Official Development Assistance

Question

11:27:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the moral implications of their policy of reducing Official Development Assistance to 0.3 per cent of gross national income.

My Lords, protecting our national security is the first duty of any Government. This difficult choice reflects the evolving nature of the threats we face and the strategic shifts required to meet them. This Government remain fully committed to the United Kingdom playing a globally significant role on development. We will use all levers to support our development aims and we will work to mobilise finance beyond ODA to better meet the development needs of our partners.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that very clear and helpful response. William Temple, in his famous book Christianity and Social Order, written in 1942, famously stated that “the art of government in fact is the art of so ordering life that self-interest prompts what justice demands”. I believe that that tension is with us today and was clearly expressed in the Labour manifesto last year, which promised that, on the international level, Britain would be a good neighbour and regain its global leadership on development. I want to put two questions. First, what strategies will the Government take forward to carry on UK aid’s crucial work, bearing in mind the straitened circumstances in which we live? Secondly, is this not now an opportunity to deepen the links between UK aid and the many organisations that do such fantastic work, such as Christian Aid, CAFOD, Tearfund, Islamic Relief and many other voluntary compassionate groups?

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord. On his first question, importantly, the Foreign Secretary will lead a cross-departmental process to consider all the aid allocations. We will work through how our ODA budget will be used as part of ongoing spending review and resource-allocation processes, based on various factors, including impact assessments. To repeat the point I made before, it is important that our development efforts are seen not just through ODA. The United Kingdom uses expertise, policy influencing, global convening and other trade and economic levers. I have visited many African countries in the last six months; I know what leaders are telling me. Our new approach to developing partnerships is about leveraging greater investment, economic growth and empowerment through the creation of jobs. That is how we will deliver change, and that is what we will continue to do.

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. I also draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to a question I asked last Thursday, in the debate on the G7 Statement, about the precarious nature of the FCDO’s global demining programme, which was threatened at that time because the money came from ODA. I do this because, in many contexts, an artificial dichotomy between aid and security spending is something of a false dichotomy. Consequently, I ask my noble friend: what are we doing with our allies to ensure that the ODA money, which we have to spend collectively, is targeted where it can do the most good and, importantly, yield tangible benefits for peace and security?

My noble friend makes a really good point. The demining projects are about increasing security, but they are also vital for economic growth and development. I have been to countries where we have supported those projects and where agriculture has increased as a consequence of being able to deal with that issue. So my noble friend is absolutely right: this is about economic growth but it is also about security. As he knows, we have secured the contract for HALO to ensure that we can continue this excellent work.

My Lords, the Minister will know that, following the decision to cut aid to 0.3% of GNI by 2027, there have been calls to maintain spend until 2027 to protect vital programmes and to ensure that the cuts are done in a careful and considered way. The Minister referred to the process; may I press him on a timeline? When will the decisions be made and the impact assessments published, and when will Parliament have the opportunity to debate the details of these decisions?

It is very difficult to give a direct answer; what I can say is that we are currently working through all programmes. We want to avoid a cliff-edge like that which, as the noble Baroness knows, happened in the past: programmes were stopped midway through, and damage was done to our credibility and confidence. We are not going to do that. We are looking at all programmes and making plans to reduce spending over time. Let me reassure her that we will come forward with details when the spending review is completed. We are going to avoid some of the mistakes of the past, and we will work with partners, multilaterally and bilaterally, to ensure there is not the sort of damage we saw in the past.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, next, and then from my noble friend Lord McConnell.

My Lords, yesterday the Government failed to implement the global tax avoidance scheme for businesses earning profits of more than €20 billion, and which would raise over half a billion pounds this year, because they are waiting for President Trump’s approval. Also yesterday, the Government announced in the Statement an immediate £0.5 billion cut to official development assistance, contradicting what the Minister has just said. What is the morality of allowing large companies like Elon Musk’s X to avoid paying tax in the UK, while implementing programme cuts that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable women and girls around the world? What morality is to be found there?

I come back to the point I made at the beginning, because I am absolutely passionate about this. When I visited African countries, they were concerned about ensuring that they have a proper tax base in their own country. That is why the HMRC—[Interruption.] The noble Lord does not need to shout at me. We have embedded people in a number of African countries to help them widen their tax base, and we are working collaboratively with partners to ensure that that happens. We want to see economic growth as the driver of change around the globe, and I am absolutely committed to that. I do not accept the hypocrisy argument that the noble Lord is making.

My Lords, one of the more disappointing aspects of the Government’s decision was to retain payments through ODA towards refugee and asylum costs in the UK. The Government have promised to reduce those costs. Will any savings from ODA spending on hotels and other asylum and refugee costs in the UK be retained within ODA and therefore be freed to again increase the resources available for overseas development?

My noble friend makes a very good point. The Home Office and the Government are absolutely committed to reducing those asylum and hotel costs in this country. Yesterday, it was also confirmed that the FCDO is no longer required to adjust budgets to hit a calendar year spending commitment. This is a positive change that means the FCDO will not automatically be exposed to the volatility of GNI or spending by other departments on, for example, asylum costs.

My Lords, to quote the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition in the other place: “Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid … reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/21; col. 177.] Does this remain His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the impact of cutting foreign aid?

I am glad the noble Earl asked that question, because he needs to be reminded that we are in a different situation. We are in a generational change: the threat this country faces has never been faced before, and we know that we have to return to defence spending to ensure that the people of this country remain secure. I am not going to be lectured by noble Lords opposite about defence spending, when they reduced it so much over the years that we have to work so hard to return to it.