Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
their statutory obligation to spend 0.7 per cent of gross
national income on official development assistance.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper, and draw attention to my entry in the register
of interests.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office () (Con)
My Lords, the Covid-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on our
economy, which has fallen by 11% this year. This has forced Her
Majesty’s Government to take a tough decision to spend 0.5% of
our national income next year on official development assistance
to help the poorest countries, rather than the usual 0.7%. My
right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will shortly set
out in the other place the future plan on how the aid budget will
be managed to deliver better results for every penny spent, and
to ensure that it is focused on strategic global priorities,
which are vital as we recover from the pandemic and prepare for
our presidencies of both the G7 and COP 26 next year.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her
honourable decision to resign from the Government yesterday in
protest at the decision to cut aid, which she clearly stated she
could not defend. She achieved a great deal in her role, and she
was a pleasure to work with. I wrote yesterday that the decision
was “unconscionable and mean-spirited”. It is all the more
shameful because the Government fought two elections in quick
succession committed to 0.7%, and this guarantee was repeated by
the Foreign Secretary, and by the Prime Minister in a letter to
me, when DfID was absorbed into the Foreign Office a few short
months ago. The 0.7% is enshrined in law. Do the Government
intend to disregard the law again, or will they seek to amend it?
Will legislation come before this House? Is the Minister aware
that the law allows for a legitimate retrospective shortfall, but
not for a planned cut in the 0.7%?
(Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord in his tribute to my noble friend
Lady Sugg. She was not only a noble friend but a friend within
the FCDO, and will be sorely missed both by the department and, I
am sure, by your Lordships’ House in this role. As I have said,
my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will lay out
some details on the issue of legislation. The noble Lord has
raised two important points, and I can assure him that we are
very cognisant of our obligations both in terms of the Act and to
the House. As for the cut that has been announced, as my right
honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid out only
yesterday, it was a difficult decision, but it was necessary on
the basis of the challenges we face. None the less, in real terms
we will still spend £10 billion to fight poverty and climate
change, among other key priorities in overseas development.
(Ind
Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has paid tribute to the noble Baroness,
Lady Sugg. I too want to pay tribute to her for her honourable
decision to resign when the Government broke their manifesto
commitment on development assistance. She said that was
fundamentally wrong. Does the Minister agree with this, and with
her letter to the Prime Minister, which said:
“Cutting UK aid risks undermining your efforts to promote a
global Britain and will diminish our power to influence other
nations to do what is right”?
In answering that question, perhaps he would also indicate when
the Government intend to restore development assistance to 0.7%
of GNI.
(Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s first point, I have already
mentioned my long support of and friendship with the noble
Baroness, Lady Sugg. Of course, she discussed her decision with
both the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the
Foreign Secretary. I pay tribute to her efforts and her work in
both DfID and the FCDO. As the Chancellor said only yesterday,
the cut is temporary and we will return to the 0.7% when the
fiscal situation so allows.
(LD)
I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who was an
outstanding Minister, and who acted with integrity yesterday. The
£2.9 billion cut in the aid budget already announced for this
year represents a cut of more than 19%—far more than the
projected 11.3% drop in GNI. Will the Minister support the
Government if they choose to break the law and knowingly
undershoot the 0.7% target?
(Con)
My Lords, in the current year we will meet the 0.7% target. On
our obligation to your Lordships’ House to uphold the laws on the
statute book, I have already alluded to the fact that my right
honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will lay out further
detail shortly in the other place.
(Con)
My Lords, the gang of five Prime Ministers, in objecting to a
temporary reduction in our aid budget, surely protest too much.
Is it not the case that, despite our enduring the worst economic
crisis in 300 years, the UK provision of international aid, at
0.5% of GNI, will still be one of the highest in the world, and
the second highest in the G7 group of industrialised countries?
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right: we will remain one of the
most generous G7 donors, spending more of our national income, in
percentage terms, than the United States, Japan, Canada or Italy.
I further assure my noble friend that we stand very firmly in
ensuring that, when we look at poverty alleviation, fighting
famine, our commitment through the various vaccine summits we
have held and the importance of our COP 26 presidency—with the
commitment we have made on climate finance—we stand ready to
continue to meet our obligations both domestically and
internationally.
(CB) [V]
My Lords, this cut is short-sighted and mean-spirited; it will
damage our national interests and scar the lives of millions.
Disturbingly, there is no end point. We are all aware of the
financial situation, but what other options were considered? The
UK will spend billions on vaccines from its aid budget and
elsewhere for people in low and middle incomes as well as its own
citizens. Could it not have made a virtue of this by using the
aid budget to commit to vaccinations for all, not just making a
cut but demonstrating UK leadership on the protection of the
world’s health and providing a welcome boost for UK science and
technology? Was this considered, and why was it not done? If the
Minister does not know the answer, I would be grateful for a
letter.
(Con)
I do not agree with the noble Lord. On the specific issue of the
vaccine, he will recall that, when my right honourable friend the
Prime Minister returned from his own challenge with Covid-19, the
first summit he chaired was the Gavi summit, which committed £330
million per year to other vaccines. As the Minister responsible
for south Asia, I know that issues of polio still impact
vulnerable communities in places such as Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Equally, we have led from the front on the importance
of the Covid-19 vaccine, with a commitment of £571 million to the
COVAX Facility. The Covid-19 challenge, along with climate
finance, are arguably the two biggest challenges facing the world
today and through 2021, and we have shown leadership on both and
will continue to do so.
(Lab)
My Lords, I, too, praise the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and hope
that we can work on a cross-party basis to oppose this move by
the Government. The Minister said that there would be £10 billion
of ODA in 2021-22, but this represents a cut of £5.1 billion
compared to 2019. Yesterday, the noble Lord, , said that
the Foreign Secretary’s savings for this financial year to
maintain the budget within 0.7%—and we should not forget that
that has meant real cuts—
“prioritised the UK’s global response to the Covid-19 pandemic,
including on poverty reduction for the bottom billion, climate
change and reversing biodiversity loss, championing girls’
education and protecting our operational capacity.”—[Official
Report, 25/11/20; col. 249.]
Will the Minister tell us which of these priorities will now be
cut to meet the Chancellor’s breach of the law and the
Conservative manifesto?
(Con)
My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord is that they remain,
and will continue to be, priorities, and I note the additional
support that we have announced within the defence budget, for
example. As Minister for the UN, I am sure that all noble Lords
acknowledge the vital role our Armed Forces play in the delivery
of aid, bringing peace and resolving conflict. We will ensure
that the priorities my noble friend listed only yesterday will
continue to be sustained and strengthened through 2021.
(LD) [V]
Have the Government been in touch with the new incoming regime in
the USA? It seems that President-elect Biden will be far more
ready to co-operate with us on these massive problems in relation
to overseas aid.
(Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the
Foreign Secretary have both been in touch with incoming Biden
Administration on these important priorities.
(Non-Afl)
[V]
My Lords, I, too, add my dismay about the resignation of the
noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. Does the Minister agree with the World
Bank that the provision of sexual and reproductive health and
family planning services alongside girls’ education is the most
effective intervention we can make in developing countries? Will
he, therefore, ensure that, despite the reduction in overseas
aid, the money currently donated for those services will remain
unchanged and will not be reduced proportionately?
(Con)
My Lords, on that very issue, as the noble Baroness will know, I
articulated very strongly for us to sustain our support for this
important priority. As the noble Baroness may be aware, between
April 2015 and March 2020, we reached an average of 25.3 million
women and girls accessing modern methods of family planning per
year. This remains an important priority, and, as the lead on
PSVI in particular, I say that this remains very much in my
policy and planning.
