← Back to House of Commons Debates
Estimates Day
30 June 2021
Lead MP
Sarah Champion
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
EmploymentClimateForeign AffairsStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 61
At a Glance
Sarah Champion raised concerns about estimates day 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
Champion argued that the UK's reductions in overseas development aid at a time of global need are concerning, highlighting the lack of transparency from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). She noted significant cuts to aid spending and criticised the FCDO for withholding detailed information on how these funds are being allocated. Champion emphasised the importance of parliamentary scrutiny over taxpayers' money and called for greater transparency in the allocation of overseas development assistance.
Edwards intervened to question whether the cut to international aid demonstrates a lack of attention to parliamentary sovereignty, suggesting that decisions should be made based on what this House deems appropriate.
Anna McMorrin
Lab
Cardiff North
McMorrin agreed with Champion's points and called for the Government to utilise its diplomatic resources to reauthorise cross-border crossings in Syria, to alleviate the risk of loss of life faced by millions there.
Theresa May
Con
Walton
It is a pleasure to follow the very good speech from the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and I echo her comments in thanking FCDO staff and aid workers around the world for their work in difficult circumstances. Before coming to specific points on the estimates, I will make a general point that this debate is not a vote on 0.7% of national income for aid spending; it is about the FCDO’s estimates. The Government should accept this and recognise ongoing calls for a formal vote on 0.7%. There seems to be little indication from the Government that they are paying attention to holistic linkages between different elements of the aid budget, which often require an integrated approach rather than siloed funding cuts. For example, girls’ education is linked with modern slavery prevention efforts: if we cut programmes for dealing with modern slavery, it may hinder girls' educational opportunities as slave drivers and criminal gangs take advantage first. I urge the Government to look at these linkages carefully. The Government's response to the Select Committee in September 2020 implied a commitment to maintaining 0.7%, but by November funding was cut. This raises questions about inter-departmental coordination or potential deception. Additionally, merging DFID into FCDO could reduce UK clout on the world stage and impact aid effectiveness due to loss of expertise. It is imperative that we maintain this expertise if we are to restore the 0.7% commitment in future.
Anthony Mangnall
Con
Wallasey
In response to Theresa May's speech, I agreed with her point about the need for a comprehensive approach to aid spending and the importance of tackling gender-based violence alongside girls' education. Without addressing these issues holistically, efforts to improve girls’ education will be undermined.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
I supported Theresa May's assertion that DFID has been completely dismantled and there is no Minister of State in charge of development within the Foreign Office anymore. This contrasts with even Lady Thatcher’s administration, which had an overseas development administration within the FO.
Arfon
The Government's sudden withdrawal from their commitments, enshrined in law, has damaged trust and partnerships between the UK Government and international partners. The cuts were rushed with minimal information to Parliament and have had a detrimental impact on small-scale projects in Wales, such as Teams4u and Interburns, due to the closure of key funding schemes. Welsh NGOs are facing drastic reductions or even closure due to insufficient warning, while universities, critical for vaccine programme success, face a £120 million budget shortfall in 2021-22 due to cuts. Broad-scale effects include an estimated 20 million women and girls not being reached by aid programmes, highlighting the disastrous nature of these Government decisions.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
I will focus on the integrated review and the merger of Departments, suggesting there is a slight dissonance between talk of global Britain engaging directly with nations and cuts to bilateral aid. I support aligning Departments but not at the cost of undermining our own policy and weakening bilateral ties. The example of Lebanon highlights the importance of investment in strategic partners. Cuts to funding for tropical diseases research are concerning, as this impacts future pandemic preparedness. Budget allocations for Nigeria are also being reduced, which may affect health and education spending.
I highlight the importance of supporting organisations such as the HALO Trust or War Child, which promote Britain's interests by helping save lives and deliver aid effectively.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Does my hon. Friend share concern over £6.8 million of Foreign Office spending not being 'ODA-able', despite support to Lebanese armed forces enabling land farming by farmers who have not seen their land for decades?
Rushanara Ali
Lab
Bethnal Green and Stepney
The debate highlights the cross-party concern over UK aid budget cuts, with particular emphasis on the reduction to 0.5% from 0.7%. The speaker criticises these cuts, citing reductions in water sanitation, education programmes, and humanitarian aid in crises like Yemen and Rohingya. She also underscores the moral and economic imperative of aid spending, referencing World Bank estimates and IMF projections that show aiding poorer countries can lead to substantial global economic gains. Furthermore, she stresses the importance of supporting institutions such as the British Council for fostering international partnerships crucial for trade agreements.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
The MP underlines the importance of honouring commitments made in previous parliaments regarding international development aid. He criticises the current government for reducing funding by up to 90% in certain areas, impacting millions of lives and undermining Britain's reputation as a leader in global health initiatives. He also questions the lack of transparency about the future of programmes like the International Citizen Service.
Patrick Grady
SNP
Glasgow North
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and the Chair of the International Development Committee on securing this debate. The current scrutiny process is an improvement over previous arrangements, but it still does not allow for detailed line-by-line examination of Government expenditure. The reduction of the Department for International Development to a single budget heading in HC14 is emblematic of the ideological disdain the Government has for foreign aid. Aid saves lives and contributes significantly to global development; slashing the budget undermines this crucial work. Former leaders from Malawi, Kenya, and Indonesia have called out these cuts, highlighting their devastating impact on health initiatives like neglected tropical disease funding. Local projects in Scotland, such as those led by Professor Alison Phipps at the University of Glasgow, are being disrupted or terminated abruptly. The Government’s actions contradict their claims to global leadership and soft power, particularly during significant events like hosting the G7. It would be beneficial to know if the additional funds announced for developing countries fighting covid-19 are part of the aid budget and classified as ODA.
John Baron
Con
Basildon and Brentwood
The British Council has a proud history since 1934, promoting British culture, education, and soft power internationally. Despite Government support through the pandemic, it faces a £10 million shortfall leading to office closures in 20 countries. This is seen as contradicting the vision of a global Britain and undermining international trust.
Liam Byrne
Lab
Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North
Byrne argues against budget cuts that undermine UK aid commitments and global development efforts. He emphasises the need to reverse these cuts for vaccine distribution, climate action funding, and credibility in international talks such as IDA20 replenishment. The cuts are seen as morally wrong given increased defence spending and reduced aid budgets.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
These cuts will kill. In the Horn of Africa, instability is threatening livelihoods and fostering terrorist recruitment. The Sahel faces conflict over resources, while Syria, Nigeria, and Ethiopia face severe funding cuts for life-saving services. These actions go against global Britain's values and public opinion, which supports foreign aid. There is a moral imperative to act compassionately towards victims of war in the middle of a pandemic.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
The debate highlights widespread agreement across the House on maintaining foreign aid levels. The absence of dissent from the Government Benches indicates their awareness that such cuts are not justified. These decisions impact research collaborations, like Keith Hyams' projects in African cities, and critical pandemic tracking efforts by Oliver Pybus in Oxford. Constituents in Chesham and Amersham cited aid cuts as a reason for distrust towards the Conservative government. Recent polling shows public support for increasing aid spending.
Harriett Baldwin
Con
West Worcestershire
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham on securing this afternoon’s debate and acknowledge the economic necessity of reviewing aid spending due to a sharp contraction, but I am concerned about the change from 0.7% to 0.5% without parliamentary approval. While acknowledging that the UK continues to spend £10 billion in overseas development assistance this year, I argue for a separate vote on whether to reduce the ODA target to 0.5%. The lack of such a poll is problematic as it bypasses the will of Parliament and affects those who cannot lobby us directly. I support the Prime Minister's pledge at the G7 to vaccinate the world in addition to the 0.5% commitment. Additionally, I urge the Government to match fund contributions from other donor countries for the Global Partnership for Education replenishment and reverse the significant reduction to the UN Population Fund.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Intervened by emphasising that polling on aid spending depends heavily on how questions are framed. He noted that if asked whether they support emergency aid for starving people, 92% of the public would agree.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Suggested relying on doorstep opinions rather than polls when gauging public sentiment about aid spending reductions. He cited a poll by the British Foreign Policy Group indicating that 72% of people would prefer to see a cessation or reduction in aid until financial stability is achieved.
Alyn Smith
SNP
Na h-Eileanan an Iar
The SNP believes in a different world view from the UK Government and aspires to statehood to represent itself better on the global stage. The SNP opposes cuts to the aid budget, viewing them as a betrayal of trust and the poorest people in the world during the covid pandemic. It is concerned about the politicisation and diminished effectiveness of the remaining spend due to changes in priorities. Smith also criticises the closure of 20 British Council offices globally and warns that no amount of prime ministerial planes or royal yachts can disguise the diminishment occurring under this UK Government.
Pauline Latham
Con
Mid Derbyshire
Latham is concerned about the cuts to girls' education, estimating a reduction by at least 40% in 2021-22 compared with 2019. She expresses worry over reductions in UK aid for education and funding for contraceptives, which will prevent around 250,000 maternal and child deaths, 14.6 million unintended pregnancies, and 4.3 million unsafe abortions. Latham urges the Government to confirm that the ODA budget will return to 0.7% of GNI in the next financial year to ensure these cuts do not further impact the world’s most marginalised communities.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
Ms McCarthy criticised the Government for reneging on their commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on aid, arguing that this was morally reprehensible and unprecedented among G7 countries. She highlighted that £5 billion had been cut from UK aid spending since 2019 and outlined the impact of these cuts on overseas programmes related to health, education, livelihoods, gender equality, water sanitation, and climate action. McCarthy noted that environmental charities have also been harmed by the cuts while fossil fuel portfolios remain unaffected. She gave examples of specific projects in Malawi and the Galapagos Conservation Trust affected by funding reductions, emphasising the detrimental impact on people's lives and urging a restoration of aid spending.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Murrison argues that while the decision to cut international development spending from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income is painful, it should be seen as a temporary measure due to economic conditions at the time. He acknowledges real-life consequences but believes supporting the government on this point could help in the long term if it leads to public support for increased funding later. Murrison welcomes the focus on seven priorities outlined in the integrated review and stresses the importance of Africa. He also emphasises the need for careful oversight to prevent projects that damage the reputation of international development efforts. Additionally, he praises the Government's leadership on vaccines but calls for measures to ensure healthcare systems are adequate before distributing vaccines. Murrison highlights the role of English language and culture in global diplomacy.
Sarah Owen
Lab
Luton North
Poverty is a political choice, and cutting aid to the world's poorest at this time is a poor political choice. The last Labour Government’s commitment to the world’s poorest was one of our proudest achievements. The current government is divided on whether charity begins at home or they want to build a global Britain. Charity should begin at home, but the Conservative party sent meagre food supplies during the pandemic and allowed veterans without homes while in office. Cutting aid because it is popular in Labour heartlands is patronising; people band together to help others both locally and globally. We need to end poverty and tyranny worldwide, and provide support and vaccines to vulnerable populations.
I pay tribute to members on the Government Benches who have spoken out in favour of maintaining the 0.7% aid commitment despite facing challenges. This is a moral necessity, economic imperative, and health and wellbeing requirement. Only Denmark and France currently meet this commitment but Britain should take a lead. It benefits our economy to stimulate demand globally through aid; addressing starvation, flooding, and other dangers in poorer countries helps us too. Giving aid isn't just charity but taking responsibility for past exploitation and resource extraction by the western world from developing nations. There needs to be 'levelling up' between the northern and southern hemispheres, as well as across Britain. Supporting vaccination efforts globally is crucial for our own health security. Resources must go into women and children in poorer countries to make them better.
David Mundell
Con
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
It is vital that our aid budget, whatever it is, is spent efficiently and with maximum impact. The rumoured cut of 80% to the nutrition budget is inconceivable as it would undermine the significant achievements made in improving global nutrition. Nutrition interventions are essential for healthy immune systems, reducing malnutrition-related deaths among under-fives (45%), preventing school absence, enhancing workforce productivity, and driving economic growth. The FCDO's work on nutrition represents fantastic value for money, with a £1 return yielding an average of £16 in benefits. I urge the Government to confirm that they are not proceeding with such severe cuts and to demonstrate continued commitment at the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth summit.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
The proposal to cut overseas aid would severely affect UK soft power, impacting institutions like the BBC World Service and British Council. These organisations play a crucial role in promoting democratic values, cultural exchange, language learning, and higher education opportunities abroad. Furthermore, reducing global health research funding could undermine future scientific advancements, such as those leading to vaccine development and HIV treatment improvements. Cutting back on research now would have significant negative impacts on both developing nations' health systems and UK universities engaged in international collaboration.
Neil Parish
Con
Tiverton and Honiton
Welcomes the chance to speak on the estimates for spending on official development assistance. Questions the Government’s decision to cut the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI, despite understanding the need to make savings due to the financial strain caused by covid-19. Expresses concern over cuts to lifesaving programmes such as UNICEF and water projects, which have taken a disproportionate hit. Emphasises the importance of clean water in saving lives and the devastating impact of cutting funding for family planning, which can lead to greater poverty and risk to thousands of lives. Raises concerns about the signal that this decision sends to the rest of the world on climate action, particularly regarding deforestation in Indonesia. Hopes the Government will come forward with a method of restoring the budget, prioritising humanitarian programmes.
Intervenes to highlight the issue of speed at which the cuts were announced, which did not give time for organisations affected by the cuts to prepare. Suggests that if we wanted to make the cuts, they should have been delayed and implemented over another year.
Margaret Ferrier
SNP
Rutherglen and Hamilton West
The speaker emphasised the critical role of the British Council in promoting cultural understanding, education, and international partnerships across over 100 countries. She highlighted job losses due to office closures and funding cuts affecting programmes such as the International English Language Testing System. Ferrier criticised the UK Government for its retreat from engagement with the world despite promises made during Brexit debates. She cited specific examples in Afghanistan, Malawi, and Sierra Leone to illustrate the devastating impact of these budget reductions on local communities and their development. In Afghanistan, she detailed how projects such as English language training and Active Citizens programmes contributed significantly to economic self-reliance and political stability. For Malawi, Ferrier stressed the importance of aid for basic services like water, food, and education. She also pointed out that in Sierra Leone, cuts would impact legal rights awareness initiatives for women and girls in prison through the Justice Matters project.
Rother Valley
As the Member of Parliament for Rother Valley, Alexander Stafford argues that due to the high borrowing rates caused by the coronavirus pandemic, budget cuts are necessary. He emphasises that any reductions should prioritise domestic needs over foreign aid and suggests redirecting funds towards re-engaging with the Commonwealth, which he believes shares more common values and interests than other international partners. He advocates for deeper ties with countries within the Commonwealth to maximize Britain's soft power and support those who have stood by the UK in difficult times.
Marco Longhi
Con
Dudley North
Foreign aid spend has often been used for political posturing. My Dudley residents prioritise domestic issues over foreign aid, unlike some politicians who claim to represent their views but actually oppose them. The reduction of the overseas aid budget is justified due to exceptional circumstances caused by Covid-19 and a need to focus on rebuilding the country. However, scrapping the 0.7% target altogether would better align with public priorities and strategic planning.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
Critiques the reduction of overseas aid, emphasising that it is a cut upon a cut. He argues against the notion that charity should begin at home during a pandemic and highlights the importance of education for young women, provision of clean water, sanitation facilities, tropical disease programmes, British Council funding, Voluntary Service Overseas programme, and international community service programme. He expresses concern over the potential setback these cuts could cause to trailblazing global Britain initiatives.
Pays tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). He disagrees with the view that Scotland would do things differently on this matter, noting the unison in the debate's tone against the cuts. Criticises the Prime Minister and his Government as isolated outliers trying to force through these changes without a meaningful vote. Discusses significant portions of funding cuts targeting sexual and reproductive health and rights programmes globally, leading to service closures and disruption. Highlights the immediate impact on healthcare and an increase in maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity. Compares UK's actions with those of other countries expanding their support during crises like Canada, France, and USA. Emphasises the moral imperative and national interest in tackling conflict, building prosperity, promoting good governance, reducing poverty, and securing health into the future.
Navendu Mishra
Lab
Stockport
The Member of Parliament for Stockport, Navendu Mishra, expressed gratitude towards campaigners and organisations involved in international aid. He highlighted the potential job cuts at the British Council due to budget constraints and emphasised the importance of global cooperation during the pandemic. He criticised the Government's decision to merge the Department for International Development with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, noting that this move has led to significant reductions in vital coronavirus research funding and delayed distribution of surplus PPE to India. Mishra urged the UK to reconsider its position on the TRIPS waiver proposal to increase vaccine availability globally. Additionally, he pointed out cuts to the NHS overseas training scheme aimed at developing medical staff in poor countries as well as budget reductions for aid programmes targeting strategic priorities, noting that these changes will have a significant human cost and lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths.
Anthony Mangnall
Con
Scarborough and Whitby
The MP supports the retention of the International Development Committee, arguing that it is essential for scrutinising foreign aid budgets. He criticises estimates debates as they take away from the reality of what the 0.7% budget achieves, such as vaccinations donated, school books gifted, and justice provided in conflict zones. Mangnall also emphasises the importance of global Britain being about defence, diplomacy, trade, and development, all integrated with each other. He notes that reducing aid sends a negative message to the world when the UK hosts G7 and COP26 events.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Intervenes to say that vast amounts of humanitarian support and development aid go to Commonwealth countries because British aid prioritises places with historical connections.
Rother Valley
Intervenes to argue the need for realism regarding budget cuts, suggesting that if money is not cut from international aid, it may be cut elsewhere domestically.
Bury South
Supports a commitment of the budget cut being for one year only and stresses the importance of compassion and keeping promises to constituents.
Navendu Mishra
Lab
Stockport
Intervenes to argue against an 'us and them' attitude in the debate, suggesting that it is unhelpful and dividing.
Lee Rowley
Con
North Warwickshire
Thanked the Members for Totnes and Sutton Coldfield for their contributions. Reaffirmed support for aid but argued against a rigid commitment to the 0.7% spending target, suggesting that it risks becoming a 'quasi-religious' number detached from national financial realities. Emphasised the importance of considering public opinion and practical considerations in setting aid budgets. Criticised what he saw as an oversimplified narrative around UK aid spending, noting that despite reducing the 0.7% commitment, the UK would still spend more proportionately than many developed nations.
David Amess
Con
Southend West
Paid tribute to the Chair of the International Development Committee and supported the British Council, emphasising its role in facilitating cultural exchange and educational opportunities. He expressed concern over the closure of British Council offices in 20 countries, urging the Government to protect soft power initiatives as part of the 'global Britain' agenda.
Karen Bradley
Con
Staffordshire Moorlands
The UK needs a policy-based foreign policy led by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that includes trade and defence policies. Ambassadors should be responsible for decisions across multiple areas of foreign policy to ensure better decision-making through political tension between different Ministers. The 0.7% aid commitment is crucial for maintaining soft power and preventing other nations from moving into spaces left by reduced UK presence. Spending money on development can prevent organised criminal activities that lead migrants to unsafe boats towards the UK. The British Council's role in promoting Britain's place in the world should be supported financially.
Ambassadors are responsible for the whole of Her Majesty’s Government, including international development programmes.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Mr Leigh argued that cutting overseas aid is counterproductive and goes against humanitarian principles. He emphasised the importance of continuing aid to Yemen, despite local public opinion favouring cuts. Mr Leigh also pointed out the inconsistency in government decisions regarding aid, suggesting that promised 'temporary' cuts may not be as straightforward as claimed. He proposed a way for the Chancellor to gradually restore funding post-pandemic or make a case for phasing it back over several years with a vote in parliament.
John Redwood
Con
Wokingham
Supports the Government's estimate and acknowledges the difficult economic climate. He expresses mistrust in official figures, suggesting that spending on refugees and asylum seekers should be considered as part of aid expenditure. Additionally, he argues for a more realistic accounting of military-related expenditures as part of foreign assistance. John Redwood also emphasises Britain's enhanced global influence post-Brexit, highlighting recent trade agreements and diplomatic successes. He criticises the 0.7% target, advocating instead for flexibility in spending based on need rather than rigid targets. He calls for a more strategic approach to aid spending, emphasising the importance of peace, effective governance, and private sector involvement. Lastly, he praises Britain's role in global vaccine distribution.
Tobias Ellwood
Con
Bournemouth East
The Government is cutting the overseas aid budget, which has dire consequences for programmes across the world and harms soft power credentials. Hard power and soft power are interlinked; military means alone cannot build peace. The MOD, DFID, FCO need better coordination to tackle global challenges. Authoritarianism is rising globally, with climate change exacerbating security issues. China's soft power war needs to be addressed by the UK.
Bury South
Polling language can influence public opinion on aid cuts; if asked about feeding the world’s hungriest, people would support it.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
We should not be taking food from starving Yemenis at this stage due to our complicated relationship in the country.
Navendu Mishra
Lab
Stockport
Abolishing DFID during a pandemic was a backward step; development requires dedicated focus and a specific Minister.
Bury South
Mr Wakeford highlighted the UK’s global reputation for delivering life-saving aid, warning of risks associated with reducing the 0.7% target for international development spending. He emphasised the importance of a holistic approach to defence, trade, and diplomacy alongside development. Mr Wakeford shared statistics showing how since 2015, UK aid has helped 14 million children access education and supported girls’ rights, committed over half a billion pounds and 100 million vaccine doses to COVAX for tackling COVID-19 in poorer countries, and launched initiatives against sexual violence. He warned that aid cuts could cost lives by leaving 700,000 girls without education and reducing funding to Yemen, which is on the brink of famine, by nearly 60%. Mr Wakeford suggested three recommendations: returning to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid, focusing aid on where it is needed most (mostly conflict-afflicted countries), and integrating diplomacy with development efforts.
Chris Law
SNP
Dundee Central
Mr Law criticises the UK Government's decision to cut international aid, arguing that these cuts are a 'death sentence' for millions of people globally. He cites studies revealing 19 million more people in need of humanitarian aid due to the pandemic and warns about increased child deaths as a result of budget reductions. Law emphasises that the FCDO is making it difficult to scrutinise the cuts and notes the impact on NGOs, including paused recruitment and staff layoffs. Additionally, he highlights specific examples of funding reductions for nutrition programmes, medicines for neglected diseases in Africa, conflict prevention, Yemen aid, Syria aid, Iraq aid, and deforestation projects in Indonesia. He also mentions the Chancellor's decision to redirect funds from foreign aid to defence capabilities, criticising the government’s priorities during a global pandemic.
Stephen Doughty
Lab Co-op
Cardiff South and Penarth
The debate covered the lack of transparency, public financial illiteracy, and negative impacts on UK clout globally. Contributions included discussions on modern slavery, girls’ education, bilateral ties, food insecurity, and support for action during humanitarian catastrophes. Emphasis was placed on the absurdity of cutting organisations such as UNICEF and UNFPA at a critical time. The debate highlighted the damage to Britain’s soft power, health research, and strategic interests due to budget cuts.
Tom Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge and Malling
Commented on how these cuts undermine bilateral ties and are a mistake given the current global context.
Rushanara Ali
Lab Co-op
Bethnal Green and Bow
Discussed the impact of budget cuts on food insecurity and joint economic health crises, particularly in times when famine is increasing globally.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Stressed the absurdity of cutting organisations such as UNICEF at a time when their work is more crucial than ever and underlined that these cuts amount to rebellion against manifesto commitments.
James Baron
Con
Basildon and Billericay
Made a strong case about absurd closures of the British Council due to budget constraints, leaving it £10 million short.
Liam Byrne
Lab Co-op
Birmingham, Hodge Hill
Talked about the incoherence and stark impact of the cuts on humanitarian crises globally, highlighting public opinion against such measures.
James Duddridge
Con
Chelmsford
Minister James Duddridge acknowledged the passionate nature of the debate and expressed pride in the UK’s long-standing commitment to development aid. He emphasised the complexity involved in making tough decisions regarding international development, particularly within the context of the FCDO. Duddridge highlighted that despite current financial constraints, the Government remains committed to returning to the 0.7% ODA target.
Sarah Champion
Lab
Rotherham
In her closing remarks, Sarah Champion reiterated her concerns about the erosion of UK's development aid commitment and its impact on global poverty reduction efforts. She called for greater transparency from the Government regarding FCDO funding decisions and expressed worry that weakening development could also undermine national security.
Stephen Doughty
Lab Co-op
Cardiff South and Penarth
Stephen Doughty, while not extensively quoted in the given text, was mentioned as raising concerns about humanitarian spending priorities. He challenged the Minister on the effective allocation of aid funds to countries like Ethiopia.
Government Response
[INTERVENTION by Alexander Stafford]: The hon. Gentleman mentions so-called cuts, but will he acknowledge the vital role this Government have played in delivering vaccines and oxygen to countries like India? Actually, this country has given a lot to many other countries during the pandemic. Minister James Duddridge outlined the Government's commitment to reducing poverty through a series of seven priorities, including climate and biodiversity, global health security, humanitarian preparedness and response, among others. He emphasised the importance of providing aid in addition to existing commitments and highlighted specific pledges towards girls' education and the Global Partnership for Education.
▸
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.