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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 3 stand part.

Clause 4 stand part.

I will be brief in setting out the purposes of the clauses. Clause 2 sets out the requirement to lay the statement before Parliament if we have not reached the 0.7% target. There might have been an example this year where we thought we had, but it turned out that we did not. The clause clearly explains what is required of the Secretary of State. It sets out the allowable excuses for not having made the target in a particular year. They are listed in subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c): economic circumstances, fiscal circumstances, and circumstances arising outside the United Kingdom. It also imposes a duty to ask the Secretary of State to describe any steps that will be taken to ensure that the target will be met in the calendar year following the report year.

Subsection (5) seeks to grapple with the issue that the hon. Member for Wirral South and the Minister have just explored as far as the accounting periods are concerned. As a recovering chartered accountant, not even I was interested in the minutiae of what was going on, other than to know that the Minister is totally in control of it, of which we are all immensely grateful.

Clause 3 deals with the extent of accountability. It is explicit that the accountability of the Secretary of State is to Parliament and to nobody else. This would not be subject to judicial review beyond Westminster were the provision not to be met. Finally, clause 4 deals with the repeal of section 3 of the right hon. Gentleman’s Act of 2006. It has the happy assumption that we will have reached the 0.7% target and therefore it is no longer necessary to report when we will meet it.

I will speak briefly to Clause 2. We support the proposals for the reporting mechanism as set out in the clause. It is right that any failure to meet the 0.7% target should trigger a detailed statement from the Secretary of State, rather than simply noting such a failure in an annual report. The report must include details of remedial steps that will be taken the following year to meet the target as proposed. In drafting the clause, did the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk envisage that such a situation  would lead to the Secretary of State requesting to make an oral statement to the House so as to ensure proper scrutiny?

We have no objections to clause 3 standing part of the Bill. The duty to be accountable to Parliament represents sufficient enforcement of the aims of the Bill. Neither do we have issues with clause 4. The provision for reporting on progress towards the 0.7% target as set out in the 2006 Act is clearly rendered obsolete by it.

The right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk has set out clearly the purpose of clauses 2, 3 and 4. I endorse them and the Government support them.

In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Wirral South, it would be a matter for the Government and for the House to determine what the most appropriate form of scrutiny would be.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Moore.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 11 November at five minutes to Nine o’clock.