UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Tom Hayes

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate and on leading a galaxy of great speeches. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper); she and I have worked together on global health partnerships, and I agree with everything that has been said.

I will pick up on a couple of points that have been made. There has been focus on Britain’s G20, and I am sure that is an important opportunity for Britain to provide some leadership on this issue. As we get older, we tend to look back at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, but I acknowledge at the outset that British development policy is at its best by far when it is conducted on an all-party basis. It is not a Labour, Conservative or Liberal policy; it is a British policy. That was one of its great glories in the past.

The Government did well in their recent conference, where they brought together a lot of interested parties and helped to underline an appropriate agenda. Those of us who really care about this issue must also be careful, because in Britain we are still spending an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money, and it is doing a lot of good. Although it has been greatly and savagely diminished, a lot of the spending is very good, and I want to make that clear. I am also very pleased that the Government have stuck to the 2023 White Paper, which was effectively an all-party White Paper.

[Tom Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a critical point. Obviously, we have seen public support wane in recent years, but protecting and preserving that narrative of the good that we do in the world is important. As a country, we often tend to look at the floor rather than looking up at the sky. As a country, we have a monarch of high standing, we are a permanent member of the Security Council, a NATO partner, a founding member of the United Nations and a global financial hub, and we have world-leading universities and research institutions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the things that can come out of this and other debates that we have around the topic is not hand-wringing, as we have heard repeatedly in this Chamber, but an opportunity to think about how we build on our successes and celebrate the good that we have done?

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

I do not really agree with that because, while the hon. Gentleman cites a number of areas where Britain makes a big contribution, there is a big black hole where we have cut off our legs in respect to international development. I will say a word or two about that in a moment.

The importance of turning from donor to investor is absolutely right; but if investors are investing in a poor country where there is not adequate health and education, that country’s workforce will not be able to attract suitable investment. We must be worried about that. We must always focus on the results agenda, showing that the British taxpayer is getting 100p of value for every £1 spent.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the importance of saving the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, but we have to accept that we will not get a major boost in public support unless it comes from the top. We had an era of huge support, led by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May. If there is not support at the top, public support cannot be won back and sustained—particularly if there is a Prime Minister who is foolish enough to say from the Dispatch Box that DFID is like an ATM in the sky, spewing out taxpayers’ money.

Finally, the only point on which I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is in respect of BII, which of course follows the Government’s lead. The Government are the 100% shareholder in BII and are therefore able to set out very clearly what its priorities should be, but they should then leave an organisation like BII to get on with following that mandate.

I argue that there have been three great losses from the Johnson and Starmer premierships. Bear in mind that in the last year of the last Conservative Government—do not tell the Treasury this—we spent nearly 0.6%, so there was huge support. However, there are three areas where we have seriously lost out. The first loss is to Britain’s reputation, as a result of the cuts. As has been pointed out, the cuts in Britain are more savage, pro rata, than the cuts in America. The damage to Britain’s reputation is acute. I argue that, since the Suez crisis, international development has been the only area of indisputable British international leadership—and we have lost that.

Secondly, we have lost out on British interests, particularly in respect of the rampant nationalism now being pursued at a time when we need international co-operation to tackle the great scourges mentioned in this debate. Above all, the poorest people in the world, who were reliant on British expertise, support and cash, have lost out.

Now is a chance, with a new leader. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) was part of a Government who championed international development. He knows about that. Now is a chance to make some changes. I urge Labour Members to rise up now and say that the historical interest and support of the Labour party have been for international development. People might expect the beastly Tories to cut aid and development, but they do not expect the Labour party to do that. Now is a chance to have a real reset, which should include three things.

First, the reset should include an acceptance that the vaporisation of DFID and the merger was an ocean-going disaster. Everyone who has had anything to do with it knows that perfectly well. It has led to a huge loss of skill. I urge the Government to decide, if not to restore DFID, at least to set up an agency to take action on helping to restore our reputation and the huge agglomeration of expertise in London that resulted from DFID.

Secondly, we should move back to 0.7%, as is the law of the land. We should do that, however, over a number of years. We cannot provide that amount of money overnight, but over five or six years we should try to move systematically back to it.

Finally, we should understand what this Government do not understand: defence, diplomacy and development are linked very tightly indeed. The idea that taking development money and putting it into defence is the answer to the—admittedly absolute—requirement to spend more on defence is absurd. Development is the other side of the coin to defence. I hope that the new Administration, when they come in shortly, will take account of some of these matters.

Taxes

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Tom Hayes

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I can make a very short speech today, Madam Deputy Speaker, because my right hon. Friend, the shadow Chancellor, in his brilliant speech at the beginning of this debate, set things out so clearly. There are common themes running through both Opposition debates today. The first is that the Government have lost control of expenditure and the second one, which I want to develop very briefly, is that the Executive have failed to listen with appropriate care to what people in this House have said.

On the first of these points, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said in an eloquent intervention just a few minutes ago that the Government need to work out how to fix last week’s fiasco with the welfare Bill. Far from saving money, this is virtually now another spending measure. It is important to remember that as the former Chancellor my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) set out clearly, had we been successful in winning the last election, we would have reduced the number of working-age welfare recipients to pre-covid levels, thus saving £49 billion by the end of this Parliament.

The reason I focus on this welfare issue is that it is welfare expenditure with which this Government must get to grips, and they have failed to learn the lessons of the past. I was a very junior welfare Minister in what was then the Department of Social Security between 1995 and 1997. I learned two very important rules, which this Government would do well to consider. On both, it is clear that welfare reform is extremely difficult. The first is that we cannot take away from poor people benefits that they are already receiving. I think I am right in saying that no Conservative Government have ever reduced disability benefits in payment. But Labour did not absorb that vital lesson, which is why they got into so much trouble last week.

The second rule is that if a Government want to reduce the benefits bill, there are only really two ways of doing it. The first is to freeze the level of benefits; that has been done in the past, and it means not falling into the trap that the Government fell into last week. The second is to narrow the gateway into those benefits for future recipients. I urge the Government to absorb these important rules, because they will have to return to the issue of welfare expenditure if they are to make any progress at all on the economy.

I hugely praise the rebellion last week by Labour Back Benchers. They have hopefully taught the Executive a most useful lesson: listen to Back Benchers with respect and close attention. As a former Chief Whip, however, I deprecate rebellions unless I am involved in them. It usually takes years for the Executive to get into the habit of treating their Back Benchers with contempt and derision as unelected Downing Street special advisers strut up and down Whitehall, but this lot—this Government —managed to accomplish it extraordinarily quickly. They have learned the hard way not to treat their Back Benchers and elected Members with so little respect.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Since working at Oxfam and campaigning for tax justice, I have admired the right hon. Gentleman’s work. Were the Conservative party to listen to him, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), it could find its way back to a centrist position, which would be of benefit to our country. Will he acknowledge that this Government had a difficult inheritance; that since we came to power, we have faced a changed world, with tariffs, trade wars, sluggish global growth, rising authoritarianism and democratic backsliding; and that as a result, this Government have a harder job? Will he acknowledge that, so we can start to think about how we take forward shared improvements?

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman brings me elegantly to my final point. Having praised Labour Back Benchers and encouraged them to speak out, my one ask is that they now stand up for the election pledge, clearly set out in their manifesto, to restore development spending to 0.7%. I ask them to show the same zeal and enthusiasm as they did on welfare for bringing back the 0.7%. Inexplicably and astonishingly, their Prime Minister has cut the figure from the 0.5% they, alas, inherited from us down to 0.3%, and it is already causing massive difficulties, of which the hon. Member, with his background in Oxfam, will be fully aware.

When the House comes back in September, I urge the hon. Member, particularly given his experience, to join other Back Benchers in saying to the Executive, “We will not put up with this. We said in our election manifesto that we would restore development spending to 0.7%, and in the same way that we showed the Government Front Benchers that they could not proceed as they planned with welfare, they cannot proceed as they plan to with development spending.” I urge Labour Back Benchers to ensure that this rethink takes place in the autumn, when the folly of what has happened will be even clearer.