← Back to House of Commons Debates
Official Development Assistance
26 November 2020
Lead MP
Dominic Raab
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
EconomyClimateForeign AffairsParliamentary ProcedureStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 39
At a Glance
Dominic Raab raised concerns about official development assistance 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:
Government Statement
EconomyClimateForeign AffairsParliamentary ProcedureStandards & Ethics
Government Statement
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement to the House on official development assistance. The House is aware of the economic challenges posed by the global pandemic, leading to an unprecedented contraction in the UK's economy and a budget deficit nearing £400 billion. Due to these fiscal pressures, we regretfully announce that we cannot maintain our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on ODA this year but will move to a target of 0.5%, spending around £10 billion next year, maintaining the UK's status as one of the leading countries in global development aid. This reduction is temporary and necessary given current economic circumstances. We remain committed to adhering to OECD rules for ODA allocation and aim to maximise its impact through strategic integration across government departments, focusing on climate change mitigation, addressing health crises such as covid-19, promoting girls' education, resolving conflicts, enhancing humanitarian aid delivery, and boosting trade partnerships.
Graham Stringer
Lab
Manchester Blackley
Question
The hon. Member for Manchester Blackley asks about the impact on specific countries like Pakistan, Kenya and Nepal which have substantial aid programmes in place. He wants to know if there will be a change to these commitments.
Minister reply
I am grateful for the question from my right hon. Friend. I can reassure him that we remain committed to maintaining our status as a world leader in development spending. We are committed to continuing substantial aid programmes in countries like Pakistan, Kenya and Nepal and ensuring their effectiveness.
Stephen Kinnock
Lab
Ablethorpe
Question
The hon. Member for Aberavon asks about the impact of reducing ODA on our global reputation and influence as a world leader in development spending, particularly with regards to our leadership role at COP26 next year.
Minister reply
We are acutely aware of the importance of maintaining our status as a leading country in development aid. We will continue to uphold our commitments through strategic integration across government departments and by leveraging our diplomatic network to maximise impact from our ODA, ensuring we can lead effectively at COP26 next year.
Sajid Javid
Con
Birkenhead
Question
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead seeks clarity on the process of bringing forward legislation to amend the current 0.7% ODA target, and asks about the timeline for this.
Minister reply
We are committed to maintaining our legal obligations where possible but must respond to the unprecedented economic pressures. We will bring forward necessary legislation in due course to formally adjust our ODA spending to a more sustainable level under current financial constraints.
Preet Kaur Gill
Lab Co-op
Birmingham Edgbaston
Question
Critiques the Government's decision to reduce foreign aid spending, citing its negative impact on global efforts such as eradicating poverty and inequality. She questions whether the Government has a strategy or plan.
Minister reply
Dominic Raab responded by stating that despite regretting the decision, it is necessary due to economic pressures. He reaffirmed commitments to prioritise girls' education, climate change action, and international partnerships.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
Question
Supports the Foreign Secretary's focus on ODA spend in British national interest but expresses disappointment over the budget cut. Suggests reforming DAC rules to count more types of spending as ODA.
Minister reply
Dominic Raab acknowledged the need for reform within the DAC framework rather than unilateral changes. He confirmed that current military spend, particularly on peacekeeping, could be better counted under revised rules.
Alyn Smith
SNP
Question
Smith accused the government of breaking promises made in 2014 and at the last election, emphasising Scotland’s interest in international development. He argued that reducing aid is a betrayal to those who are vulnerable due to climate change, economic impacts, and poverty.
Minister reply
Raab defended the decision as necessary under current unprecedented circumstances but acknowledged the government's commitment to expanding FCDO presence in East Kilbride. He challenged Smith on alternative spending cuts needed to meet 0.7% ODA without compromising other fiscal priorities.
Peter Bottomley
Con
Question
Bottomley questioned the impact of economic contraction and sought clarity on the long-term commitment to returning to 0.7%. He highlighted his long-standing support for aid commitments.
Minister reply
Raab explained that £4 billion in savings next year was due to economic contraction, but maintaining ODA at 0.7% would strain public finances further. The minister affirmed the government’s commitment to transparency and returning to 0.7% as soon as possible.
Sarah Champion
Lab
Rotherham
Question
Champion criticised recent closures of DFID, cuts in aid budget, lack of clarity on consequences and suggested tied aid could be a result of these changes. She asked for an impact assessment and support for the International Development Committee’s remit.
Minister reply
Raab clarified that there was no closure but merger of FCDO with DFID to enhance coherence. He stated no reversion to tied aid, nor attempted abolition of Select Committee, emphasising full transparency in publishing ODA statistics.
Question
Trevelyan expressed concern about the impact on multilateral payments and requested a strategic approach across Whitehall to ensure ODA has maximum impact. She thanked Baroness Sugg for her work.
Minister reply
Raab praised Baroness Sugg's work, committed to reviewing DAC rules for ODA spending classification and taking a more strategic approach across government departments to align with climate change priorities.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds South
Question
Critiqued the decision to reduce UK aid spending from 0.7% to 0.5%, arguing that it breaks a promise to the world's poorest people and could result in significant negative impacts such as missed vaccinations, school closures, and increased child mortality.
Minister reply
Acknowledged Benn’s passion for the subject but defended the decision, highlighting strategic prioritisation of areas like immunisation and education. He also pointed out that Labour failed to meet 0.7% during their tenure.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Question
Supported the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, praised Lady Sugg’s resignation letter, and criticised the reduction of aid spending as undermining UK's G7 leadership and causing significant harm in areas such as family planning, child mortality, malnutrition, and education.
Minister reply
Acknowledged Mitchell’s support for ICAI and commitment to transparency. Reiterated that strategic prioritisation would be used instead of a blanket cut and noted that the UK’s spending at 0.5% next year would still exceed US spending.
Peter Kyle
Lab
Hove and Portslade
Question
Asked if the government recognised that withdrawing international development aid could increase military expenditure by necessitating a response to civil strife, extremism, and terrorism, thus undermining national security.
Minister reply
Agreed that our security is strengthened abroad but also noted the soft power impact of defence spending. Emphasised prioritisation of public health in international ODA.
Question
Acknowledged support for 0.7% commitment while understanding tough financial decisions, asked if government intended to return to 0.7%, and highlighted Labour's failure to reach this target.
Minister reply
Confirmed the intention to return to 0.7% when possible and noted the cross-party concern over current circumstances.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
Question
Critiqued the move as callous, unnecessary, undermining soft power post-Brexit, and questioned if the Secretary would regret it in future.
Minister reply
Acknowledged impact on soft power but noted that 0.5% still represents significant spending compared to others.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Broadland and Fakenham
Question
Defended the decision as necessary due to public finances, highlighting borrowing figures.
Minister reply
Agreed with the need for financial scrutiny but noted it would be temporary.
Question
Asked if an impact assessment had been conducted regarding potential loss of life from aid budget cuts.
Minister reply
Stated that careful allocation processes would mitigate risks and that £10 billion would still be spent next year.
Kieran Mullan
Con
Bexhill and Battle
Question
Suggested that overly negative rhetoric might damage public support for aid spending.
Minister reply
Agreed with the sentiment, noting the importance of gaining constituents’ confidence in aid budget decisions.
Carla Lockhart
DUP
Upper Bann
Question
In the light of the announced reduction in the aid budget, will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that aid will be focused on areas of utmost need, such as tackling the systemic issues and cultures of impunity, which enable modern slavery and violence to affect the world’s poorest people?
Minister reply
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have set out the list of priorities, including conflict prevention, promoting accountability in countries and dealing with violence—particularly violence against women, but all violence against civilians in conflict situations. We will run the allocation process to make sure that we safeguard our top priorities, which include those that she mentioned, as best we can in the reduced financial envelope that we face.
Question
I understand the difficult financial decisions that we as a Government have had to make at this unprecedented time. However, I know that all Conservative Members will agree that we need to ensure our foreign aid is targeted to the most vulnerable in the world. When the Independent Commission for Aid Impact report is published later this year, will my right hon. Friend come back to the House and update right hon. and hon. Members on exactly how we can target our support better to ensure it reaches the world’s most vulnerable?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is right, and he will recall that I said back in August that we wanted to reinforce, not undermine, the role of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact to strengthen the transparency, reinforce the accountability and make sure that we get the very best critical analysis of where we have the most impact. As soon as the review is finalised, copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House and shared with Select Committees, and I will make a statement to the House.
Question
The Foreign Secretary says that this cut is both temporary and a matter of necessity. Although borrowing is up, the overall cost of borrowing has fallen because of falling interest rates, yet the poorest countries are not able to respond to the economic consequences of covid in this way, as richer countries can. As we are the global host of the G7, the UN Security Council and COP26, will he press the Chancellor to lead by example for global Britain, particularly in relation to the new US Biden Administration, and to leverage more funds from the US as well, so the poorer nations get the best deal in the worst year—next year, of all years, when it will be needed most?
Minister reply
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which is that we are facing acute difficulties, and we are very concerned about what that will mean for the most vulnerable countries, both on health grounds and financial grounds. We have a direct stake in that, as well as a moral responsibility, and in everything we are doing—from International Monetary Fund debt relief to World Bank projects and, indeed, the allocation review that I have already mentioned to the House—we will safeguard the £10 billion to make sure it is focused on shoring up the poorer countries, the most vulnerable countries, as they come through this pandemic.
Question
As a member of the International Development Select Committee during the previous Parliament, I quite understand the need for the UK to live within its means in these exceptional circumstances, and I welcome the fact that we are still spending more of our gross national income on development than the vast majority of other countries. However, can I have an assurance from the Secretary of State that no more UK aid will go to China—a country that is, in effect, developed, and of course one that has a very poor human rights record?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend may know that we ended bilateral aid to China in 2011. There is, though, still a case for some collaboration in the development space with China, and the example I tend to give is climate change. Yes, China is the biggest net emitter, but it is also the biggest investor in renewables, and even with all the other challenges we have with China, that is an area in which we want to try to work and engage positively.
Question
Over the past few weeks, the UK Government have threatened to break international law, and are now retreating from pledges given both domestically and internationally to support some of the world’s most vulnerable people at a time of unprecedented global crisis. I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary can really be content with the way his Government’s policy is undermining the UK’s international standing and claims to global leadership, and seeing them shrivel so miserably on his watch.
Minister reply
The wonderful thing about this job is that when I travel abroad, I realise the high esteem in which we in the United Kingdom are held, not just for our democracy and our way of life, but for the contribution we make. I hear that from both sides of the aisle in the United States, and there is lots of talk from President-elect Biden about the renewed approach to multilateralism. I have heard it in the calls I have made, from Dr Tedros, from David Malpass at the World Bank, and indeed from António Guterres.
Question
As a long-term supporter of our global Britain agenda, of which aid is a key part, I am deeply concerned by yesterday’s announcement that we will not be keeping to 0.7% next year. I appreciate the difficult economic decisions this Government have had to make because of the coronavirus pandemic, but given that the 0.7% target is also a manifesto commitment, can my right hon. Friend confirm to me that this fall to 0.5% is only temporary? I also note that the Government have said we will return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows.
Minister reply
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the enormous expertise and experience she brings to the House from the development sphere. I can confirm that it will be temporary and, as I have already said, it is done as a matter of necessity and with regret. She asks what steps we will take. The most important thing is that we will need to see the impact of the virus on the economy and then on the public finances. We have come through what is effectively a second wave. We need to shore up against that. The measures the Government have announced aim to do that.
Naseem Shah
Lab
Bradford West
Question
From actively breaking international law in a “very specific and limited” way to breaking commitments on international aid, does the Foreign Secretary not realise how his Government are slowly weaning Britain from its role as a world leader, day by day making us more irrelevant on the world stage? Every former living Prime Minister can see why this move is morally wrong and politically unwise. Why can the current Prime Minister and his Government not see it?
Minister reply
I think the current Prime Minister, and certainly this Foreign Secretary, gets a little fed up with hearing Britain being done down. I have to say to the hon. Lady that, despite the coronavirus pandemic and the fiscal conditions we face, we are none the less putting in £10 billion, which, on 2019 figures, has us as the second-largest overseas development aid contributor. When I speak to our interlocutors abroad, from Asia to Africa, and when I speak to our multilateral partners, from Dr Tedros to António Guterres, they do not share this self-flagellating defeatism or this will to do Britain down.
Wes Streeting
Lab
Ilford North
Question
We now know that because of the Government’s choices the economic price facing the country is higher, that the manifesto commitments the Conservatives made last December can no longer be trusted, and that when the Government talk about hard choices what they really mean are real-terms pay cuts for key public sector workers such as teachers, teaching assistants, police and firefighters, and cuts to support for the world’s poorest. Can the Foreign Secretary at least tell us what he thinks the public will be more concerned about: aid that goes to the world’s poorest which actually saves us money in the longer term, or the gross waste of public money through billions of pounds of poor Government contracts and barrels full of public money handed over to Tory donors?
Minister reply
I think that’s Twitter lined up for later on in the afternoon. The hon. Gentleman asks what the public expects. I think they ask us in a sober way to look at all the choices. We have done that.
Question
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. A short question coming up. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm to the House that the UK’s aid spend will also be focused on ensuring that the most vulnerable around the world get access to vaccines?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have demonstrated that through our leadership of the Gavi summit and our leadership role in the funding and galvanising of international funding for COVAX, and we will continue to do so.
Dave Doogan
SNP
Angus and Perthshire Glens
Question
The fact that the aid budget is set as a percentage of GNI means that it is necessarily self-regulating. Budget allocations on such a basis remain consistent with the prevailing economic conditions, so if 0.7% was okay for normal times, surely it must be fine for lean times, too. Having reneged on a key Tory manifesto commitment less than a year after the election—in itself surely something of a record—will the Secretary of State advise the House of what detailed analysis he has commissioned to quantify the cost to humanity of removing £4 billion in aid from the poorest communities in the teeth of a global pandemic?
Minister reply
I do not think it is right to say that just because there is a percentage based on GNI, that means we can deal with a situation of the severity that we face now, with the worst economic contraction in more than 300 years and a budget deficit double that of the previous financial crisis. These are not ordinary times in which the natural stabiliser built into the target can apply. The hon. Gentleman asked how we will safeguard and prioritise; we have an allocations process. We are not going to salami-slice ODA across the different pots of money; we are going to make sure that we do it in a strategic way, and I will be taking that forward in the weeks leading up to Christmas.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Sussex Weald
Question
My right hon. Friend has said that, going forward, the right decisions will be made to deal with everything from poverty to extremism. For that to be the case, he has to focus on the safety and security of women and girls, which requires access for them to good and safe education. Will he update us on how we will continue to do that? During this, the week of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, the greatest number of women being abused are Uyghur women who are being abused by the Chinese state. Will he update us on what support he can provide to Uyghur women?
Minister reply
I have set out before the House how we will safeguard what we are doing on girls’ education and how we will maintain our leadership role with the global targets that we set.
We are very concerned about the position in Xinjiang. We recently made Five Eyes statements on it and brought together, in the United Nations Third Committee, a much broader pool of countries to express our concern. What needs to happen now is that the UN Human Rights Commissioner, or another independent fact-finding body, needs to be able to have access to check the facts, because China’s rejoinder is always that this is just not happening.
Debbie Abrahams
Lab
Oldham East and Saddleworth
Question
The provision of overseas development aid is not a selfless act: it is in our interest to foster global peace and sustainable development, thereby reducing the migration associated with war, climate change, disease and famine. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the impact on international peace building and migration associated with the Government’s choice to cut foreign aid?
Minister reply
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I do not see a siloed distinction between our moral interest in what we do abroad and the national interest—they are often combined. In respect of some of the areas that she mentioned, she should look at what we are doing on defence and security; it may not be strictly within the DAC rules, but it does have a huge impact on our soft power abroad and the stability of the countries that she mentioned.
Question
The International Development Committee has long recommended that there should be a single sign-off by—since its takeover of the Department for International Development—the FCDO on all UK ODA spend, no matter which Department spends it. Who in the FCDO will ultimately be responsible for that? I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary is far too busy.
Minister reply
Ultimately, the Secretary of State and Ministers are responsible to Parliament for financial spending. We look carefully at both the underspend and the overspend. We are constantly looking not just to strengthen our internal processes—we have looked at that again as a result of the merger—but to make sure through ICAI and the Select Committees in this House that we have maximum transparency.
Stephen Flynn
SNP
Aberdeen South
Question
On 30 June, the Secretary of State said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan):
“I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid.”—[Official Report, 142.]
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he was not being truthful with the House at that time, or did the Chancellor and the Prime Minister simply not tell him what they were planning to do?
Minister reply
Amid all the hyperbole, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but the truth is that the full scale of the economic situation was not clear—[Interruption.] It was not clear, because we were coming through—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering.
Harriett Baldwin
Con
West Worcestershire
Question
Our economy has taken a terrible shock this year and that is why 0.7% means that we have already had to cut aid by £2.9 billion this year. Yesterday, I heard an update from the World Food Programme in South Sudan. It has had an even worse economic shock not just from covid, but from the ongoing conflict and the fact they have had locusts and biblical floods. Now, more than half the population is facing famine. The Foreign Secretary recently sent his special envoy for famine prevention and humanitarian affairs to South Sudan. Can he reassure the House that he will make no further cuts to the programming in South Sudan?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to South Sudan. I could give a list of countries that risk the compound effect of conflict, covid and famine.
Navendu Mishra
Lab
Stockport
Question
The UK is seen as a world leader when it comes to international development. Our legislation ensures that aid is focused on poverty reduction. Can the Foreign Secretary share his views on tied aid and address the concerns of numerous Members on both sides of the House about the Government making a return to tied aid, which will harm not only the people who benefit from UK aid, but our nation’s reputation globally?
Minister reply
The hon. Gentleman asks a really good question. I do not agree with tied aid.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Question
The Churches played the key role in the 20-year cross-party consensus on aid, and I pay tribute to their achievement since Jubilee 2000 and Make Poverty History. We all realised what abolishing DFID really meant. Why did the Secretary of State not realise it?
Minister reply
I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the Churches.
Question
I welcome the opportunities that an integrated budget provides. I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s focus on defending open societies. After the Prime Minister’s affirmative reply to my letters to the Foreign Secretary of 4 September and 12 October about securing global Britain’s leadership on LGBT+ rights, will the Foreign Secretary undertake to instruct officials to engage with the United Kingdom Alliance for Global Equality and any other relevant organisations to help to formulate the programmes of work that could be delivered and announced by the Prime Minister or him when the United Kingdom hosts the global Equal Rights Coalition conference next year?
Minister reply
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has championed this cause relentlessly and with great passion and great eloquence.
Craig Whittaker
Con
Calder Valley
Question
Having experienced three 100-year floods within eight years, we are only too aware in the Calder Valley of how vital immediate emergency help is from Government. While I agree with the short-term reduction in international aid because of the massive generational cost of borrowing money, among other things, does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK should continue to be a major donor in addressing the worst humanitarian and natural disaster crises throughout the world?
Minister reply
As I have set out, that is of course one of the priorities that we will safeguard as we reduce the financial envelope. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think there is cross-party consensus. For all the public criticism there sometimes is of the ODA spend, alleviating conflict and dealing with the aftermath of humanitarian disasters is what ODA should be spent on and what it should be prioritised for.
Southgate and Wood Green
Question
The pandemic has reminded us that the virus does not respect borders. Countries with weaker health systems and poor water and sanitation facilities are less likely to defeat covid-19, maintaining the virus’s threat to the UK and the world. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether that was taken into account when making the decision to cut vital aid? Can he explain what he means by returning to the 0.7% commitment when the fiscal situation allows? What metrics will be used to determine that point in time?
Minister reply
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about covid and other public health priorities. That is why, as I have set out, we are not just taking a salami-slicing approach to the £10 billion of ODA next year. We will look strategically. As I have already said, that is one of the priorities. It is difficult to give him the precision he may want on when fiscal conditions will allow us to get back to 0.7%, but that is a result of the pandemic.
Anthony Mangnall
Con
Totnes
Question
To say that I am disappointed by the decision is an understatement. I am horrified that we have decided to break a manifesto commitment, and I am horrified by the message it sends to the many women who have suffered such horrendous acts of sexual violence in conflict, especially given the fact that yesterday was the UN International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I know how hard it is and that the Foreign Secretary did not want that decision, but why did he and the Government not look at reforming this and at a multi-year funding formula—rather than one based on the calendar year—to reach the 0.7%? That would have given us the long-term strategy and the commitment to the world’s poorest.
Minister reply
I thank my hon. Friend for what he is saying, and I understand that he is trying to be constructive. I think he is referring to the idea that we could reform and change the approach, as many have suggested even before the pandemic, to say that the 0.7% commitment is averaged out over several years. I understand that, and I think it is a good proposal. It is something that perhaps we should consider in any event, but the reality is that the depth of the economic hit, the depth of the contraction and the knock-on effect to the public finances mean that I am afraid that would not be able satisfy the challenge and the extent of the necessity that we face in trying to reconcile domestic and international priorities.
Shadow Comment
Preet Kaur Gill
Shadow Comment
Last week’s promise to end an era of retreat by the UK Government has been undermined today with a significant reduction in our ODA spending from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI, signalling a major setback for the UK's global role and reputation. The Government’s decision reneges on their manifesto commitment to uphold the law mandating 0.7% ODA spending, leading to severe criticism from traditional allies and detractors alike. This move undermines efforts towards combating climate change and eradicating poverty, especially ahead of critical global events like COP26 and G7. The shadow spokesperson calls for greater transparency on future aid allocations and insists the government should uphold its legal commitment to 0.7% ODA spending as a matter of national interest.
▸
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.