Official Development Assistance

Question

14:36:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have made an assessment of the likely impact of cuts to Official Development Assistance in the UK, United States of America and European nations on progress towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I declare my interest as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition and Hunger.

My Lords, we are committed to the sustainable development goals and to continue working with partners to accelerate progress by 2030. To do this, we are resetting our approach, moving from donor to investor and building modern, mutually beneficial partnerships to navigate global issues. Aid alone has never been enough, which is why at the conference on financing for development we pushed for tangible action on global finance system reform, including UK-led initiatives to unlock more private capital.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware that the cumulative impacts of cuts to development support around the world fundamentally undermine progress on the sustainable development goals, with devastating consequences for millions of people. In light of that fact, will she ensure that remaining UK development support is maximised by directing it through match-funding mechanisms with partner countries and philanthropies, by working with multilateral development banks to leverage their balance sheets to focus on the SDGs and by urgently addressing unsustainable debt servicing burdens on low-income countries?

It certainly does present a challenge, as the UK and many other nations are making similar decisions about their ODA budgets. However, while it makes this more of a challenge, it does not mean that we give up, and the way that the noble Lord suggests that we direct our spend in future is pretty much what we are doing. We are focusing and pivoting more towards the multilateral system, because that is how you can leverage more funds and get better value and more impact in country, which we all want to see.

My Lords, the Minister will know of my concern about the disproportionate impact that these cuts will have on women and girls. Will she agree to meet with me and a cross-party group of parliamentarians of both Houses who share my concern, when we return in September, to discuss working together to mitigate this?

I would be very happy to meet with the noble Baroness, especially given her track record on this agenda. She will have noted that we intend to integrate and mainstream our work on gender, particularly through our work on humanitarian and health priorities, and she will note the appointment of my noble and learned friend Lady Harman as our envoy on women and girls. I suggest that my noble friend is included in our discussions too.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most effective way of helping countries is to try to extend birth control in countries that currently do not have that ability? Does she agree that, in a time when there is a shortage of resources, we should concentrate on that area?

That is an incredibly important area to focus on. We have spent £60 million this year on the UNFPA and an additional £8 million on humanitarian family planning products because, as my noble friend says, this is such a vital issue. It can make such a difference to women and girls and to whole communities in places that really need the support.

My Lords, the US and the UK were major supporters of UNFPA, the UN Population Fund. The devastating cuts to USAID, coupled with the right-wing push-back on gender equality and family planning, leave the poorest women and girls in a desperate situation globally. Following on from the previous two questions, how will the UK prioritise helping them, given that we certainly will not reach the SDGs if we do not do that?

I talked about money in my previous answers, but our commitment to be advocates and continue to push for a change in country on the rights of women and girls is often as important. Maintaining access to safe abortion and family planning advice and products is a key commitment from the Government that builds on the work of very many of my predecessors. This is absolutely vital and is one of the reasons that we have decided to prioritise health as we go forward.

My Lords, given that conflict is one of the reasons why development is always impeded, has the Minister had a chance to look at the correspondence last week between the Foreign Secretary and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, where the Foreign Secretary was asked whether these cuts will impact the work we are able to do with the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner and UNICEF? He said that peacekeeping would not be affected, but he was unable to answer that question. Given the importance of holding to account perpetrators of terrible crimes from Ukraine to the Middle East, in Sudan, the Horn of Africa, Syria and so many other places, does the Minister agree that we must do nothing that reduces our expenditure on bringing perpetrators to account and our attempts to try to mitigate the worst effects of the terrible violence?

I agree with that. We can be proud of the work that this country has done on conflict prevention, on demining and on many other areas connected to the issues he raises, not least accountability. But you only have to listen to the news coming out of Gaza this morning to be confronted with the fact that you can provide as much aid as you like—we have protected our aid to Gaza; we have aid waiting on the border—but the reason that those people are starving is because of political choice.

My Lords, antimicrobial resistance is a huge security threat to the United Kingdom, as well as a health threat and an economic threat. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, from these Benches, was commissioned by the Government in 2014 to conduct a review on AMR, and that led to the foundation of the Fleming Fund, which has now been killed off. In the other place, the Government said: “While the Fleming Fund itself is not continuing, the partnerships, the information and the expertise are”. Can the Minister help me to understand what that actually means, given we have killed a major institutional organisation, which has been genuinely world-leading in the field of AMR?

I think those comments were made by the Minister for Public Health, Minister Dalton, at the International Development Committee last week. I would invite the noble Baroness to look at how we are focusing on function and not form. The decision from the Department of Health and Social Care, led by Chris Whitty, on research and development, is that the work and benefits of the Fleming Fund, which she quite rightly points out have been outstanding in its work on antimicrobial resistance, must continue. Much has been learned through the Fleming Fund, but it is right that we evolve that into other agencies so that we can get the benefit from that.

My Lords, sustainable development goal 3.3 says that HIV, AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis must be beaten by 2030. On the current rate of progress, TB will not be beaten for 100 years. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that global public health will be prioritised. Will TB, within that, continue to be a priority for the Government? TB is an airborne infectious disease, and it is an entirely unnecessary loss of life that 1.5 million people a year still die from it.

One could say the same about HIV and, to an extent, malaria. That is one of the reasons that the UK is now the largest donor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. As we now understand only too well, these things not only have a hugely damaging effect on developing countries but can find their way here. The Prime Minister will co-host the replenishment of the Global Fund in South Africa in the autumn, and it is his job to announce a decision on that pledge. I will not do that today, but the noble Lord will see the concerns that he has aired reflected in that announcement.

My Lords, as a former Development Minister, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, about the reduction of our development assistance. However, do the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives ever suggest what other areas we might cut to restore some of this funding?

It would be a very strange former Minister for Development who would not regret a reduction in the budget—or any Minister in any department, because that is not what any of us is here to do. The Liberal Democrats prioritising certain budgets ahead of others is for them to answer, not me.

My Lords, on these Benches we are clear that the primary duty of any Government is to their own people and country. We will always view ODA in that context. A new Independent Commission for Aid Impact report projects that, by 2027-28, one-fifth of ODA will be spent on supporting refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. Does the Minister think this is money well spent? Can she take this opportunity to confirm how much of the ODA budget will be spent on the Government’s Chagos deal?

ODA is not being spent on the Chagos deal, as the noble Earl should know; I have told him about four times. We inherited a situation in which about one-third of the ODA budget was spent on in-donor refugee costs, and I think that is disgraceful. I want to see that percentage reduced. The Home Office has reduced costs by around one-third over the last year, but ODA pays for only the first year of it, so they need to go a lot further to keep me happy—but, trust me, they are motivated.