an amendment, despite the fact that I had said that it was a probing amendment intended to be a vehicle for him to use to give information. He appears to be slightly worried about giving us information, and hides behind the strict wording of amendments, which I said were not perfect vehicles. We may not expect to see our amendments enshrined in the Bill. As I generously said to the Minister, imperfect though they are, they are our offerings, please take them away, work on them and return with something acceptable. That generous offer was utterly rejected by the Minister. Out of character, he threw those amendments back in my face. I do not want the Minister to hide behind the strict wording of the amendments, I want him to tell the Committee how the Government will be protected, if they are content that they will not be acting illegally.

Does clause 4 mean that the aid budget can be used for almost anything? It appears to be so broadly drafted that it could. What real safeguards are in place to ensure that the majority of aid spending is wholly and not just partially concerned with poverty reduction? Why include the first three clauses and then include clause 4, which drives a coach and horses through them?

Lastly, what is to stop the Government setting up a fund and financing development aid from it? Does that mean that future Governments could evade their own poverty focus and the poverty focus enshrined in the Bill?

In the probing spirit that the hon. Lady is encouraging, and in view of her earlier reference to UNESCO, is it now the official policy of the Opposition that we remain in UNESCO?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not prone to making policy on the hoof nor to knee-jerk reactions. To be fair, that would depend on our evaluation of the role of UNESCO when we entered Government; that is a perfectly reasonable approach. I do not have the knowledge today to say whether we would want to remain in UNESCO. In all probability, we would remain within it until that evaluation was complete. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a pat answer, and I cannot be caught on the hoof on our policy. The rational approach would be to evaluate UNESCO and decide of what benefit it was; indeed, to decide whether it fell within the criteria, parameters and aspirations that are supposedly encompassed in the Bill.

Finally, what is to stop the Government setting up a fund and financing development aid from it, completely evading the Bill's provisions? Much was made on Second Reading of the need to protect development aid money from misuse—from aid and trade provisions; from diversion for political ends—but the clause appears to provide a vehicle whereby that may occur. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the reassurances that I seek.

I appeal to the Minister not simply to read the notes prepared by officials or to rely on arguments about the wording of the amendments. Will the Minister please, in the spirit of our discussions, enlighten us about the Department's thinking? We would all be most grateful for that, and it would benefit aid and international development as a whole.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on beginning what will clearly be another long day by discussing the words ``wholly'' and ``partly'' for 25 minutes without repetition, hesitation or deviation. That was quite an achievement—I certainly could not have done it—and she should be invited to take part in the radio programme ``Just a Minute''.

I understand the hon. Lady's argument and I have genuinely tried to feel passionately about this matter. However, the work of the Select Committee on International Development and what I have read in the past four years has convinced me that all the organisations to which she referred contribute to poverty reduction in one way or another, so it is right and proper that we pay tribute to them. I accept that some organisations do not function as well as others; indeed, that problem is being dealt with in respect of UNESCO, which has been somewhat inefficient and is trying to be more efficient in future.

The truth is that there is no substance to what the hon. Lady has been saying. Clause 4(4) makes clear the meaning of the phrase ``relevant purpose'' and refers back to clause 1. When we considered clause 1, Conservative Members wittered on at length about wanting to stress certain causes of poverty above others, but they did not challenge those elements that qualify the main concerns about which the hon. Lady is beefing. I therefore fail to understand why she felt it necessary to talk for 25 minutes about absolutely nothing.

I cannot support the amendment, but I should like to point out to the hon. Lady, who clearly suffers from short-sightedness, that one can buy bifocal spectacles to help with reading. Alternatively, she could try contact lenses.

I am grateful for the advice, but I believe that the hon. Lady's medical training relates not to eyes, but to a different part of the body.

To that remark, I can add only that HRT is also very useful.

With reference to that last exchange, perhaps I should find out whether any spectacles that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham might decide to buy would be more expensive as a result of the Budget.

The central point of my hon. Friend's argument is important. The Secretary of State for International Development is accountable to the House not only in respect of money dispersed directly through DFID, but in terms of subscriptions to international organisations. There is no doubt that it is the House's duty to find out whether subscriptions to multilateral organisations such as the EU, or United Nations organisations such as UNESCO, are being spent properly and appropriately. In some cases, the transparency of such organisations leaves quite a lot to be desired.

My hon. Friend has pointed out that there is a gap of several years in our funding of the African Development bank, but that is undoubtedly because the bank was functioning extremely badly. It would be to the enlightenment of the entire Committee if the Minister could say a little more about the criteria and methods that the Department uses to establish whether organisations to which we subscribe are behaving in ways of which we approve.

My next point is self-serving, but I am not ashamed of that. It relates to the faintly defeatist view that, given the history of votes in the Committee, there is a possibility that the Government will win the vote on the amendment.

Where are the Tories?

The Minister is unfair. My colleagues have a remarkable capacity for picking up the debate quickly—when they appear. That may be something to do with the way in which the arguments unfold, or they may simply be very quick.

There is a new political institution in this country called the UK Youth Parliament. When I put down a parliamentary question to ask the Secretary of State to consider meeting members of the Youth Parliament to discuss how they could help further the objectives of her Department, I received a deeply cautious reply. That is a pity. The 250 young people who gathered in London to create a manifesto for the election were extraordinarily committed, anxious to be inclusive and unprejudiced, and showed a concern for the rest of the world, particularly the developing and poorer countries.

Because the Youth Parliament is supported by a raft of young people who elect its members, and are involved with the work of the committees, it is in a strong position to be a mechanism for informing the rising generation about international development: its goals, objectives and ways of functioning. I urge the Minister—or the Secretary of State—to make time to meet some of those young people. They will raise constructive and interesting points and will not waste time. The Youth Parliament could be a mechanism for improving the education of young people about international development. After all, the younger generation will bear the cost of our subscriptions to international organisations in years to come.

Even if the amendment is not accepted, I hope that it is recognised that we have drawn attention to organisations that are ``wholly or partly'' dedicated to the objectives of the Department. As the Youth Parliament beds down, will the Minister consider the long term, and the possibility of giving subsidy to international development education? That is not a foolish thought. The UN Environment Programme has already said that to follow up to the Rio summit nine years ago it is duty bound to create a representative group of young people in the UK. It has decided not to create its own group, but to use the UK Youth Parliament. If an international organisation can take such an enlightened view, so can our Department.

I am happy to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. It is key that effective mechanisms are in place for assessing whether our subscriptions to international and other organisations coincide with the Department's priorities. I look forward to the Minister's response.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. The Committee is generally good natured. Although one or two of the contributions have been a mite long-winded, those delivered from the Government Benches have been models of conciseness.

I deal first with some of the wilder assertions of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. She claimed that clause 4 drives a coach and horses through the rest of the Bill because it allows us to contribute to organisations and funds that do not focus on poverty. It does nothing of the sort. It makes it clear that the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that any organisation to which we subscribe contributes to a reduction in poverty. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, the test is the same as that which is found in clause 1(1), to which the Committee has already agreed.

That is my first killer fact. My second is that the previous Government subscribed to all the organisations to which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred, except UNESCO and, later on, UNIDO.

If the Minister thinks that that is a killer fact, he is killing us with kindness. I am well aware of the subscriptions paid by the previous Government. However, now that this legislation is being introduced, subscriptions must be looked at in a different light. We are not criticising the fact that the Government are subscribing to those organisations, but asking whether the Bill's aims will be satisfied. I am surprised that the Minister thinks that our previous subscription to those organisations is a killer fact.

The fact ought, at least, to modify the indignation with which the hon. Lady talks about the organisations. I agree with her that we ought to monitor the activities of organisations to which we pay substantial subscriptions. The previous Government decided to withdraw their subscription to UNESCO because they did not think that it was providing value for money. I do not want to get into the argument about whether that was right or wrong. There were certainly good reasons for their actions at the time. We believe that UNESCO is now making a serious effort to get back on track, and we are taking a close interest in that process.

We have used the phrase ``wholly or partly'' because not all the objectives of such organisations are designed solely to reduce poverty. For example, UNESCO's responsibilities include the identification and maintenance of world heritage sites. If the ``partly'' were removed, we would face unnecessary difficulties.

I will give a couple of examples of the ways in which we monitor the organisations to which we make subscriptions. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham complained the other day about the amount of money that we spend on publications. However, the series of institutional strategy papers that set out our objectives for such organisations, and examine the extent to which those objectives are met, are among our most useful publications. Other countries also find them useful.

We have had some success in persuading the organisations to adopt the poverty-focused objectives that we are anxious to see. In November 1999, for example, the FAO's general conference adopted a strategic framework for the next 15 years. Its three interrelated global goals—food security, the contribution of agriculture to development and the conservation and use of sustainable natural resources—are consistent with international development targets, which is on-message. Institutional strategy papers are the place to look because we ensure that we get value for money from the organisations to which we subscribe and that they meet wholly or partly—but preferably wholly—our poverty-focused objectives.

The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) asked about the Youth Parliament. I cannot give him an undertaking off the top of my head, but I am prepared to believe that it is a worthwhile organisation and I would be prepared to meet it should I receive an invitation.

The Bill's principle purpose is to prevent future Governments from tying aid. We want no more Pergau dams and no more aid that is related to arms contracts, which is why we are entrenching that principle in law. However, it is also important to leave the Secretary of State with sufficient flexibility to exercise common sense in the way in which we dispose of our aid budget and the organisations to which we subscribe. Were we to pass the amendment we would find ourselves in a situation where common sense and flexibility were wholly circumscribed, which is not something that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham would want us to do.

The hon. Lady said that she was only probing and I hope that I have assured her about the degree to which we monitor the organisations to which we subscribe. That she can find in our annual report details of those organisations illustrates that this is a transparent process where nothing is hidden. Should anyone think that some organisations are providing insufficient value for money we are open to scrutiny both inside and outside Parliament. However, we must retain the ability to contribute to organisations and funds which have mandates or constitutions that are not strictly or exclusively focused on the reduction of poverty, but which can make a valuable contribution to particular areas or issues related to the reduction of poverty. That is why we prefer the definition in clause 4, which I repeat is the same definition that the Committee agreed in clause 1. I must therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

I thank the Minister for going through the motions on the probing amendment, but he has not fully answered my questions. I appreciate that he has laid out in the annual report the funds and organisations to which the beginning of clause 4 relates, but he has not explained how or on what terms a subscription would be cancelled. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) asked me whether our policy towards UNESCO would be to stay in or get out, and I gave him the honest answer that we would evaluate the situation. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the Minister is unable to set out the details of the criteria that the Government would apply. What would constitute a misdemeanour that would ensure a subscription was withdrawn?

Like the Opposition, were they in government, we shall carefully evaluate the organisations to which we subscribe. We would withdraw an organisation's subscription if we concluded that we were not getting value for money and we could not influence it mainly to focus on poverty. Regardless of how hard the hon. Lady works she cannot create a difference between us.

I am not trying to create a difference. I merely feel that given that I am in opposition and do not have access to vast resources or departmental advice, the Minister could have given a more detailed explanation of the criteria, evaluation methods, time scale and how often the organisations and subscriptions will be reviewed. I am not saying that there is a difference between us, but expressing regret that the Minister has been unable to do that.

I am also disappointed that the Minister has not dealt with my questions, especially with regard to what could prevent a future Government from setting up a fund to finance development aid and evading the poverty focus. If a fund need be only partly involved in the reduction of poverty, it is within the bounds of possibility that that could be used as a perfectly legal and justifiable device to get around the aims of the Bill. I regret that the Minister did not focus on that.

As we are about to move on to the clause 4 stand part debate, I shall conclude my remarks, but I may return to the matter on Report. Reluctantly, but with a sense of encouragement that the Minister may work a little harder in dealing with the issues that I raised, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 drives a coach and horses through the Bill. The Minister was disingenuous in his explanations to the Committee. The explanatory notes make it clear that the clause is there to evade the poverty focus. They state:

``This clause provides (in subsection (1)) for the Secretary of State to undertake activities or enter into arrangements which, while they might not in themselves meet the tests set out in clauses 1, 2 and 3, are preparatory to, or will facilitate the provision of, assistance under these clauses. An example of such activity is the commissioning of research.''

The Minister did not respond to my point about the commissioning of research. Perhaps he forgot that I had mentioned it, but I hope that he will deal with it later.

Conservative Members believe that clause 4 has the potential for misuse. Subsection (1) states:

``The Secretary of State may with a view to preparing for or facilitating the exercise of his powers under section 1, 2 or 3...

(b) carry on any other activities.''

That is a very broadly drafted provision. It allows the Secretary of State to do anything at all within the meaning of the Bill. If the Minister says that that does not drive a coach and horses through the purpose of the Bill, I beg to differ. In law, the Secretary of State could rely on subsection (1)(b), because who is to know what they could do with the money from the Department under that let-out provision? There is no limit on the proportion of aid that is to be spent through funds and subscriptions.

The hon. Lady said that subsection (1)(b) gives the Secretary of State power to carry on any other activities. However, subsection (1) states that he or she may do so only

``with a view to preparing for or facilitating the exercise of his powers under section 1, 2 or 3''.

That is the constraint on the Secretary of State that the hon. Lady appears to have overlooked.

I have not overlooked it at all—I quoted it. The Secretary of State could do anything in anticipation of exercising the powers under clauses 1, 2 and 3, because he or she could always argue that he or she was moving on to focus on poverty reduction. The provision is broadly drafted and wide open to interpretation. Subsection (1)(b) could even allow a repeat of the Pergau dam affair.

My hon. Friend may recall an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Church of England, when an enthusiastic dean took the mappa mundi to Australia on the basis that our Australian brothers and sisters would flock in such large numbers to see this extraordinary medieval artefact that huge sums would be raised for the purposes of the Church of England. In fact, the operation ran at a considerable loss. It is conceivable that, under the catch-all phrase ``any other activities'', the Secretary of State might, with the best will in the world, commission the use of some building—a dome, for example—and run into extraordinary financial difficulties thereby. She would be able to justify that on the basis that the clause gave her the right so to do.

My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the potential interpretations of the clause. One of the great arguments for the dome—with which we are all familiar—was that it would create jobs and reduce poverty in an area of London. The provision gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to carry out any activities. I presume that if, for example, the Department wished to continue to fund small arms sales to the Caribbean, which it has done in the past, that would be deemed to fall within the ambit of the Bill and the Department could rely on the supplementary powers granted by the clause.

Did I hear the hon. Lady correctly? Did she say that DFID has funded small arms sales to the Caribbean? If so, could she expand on that?

The Minister may correct me, but I believe that, in the past three years, international development funds have been spent on small arms to be used by police in the Caribbean and on training projects. Does the Minister think that the clause would allow such projects to go ahead? I am not criticising such projects, I am simply asking whether the clause would allow for them. The Minister can ask his officials, and if I am incorrect I will withdraw my remarks. However, I understand that funding was provided for a police project and that the Department gave financial support to the purchase of small arms—for the prevention of drug running and crime, and in the interests of good government.

That perspective differs slightly from that implied by the hon. Lady's original remark. It is true that the training of police and, occasionally, the military, in the interests of good governance, is permitted under the Bill, and we have dealt with that. However, it is not sensible to suggest that our Department funds the trafficking of small arms to the Caribbean. While the hon. Lady obviously did not mean to imply that, it could have been inferred from her remarks.

The Minister doth protest too much. My remarks are not designed to be pejorative; they are designed to probe and to find out what is and what is not possible within the supplementary powers granted by the clause. In all our discussions, I am trying to find out what will change, what will stay the same and what we can look forward to in future. I certainly do not want to give the impression that the Department is trafficking in small arms—quite the reverse. If that was the case, it would be the biggest scandal in memory.

The Minister must not be bashful. We would support the use of small arms in a police project to stop drug smuggling, but I want to know whether such projects will be able to continue within the parameters of the supplementary powers envisaged under the clause.

There are no limits on the proportion of aid spent through funds and subscriptions, which worries me. When I spoke to the amendments, I did not mention the biggest contribution to the biggest fund of all, the European Development Fund. The contribution is £197 million in this financial year, and will rise to £219 million under the plans for 2001-02. Coupled with the money spent through other funds and on other subscriptions, a vast proportion of our aid budget seems to go in that direction. Although the supplementary powers may be slipped in under the clause, they cover the bulk of the Department's expenditure. However, the Budget does not limit the proportion of aid that goes in that direction.

It is not outwith the realms of possibility that the Department could pass over its entire vote to other organisations to spend. No part of the legislation—certainly not the supplementary powers—would prevent 99.9 per cent. of the aid from being spent in that way by a future Government. We heard that the legislation was directed at the behaviour of future Governments.

There is no guarantee of quality, especially for the funds and subscriptions. Again, it is not outwith the realms of possibility that the money could be handed over in funds and subscriptions and not used at all. If there is no guarantee of quality and no restriction on the proportion of the sum spent on such agencies, scrutiny and audit, and the capability for them, are even more important. To be frank, such scrutiny would be slightly more thorough than considering the institutional strategy papers of which the hon. Gentleman made so much.

Why was the clause drafted so broadly, and with the lack of transparency that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to when he spoke to the amendments? The clause could have been improved. It is contradictory to the spirit of the Bill. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says but, if we are not satisfied, we will return to the matter, if we are given enough time on Report and Third Reading. In the meantime, I hope that he will enlighten us on the true reasons behind the clause.

The Minister can be honest. He does not need to make excuses. If he wants the additional powers in the clause so that he has the freedom to act, let him tell us frankly. Otherwise, he could tell us what restrictions he feels are placed on the Secretary of State and himself by the clause. I do not expect him to be bashful or to hide his light under a bushel. We must ensure that we know exactly why the Department has put the clause into the legislation.

The hon. Lady's remarks are based on a massive misreading of the clause. It is nonsense to suggest that it drives a coach and horses through the Bill; it merely enables the Government to carry on with activities that the previous Government took for granted and that, no doubt, any future Conservative Government will take for granted.

Clause 4(1) does not allow the Secretary of State to do anything she wants. Its purpose is to allow support for activities such as the commissioning of research and the recruitment of personnel, which in themselves may not contribute to the reduction of poverty, but are clearly and causally related to it. The hon. Lady is not even listening. I have already pointed out that clause 4(1)(b) should not be read in isolation, as the hon. Lady chose to do. Clause 4(1) makes absolutely clear that clauses 1, 2 and 3 provide a constraint on the Secretary of State.

The hon. Lady is also wrong to suggest—or at least she massively overstates the case—that spending on funds and subscriptions could be unlimited. The power for most expenditure on multilateral programmes stems not from clause 4 but from clause 11, which relates to the multilateral development banks, from the European Communities Act 1972 or from clause 1. Clause 4 deals only with supplementary powers. I rest my case.

The derisory way in which the Minister has replied to the debate on the clause makes me even more determined to return to the matter on the Floor of the House on Report and Third Reading. For the moment, I rest my case.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.