Vote on controversial cut to aid budget could be evaded indefinitely
A vote on the Government’s controversial cut to the aid budget could be evaded indefinitely, a minister has suggested, as Tory MPs warned the move would have “deadly consequences”.
Three former Conservative cabinet ministers on Tuesday demanded the Commons be given a formal vote on the proposal to slash aid spending from 0.7 per cent of gross national income to 0.5 per cent due to the economic fallout of the pandemic.
Their intervention came alongside heavy criticism of the Government’s decision this week to pledge only around half the aid spending on war-torn Yemen that Britain allocated the previous year.
While the 0.7 per cent aid spending target is enshrined in law, foreign office minister James Cleverly said the legislation underpinning it makes provision for the target to be missed in difficult economic circumstances.
Hinting that the formal approval of the Commons may not be required, he said the Foreign Secretary was “looking very carefully at what is required by law” regarding the cut, which was announced last November.
“The legislation envisaged that the 0.7 per cent target may not be met in a particular year, in light of economic and fiscal circumstances, and the legislation provides for reporting to Parliament in the event that the target is not met,” he said.
Mr Cleverly added that the economic outlook was “difficult to predict”, but said the Government “do wish to come back to 0.7 per cent soon as the economic circumstances allow”.
His remarks followed reports that the Government was looking to delay any vote on the policy until after the G7 summit in June in order to avoid an embarrassing showdown with backbench Tory MPs in the lead up.
Andrew Mitchell, a former international aid secretary, on Tuesday hit out at the reduction in Britain’s aid contribution to war-torn Yemen to £87 million this year, branding it a “harbinger of terrible cuts to come”.
The decision to slash the wider aid budget “is not a result of tough choices, it is a strategic mistake with deadly consequences,” he said. “This is not who we are, this is not how global Britain acts.”
David Davis, former Brexit secretary, said the move to cut aid to Yemen by 50 per cent would reduce crisis and healthcare support, “thereby putting at least 100,000 children’s lives at risk”.
He called on the Government to give a written breakdown of aid cuts planned and an undertaking to implement no more cuts “unless and until this House approves it”.
Damian Green, former first secretary of state, insisted that the legislation underscoring the aid budget “allows the Government to miss the 0.7 per cent target in an accident or emergency, but not to plan to miss it for an indefinite number of years ahead”.
He also echoed calls for the Government to put the policy to a vote so the Commons could express a view.
Mr Cleverly said ministers were “well able to listen to the mood of the House without the need for legislation on this issue”.
Earlier in the Commons, Preet Kaur Gill, Labour shadow development secretary, said Dominic Raab’s decision to halve aid funding for Yemen after describing the humanitarian crisis in the nation as one of his priorities suggested his “commitments are worthless”.
Mr Raab replied that the Government has provided more than £1 billion of funding to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen since the conflict began. He added: “Of course we fully support Martin Griffiths, the UN Special Envoy's efforts to find peace there.”
Sarah Champion, Labour chairman of the International Development Committee, questioned what impact assessment had been conducted regarding the effect of the Yemen aid reduction on women and girls, people with disabilities and internally displaced people.
SNP MP Chris Law said the Government should “hang its head in shame” and claimed it left the UK “playing a pivotal role in the worst humanitarian disaster in the world”.
