Extract from today's exchange in the House of Commons on
Boris Johnson's Global Britain statement.
(Elmet and Rothwell)
(Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision. I know from my work with
the Westminster Foundation for Democracy when I was the
Vice-Chairman (International) of the Conservative Party that often
there are tensions between DFID and the Foreign Office over its
funding. Furthermore, as he will know, our friends and allies in
the Caribbean felt very let down after the hurricanes when they
could not get the support they needed. He will also be aware of the
money we have put into the refugee camps for the Syria crisis and
other things. Can he confirm, therefore, that this decision is not
a watering down but will result in a stronger and more efficient
approach and that the most vulnerable people in society and the
programmes we have to do will get an enhanced service from the UK?
The Prime Minister
That is right. It was one of the absurdities of the rules of the
Disasters Emergency Committee that vulnerable island states in
the Caribbean were not eligible for ODA, and we had to fight to
get that change. Now with this new super-Department we will be
able to argue as one across our friends and partners around the
world for new perspectives on those problems, and work together
to tackle them.
Full Hansard
The Prime Minister ()
Mr Speaker, before I begin, I am sure the whole House will join me
in paying tribute to the memory of , who was cruelly murdered four years ago today. Her sister,
Kim Leadbeater, spoke for us all when she urged everyone to
remember Jo by pulling together with “compassion and kindness”.
I was concerned to learn that the hon. Member for East
Dunbartonshire () is now in hospital: we all
send her our best wishes.
With permission, I will make a statement about the ambitions of a
global Britain and the lessons of the covid-19 pandemic. We are
living through a daily demonstration of how events on the far
side of the world influence not only British security and
prosperity, but something as elemental as the state of our
health, and whether we can go to work or go shopping. This crisis
offers vivid proof of the seminal importance of international
engagement and exactly why our country must perform its global
role. I have begun the biggest review of our foreign, defence and
development policy since the end of the cold war, designed to
maximise our influence and integrate all the strands of our
international effort. The overriding aim is to bring this
country’s strengths and expertise to bear on the world’s biggest
problems, seizing the opportunities of Britain’s presidency of
the G7 next year and the UN climate change conference—COP26—which
we will host in Glasgow.
The UK possesses the third biggest aid budget and diplomatic
network in the world:
we owe it to our people to make best use of these assets, which
scarcely any of our peers can match. The British taxpayer has a
right to expect that we will achieve the maximum value for every
pound that we spend. One cardinal lesson of the pandemic is that
distinctions between diplomacy and overseas development are
artificial and outdated. For instance, to protect ourselves
against another calamity, the UK will need to work alongside our
friends to strengthen international bodies such as the World
Health Organisation, and help vulnerable countries to improve
their health systems and achieve greater resilience. It makes no
sense to ask whether it amounts to aid or foreign policy: they
are one and the same endeavour, designed to achieve the same
goals, which are right in themselves and serve our national
interest.
On 4 June, I chaired a virtual summit of the global vaccine
alliance, which raised enough money to immunise 300 million
children. I doubt whether any other occasion will save more
lives, avoid more suffering, or produce a better example of the
good this country can do by its international engagement, in the
true and broad sense, alongside our friends. Yet today, as
anybody who has any experience of the matter will know, a
dividing line between aid and foreign policy runs through our
whole system, with our Department for International Development
working independently from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
and our aid budget parcelled out between different arms of
Whitehall.
DFID outspends the Foreign Office more than four times over, yet
no single decision maker in either Department is able to unite
our efforts or take a comprehensive overview. We give as much aid
to Zambia as we do to Ukraine, although the latter is vital for
European security, and we give 10 times as much aid to Tanzania
as we do to the six countries of the western Balkans, which are
acutely vulnerable to Russian meddling. Regardless of the merits
of those decisions, no single Department is currently empowered
to judge whether they make sense or not, so we tolerate an
inherent risk of our left and right hands working independently.
Faced with the crisis today and the opportunities that lie ahead,
we have a responsibility to ask whether our current arrangements,
dating back to 1997, still maximise British influence. Those
well-intentioned decisions of 23 years ago were right for their
time. They paved the way for Britain to meet the UN target of
spending 0.7% of national income on aid—a goal that was achieved
by the coalition Government in 2013, that has been maintained
ever since, including this year, and that remains our commitment.
Yet those judgments date from a relatively benign era when
China’s economy was still much smaller than Italy’s and the west
was buoyed by victory in the cold war.
We must now strengthen our position in an intensely competitive
world by making sensible changes, so I have decided to merge DFID
with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to create a new
Department: the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
This will unite our aid with our diplomacy and bring them
together in our international effort.
DFID has amassed world-class expertise and all of its people can
take pride in how they have helped to transform the lives of
hundreds of millions of people around the world. To select but a
few examples, they have striven to protect millions of children
across the world from polio, which is now on the verge of global
eradication; they have paved the way for millions of girls to
attend school for the first time in countries such as Pakistan,
as I have seen for myself; they have done their utmost to ease
the suffering in Syria; and in Sierra Leone they were central to
the defeat of an outbreak of the Ebola virus. All that amounts to
the finest demonstration of British values, following in the
great tradition of the country that ended the slave trade and
resisted totalitarianism.
It is precisely that ambition, vision and expertise that will now
be at the heart of a new Department, taking forward the work of
UK aid to reduce poverty, which will remain central to our
mission. The Foreign Secretary will be empowered to decide which
countries receive or cease to receive British aid, while
delivering a single UK strategy for each country, overseen by the
National Security Council, which I chair. Those strategies will
be implemented on the ground by the relevant UK ambassador, who
will lead all the Government’s work in the host country. In that,
we are following the examples of Australia, Canada and New
Zealand, all of which run their development programmes from their
Foreign Ministries. We will align other British assets overseas,
including our trade commissioners, who will come under the
authority of the UK ambassador, bringing more coherence to our
international presence.
Amid this pandemic, the House may ask whether this is the right
moment to reorganise Whitehall, but I must say that in reality
this crisis has already imposed fundamental changes on the way
that we operate. If there is one further lesson, it is that a
whole-of-Government approach, getting maximum value for the
British taxpayer, is just as important abroad as it is at home.
This is exactly the moment when we must mobilise every one of our
national assets, including our aid budget and expertise, to
safeguard British interests and values overseas. The best
possible instrument for doing that will be a new Department
charged with using all the tools of British influence to seize
the opportunities ahead. I therefore commend this statement to
the House.
1.55 pm
(Holborn and St Pancras)
(Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for early sight of his statement and
for the telephone call we had earlier today. As he has noted,
today is the fourth anniversary of the tragic murder of our
friend and colleague . I do not need to remind the House
of Jo’s commitment and dedication to international aid, or how
highly she valued DFID as a power for good. I am sure the whole
House will want to send best wishes to Jo’s friends and family on
this difficult day.
I join the Prime Minister in sending our heartfelt best wishes to
the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (). To her friends, her family
and her colleagues here and in Scotland, it must be very
distressing.
We should see this statement for what it is: the tactics of pure
distraction. would have seen right through this.
A few hours ago, the Office for National Statistics figures
showed a fall of 600,000 people on the payroll. The economy
contracted by 20% in April, and we could be on the verge of a
return to mass unemployment—something we have not seen for a
generation. We also have one of the highest death tolls from
covid-19 in the world, with at least 41,700 deaths, and the
number is likely to be far greater than that. In the last hour,
the Government have U-turned on free school meals. I put on
record my thanks to Marcus Rashford for the part that he has
played in this victory for the 1.3 million children affected.
This statement is intended to deflect attention from all of that,
and I assure the Prime Minister that it will not work.
The Prime Minister spoke about global Britain, and I want to take
that head on. I passionately believe in Britain. I am proud of
this country. I want to see it playing a leading global role
again—a role that we frankly have not played in the past decade.
I want to see Britain as a moral force for good in the world and
a force for global justice and co-operation, leading the world on
global security, leading the global search for a vaccine and
leading the global fight against poverty, climate change and
gender inequality. We do not achieve that by abolishing one of
the best performing and most important Departments—a Department
that has done so much to tackle poverty and injustice.
Labour created DFID, and I am proud of that. Until now, there has
been cross-party consensus about DFID. As the right hon. Member
for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the former Secretary of State
for International Development, said last year:
“DfID is the most effective and respected engine of development
anywhere in the world, and a huge soft power asset for Britain.”
Today, he said that the Prime Minister’s announcement would mean,
in his words,
“at a stroke, destroying a key aspect of Global Britain.”
I have worked with both the FCO and DFID across the world on rule
of law projects and anti-corruption projects, and I have seen at
first hand the value of DFID’s work globally.
The Prime Minister says that the 0.7% will not be eroded, but he
will understand our scepticism. Will he confirm that the full
DFID budget will be ring-fenced in the new Department? Will there
be no loss of DFID staff numbers and expertise? How much will
this reorganisation cost in the middle of this crisis?
Abolishing DFID diminishes Britain’s place in the world. There is
no rationale for making this statement today. The Prime Minister
should stop these distractions and get on with the job of
tackling the health and economic crisis we currently face.
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want a statement
in the House about an important Whitehall reform, then I think he
misrepresents the views of the House. It is important that we
should make these statements, and I am very proud of what we are
doing.
Anybody who has any experience of the matter will know that at
the moment, for the UK overseas, we are less than the sum of our
parts. If you travel to important foreign capitals, where we need
to make our points to our friends and partners, you have UK
diplomats saying one thing and then finding that the message from
overseas aid—from UK aid and from DFID—is different. That
undermines the coherence of our foreign policy, and the right
hon. and learned Gentleman will know that very well. It is
absolutely vital that we have a coherent, joined-up message for
our international partners, and that we speak with one voice.
At a time when the UK is spending £15 billion on overseas aid—0.7
% of our GDP— I think the British people will want to know what
we are doing right now to make that spending more efficient, and
they will want to know what we are doing to ensure that the UK is
supporting the campaign to develop a vaccine against coronavirus.
I am very proud of what the UK is doing. I think it is fantastic
that we secured $8.8 billion at the recent summit to develop a
vaccine, and I am very proud of the work that DFID is doing. And
yes of course we will make sure that we guarantee the DFID
budget, but what will now happen within the new Department is
that every single person working in that new Whitehall
super-Department—the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office—will now have all the idealism and sense of mission that
comes from DFID, but also the understanding of the need to
project UK values, UK policies and UK interests overseas. This is
a long overdue reform and the right hon. and learned Gentleman
should support it.
(St Austell and Newquay)
(Con)
I should like to associate myself with the Prime Minister’s
comments on and our colleague, the hon. Member
for East Dunbartonshire (). I very much welcome his
statement today. Can he confirm that this is a merger, not a
takeover, and that it has the potential to enhance the role of
international development in our foreign policy? Will he also
confirm that this Government’s commitment to invest in and
support the poorest parts of our world remains as strong as ever?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it certainly does; I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What is
actually happening, of course, is that DFID and the FCO are now
joining together to become a new Whitehall super-Department for
international affairs, which will be of huge benefit to our
ability to project Britain’s sense of mission about overseas aid.
For too long, frankly, UK overseas aid has been treated as some
giant cashpoint in the sky that arrives without any reference to
UK interests, to the values that the UK wishes to express or to
the diplomatic, political and commercial priorities of the
Government of the UK.
(Ross, Skye and Lochaber)
(SNP) [V]
I associate myself with the remarks by the Prime Minister and the
leader of the Labour party on the murder of four years ago. That was a day that
none of us, rightly, will ever forget. I also thank the Prime
Minister and the leader of the Labour party for their comments
about my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for East
Dunbartonshire (). I know that she is
grateful for all the support that is being shown towards her.
Prior to the Prime Minister coming to the House today, the
contents of his statement were shrouded in secrecy. We now know
why. Unfortunately, it is now crystal clear what is happening.
The Prime Minister and this UK Government are using the cover of
a terrible pandemic to rip apart the UK’s structures for
international development and humanitarian aid. At a time when we
should be standing with the world’s poorest and acting as a
beacon of hope, the Prime Minister is playing politics. Let me be
clear: the Government are blatantly using challenging domestic
circumstances as an excuse to wind down essential aid for the
world’s poorest. This is shameful, and it is not in our name. We
are talking about people burdened with suffering every single
day, and on top of that, they too are dealing with this terrible
pandemic. If these are the values of global Britain, they do not
represent the values of the vast majority of people in Scotland,
and we want no part in it.
In taking this decision on DFID, this UK Government are once
again ignoring expert advice. Last December, more than 100
charities specialising in humanitarian relief, girls’ education,
global health, clean water and sanitation strongly warned against
today’s announcement. They warned that merging DFID would be
“turning our backs on the world’s poorest people”.
Only last week, an interim report from the International
Development Committee said that the merger would erode
accountability and shift funds from poverty reduction. Let us
start with the most basic question first—and let us not have the
usual bluster, Prime Minister: answer the question for once. Will
he confirm that he has read the interim report by the
International Development Committee on the proposed merger? Will
he also confirm which aid charities he consulted before making
this statement today?
DFID employs around 600 people in East Kilbride. Will the Prime
Minister guarantee that all those jobs are secure and will stay
in East Kilbride? On 8 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee
West () wrote to the Secretary of State
for International Development asking why the Department was
suspending all DFID projects except for a handful of projects
that had been identified by the Government as a priority. Will he
confirm whether all those suspended projects are now being
scrapped?
The Prime Minister
I must respectfully tell the right hon. Gentleman that the
policies that we are enacting, for which he expresses such
horror—the creation of this new Whitehall
super-Department—reflects what the vast majority of the OECD
already does. I think I am right in saying that only one in 29
OECD countries does anything different from what we are
proposing.
We are integrating our foreign policy and our massive development
throw. We are going to increase it. We are going to make sure
that we do even more to tackle poverty and deprivation around the
world and to tackle the under-education of women and girls around
the world, which is an absolute disgrace. We are going to use
this powerful new Whitehall Department to do that—to give the UK
extra throw weight and megawattage. That is what we need. At the
moment, we are less than the sum of our parts.
As for East Kilbride, that was the height of absurdity. The right
hon. Gentleman says he wants to break up the United Kingdom, yet
he wants us to keep jobs in East Kilbride. Of course we are going
to keep those jobs in East Kilbride. Of course we are going to
support the work of those fantastic people in East Kilbride. He,
by his policies, would throw that away.
(Tonbridge and Malling)
(Con)
I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has
been listening to a few of the things I have said over the last
three years. Bringing strategic alignment to foreign policy is
something that many of us have been calling for. I welcome the
statement. As he has already said, it brings us into line with
CANZUK countries. My Australian opposite number, to whom I spoke
only an hour or so ago, praised the decision, as did my Canadian
opposite number. It also brings us into line with Norway and
Denmark—two countries very well-known for delivering effective
aid programmes, not just in their own national interests but in
the interests of the people they serve. I welcome the decision.
May I ask, however, that the Prime Minister reinforces the
commitment that this is to deliver the technical expertise that
DFID has demonstrated over 23 years? Just as we would not ask an
ambassador to command a battle group, we would not ask somebody
untrained to manage the handling or delivery of the millions of
pounds that are so well and so effectively spent by people in
East Kilbride and around the world on our behalf.
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. I am glad that, with his experience of foreign
affairs and development, and all that he has seen around the
world, my hon. Friend supports this initiative. It is absolutely
vital that, in the new Department, people are multiskilled and,
as I said just now to the House, that people in the Department
for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs understand how
development can be a fantastic tool for the promotion not just of
human rights and the tackling of poverty around the world but of
the values and interests of this country at the same time. That,
I think, is what the people of this country want to see.
(Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
Prime Minister, I am incredulous that you are going down this
path. With a single stroke, you are getting rid of our soft power
and our international standing, at a time when the development
world needs us to stand together and show real leadership. Let me
fact-check the Prime Minister’s statement. Aid and foreign policy
are very different; one is humanitarian, one is political. ODA
spend is embedded in four Acts of Parliament specifically to
alleviate poverty, not to safeguard British interests.
DFID is the Department with oversight. The International
Development Committee’s report of last week shows that it is the
most effective and transparent at delivering aid, and the FCO has
been criticised in that regard. So can the Prime Minister please
explain: how will ODA spend now be scrutinised and protected;
what is the timetable of this hostile takeover; and can he please
detail the costs of this restructure at what must be the most
inappropriate time?
The Prime Minister
Parliament will of course have the ability to scrutinise the new
Department, and I imagine that Parliament will wish to set up a
new Committee to do so. The timing of the change, as I said, is
September, when we expect to have it all complete. I think,
frankly, the hon. Lady is being, and I think many Opposition
Members have been, far too negative about this. This is an
opportunity for us to get value from the huge investments that we
make in overseas spending; to make sure that that spending
continues to tackle poverty and deprivation around the world; and
to put the tackling of poverty and deprivation at the very
heart—think of that: at the very heart—of UK foreign policy. That
is something that I think Opposition Members should rejoice at.
(Bournemouth East) (Con)
I have long called for Britain to have a stronger, more
authoritarian voice on the international stage as a force for
good, but I have also called for a grand strategy, linking not
only what the Foreign Office does and DFID does, but also Trade
and Defence, to create a grand strategy and international
outlook. I have also called for better strategic oversight of
DFID’s spending, moving away from the archaic ODA laws, which are
now out of date.
I am concerned about the timing of this, because there is an
enduring emergency that must be the Government’s priority, and
the Prime Minister himself mentioned the defence, security and
foreign policy review, which was designed to understand what our
Whitehall architecture should be, in understanding what our
vision, our outlook, our place in the world should be and aspire
to be. Surely, that should come first.
Can the Prime Minister also confirm that, with GDP is expected to
fall, and the 2% of GDP target for defence now going to be
obsolete, there will be no real-terms cuts in the defence budget?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He and I have discussed
these matters many times and I think he is basically right that
we do need to have an integrated strategy; we do need to have an
integrated approach, and that is why this Government inaugurated
the biggest, most fundamental integrated review of our foreign,
security and defence policy since the cold war.
We are having this discussion now because we need to get going.
Yes, it is absolutely right that we face a crisis now, but we
also face a post-covid world, when the UK will need to be able to
speak with one, powerful voice on the international stage, in
which our idealistic ambitions for development are wholly
integrated with our views on foreign policy. The UK will speak
therefore all the more powerfully for that. This is the position
adopted by the vast majority of countries in the OECD, as I say—I
think all but one of 29 pursue this approach. It is the right
reform at the right time; I believe the House should support it.
(Rugby) (Con)
Here in Britain we have companies with great brands and great
products, and there has never been a more important time to
promote them overseas and in emerging markets. So can the Prime
Minister ensure that the new Department will maintain the same
level of global political and economic influence that was
developed under DFID, while maximising opportunities for UK
exporters?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will, and I think it is only fair that UK exporters and UK
companies should get a proper hearing from this Department. I do
not know about hon. Members around the House, but many a time I
have been asked why on earth such-and-such a water sanitising
product, or whatever it happened to be, did not get a proper
hearing—did not get a chance for support from the UK ODA budget.
Now, we want to have entirely fair procurement. We do not wish to
see taxpayers’ money wasted, but it is also vital that where the
UK can do great things around the world, whether in clean
technology, zero-carbon energy generation or whatever, the UK
producers should get a fair crack of the whip.
(Kingston and Surbiton)
(LD)
I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on the
late and the hon. Member for East
Dunbartonshire ().
Britain’s international aid should have one overriding purpose—to
help the world’s poorest. Confusing that objective for Britain’s
aid budget with other foreign and security policy objectives is a
massive step backwards. When the world’s poorest are exposed to
the worst pandemic for a century, why has the Prime Minister
chosen this moment to step back from Britain’s leadership in the
fight against global poverty? Is not the Leader of the Opposition
right—this is an appalling version of distraction politics?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely not, because now is exactly the moment when we need to
intensify and magnify Britain’s voice abroad and to make sure
that when we make our points in other countries about tackling
poverty, Her Majesty’s ambassador in that country is listened to
with the attention that is due to the person who commands the
whole panoply of our foreign policy. That is vital for our
success, and that is what we are going to achieve.
(Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on maintaining his reforming
agenda. Can he reassure the House that this is an opportunity to
drive the UK’s interests globally and to protect the most
vulnerable around the world? He mentioned the UK’s presidency of
the G7. Does he agree that this is an opportunity to play a
leading role in international organisations such as the OECD, the
World Health Organisation and the World Trade Organisation?
The Prime Minister
Yes. Next year, the UK takes up the chairmanship of the G7, and
we have the COP26 climate change summit. Our voice in those
proceedings will be greatly magnified by having a single,
powerful voice for the projection of the UK view overseas. This
is a big step forward for global Britain.
Sir (Lagan Valley)
(DUP)
Northern Ireland wants to play its full part with the rest of the
United Kingdom in promoting this country overseas, and we are
proud of what the United Kingdom has done across the world. As
Northern Ireland approaches its centenary next year, will the
Prime Minister assure me that whether it is free trade
agreements, promoting the United Kingdom as a whole through our
diplomatic missions, or drawing on the expertise of people from
Northern Ireland in providing UK aid overseas, we will be able to
play our full part in these new arrangements?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course, I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance.
Northern Ireland will play a full part not just in these
arrangements but, as he fought for, in all the free trade deals
that we do.
(Bromsgrove) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his commitment to
our continued effort in terms of international aid. As he may
know, just last week the World Bank reported that some 100
million people could be driven into extreme poverty because of
the covid-19 crisis. Many developing countries’ economies are
already being hit hard, with falling remittances and falling
investment. I know that many are also concerned about increasing
talk of protectionism in advanced economies, including by some
people in this country. Will he take this opportunity to commit
Britain to fighting protectionism in all its forms, because trade
is as important as aid?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a profoundly important
point. There is a risk that some countries may seek to return to
protectionism—to an autarchic, beggar-my-neighbour approach. That
is not the way of the United Kingdom. Of course, we want to build
up our own manufacturing capabilities, to make sure that we have
the resilience in our economy when crises hit, but we also depend
wholly on free and fair trade, and that is what we will fight
for.
(Aberdeen North) (SNP)
[V]
International aid is about assisting people who are living in
unimaginable poverty. The Prime Minister’s answers today have
been massively concerning. Will the priority of the new
Department be to help the most vulnerable people in the world or
to increase the UK’s voice abroad?
The Prime Minister
It will of course do both. Let me just explain to the hon. Lady:
it is no use a British diplomat one day going in to see the
leader of a country and urging him not to cut the head off his
opponent and to do something for democracy in his country, if the
next day another emanation of the British Government is going to
arrive with a cheque for £250 million. We have to speak with one
voice; we must project the UK overseas in a consistent and
powerful way, and that is what we are going to do.
(New Forest West) (Con)
So long as the kingdom and this House resemble a stunt by the
“1984” junior anti-sex league, the recovery necessary to sustain
the Prime Minister’s global ambition, and indeed the £15 billion
of international development aid, will evade us; surely a yard is
more than enough?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend invites me to comment on the social
distancing rules, and he is wholly right that we will continue to
review those rules.
I am determined to make life as easy as possible for our
retailers and our hospitality industry, but we must defeat this
virus, as I am sure he knows and I am sure the people of this
country understand. We are making great progress as a country:
the numbers of deaths have massively come down; the number of new
hospital admissions has massively come down. We continue to make
progress, but we must make sure that we get the virus fully under
control before we make the change my right hon. Friend wants.
(Eltham) (Lab)
In his statement, the Prime Minister said that
“a dividing line between aid and foreign policy runs through our
whole system,”
but back in 1994, when that dividing line did not exist, we ended
up with the Pergau dam scandal, when we poured billions of pounds
of taxpayers’ money into a scheme to win a foreign trade deal on
arms. That led to the introduction of the International
Development Act 2002, to outlaw linking aid to foreign policy.
Can the Prime Minister give us a guarantee that that is not his
objective?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right; there was a scandal
involving the Pergau dam, and he and I remember it vividly. It
was wrong that huge sums were given in aid for a project that did
not have a good business case, but the International Development
Act protects us from that kind of mistake and that kind of
approach, and we will not take that approach. Let me stress: this
is not a return to the idea of tied aid. It is very important
that the House understands that. This is about coherence and
projecting our mission abroad; it about projecting the UK abroad.
(Arundel and South Downs)
(Con)
In combining these two Departments, does my right hon. Friend
share my ambition that global Britain can be a world leader in
new clean technologies such as fusion and quantum and hydrogen
technology in the life sciences—and, as today we celebrate Sussex
Day, also the export of English sparkling wine, creating
thousands of high-quality, well-paid jobs in growth industries?
The Prime Minister
Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says about
fusion research, where we lead the world at Culham, and he is
right in what he says about vaccines and about hydrogen, and
indeed we also lead the world in satellite technology, and of
course he is completely correct in what he says about Sussex
wines, which are the world’s—or among the world’s—finest.
(Cardiff West) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is the captain of the ship of state as
we navigate the perilous waters of Brexit, of covid and of civil
unrest, and his priority is to rearrange the deckchairs of
Whitehall. If this really is a merger, presumably—[Interruption.]
I will allow him to chunter, and then I will ask my question. If
this really is a merger, will the Secretary of State for
International Development and the Foreign Secretary, both of whom
are sitting on his Front Bench now, be applying equally for the
new job of Colonial Secretary?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the post of Colonial Secretary; I do
not know quite what planet he is on. We are going forward with a
single new Whitehall Department for international affairs, which
I believe will add greatly to this country’s global throw-weight.
[Interruption.] Opposition Members should applaud this change. It
reflects what is done by the overwhelming majority of countries
in the OECD—most of our friends and partners; indeed, all our
friends and partners I can think of. We should get with the
programme and support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (
)
Order. Hon. Members must not shout at the Prime Minister. We are
here to ask questions, not make long preambles to questions. If
we do not have shorter questions, I am afraid that not everyone
will get the chance to ask their question. And if the questions
are shorter, I know the Prime Minister will thus be able to give
shorter answers.
(Reigate) (Con)
I welcome this change. The logic of it is overwhelming and it
will be a great day for our diplomatic clout. However, that
depends on the values that underpin global Britain. Our ability
to exercise leadership in the relief of poverty, justice and the
international rule of law will depend on those values. They will
get an immediate test. In two weeks’ time, our ally Israel will
annex elements of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That will
be a grave breach of international law. Surely we must try to
divert Israel from that prospect with real sanctions if it
breaches international law?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Prime Minister even answers that question,
nobody was listening: short questions and then the Prime Minister
can give short answers.
The Prime Minister
Yes, I believe that what is proposed by Israel would amount to a
breach of international law. We have strongly objected. We
believe profoundly in a two-state solution and we will continue
to make that case.
(Manchester Central)
(Lab/Co-op) [V]
If the Prime Minister is serious about global Britain, why has he
left our world-leading aerospace and defence industry in a
downward holding pattern? We have already seen thousands of job
losses in communities that can ill afford to lose them. With the
right action now, the UK could lead the global race in a green
revolution in defence and aerospace. Will he make that his vision
of global Britain, rather than another unnecessary Whitehall
reorganisation?
The Prime Minister
That is indeed what we are doing. I have spoken to the head of
Rolls-Royce and other companies about exactly the vision for
aerospace that the hon. Lady describes. There is a big
opportunity for this country to lead the world in low-carbon
aerospace technologies and that is what this Government are going
to do.
(Orpington) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that global Britain is not just
about pursuing an ambitious independent trade policy, but that at
its heart it is about championing values? Does he further agree
that to make that a reality we must strengthen our voice on the
world stage and be unafraid to call out countries that threaten
those values and the rules-based international order?
The Prime Minister
I believe that this will be a profoundly beneficial change for
both the FCO and DFID. It will infuse the whole of our foreign
policy with the missionary zeal and sense of idealism that
characterises the very best of our aid experts. They are the best
in the world, and they will now be at the absolute heart of UK
foreign policy. That is the right place for them to be.
(Bath) (LD)
All I am hearing from today’s exchanges is that we will only help
the poorest in the world if they are buying British goods. Words
fail me at the cowardly abdication of Britain’s global
responsibility to the poorest in the world. We are shooting
ourselves in the foot. The covid crisis can only be resolved if
the poorest countries get rid of the virus or control it. Will
the Prime Minister reconsider this globally illiterate and
morally reprehensible move?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady should look at what this country is actually doing
to tackle coronavirus around the world, giving more than any
other country to the search for a virus. I do not know if she saw
what happened at the recent Gavi summit, but she should be proud
of what this country is doing to tackle the virus around the
world.
(East Surrey) (Con)
As someone who started their career in emerging markets, may I
roundly welcome this move? Does the Prime Minister agree that as
the world changes it speaks to how developing countries want to
receive aid: not in isolation, but as part of a comprehensive
dialogue across trade, investment, technology, diplomacy and
defence so that they can achieve their own goals?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The confusion one finds in the
capitals of our partners around the world must end. They must
understand that the UK Government speak with a single voice and a
powerful, clear message from a new international Department that
I think will do a power of good around the world. We already
punch above our weight; this will help us to punch even harder.
(Amber Valley) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the areas of his
missionary zeal for this Department should be tackling
corruption? If we could make progress there, it would help the
stability of regimes around the world.
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. The UK leads the world in tackling corruption and
money laundering, and once again that agenda will have far more
heft after the integration of the two Departments.
(City of Durham) (Lab)
It is hard to see this decision as anything but a populist stunt
that flies in the face of what the coronavirus pandemic tells us:
that we are all interconnected in this world. What consultation
did the Government carry out with humanitarian and development
experts, as well as leading aid organisations, before the
decision was made?
The Prime Minister
I can assure the hon. Lady that there has been massive
consultation over a long period. It is my own personal and direct
experience that the UK, although it does a fantastic job with
development aid, could do even better with a powerful, single,
integrated voice of the kind I am describing and which we will
bring into existence in September.
(Elmet and Rothwell)
(Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision. I know from my work
with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy when I was the
Vice-Chairman (International) of the Conservative Party that
often there are tensions between DFID and the Foreign Office over
its funding. Furthermore, as he will know, our friends and allies
in the Caribbean felt very let down after the hurricanes when
they could not get the support they needed. He will also be aware
of the money we have put into the refugee camps for the Syria
crisis and other things. Can he confirm, therefore, that this
decision is not a watering down but will result in a stronger and
more efficient approach and that the most vulnerable people in
society and the programmes we have to do will get an enhanced
service from the UK?
The Prime Minister
That is right. It was one of the absurdities of the rules of the
Disasters Emergency Committee that vulnerable island states in
the Caribbean were not eligible for ODA, and we had to fight to
get that change. Now with this new super-Department we will be
able to argue as one across our friends and partners around the
world for new perspectives on those problems, and work together
to tackle them.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
At this time of national crisis, would it not be better if the
Prime Minister used what he described as our megawattage to sort
out some of our domestic problems, such as the 20,000 job losses
in the caravan industry around Hull, the threat to Hull Trains’
open access service—130 jobs—or getting a grip of the education
shambles that his Education Secretary has been leading on so that
we can get our kids back to school safely?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the hon. Lady would want to join me in encouraging
all parents to send their kids back to the schools that are open
and waiting to receive them. I am sure that she and the Leader of
the Opposition will want to join everybody in saying it is safe
to go back to school.
(Eastleigh) (Con)
The Prime Minister has done exactly the right thing to ensure
there is a Foreign Office with a laser-like focus on aid and
diplomacy, but what involvement will trade have in this mix so
that compassionate aid and international trade work hand in
glove?
The Prime Minister
We are keeping the Department for International Trade separate,
and it is working hard on free trade deals, as it must for the
moment, but it is very important that in post—in missions around
the world—there will be a single point of reference for
Governments who need to understand the UK position. It is a
powerful change. The ambassadors around the world will be newly
empowered and authorised to project the UK’s point of view.
(Exeter) (Lab)
How is it compatible with global Britain to be the only country
in the world at this stage of the covid pandemic, and as the rest
of Europe opens up, to be putting up a great, big “closed for
business” sign in the form the Prime Minister’s quarantine
policy?
The Prime Minister
It is curious that the right hon. Member says that because, as
far as I know, the quarantine policy is actively supported by the
shadow Foreign Secretary at the very least, and indeed supported
by the Labour party. If he is dissenting from his own party, I
perfectly understand that, but the reason for our policy is of
course to prevent the reinfection of this country, as we drive
the virus down, by people coming back from countries where it is
out of control.
(Tewkesbury) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is in Britain’s
interests to have a poverty reduction programme across the world?
Will he guarantee, after this change, that the Government will
still continue to concentrate on education and health,
particularly the education of girls, across the world and
that—not only for the benefit of Britain, but for humanitarian
purposes—we carry on the poverty reduction programmes?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and at the heart of the mission of the new Department will
be 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world,
which I think is probably the single best thing you could do for
the future of our planet.
(York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
[V]
We are in the midst of a pandemic crisis, a trade agreement
crisis and an economic crisis. While the Prime Minister is
struggling to respond to each of these, why has he decided that
now is the time to distract his attention with this internal
reorganisation to water down aid, as opposed to addressing the
crises sitting on his desk?
The Prime Minister
We are getting on with the business of governing this country,
improving our international performance and making sure that the
UK is able to speak with a single, powerful voice overseas. That
is vital now in this crisis, and it is going to be vital as the
crisis comes to an end.
(Redcar) (Con)
I fully welcome this change. We are reassessing our role in the
world, and this is the perfect time for it. Does my right hon.
Friend agree with me that, as we take this bold step as a new
global Britain, we have a lot to learn from our CANZUK—Canada,
Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom—partners?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we do. I thank my hon. Friend, and he is bang on the money.
We are simply coming in line, as I say, not just with what
Australia, Canada and New Zealand already do, but with 28 out of
29 OECD countries.
(Glasgow North West) (SNP)
[V]
DFID has funded outstanding research projects with partners in
the developing world. The Prime Minister has a keen eye for
detail, so he will be well aware that all too often the Home
Office applies a colonial mindset to prevent these very same
partners from travelling to the UK. The Prime Minister talks of
coherence and value for money, so will we now see Departments
working in collaboration, or will everyone’s work and money still
be wasted by the whims of the Home Office?
The Prime Minister
The Home Office is doing an outstanding job in containing illegal
immigration in small boats, working very closely, I might say,
with our friends and partners in France.
(South West Surrey) (Con)
I wrestled with this issue when I was Foreign Secretary, but I
think it is the right thing to do. In Africa today, there is
competition—intense competition—between countries such as China
that do not promote democracy and human rights as part of their
aid agenda, and countries such as Britain that do, and if we are
going to support those British values, we need to speak with one
voice. Given that one of those values is eradicating extreme
poverty, would the Prime Minister consider allowing the junior
Minister who will be responsible for DFID to attend Cabinet, so
that people can see that the commitment to eradicating poverty is
undiminished?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support. I know that he
wrestled with the issue when he was doing the job that I once did
as well. I think that he has come to the right conclusion. As for
his suggestion on how we will work it in government, I listened
carefully to what he had to say.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
The world increasingly thinks that this country under this Prime
Minister is a basket case—the highest excess death rates in the
world, the deepest economic collapse, schools returning in
complete and utter chaos, and a quarantine introduced after the
horse has bolted. At a moment of international crisis, the
biggest idea that the Prime Minister has is that he should change
the Foreign Office letterhead. This is a nonsense. Does he not
realise that this is not a statement on global Britain; it is a
statement from little England?
The Prime Minister
I was saddened and disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman’s
remarks. We are making an important change to how we work our
foreign policy. He should applaud and welcome that, and, by the
way, he should also not run this country down.
(Belfast South) (SDLP)
[V]
Prime Minister, whatever you think about the removal of statues
and whatever it is that you are trying to signal with what looks
like a very regressive move, there is a clear desire among many
people, including in Britain, in the context of the Black Lives
Matter campaign, to examine the ambiguous legacy of the British
empire. Given the vital work of DFID in addressing inequalities
and underdevelopment, some of which I must say are a legacy of
the British empire, is this not a particularly shameful moment
for you to abolish the very Department that is trying to address
those inequalities?
The Prime Minister
We are not abolishing the role of the International Development
team; we are exalting them. We are enhancing them and making them
part of one of the senior Departments in this country, able to
project British views overseas. Yes, of course, we will continue
to tackle injustice around the world, but we will be able to do
it with a more powerful voice than ever before.
(Bexleyheath and Crayford)
(Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement on global Britain and
strongly endorse the merger of DFID and the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office to put aid, development and diplomacy at the
centre of our foreign policy. Does he agree that the Commonwealth
is a power for good in the world and that global Britain should
embrace and work strategically with Commonwealth countries in
leadership, aid and trade issues?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend very much. He is entirely right. The
Commonwealth is a massive and powerful force for good: 53 nations
united with a shared tradition and a shared ambition to encourage
free trade around the world. We will develop that and many other
important causes, which we will address at the Kigali summit when
we can hold it next year.
(Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
[V]
Many of my constituents care passionately about fair trade,
because it has the potential to lift millions of people across
the world out of poverty. Will the Prime Minister give me a
cast-iron guarantee that the plans he has announced today will
not result in any diminution of the UK Government’s previous
commitment to support fair trade across the world, from Palestine
to the Ivory Coast?
The Prime Minister
Of course.
(South Northamptonshire)
(Con)
Today’s statement is a hugely positive opportunity for the UK to
truly lead the world in tackling climate change and
decarbonisation and to help some of the poorest in the world to
protect and preserve their livelihoods. But will my right hon.
Friend reassure us that he will use brilliant UK science and
green technology to create and support new jobs here in the UK
and to level up right across our country?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right with regard to the
development in this country of green finance and green
technology, whether it is from wind turbines or new battery
technology, and we are proceeding apace with those investments.
(Na h-Eileanan an
Iar) (SNP) [V]
I wonder when the Prime Minister will give the votes back to
those who cannot attend Parliament. Let me turn, though, to the
matter at hand.
The Prime Minister is, of course, famous in his approach to
detail. I notice that, in his statement today, he said that the
trade commissioner will be under the authority of UK ambassadors.
In Latin America, there are 12 ambassadors and one trade
commissioner so, Prime Minister, how will that work then?
The Prime Minister
The obvious answer is that, in country, there is a single head of
mission—
The ambassador.
The Prime Minister
Thank you. That is the ambassador. That is how it works. It is
very important that everybody understands that. I repeat what I
said to my friend, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and
Lochaber (), which is that we will
ensure that we keep that investment in East Kilbride and keep
supporting East Kilbride, which, of course, the hon. Gentleman,
through his desire to break up the United Kingdom, would be
throwing away.
(Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I always remember , the former Chair of the
International Development Committee, saying, “The thing about
DFID is that it’s not as good as it thinks it is, but it’s
nowhere near as bad as its critics say.” I am concerned that we
should not lose some of the expertise that has accumulated in the
Department. One area where there has been big improvements in
recent years, which I hope the Prime Minister would agree with
and give a commitment to protecting, is the scrutiny and
accountability of every single pound of aid money that is spent.
Will he give a commitment today that there will be no diminution
in the quality of the scrutiny of the money spent in our name?
The Prime Minister
Yes, absolutely. We can be very proud of the scrupulousness with
which UK aid is spent, and I am in no doubt that the
parliamentary oversight will continue in the current way.
(Kingston upon Hull West and
Hessle) (Lab)
In a sudden change of plan, I am wondering about the Prime
Minister’s thoughts on former Prime Minister David Cameron’s
comments that
“the decision to merge the departments is a mistake”
and that the end of DFID
“will mean less expertise, less voice for development at the top
table and ultimately less respect for the UK overseas.”
Does the Prime Minister agree with the former Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
No, I profoundly disagree with those comments. All my experience
is that, alas, there is an incoherence in UK foreign policy. We
can now rectify that and have a better, more powerful and more
positive voice for this country overseas that puts the idealism
of development aid professionals at the heart of our foreign
policy, and that is what we are going to do.
(Rutland and Melton) (Con)
[V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Having worked at
the Foreign Office, at the coalface, I welcome this decision,
which will end bureaucratic wrangling, hopefully end the
disparity between the treatment of our FCO and DFID staff, and
ensure that all overseas postings work as one team because that
is how we support allies and those in need. Will he confirm that
those raging that this will bring back tied aid and that it is a
retreat from the world stage are actually doing a disservice to
our FCO and DFID staff, and are wrong?
The Prime Minister
Of course, they are completely wrong. This is a massive
opportunity for this country to project itself more powerfully
abroad. What we want to see, and what I know we are going to
achieve, is a union of the idealism, passion and commitment of
DFID with the diplomatic and political skills of the Foreign
Office, to make sure that we intensify our mission as one of the
great development powers on the planet. That is what we are going
to do.
