← Back to House of Commons Debates
International Aid: Treasury Update
13 July 2021
Lead MP
Lindsay Hoyle
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 51
At a Glance
Lindsay Hoyle raised concerns about international aid: treasury update in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Speaker reminded the House of previous discussions about maintaining the UK’s commitment to the statutory target of 0.7% for international aid and acknowledged the Government's move to facilitate a debate on this matter, emphasising that the motion before them represents significant progress in enabling scrutiny.
Boris Johnson
Con
London Central
The Prime Minister moved a motion considering the Treasury Update on International Aid and committed to returning to the 0.7% aid target as soon as fiscal circumstances allowed, emphasising the UK's significant contributions to global vaccination efforts and addressing climate change.
Asked Mr Starmer about areas of spending cuts or tax rises if he were to oppose this motion.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Inquired whether the cut in aid is 1% of borrowing and emphasised that the promise was made by all parties at the general election.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Questioned Mr Starmer's moral force, pointing out that former Labour Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did not meet the 0.7% target.
Theresa May
Con
Wolverhampton West Midlands
Stresses the importance of maintaining international aid funding at 0.7% GNI as per manifesto commitments, despite economic downturns caused by the pandemic. Criticises the government for reducing funding to 0.5%, arguing it will harm global education and exacerbate poverty issues. Questions the inconsistency in economic forecasts provided by the Government regarding when aid levels might return to 0.7%. Expresses deep regret at voting against her party's three-line Whip due to the broken promise to maintain international aid commitments.
Chris Law
SNP
Dundee Central
Argues that the UK Government's decision to reduce foreign aid is a sign of national shame. Emphasises how the cuts will affect global health, women’s reproductive rights, and humanitarian assistance in countries like Yemen. He questions whether those voting for the motion are willing to accept the consequences of millions more lives being lost.
Tim Loughton
Con
East Worthing and Shoreham
Acknowledges the importance of emergency aid to Yemen but also highlights that long-term peace in the country requires sustained investment for reconstruction and conflict prevention.
Peter Bone
Con
Wellingborough
Points out that while other countries may have increased their spending from a lower base, the UK will still be the third highest aid donor among G7 nations.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
The conditions for returning to the 0.7% target are unrealistic based on past data and OBR forecasts, making this a trap for unwary MPs. The proposed cuts will severely impact global development efforts, especially in girls' education and neglected tropical diseases. This decision is not only unethical but also politically damaging to the Conservative Party’s international reputation.
Sarah Champion
Lab
Rotherham
The debate lacks proper notice, explanation, and clarity about consequences. The Government’s motion is a device for political pressure rather than genuine parliamentary scrutiny. The conditions set are overly strict and have rarely been met historically. This manoeuvre creates unnecessary roadblocks to aid spending and portrays an artificial either/or choice between domestic and international spending.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds South
Benn highlights specific cuts to international aid, such as an 85% reduction in support for the United Nations Population Fund, a 95% cut to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and a 50% decrease in humanitarian mine action programme funding. He argues that these decisions harm Britain’s reputation abroad and questions why only aid spending is subject to fiscal responsibility tests, urging rejection of the government's proposal.
Latham expresses sadness at breaking the 0.7% commitment, detailing how reduced funding impacts families, particularly girls who receive less food and education due to prioritisation of boys in many regions. She criticises early marriages and younger pregnancies resulting from cuts to family planning budgets and argues that this decision by the government is morally reprehensible.
Wendy Chamberlain
Lib Dem
North East Fife
The debate centres on the Government's decision to cut overseas development assistance (ODA), a move criticised by Liberal Democrats for undermining global efforts against poverty and inequality, especially during the pandemic. Wendy Chamberlain warns that slashing ODA will affect both international aid recipients and UK research institutions like St Andrews University in her constituency, which faces up to 50% cuts to active projects.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
Acknowledging the importance of a stable platform for global investment, Thomas Tugendhat criticises the Government's approach as undermining Britain’s position in the world. He argues that aid and effectiveness should be at the core of Britain's diplomacy but expresses disappointment with the current policy direction which he sees as inefficient and harmful to long-term stability.
Liam Byrne
Lab
Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North
Liam Byrne criticises the Government for cutting aid spending while increasing defence spending, describing it as a contradiction to Britain’s soft power aspirations. He highlights how such cuts will impact global vaccination efforts and recovery from the pandemic, urging MPs to vote against the motion tonight.
Mr. Tarry criticises the Government's decision, stating it goes against international obligations and puts millions at risk globally. He emphasises the UK’s commitment to international aid as a G7 country and highlights the detrimental impact of funding cuts on global health research and pandemic response efforts.
Mr. Afolami acknowledges the importance of both fiscal responsibility and supporting the world's poorest people, stating that while aid spending helps prevent issues from reaching Britain, there is a need to balance this with responsible financial management post-covid. He supports transparent criteria for aid spending decisions and advocates for more funding towards smaller grassroots charities.
Ruth Jones
Lab
Newport West and Islwyn
Critiques the cut to international aid as hypocritical given UK's commitments in climate action and humanitarian support. Cites specific projects funded by overseas aid that benefit millions across poorer nations, such as polio eradication, sexual health advice, landmine clearance, education programmes, clean water provision, prevention of gender-based violence, and healthcare worker training schemes.
David Warburton
Con
Constituency Unknown
Defends the aid budget but supports the temporary reduction. Argues that ceding control to the Office for Budget Responsibility provides a pathway back to the 0.7% commitment, ensuring both fiscal responsibility and adherence to moral obligations.
Geraint Davies
Lab
Croydon Central
Rejects the economic and moral justification for cutting overseas aid during the pandemic crisis. Emphasises that low interest rates allow borrowing at minimal cost, making it possible to reinstate aid spending while supporting developing nations' recovery from the pandemic.
Greg Clark
Con
Islington North
Questions the Chancellor about science policy and expresses support for the 0.7% commitment's return. Queries whether international scientific research projects will be constrained by ODA limits, stressing the importance of global collaboration in science.
Chris Matheson
Lab
Cardiff South and Penarth
The proposals are myopic and mean-minded. They are a trick—a fiscal trap that undermines British soft power, sets back research and development, harms the UK's strategic position, and will cost lives due to cuts in aid programmes. This is a short-sighted, short-termist cut that fails to address long-term consequences.
Saqib Bhatti
Con
Meriden and Solihull East
I support the Government's decision due to economic necessity. The UK has borrowed heavily during the pandemic, necessitating difficult decisions like this temporary cut to the ODA budget. However, we remain a significant donor, exceeding other G7 countries in aid spending and demonstrating our commitment through vaccine distribution.
Alicia Kearns
Con
Rutland and Stamford
Our economy has suffered greatly due to the pandemic, necessitating difficult decisions like reducing UK aid. Despite this reduction, we remain one of the most generous countries in the world, second only to a few others in G7 funding. The reorganisation of the FCDO will augment our capacity to respond to crises outside the ODA budget.
Alyn Smith
SNP
Na h-Eileanan an Iar
The SNP opposes these cuts, which are a broken promise to the poorest people in the world at the worst possible time. The UK is out of step with other countries increasing their aid spending while reducing ours. The cut undermines global consensus and strategic interests.
Sarah Dines
Con
Derbyshire Dales
I support the motion as it provides certainty and a clearly outlined path for our international spending to return to the 0.7% manifesto commitment while delivering responsible public finances. I remind those who characterise the Government as mean that Conservative Governments have spent more on international aid than Labour. The pandemic has necessitated balancing spending, which has given my constituents a way forward during difficult times. Every pound spent on international aid is borrowed from future generations, and it is our duty to help restore public finances responsibly.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
We had a 20-year cross-party consensus to meet the UN’s target of 0.7% of GNI on aid. The pandemic is no justification for reducing this commitment. UK development aid saves lives among the world's poorest people, as evidenced by projects in Togo supported by Compassion UK. Even small amounts of aid save lives and improve the situation for impoverished communities. I hope Parliament will reject the motion.
Stephen Crabb
Con
South Wales West
While recognising the Chancellor's difficult job, I am concerned that the cuts to overseas aid spending may become permanent. The commitment to 0.7% was a high water mark of what can be achieved in this House when people work together for a cause bigger than immediate political needs. Sticking to it now is still the right thing to do despite pressures on public finances, as the pandemic has caused another wave of dire poverty and suffering globally.
Patrick Grady
Lab
Glasgow North
The Prime Minister's decision to reduce the aid budget is a consequence of his past rhetoric against international development and aid. The reduction from 0.7% to 0.5% GNI is arbitrary, without justification, and undermines global consensus on aid spending. This cut will cause unpredictable difficulties in implementation and damage the UK's reputation as a soft power superpower.
Ruth Edwards
Con
Vauxhall
The choice to reduce overseas aid is necessary due to budget constraints caused by the pandemic, which affects public services here in the UK. Cutting £5 billion from the aid budget would otherwise necessitate tax rises or cuts to essential services like healthcare and education. The definition of ODA is narrow, excluding significant contributions such as vaccine development. Despite the reduction, the UK will still spend more on aid than many other major economies.
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Glasgow Shettland
The decision to reduce the aid budget is morally and practically incorrect. It is a necessity of public health as well as a moral imperative to protect our global sisters and brothers from diseases, including coronavirus variants. Addressing issues in developing countries will prevent future pandemics from reaching developed nations. The UK must maintain its commitment to 0.7% GNI for aid spending to ensure international cooperation on public health.
Peter Bone
Con
North Lakenham
Welcomed the debate and acknowledged genuine concerns from opposition, emphasising the economic reality that necessitates cutting £4 billion in overseas aid. Argued that the outcome of overseas aid is more important than the amount spent.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
Focused on HIV/AIDS, highlighting its continued devastation despite progress, and expressed concern over reduced funding for UN AIDS. Urged support against the motion to maintain UK's commitment.
Voted against the motion, supporting the 0.7% commitment enshrined in law. Criticised new criteria as only met once in seven years and emphasised the importance of global cooperation and soft power.
Fleur Anderson
Lab
Putney
Argued against cutting aid, suggesting it is a deliberate choice rather than an economic necessity. Highlighted the impact on South Sudan's peace project and called for restoring cross-party agreement on aid.
Brendan O'Hara
SNP
Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber
The debate is a chance for Members of Parliament to declare their positions on cutting overseas aid. The Government's decision to cut £5 billion from the world’s poorest people is fundamentally wrong and morally repugnant. This vote marks a low point for a country that claims to be a beacon of tolerance, decency, and humanity.
There is no position provided as this speaker was only used to transition the debate to Catherine West.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
Standing on her promise for 0.7% of gross national income on aid, she expressed concern over UK’s regional universities affected by cuts, increased inequality due to austerity measures, weakened health systems post-COVID-19, and the need to act protectively against further social and economic impacts.
The debate is about parliamentary engagement on aid spending. The decision to cut overseas aid is short-termist and goes against the long-standing commitment of 0.7% target, leading a mirage of compromise without real assurance from Treasury.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
Emphasises the importance of international aid, highlighting personal experiences and the impact of cuts on global stability. Mentions the need to support places like Myanmar and criticises the UK's withdrawal from global commitments. Points out that over 2 billion people lack access to clean water and HIV infections remain high.
Defends the government's decision to cut aid spending, citing the need to reduce debt burden due to pandemic-related borrowing. Argues that ongoing day-to-day spending differs from one-off crisis borrowing and highlights potential fiscal risks if interest rates rise.
Rachel Reeves
Lab
Leeds West and Pudsey
The UK's overseas aid helps tackle poverty, diseases, climate change, conflict, terrorism, and refugee crises. It is crucial in responding to pandemics like Covid-19, as the virus cannot be eliminated globally if it persists in certain areas. The proposed 30% cut in one year is unprecedented and will hinder global health systems from rolling out vaccines effectively. Returning to the 0.7% commitment requires meeting current budget balance tests that have rarely been met by Conservative Governments. This decision reflects an ideological stance rather than value for money, diminishing Britain's power and influence for good.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
The hon. Member speaks of saving lives through overseas aid, highlighting the work of organisations like HALO Trust that clear mines and unexploded ordnance, thereby protecting people's safety.
Rishi Sunak
Con
Richmond and Northallerton
The Chancellor acknowledged the contributions of Members supporting the Government's motion and expressed disappointment at those who did not. He highlighted speeches from colleagues like David Warburton, Bim Afolami, Alicia Kearns, Dines, Ruth Edwards, and Mr Bone, emphasising their support for the road map proposed by the Government to return to 0.7% aid budget commitment once certain fiscal conditions are met.
Peter Kyle
Lab
Hove and Portslade
Mr Kyle questioned whether withdrawing aid in unstable areas would lead to higher military expenditure, arguing that it is more cost-effective to provide support through aid workers than to deploy the military.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Mr Hayes confirmed that with the roadmap set out by the Government, spending on overseas aid would be 20% more than when Labour was in government.
Asked about the impact of UK vaccines on global health and praised the country for providing a cheap and effective vaccine through Oxford-AstraZeneca.
Mr Matheson criticised the Government's decision to scrap the Department for International Development before the pandemic, questioning their commitment to international aid.
Christchurch
Raises a point of order regarding the lack of an impact assessment for regulations that will affect care home workers, expressing concern over its absence and suggesting the Government should withdraw the item of business until it is available.
Responds to Christopher Chope's point of order, acknowledging his concerns but stating she cannot ask for withdrawal of the motion. She suggests that the Minister address this issue in her opening remarks during the debate.
Provides clarity on a call with the Care Minister where it was confirmed that the impact assessment would not be available before the debate, though she will address it in her remarks.
Government Response
Government Response
Defends the government's decision to cut aid spending, citing commitments on borrowing and debt reduction. Emphasises the need for difficult choices in setting priorities amidst fiscal challenges.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.