Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

MOD Expenditure: Official Development Assistance

Monday 30 January 2023 · 3 questions

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

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 1 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Patrick Grady asked about the proportion of the Ministry of Defence's expenditure classified as Official Development Assistance for Ukraine and other countries for the current and next financial year.
  • The Minister noted a pattern of repeated questioning by Patrick Grady on the topic of double-counting spending related to ODA and NATO targets.
  • Tobias Ellwood questioned the Minister about US comments and the Defence Committee's findings on the war-fighting capability of the British Army, to which the Minister responded that the US has not recently commented on the ODA budget.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Patrick Grady SNP
Ukraine Foreign Affairs
Context

The question arises from concerns over how the Ministry of Defence (MOD) classifies its expenditures, particularly in relation to Official Development Assistance (ODA). The MP seeks clarity on whether double-counting is occurring.

Question

What proportion of his Department's expenditure in (a) Ukraine and (b) other countries he plans to classify as Official Development Assistance in (i) this and (ii) the next financial year?

Answer from James Heappey

None.

How: No Response Provided

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q2 Patrick Grady SNP
Defence Foreign Affairs
Context

The MP is concerned about the MOD's practice of double-counting spending towards both ODA targets and NATO 2% defence targets, questioning if this does a disservice to these targets.

Question

In that case, I do not expect that the MOD will be taking any credit for the work that the conflict, stability and security fund does. The reality is that over the years, the Government have made a habit of double-counting spending to both the ODA target and the NATO 2% defence target—and of course the Home Office is busy raiding the ODA budget every chance it gets. Does that not do a disservice to what both the NATO 2% target and the ODA target are supposed to achieve?

Answer from James Heappey

The connection to the NATO target is somewhat tenuous, but there is a pattern to the hon. Gentleman's questions. I think this is the fourth time he has asked this in oral questions, and he ask asked it in a number of written questions as well. I also think his point is principally aimed at colleagues in the Foreign Office and Treasury, but if he would like to meet MOD officials to discuss once and for all the MOD's plans for the use of ODA, I would be very happy to facilitate such a meeting.

Not addressed: The issue of double-counting spending towards both ODA and NATO targets was not addressed. Instead, the response shifted focus to previous questioning patterns and offered a meeting on the topic.

How: Deflecting By Noting Repetitive Questioning, Offering Unrelated Meetings

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q3 Tobias Ellwood Con
Ukraine Defence
Context

The question stems from comments made in the United States and findings by the Defence Committee highlighting shortfalls in war-fighting capability of the British Army due to long-term underinvestment.

Question

Speaking of budgets and Ukraine, may I invite the Minister to respond to comments from the United States—our closest security ally—which tally with the Defence Committee's findings that the conflict in Ukraine has exposed serious shortfalls in the war-fighting capability of the British Army? This is not about the professionalism of individuals, units or formations; it is about overall combat strength and the equipment they use, as well as the ability to meet increasing demands caused by the deteriorating threat picture.

Answer from James Heappey

I am not sure that the United States has said anything about the official development assistance budget recently, but if you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, that is a wider point of news—[Interruption.] Thank you. Everybody is clear, and the Secretary of State has said many times—as have I and other ministerial colleagues —that serial underinvestment in the Army over decades has led to the point where the Army is in urgent need of recapitalisation. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister get that, and there is a Budget coming.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific comments from the US were not directly addressed; instead, the response focused on general underinvestment issues.

How: Avoiding Specifics About Us Comments, Discussing Broader Investment Needs

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email