Commons Sense

House of Commons · Adjournment Debate

Official Development Assistance Target

13 January 2020 · 2 other contributors

Opened by Patrick Grady SNP Glasgow North

EconomyBrexitForeign Affairs

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Patrick Grady raised concerns about official development assistance target in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • MP Patrick Grady emphasised the importance of cross-party consensus around aid spending and the UK's commitment to meet global development goals by 2030.
  • Grady highlighted DFID's role in delivering the 0.7% target on official development assistance since 1970 and questioned the government's commitment to maintaining a dedicated DFID.
  • Minister Andrew Stephenson reaffirmed the government's commitment to spending 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance throughout the Parliament.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Patrick Grady SNP Glasgow North

MP Patrick Grady, welcoming the new minister to his post, congratulated him on his appointment. He thanked the voters of Glasgow North and his team for their support during the election. He emphasised the importance of cross-party consensus around aid spending and the UK's commitment to meet the global goals for sustainable development by 2030. Grady highlighted DFID’s role in delivering the 0.7% target on official development assistance, a goal that has been enshrined in statute since 1970. He also discussed the accountability of DFID, its transparency and effectiveness compared to other departments, as well as the importance of keeping aid spending distinct from military or diplomatic efforts. Grady raised concerns about the increasing amount of double-counted spending towards both NATO defence and ODA targets. He questioned the government’s commitment to maintaining a dedicated Department for International Development (DFID) and sought clarity on future plans.

Other contributors (2)
  • Bambos Charalambous Lab Enfield, Southgate

    Asked if merging DFID with the FCO would put at risk the work of an independent DFID, as seen in other countries like Australia and Canada.

  • Alex Chalk

    Inquired whether Scotland, under the Barnett formula, could continue to spend its equivalent proportion or possibly more on aid if it were a separate nation.

Government Response

Andrew Stephenson

Minister Andrew Stephenson responded positively to concerns about DFID’s future and reaffirmed the government's commitment to spending 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance throughout this Parliament. He highlighted significant achievements under DFID, such as supporting millions of children in education, poverty reduction initiatives, climate change adaptation projects, and humanitarian assistance during crises. The Minister also discussed the UK’s role in fostering economic development in Africa and South Asia to build trading partners for the future while contributing to global security. He mentioned that while DFID works independently, other departments collaborate effectively on challenges like Ebola or climate change. Stephenson assured that any changes to international aid rules would be based on evidence and a consensus approach. The Prime Minister retains responsibility for machinery of government decisions, ensuring continuity in supporting vulnerable people globally post-Brexit.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy