← Back to House of Commons Debates
0.7% Official Development Assistance Target
08 June 2021
Lead MP
Andrew Mitchell
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Foreign AffairsParliamentary Procedure
Other Contributors: 46
At a Glance
Andrew Mitchell raised concerns about 0.7% official development assistance target in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
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
Mr Mitchell moved a debate on the UK's commitment to maintain its official development assistance at 0.7%, highlighting that the government is breaking this promise and potentially violating the law. He emphasised the broad support from various sectors, including former Prime Ministers, Select Committee Chairs, and religious leaders for maintaining aid commitments.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
He argued that breaking the commitment to the 0.7% ODA target is indefensible and harmful to global stability, citing support from prominent figures across political spectrums.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Mr Shannon intervened to congratulate Mr Mitchell on bringing forward the debate and emphasised the importance of long-term stability for aid projects. He argued that shutting down operations quickly can harm global development efforts significantly.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Mr Jenkin intervened to say he supports what Mr Mitchell described but believes the Government is acting in a different manner, focusing on contributions that do not qualify as aid. He asked for clarity from the government.
Liam Byrne
Lab
Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North
Mr Byrne intervened to bring up the possibility of recycling surplus SDRs towards supporting aid, questioning if this would count toward making good on the cuts made by the Government.
He emphasised that although £4 billion might be a small amount for the UK, it makes a significant difference in the countries receiving aid, highlighting the impact of aid cuts on global poverty reduction efforts.
Preet Kaur Gill
Lab Co-op
Birmingham Edgbaston
Ms Gill thanked Mr Mitchell and criticised the Government for avoiding scrutiny over aid budget cuts. She detailed the negative impacts of these cuts, including reduced access to water and education for women and girls in poor countries.
Steve Barclay
Con
North East Cambridgeshire
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury outlines the government's fiscal response during the pandemic and discusses the necessity of difficult decisions for sustainable finances. He highlights that maintaining high debt levels risks future economic stability, justifying the reduction in overseas aid. The government has committed to meeting the 0.7% target when fiscal conditions allow, but currently prioritises domestic recovery.
Harriett Baldwin
Con
West Worcestershire
Raises concerns about specific impacts of reducing overseas aid on organisations such as the World Food Programme in South Sudan.
Sarah Champion
Lab
Rotherham
Questions whether the decision to reduce aid was a political choice, potentially unlawful, and highlights the implications for November rather than July.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Critiques the government's fiscal stance on overseas aid, suggesting that an increase in income tax would be less than 1p, indicating a miscalculation of financial impacts.
Ian Blackford
SNP
Ross, Skye and Lochaber
The decision to cut aid will cost lives and is seen as a failure of international responsibility. The cuts are isolated acts from a UK Government increasingly alone on the world stage. Most other wealthy nations recognise the greater necessity of helping those in need at this time of humanitarian crisis. Canada's aid budget will see an increase, France contributes more, and under Biden’s administration, the US is increasing its aid significantly. Yet the Tory Government considers these cuts morally justified despite international condemnation. The impact includes harsh cuts to conflict zones like Syria, Somalia, and Libya; children facing 60% cut in UNICEF funding; and major cuts to programmes fighting AIDS and HIV. These cuts break manifesto commitments, especially on girls’ education globally. Save the Children reports a reduction of at least 25% in spending on education for girls compared with 2019-20 levels.
Sarah Champion
Lab
Rotherham
Champion criticises the Government's approach to foreign aid as hypocritical, citing specific examples of cuts in global health security initiatives such as polio eradication and HIV treatment. She points out that funding for neglected tropical diseases and water sanitation projects has been slashed significantly despite commitments to end violence against women and girls.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Davis argues the moral case for maintaining international development funding, dismissing financial concerns as minor compared to long-term national interests. He stresses that British citizens overwhelmingly support spending on life-saving aid despite initial resistance towards foreign aid expenditure.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds South
This debate is about the moral commitment to uphold our aid promises made in good faith. It questions the rightness and morality of breaking these promises, damaging our international reputation. The Prime Minister will meet G7 leaders who have not cut their aid budgets despite facing similar fiscal pressures. Hilary Benn argues against cutting clean water support by 80%, emphasising its crucial role in reducing infant mortality and enabling education for girls. He concludes that the British public is more compassionate than to accept such cuts, advocating for both domestic charity and international aid.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
This speech addresses political and humanitarian aspects of cutting aid budgets. Politically, it questions how promoting global Britain can be achieved while damaging the poorest people in the world. It warns about China, Russia, and their client states filling the vacuum left by Britain's aid cuts. Humanitarianly, it argues against exacerbating poverty among the 1 billion living on less than $1 a day. Gale calls for reversing the cut to 0.5% next year to allow the Prime Minister to hold his head high at G7.
Liam Byrne
Lab
Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North
Byrne criticises the decision to cut aid as dishonouring our word, dismaying friends and delighting enemies. He highlights the inconsistency between promises made in the Integrated Review and actions taken by the Government, questioning trustworthiness. Byrne also points out a serious imbalance in foreign policy with rising defence spending compared to falling development spending. Additionally, he emphasises the importance of investing in fragile states to alleviate poverty and safeguard security, advocating for continued aid despite budget constraints.
Karen Bradley
Con
Staffordshire Moorlands
The United Kingdom must be an outward-looking global Britain, taking a full role in global institutions and meeting commitments on defence and trade. The current cut in aid spending is an exceptional time but certainty about funding from the UK for organisations is needed. There are concerns over whether this reduction will be temporary or part of shifting to 0.7% by backdoor measures. A vote on reverting to 0.7% should occur when possible, and it's important that we maintain our global commitments.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
Maintaining aid spending at 0.7% is critical due to the loss of lives and exacerbation of poverty in developing countries. This cut undermines UK's global reputation, credibility and ability to lead on issues like climate change. A vote should be granted on whether to reverse these cuts, showing commitment to global promises and humanitarian duties.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
While the 0.7% aid spending is a manifesto commitment, cutting this budget could lead to waste due to rapid reallocation of funds during the pandemic. The government should be transparent and give Parliament a clear date for revisiting and possibly reinstating this budget allocation.
The cut in aid spending is seen as a dishonourable move by millions who voted based on the 0.7% commitment. The situation abroad requires urgent help, and there's a need to support programmes that have positively changed lives, including those related to gender equality, clean water access, education, and combating modern slavery.
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Tobias Ellwood
Con
Basingstoke
Welcomes debate, argues that aid programmes must be integrated into wider Government strategies to enhance Britain's soft power. Stresses the importance of soft power in supporting economy and security amidst rising authoritarianism and extremism globally.
Chris Law
SNP
Dundee Central
Critiques Government for imposing cuts on life-saving assistance during pandemic, urges to uphold international aid commitments as a means of active participation in global affairs. Highlights the UN’s warning about pushing back SDGs due to cuts and emphasises the cost in lives these decisions may incur.
Acknowledges difficult circumstances but argues for necessity of balancing financial prudence with aid commitments, emphasising exceptional measures taken by Government during unprecedented times like the pandemic. Offers an alternative view on current debate and highlights UK's globally recognised commitment to international development.
Neil Coyle
Lab
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
The Government's decision to reduce aid spending contradicts the tradition of not ignoring problems and helping others because it is the right thing to do. Aid prevents diseases from spreading, can prevent conflicts involving UK armed forces, and can facilitate trade benefiting British business. Ministers seem ready to abandon their manifesto promises despite having a massive majority.
Steve Brine
Con
Hundreds of constituents have contacted me regarding the changes to our aid programme, many proud of the support we give around the world. However, yesterday’s amendment did not restore all projects; with a £10 billion spending this year and a massive drop in economic output, does the 0.7% to 0.5% cut matter? Yes, it does matter for our reputation around the world, and countries follow us because of what we do. HIV is one example where reductions risk setting the stage for a resurgence of the AIDS pandemic. This is not just about manifesto commitments but personal ones that need to be stood by.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
Discusses the impact of budget cuts on HIV/AIDS programmes, highlights the importance of British science in global health initiatives such as malaria research. Emphasises that cutting aid undermines leadership during CHOGM. Criticises wasteful management practices like in-year funding cuts and argues for addressing inequality to fund necessary expenditures.
Steve Double
Con
N/A
Acknowledges the difficulty of supporting budget cuts while maintaining respect for colleagues who oppose them. Argues that economic recovery necessitates tough financial decisions, including breaking manifesto commitments on aid spending and debt reduction. Acknowledges UK's continued large contribution but questions overplayed influence due to other nations not following 0.7% commitment. Urges government to minimize impact on world’s poorest and return to 0.7% as soon as possible.
Claire Hanna
SDLP
Belfast South and Mid Down
Critiques the Government's decision as both morally regrettable and unlawful, highlighting bypassing of Parliament. Emphasises the need to keep a promise made to provide aid despite economic contraction, arguing that development investment creates long-term resilience against shocks. Describes cut as penny wise and pound foolish, citing examples of aid benefits like education and food security. Proud of UK's aid record but criticises rhetoric around sovereignty.
Harriett Baldwin
Con
West Worcestershire
I have had the privilege of representing the UK as a Minister in the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, witnessing the good that our aid budget does around the world. Whether in Ebola outbreaks or neglected tropical diseases, UK efforts have made significant impacts. I am proud of our commitment to meet NATO 2% targets and UN 0.7% aid target, which is now enshrined in law. However, breaking these pledges could lead to legal challenges and undermines international leadership during the pandemic, especially when we need to vaccinate the world and address growing cases in African and Asian countries.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
The Government's decision to reduce aid spending is shameful, particularly during a global pandemic. The reduction will exacerbate issues such as gender-based violence, disrupted education, food insecurity, and healthcare access in developing countries. For instance, UNICEF has lost 60% of its core funding, leading to potential mother and baby deaths. Additionally, cutting funding for climate-vulnerable countries is irresponsible ahead of COP26; we should lead on debt relief instead. Small island developing states (SIDS) face particular challenges due to climate change and the pandemic but often do not qualify for aid despite their vulnerabilities.
Neil O'Brien
Con
Harborough, Oadby and Wigston
The Government faces difficult choices this autumn, including commitments to help children catch up on education, clear NHS backlogs, address social care crises, and promote levelling up. Despite the value of aid spending, we must prioritise domestic issues such as healthcare and job opportunities for underprivileged regions. Public opinion favours these priorities over international aid.
Pauline Latham
Con
Derbyshire Dales
She expresses disappointment over the Minister's absence and highlights the negative impact of aid cuts on the world’s poorest, emphasising how such policies will lead to increased maternal and child mortality rates. She appeals to the Government to reconsider its decision.
Nigel Evans
Constitutional
Accrington
He briefly mentions trying to rearrange speaking order for another MP but does not provide a substantial contribution on the debate topic.
Arfon
He criticises the unjustified and unwise cuts to aid, highlighting that other European countries manage to meet or exceed 0.7% of GDP targets. He also points out specific consequences like reduced funding for UNICEF and the United Nations Population Fund leading to unintended pregnancies and maternal deaths.
Wirral West
She denounces the Government’s plan to cut UK aid, citing severe reductions in humanitarian assistance to Yemen, education funding for girls, and water, sanitation projects. She argues that such cuts will have far-reaching consequences, especially for vulnerable children, and questions the government's adherence to its manifesto promises.
Tewkesbury
He opposes the cut in official development assistance spending from 0.7% to 0.5%, arguing that it will disproportionately impact countries like Ethiopia, which rely heavily on UK aid for basic necessities such as education, healthcare, and clean water. He emphasises the moral duty of the UK to uphold its commitment to international aid.
Ian Paisley Jnr
Con
North Antrim
He speaks against the Government's decision to cut overseas aid spending, arguing that it has offended numerous church and charity groups in his constituency. He calls for the Government to reconsider their stance as it goes against a promise made during the last election and undermines the credibility of UK charities. Paisley also stresses the importance of soft diplomacy through international aid.
Matt Western
Lab
Warwick and Leamington
He criticises the Government's decision to cut overseas development assistance, stating that it places vulnerable populations worldwide at greater risk and undermines the UK’s reputation on the global stage. He provides specific examples of aid cuts, including Yemen, water sanitation projects in developing nations, education funding, and polio eradication initiatives. Western also highlights the potential long-term health risks associated with such cuts.
Central Ayrshire
Critiqued the Government's decision to cut overseas aid, citing examples of how it will impact women and girls' health and education, humanitarian aid, HIV/AIDS relief, conflict zones, famine relief, refugees, child education, water and sanitation projects. Emphasised that funding should not be restored in a couple of years but urgently needed now during the pandemic.
Rother Valley
Supported the Government's decision to temporarily reduce foreign aid due to economic hardship caused by the coronavirus. Argued that aid money should focus on local needs in Rother Valley and questioned the efficacy of sending borrowed funds abroad, especially to dictatorships like China.
Brendan O'Hara
SNP
Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber
Condemned the Government's decision as 'shameful', stating it undermines global Britain's moral standing. Criticised plans to spend money on increasing nuclear weapons stockpiles instead of helping impoverished nations suffering from conflict and famine.
Bob Seely
Con
Isle of Wight
Proposed broadening the definition of 'aid' to include peacekeeping operations, BBC World Service, and TV support. Suggested returning to 0.7% but with a redefined scope that covers civilisational values from peacekeeping to cultural media.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Urged the Chief Secretary to Treasury to reflect on the House's view against overseas aid cuts. Highlighted concerns about avoidable deaths and damage to international reputation, noting that only four speakers supported the Government’s cuts.
Questioned whether the Government would come forward with a vote in the House regarding the 0.7% aid target, as per Mr Speaker's insistence yesterday.
Rosie Winterton
17:55:00
Responded to Anthony Mangnall by stating that his point of order was a continuation of the debate from the previous day and did not provide additional guidance beyond what Mr Speaker had already communicated.
▸
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.