Official Development Assistance

Question

15:22:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government how aid priorities will change following the decision to reduce the Official Development Assistance budget to 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI), and whether they intend to restore the commitment of spending 0.7 per cent of GNI in future.

My Lords, as the Prime Minister made clear, increasing our security and defence spending has demanded the difficult but necessary decision to temporarily reduce our ODA budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI from 2027. This Government remain fully committed to the UK playing a globally significant role on development; it is both in our national interest and in the interest of our partners. We remain committed to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when fiscal circumstances allow.

First, I congratulate the Minister on her promotion, albeit in somewhat difficult and unexpected circumstances. I will seek to work with her to try to ensure that aid, in its reduced capacity, gets to where it matters most. Nevertheless, I believe that the cut in ODA is a strategic error, which not only gives a terrible signal but is a mistake that threatens our security. Anneliese Dodds, in her resignation letter, said that the scale of the cuts would make it virtually impossible for the Government to deliver their continuing commitments. So may I ask, in particular, how the UK will maintain engagement in conflict prevention, reducing migration pressure and building resilience? On top of the cuts inflicted by the previous Government, how can we prevent Russia and China supercharging their presence within the vacuum left by the US and the UK, pulling most of Africa and south Asia into their sphere of influence, undermining democracy and what is left of the rule of law, and seriously compromising our security? I am glad that she said this was temporary, but how temporary is it? When will we get back to 0.7%?

We will get back to 0.7% when we no longer use debt for day-to-day spending and our overall debt starts to decline. We have not done this because of values or a wish to turn away development; we believe in international development, and we are proud of the record of the United Kingdom on international development. However, I should not have to remind anyone in Parliament that the first responsibility of any Government is the safety and security of our citizens, and we have committed to and will spend 2.5% on defence. That is the decision that the Prime Minister took, and it will not change; it was taken for reasons that I think we can all understand. We do not wish to turn away from our global commitments to development. I am glad that the noble Lord has reached out and offered to work with me on this, and I accept that offer. Undoubtedly, some choices will have to be made, and spending will have to be reprioritised; I will embark on that process today and I look forward to working alongside the noble Lord on it.

My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on her promotion to the Cabinet. She has inherited her very own personal black hole in the finances along with the job, but we wish her well none the less—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, will be on hand to advise. We support the Government’s decision, given the overwhelming importance of increasing the defence budget, but it will obviously require a very difficult exercise in the prioritisation of ODA programmes. Which ones will she cut?

We will embark on a process. The Prime Minister very clearly told me that he wants a line-by-line analysis of our spend, most of which we inherited from the previous Government. We will look very closely at that and make sure that, on behalf of the British taxpayer, every pound we spend is spent as well as we possibly can. I emphasise again that it is our intention—because we are the Labour Party and we believe in international development—that, when we can, we will increase the spending back up to 0.7%. We are committed to our international obligations, multilaterally and bilaterally. This is a task that I do not think any of us in government enter into light-heartedly or glibly; we take it incredibly seriously. As soon as we have made decisions, we will of course make announcements in the usual way.

My Lords, this is a particularly challenging and difficult time for fragile countries, countries caught in conflict and some of the most vulnerable people in the world. In congratulating my noble friend the Minister on her new role, can I ask: first, how will we protect the gains we have already made on poverty reduction across the world? Secondly, how will we protect what we have been able to do on the sustainability of some of the most fragile countries? Finally, how can we increase the impact of the money we spend through working through multilateral organisations?

I thank my noble friend for that. While this undoubtedly will be a difficult process and choices will need to be made, there is also an opportunity here to rethink how we approach international development and how we work more in partnership with other nations. We need to get away from some of the paternalism and the ways that may have been cutting edge in the 1990s; we need to have a fresh look now, and there is an opportunity to do that. She is also right to point to the successes and gains that have been made through the work that the United Kingdom has done over the years. We need to have a fresh conversation with the British public about why we do international development—what the point of it is and what the benefits are to the United Kingdom —and that is something that we have not put sufficient focus on in the recent past.

My Lords, I wonder whether I could press the Minister on what criteria are being employed to reduce development assistance. Which projects will be targeted? Can I also ask her whether existing commitments, especially to those smaller NGOs, will be honoured? Otherwise, so many of these smaller NGOs will simply cease working and may not be revived.

That is an important point. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were very clear with me that they wish to avoid cliff edges, which is why we will maintain the 0.5% that we currently have for the next financial year. We need to work closely with our partner countries and organisations and make sure that this is done in a responsible way that avoids some of the dramatic changes that have such a devastating impact, which we know can happen in these circumstances.

My Lords, while I fully support the increase in defence spending, I am afraid I deeply regret where the money has been found. I genuinely wish the noble Baroness well in what are going to be incredibly difficult decisions on deciding where to spend the remainder of the money. The Minister will know that, historically, women and girls have been disproportionately impacted by cuts. Will she use her best endeavours to ensure that that is not the case this time? Will she also commit to carrying out and publishing an impact assessment in relation to women and girls?

First, I commend the noble Baroness for her own work and her track record of being a champion for women and girls globally and for the work she did as part of government—we should all thank her for that. Ordinarily, yes, we would conduct an impact assessment; that is part of making sure that we make sensible decisions and that we understand the impact of the choices that we make. She made that point very well.

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister. Will she agree with me that a key part of our national security and defence is working with allies, especially those smaller vulnerable nations, through ODA commitments for technical resilience against interference from both state and non-state actors? This is a large part of ODA funding, which the Government have now signalled will be cut by more than three-quarters. What security assessment was carried out before the Government indicated they were going to remove our technical and security support almost entirely for the very nations on which we rely for our national security?

That is complete nonsense; we are not going to do that. When we talk about prioritisation, that is about making choices. The idea that the Government, who have just reallocated the money into defence, are then going to be blasé or relaxed about reducing spending that contributes towards our security is, frankly, ridiculous.

My Lords, further to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Amos, to make sure that every pound we spend is as effective as possible, particularly on poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa, would my noble friend the Minister consider setting up an advisory group consisting of non-governmental organisations and experts—such as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and others—to advise on where the priority for spending should be?

I can assure my noble friend that I have not been short of advice in the last few days, but he makes a good point. We do not want to make these important decisions, which have such far-reaching consequences, in an office in Whitehall. That would be the wrong way to go about it. I do not know if an advisory group is the right or wrong way to do that, but it is important to think about how we make sure that people with expertise, experience and knowledge of how these decisions will impact operations on the ground are included, and that they are part of the decision-making process.