Official Development Assistance and the British Council

Anthony Mangnall Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the very good speech from the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and I echo her comments in thanking FCDO staff and aid workers around the world for the work that they do, often, as she said, in extremely difficult circumstances. I would also like to say to the Minister that I am grateful to Lord Ahmad for the discussions he is having with me on modern slavery and initiatives on modern slavery, and those discussions are continuing.

Before I come to the specific points I want to make on the estimates, I will make a general point on this debate, because I believe that, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) last week, the Prime Minister implied that this debate was a vote on 0.7%. Of course, it is a vote on the estimates for the FCDO. It cannot be used as a proxy vote on 0.7%, and I hope the Government will accept that and recognise that the calls for a vote on 0.7% are still there.

There are two issues that I particularly want to raise. The first is that, in the limited information available to us on aid spending from the Government, there seems to be little suggestion from the Government that they are actually paying attention to the important linkages between the different elements of spending in the aid budget. This is often an holistic matter, and these things cannot just be looked at in silos.

To give just one example of this, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is rightly very keen to encourage girls’ education around the world. It has been a theme of Conservative Governments now for some considerable time. We have taken it up in G7 meetings, and we have encouraged others around the world to take up that theme. Of course, a girl who is educated is less likely to be lured into modern slavery. However, if we cut the programmes for dealing with modern slavery, that girl may not be able to get into education because the slave drivers and the gangs—the criminal gangs—may have got to her first. We have to look at these issues holistically and at the linkages between them.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting her, but she is making such an excellent point, and exactly the same argument can be made on tackling gender-based violence. If we want to succeed in getting women through education, then we must tackle gender-based violence. It is a comprehensive package, and that is why we need to be securing the 0.7%.

[Mrs May]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I gave just one example, but actually we have to look at aid funding holistically, and look at the linkages between areas and the impact of cuts in one area on another area. There is no evidence, I am afraid, from what I have seen from the Government, that that is what they have done. It does appear that they have just cut in silos. We see, for example, that the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery has an 80% cut in its funding and there is a 25% cut in funding for girls’ education, but these are linked. I urge the Government to look at those links.

I want to note that, in their response to the fourth special report of the Select Committee, in late September —28 September—last year, the Government said:

“The Government’s manifesto made clear that we would proudly maintain our commitment to spending 0.7 percent of our national income on development—a commitment enshrined in law and one to which the new Department will honour its responsibilities. The Integrated Review, which will inform the priorities and direction for this new department, will set an ambitious vision for the future of the UK as an active, internationalist, problem-solving and burden-sharing nation. Investing 0.7 percent of Gross National Income…on international development is at the heart of that vision; it shows we are an enterprising, outward-looking and truly global Britain that is fully engaged with the world.”

That was at the end of September 2020, and in November 2020 the funding was cut. Either one hand does not know what the other hand is doing in the Government, or they were just trying to calm everybody into a sense that everything was going to be okay before they actually wielded the knife on this particular issue.

The second point I want to make is about the impact on the UK’s presence on the world stage of the decisions that have been taken. This relates not just to ODA spending, but to the spending of the FCDO in general. I note that the Select Committee, in response to the decision to merge DFID into the FCO, said that it had

“significant concerns that the merger may jeopardise the ongoing effectiveness of future UK aid spending… In the long run, the creation of the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office could reduce the UK’s clout on the world stage.”

I fear that it is reducing the UK’s clout on the world stage, and this cut in overseas aid is but one example of that, although we focus, as we have in previous debates on this issue, on the very real impact on the ground of the money being cut from different programmes. The health programme has been mentioned by the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Rotherham, but there are others, including the cut in funding to starving people in Yemen, for example, and all of these are having a real impact on the ground.

The FCDO also needs to look very carefully at the DFID expertise that is now within the FCDO. As it looks across its estimates and at how it is spending its money in the Department, it needs to make very certain that it does not lose that expertise. There have been times in the past when people have rightly questioned the way in which our aid money has been spent, but I have to say that that has changed in recent years, largely due to and initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he was the International Development Secretary. We spend our aid differently, and we have developed—and successive International Development Secretaries did this too—real expertise. We are now hitting the needy across the world with a double whammy because they are losing our funding and they are losing our expertise as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I will not go over the existing point about 0.7% and 0.5%, because I think the House knows my view. I share absolutely the views of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who have made their point—and, in fact, my point—extremely clearly.

Instead, I will focus on the integrated review and the merger of the Departments, and what it actually means according to the statements of Her Majesty’s Government compared with the actions on the ground. I would suggest that there is a slight dissonance between the talk of global Britain engaging directly with nations, and the cuts to bilateral Britain while we are reinforcing multilateral action. Now, I understand why we have taken those decisions: we have legal contracts with multilateral agencies and therefore we have legal obligations with them that are harder to break; so instead we are undermining our own policy and weakening those bilateral ties.

It seems to me—perhaps the Minister will be able to explain why I am wrong—that we are wracked over the small print while others are racking up the newsprint of their achievements, and that is a mistake. It is a mistake because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made clear, we need to be demonstrating our place around the world. I support the ambitions of aligning the two Departments, and indeed of bringing the Department for International Trade and perhaps other Departments much closer together with the Foreign Office. My former colleagues in the Ministry of Defence will not like this terribly, but I support the idea of having a Foreign Secretary who is the strategic mind for the British Government overseas, including on the deployment of, for example, carriers. HMS Queen Elizabeth is in port in Cyprus today. Although the Foreign Office should have had a very clear view on her role and deployment, and was absolutely right to support the ships going through international waters—or Ukrainian waters, as they were only the other day—I would never argue that an ambassador should be the admiral of a fleet or that a political councillor should be the captain of a destroyer. The same is true, I am afraid, in respect of aid spending; there is a technical expertise here that is not the same as the strategic oversight of foreign policy, which is why I would like to see some of this coming back and being reinforced as the technical skill it really is.

Let us look at a few examples. Some have said to me that perhaps we are going back to a pre-1930s world, and there is certainly a hint of that. Let us look at the cuts we have seen in Lebanon, a very important historical ally, one in which we have invested heavily, through the Lebanese armed forces and through the relationship of building capability that would fight terrorism, which we all face. This is an organisation that has done more to hold the state of Lebanon together than many of its supposedly civic institutions. We have invested an awful lot and we have a huge amount of good will—having been there and met the Lebanese armed forces chief when I was serving in the armed forces, I can also say that we have also brought back a lot of raki from his personal collection, but that is a separate matter. We have built up a fantastic relationship with a very important strategic partner in the middle east. That is not just good for Lebanon, which is facing the crisis of a quarter or a third of its population being migrants—refugees forced over from the Syrian civil war—and nor is it just a good moment for the middle east, because it creates a link into various forms of support into other countries, but it is brilliant for Britain. It is fundamentally strengthening the UK and our place in the world. It gives us a toehold into one of the most vibrant financial climates in the region and an essential partner for so many of our other operations.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to interrupt him, because he makes an excellent point about how our having that relationship with countries promotes Britain. But it is also about the organisations we support, be it the HALO Trust or War Child. These organisations end up being supported by the British Government and then find themselves on active duty promoting our interests—helping save people. That is also integral to delivering the global Britain message.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have spoken to the Mines Advisory Group about its work in Lebanon, which has been so important, not just in promoting our interests. Sadly, it will almost certainly be needed not just in Iraq, where it has operated at some points, but in Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate, but it is actually quite painful as well, because none of us want to see a cut in the assistance that we give to other countries that are less well-favoured than we are.

This debate covers pages 183 to 196 of a meaty document that runs to 680 pages, and we have mainly focused—and correctly so—on international development. Other elements of the document will sadly be glossed over in our enthusiasm to debate this particular issue, but it is right that we should do so.

To those who have contributed so far, who I think have all been critical of the decision to go to 0.5%, I say that we should never make the excellent the enemy of the good. We should celebrate the good that UK aid does. An important point to make is that what the Government are charged to decide upon has real-life consequences, no question about it. If that were not so, we would be wasting billions of pounds every year, and manifestly we are not. The question is: how much should we be spending on international development in the longer term? If we are arguing for a reduction of £4.5 billion for this year but we are doing £4.5 billion of good work, perhaps we should be spending more in the future, rather than less, That point has been made by only one contributor today, from the Scottish National party.

I am not advocating that, because we have to make a judgment about what is a proper amount of our national income to spend on international development. Notwithstanding all the polling data cited today, when I am uncertain I have to listen to my constituents. I did so the last time I significantly rebelled against my own party, which was in 2003, over the Iraq war, and I would do so on an issue such as this. The message I get from my constituents on this issue—perhaps they dramatically differ from those in Chesham and Amersham, but I have no way of telling—is that this is something they are relaxed about, at best, on public spending. I get it in the neck for spending on education, healthcare, law and order, and all of those issues time and again. When I say, “Where are you going to find the money?”, nine times out of 10 the response, “International development” comes back at me. I have to justify this spend, because I do believe, as a former Minister in the then Department for International Development, in what this money is able to achieve. But we have to take the public with us, which is one reason why I was pleased about the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID. As a joint Minister at the time, I was very pleased to see those two Departments joined up because it seemed to me that that was one way of convincing the public that the international development work this Government do also achieves foreign policy goals; I see no problem with that at all, and neither do the overwhelming majority of other countries, particularly European countries, which do not separate the two functions.

I also welcome the fact that this move is temporary. I will be supporting the Government on this, but that is conditional on this being temporary. When that pledge was made, the UK economy and the prospects were not looking very good at all. I am happy to say that they have brightened up significantly since then,

[Anthony Mangnall]

How temporary is “temporary”?

[Dr Murrison]

One year is temporary; that is the pledge that has been made. I think that is a perfectly reasonable commitment to hold Ministers to. It could be that there is something else around the corner that can be interpreted as force majeure, as set out in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, but in the absence of that my belief is that this, as a temporary measure—one year—is acceptable. I do not like it—I loathe it and I accept my responsibility for some of the consequences—but it seems to me to be reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I welcome the chance to speak on the estimates for spending on official development assistance. I wish to take the opportunity, as other hon. Members have done, to question the Government’s decision to cut the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. I understand the points raised by the Treasury about the need to make savings, given the financial strain caused by covid-19, and I understand that difficult decisions must be made. However, as has been said in this House, the cut of approximately £4 billion in aid is worth only about 1% of what the Chancellor has borrowed to protect us from covid.

I take issue with any cut to our aid budget, but I take even more issue with where the cuts appear to be falling. If we absolutely must cut aid, we need to investigate very carefully where savings can be made. I question whether the Government should have done more to manage the reduction of the budget without slashing funding for lifesaving programmes. The cut from £15 billion to £10.7 billion is a cut of about 30%, so why have we cut 60% of the UNICEF budget, 85% of the United Nations Population Fund’s, and 80% of our funding for water projects? Clean water is life itself.

[Anthony Mangnall]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. One of the bigger issues is the speed at which the cuts were announced, which did not give time for any of the organisations that saw those cuts to be able to prepare for them—to be able to put in mitigating circumstances to allow them to run programmes on a skeleton staff, or whatever it may have been. We have not given the right amount of lead time for these businesses and organisations to be able to prepare for the cuts. If we wanted to make the cuts, we should have delayed doing it and put them into another year altogether.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend; he is right. There seems to have been very little planning generally in both the speed of the cuts and where they have fallen.

Why have we not looked at the administration costs in this budget? Why have water projects and UNICEF projects, in particular, been cut so drastically? We need to pause and think for a moment. Let us try to rectify much of the damage that has been done, because these things can be brought back into place. I have given just a few examples, but it seems that the most vital programmes have taken a disproportionate hit. Cutting the budget for the UN Population Fund from £154 million to £23 million will have a devastating impact on the ground. Likewise, our commitments to water and sanitation projects will be cut from £176 million to about £35 million. We are not talking about billions of pounds. These are relatively small amounts of cash, especially in the grand scheme of £400 billion that we have borrowed to battle covid-19 and save lives in this country—which I very much support. I therefore question whether the money for these programmes could have been cut in other areas instead.

I have been to Bangladesh and seen for myself the needs of people there. They are people with very little or nothing who cannot rely on a generous welfare state when things go wrong as we can here in the UK. It is easy to forget, as we live in a prosperous country, that there are people in the world who do not have access to clean water. As I said, water is life itself, and so slashing our capacity to provide clean water to the poorest will cost lives. We must ask ourselves what we would do if our children and grandchildren were in that position and reliant on the generosity of foreign Governments to provide clean water. Would we actually stand by and see our children and grandchildren dying for lack of clean water? We would not.

For better or worse, we have a colonial past, and in many cases the poorest nations are former colonies. We cannot turn our back on them now. We must help people in these countries and others who need it who are reliant on aid. This would be true at any time, but in the midst of a pandemic depriving people of clean water when it may be their only defence against the virus is catastrophic. Some people may say that we are doing our bit by supplying vaccines to the developing world as part of COVAX and other schemes, which is true, but mass vaccination programmes are not delivered overnight, and humans need clean water every day to survive. Likewise, cutting funding for family planning is counterproductive when the population in the poorest countries is already greater than their resources, including food and clean water. Preventing access to contraception will cause families to spiral into even greater poverty, putting thousands of lives at risk.

There is a broader problem of the signal that this decision sends to the rest of the world on climate action. The cuts will diminish the ability of the world’s poorest to cope with climate change, and those people are often the hardest hit by it. Taking the water cuts, for example, there is the context of increasing droughts. We need to strengthen the resilience to drought of communities in poor countries, not weaken it. This aid budget cut also means a cut to the UK’s highly effective programme to prevent deforestation in Indonesia. The green economic growth programme focused on providing sustainable livelihoods for local populations who often end up working in harmful environmental practices such as deforestation due to the lack of alternative ways to make a living. The UK programme was changing that; now it has abruptly been cancelled, despite its success.

The Environment Bill is currently going through the Lords, and promises to be world leading on climate change and deforestation. It will be completely undermined if we are cutting funding to tackle deforestation abroad at the same time as making commitments in legislation. There does not appear to be any joined-up thinking—dare I say it—across Government. We are taking strong domestic action on the environment, but these cuts signal that we are not serious enough about tackling the issue globally.

I regret any cuts to our overseas aid budget and cannot see how they deliver tangible benefits to our national finances. I therefore hope that the Government come forward with a method of restoring the budget, whether that is very quickly or more gradually over a longer period of time. In the meantime, these cuts have landed disproportionately and hit the most needed humanitarian programmes. Whatever path the Government choose to take, those programmes must be the first to be restored. I hope that our Ministers can soon bring forward exactly the way in which we are going to reinstate the 0.7% of GNI in the very near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I rise to address the priorities of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office over the coming year. However, in this debate, we must all be cognisant of the fact that the unparalleled support provided by the Government during the coronavirus pandemic has come at an immense cost to the taxpayer. We have set a record for peacetime borrowing—a grim statistic. That high rate of borrowing means that, unfortunately, savings have to be made somewhere.

Let me make this clear: as the Member of Parliament for Rother Valley, I do not want any budget cuts to affect my constituents. I have been vocal about the need to level up left-behind and disadvantaged communities such as my towns of Dinnington, Maltby, Thurcroft, Swallownest and all the rest. My constituents have been ignored for far too long over the decades, but things are now starting to change for the better because of the election of this Conservative Government.

That is why the official development assistance budget must be reduced. We should not be sending vast sums of borrowed money abroad to foreign powers at a time when we can least afford it. I am firmly of the view that we must always look after our own first and foremost. My constituents have endured real hardship during the pandemic, not to mention that Rother Valley already had some of the deepest pockets of deprivation in the country. That is where our aid money should be going during this national emergency.

We are forced to cut aid because of the prevailing circumstances caused by the covid pandemic. Nevertheless, the UK remains a world leader in international aid, delivering more than £10 billion this year alone, which places it as one of the G7’s biggest donors. Britain’s heroic contributions to the global coronavirus vaccination effort are a testament to our status.

In the light of that, we must think carefully about where to direct the Foreign Office and aid expenditure for the year ahead. The Government have been proactive in co-ordinating our diplomatic, defence, trade and aid networks as part of an overarching global Britain strategy. That is vital if we are to maximise our soft power and ensure value for every penny of taxpayers’ money.

We must complement our new approach by taking full advantage of our exit from the European Union and pivoting back towards the Commonwealth. I am incredibly passionate about Britain’s re-engagement with the Commonwealth. The Foreign Office must spend our money on re-establishing deep links with the countries with which we have long and meaningful ties by way of language, shared values, legal systems, governance and traditions. One of the many crimes of our entry into the Common Market was our move away from the Commonwealth, which has stayed by our side in times of war and difficulty over the centuries. We abandoned and subsequently neglected the Commonwealth for more than 40 years. Now is the time for us to reignite the flame and retake our position as a committed and equal partner to our brothers and friends.

Of course, what the left will not tell people about the Commonwealth is that we have far more in common with Singapore than Slovenia, with Australia than Austria and with Ghana than Germany. Contrary to the little Englander narrative, our embracing the Commonwealth embodies a truly global vision—one that is ethnically and religiously diverse and includes developing countries. Unlike the failed French Community, which existed for all the wrong reasons, the Commonwealth of nations is not an anachronistic throwback but a balanced and fair organisation in which every country has a voice, regardless of its size or wealth. Other Commonwealth countries are enthusiastic about their membership, and it is great to see countries such as Rwanda and Mozambique take advantage of the opportunities presented by the political association of 54 diverse countries by joining us. Many other territories are desperate to join this great unity of nations, with Somaliland and South Sudan having also applied.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend reassert the values of the Commonwealth, and I totally agree, but perhaps I should point out to him the fact that these cuts are going to hit our Commonwealth friends—that is where the money is being spent. He started off by saying that we were making cuts because we had incurred such great costs; perhaps he might tell the House where else cuts have been made. The only cut that has been made in the past 13 months is to the foreign aid budget.

[Alexander Stafford]

It is always a pleasure to take an intervention from my hon. Friend. He made two points. First, where should the cuts go? I say that the very first place cuts should be made is to foreign aid and the last place they should be made is anywhere that affects the people of Rother Valley and the people of all our seats. So, in the first place, it is correct that that is where the cuts should go.

On my hon. Friend’s point about the Commonwealth, I completely agree. It is right that we are giving aid, and we should direct more of that in a better way to deepen our ties with the Commonwealth. For me, this debate should not just be about 0.5%, 0.7% or perhaps 0.3%; it should be more about where that percentage is actually going. I argue that it should go towards our friends in countries with which we have deep historical links—to the Commonwealth; to those who have stood by us in good times and bad through hundreds of years, rather than to a political union that was brought about post the second world war in Europe.

It is clear to me that the best use of Foreign Office expenditure is investment in the Commonwealth rather than aid spending in countries outside the Commonwealth. This will allow Britain to maintain its place in the world, grow its footprint in the economies of the future and turbocharge global Britain post Brexit. Even more importantly, in the context of aid, our engagement with the Commonwealth can make the greatest difference to the most people in developing nations. Let me be clear about aid: by engaging with the Commonwealth we can help more people and more of the poorest people. That is very important.

The Commonwealth citizens with whom we have so much in common need our support, and we must now prioritise them. Our neglect of the Commonwealth—and we have neglected the Commonwealth—has unfortunately seen us abdicate responsibility for encouraging good governance and high standards in much of the world. If we reconnect now, it will allow us to speak up for the persecuted anglophone community in what was formerly the Southern Cameroons; to assist in the fight against Islamic extremists in east and west Africa; and to provide comprehensive support to the millions of British nationals in Hong Kong. Such issues must be front and centre as we pivot back towards the Commonwealth.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I emphasise that a cut in the aid budget does not mean a smaller, less influential Britain; it is simply fiscal common sense, allowing us to reduce our borrowing while protecting our constituents from the impact of the cuts. We are still left with a huge Foreign Office and aid budget, which should be redirected to fully embrace the Commonwealth of nations. If we do that, we can spread the benefits of global Britain from Barbados to Botswana, from India to Fiji and from Kenya to Malaysia. That will be a better world for us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Foreign aid spend has frequently been a way for politicians to compete for moral righteousness in the public eye. My Dudley residents care not for this type of posturing.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—he is no longer in the Chamber—who is a near neighbour of mine, referred in his closing remarks to his electorate, implying that they agree with his stance on foreign aid. I would make two points on that. First, my constituency is literally just down the road from his, and I can categorically assert that a significant majority of my residents do not agree with him. Secondly, I gently point out to him that, on average, two thirds of all people polled in this country very recently did not agree with him either. Just the other day, on GB News, he used the majority view argument to support assisted dying, so perhaps he might consider being consistent with his rationale, instead of imposing his moral virtues on the country’s majority view.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. It is fine if that is his argument, but surely he believes that it is right for this House to have a vote on the issue, because we are all representatives of our constituencies, and of the views of our constituents. Forget the polling and allow this place to have its say. Does he not agree with that sentiment?

[Marco Longhi]

I might refer my hon. Friend to votes on Brexit in previous years, when a significant number of elected Members did not represent their constituents and voted the opposite way to them.

Labour will always oppose what the Government do, even if they tripled foreign aid. Having only ever averaged a maximum spend under 0.4% of national income when it was in office, compared with the 0.7% that we achieved, Labour’s protestations are somewhat shallow, if not risible. People will see Labour for what it is: out of touch with working-class people and totally clueless about their priorities.

I am concerned about some of my colleagues. They are being so generous with other people’s money—a notable socialist behaviour, I might add. Perhaps they can explain to my Dudley North taxpayers why we should spend £15 billion overseas when my residents cannot find council houses and when we still have homeless people on our streets, some of them brave veterans.

[Marco Longhi]

I would like to make progress, please.

Covid has given rise to exceptional circumstances, and the Government were entirely right to reduce aid and focus on rebuilding our country. Charity begins at home. That said, I do not agree with reducing the foreign aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income; I would scrap the target altogether. Foreign aid should be and needs to be completely reformed. A fluctuating number each year that bears no real link with need, priorities or actual outcomes is no way to plan or act strategically. It is not how a household would budget, it is not how a business would budget, and it should not be how a Government budget. Which other Government Department do we fund as a percentage of national income?

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Marco Longhi]

I would like to make some progress.

[Anthony Mangnall]

It is on that point—I can give the answer. We committed in our manifesto in 2019 to funding research and development at 2.7% of our GDP. We commit to NATO spending at 2% through the Ministry of Defence. The list goes on.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Dudley North responds to that intervention, it might be helpful for the House to know that so many colleagues have decided at the last minute not to take part in this debate, having originally asked to do so, that there is actually plenty of time. It is quite historic for me to say that; I would normally be saying, “I urge the hon. Gentleman not to take time on interventions”, but he is at liberty to do so.

[Marco Longhi]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will respond by saying it is not the way we fund policing, education or health here at home. Surely a more sophisticated approach that is outcome-focused and delivers measurable change in very poor countries by employing some of our own local and UK-based companies is a far better approach than the arbitrary and unaccountable system that we continue to virtue-signal about.

I would ask two things of colleagues wanting to reinstate the 0.7%: let us focus efforts on achieving much better outcomes by reforming foreign aid, and, while we are at it, focus on challenging the EU and other wealthy countries that consistently fail to meet their own targets and do not measure up to what the UK is certainly doing.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Marco Longhi]

No thank you.

By any measure, the UK already does far more than most, both in cash terms and in areas not captured by our foreign aid spending. Certainly my constituents know that very well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I should like to begin by saying that although I may disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) and for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), it is welcome to see a debate taking place in this Chamber. This is a small step forward to returning to normal, when we can look beyond these pandemic measures and have proper, right and rigorous discussion about how we can reform and improve things in this country and across the world. As we have a bit of time, I thought I could start with a bit of rebuttal. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley talk about how we should focus our spending in the Commonwealth, but I respectfully say to him that aid goes where it is most needed. If he wants to have value for money, it cannot be directed specifically to a cultural, historical, political trading organisation. That is why we must make sure we have an aid programme that delivers for the people, be it in Syria or any Commonwealth country.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is already making a brilliant speech. Does he agree that vast amounts of our humanitarian support and development aid do go to Commonwealth countries, because British aid goes above all to the places where we have a historical connection?

[Anthony Mangnall]

I totally agree. The point I am trying to make is that although we should use aid to support the Commonwealth and to enhance our ties, allowing them to see it directed as something that benefits because of our history, it is also an opportunity for us to look beyond that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as it is always a pleasure to follow her in her debates and to listen to her speak on a host of different issues. We have heard a number of hugely impressive speeches, including from my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), to mention just a few. They have all stood up and spoken about the value of international aid from this country to others and what it does to motivate, save and assist. The point was made at the beginning that the International Development Committee has not been given the true and accurate figures it deserves. I stood up and spoke on retaining that Committee, as I believe it has a value in scrutinising our foreign aid budgets and it must be secured. If it is not getting the correct information, I hope we might hear more about this, because it is essential that the Committee is given the tools to do its job.

The problem with estimates debates is that they take away from the reality of what we are actually talking about. We are standing in this Chamber talking about the vaccinations donated, the school books gifted, the sexual violence perpetrators brought to justice, the deradicalisation of terrorist organisations, all of which happens through our aid budget—it all happens through that 0.7% budget. So to talk about estimates takes away from the reality of the extraordinary work that we do across the country. Members may disagree with that and suggest that their constituents are not supportive of it, but when we stop polling and start asking them about international security, women’s education, vaccinations and justice for those who have committed rape in conflict zones across the world, we get a very different answer from that given in the polls that are put out.

[Alexander Stafford]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as he always does, on an issue of importance, and I agree with what he says about what happens when we ask residents about sexual violence in conflict—people do want answers. But when I speak to people in Rother Valley about these issues, they say, “What about the sexual violence in Maltby? What about the conflicts in Dinnington—the gangs and the knifings?” We have to be realistic; there is only so much money in the budget. If the budget is not cut here, it will be cut somewhere else, and residents of Rother Valley do not want it cut there.

[Anthony Mangnall]

With the greatest respect, the policing budget is not being cut. In addition, my hon. Friend is trying to make the point that by cutting the international aid budget he is going to see that money in Rother Valley—he is not. That money will go back into the Treasury. I go back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield about how small this is in terms of Treasury percentages and spending.

I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) earlier what temporary would look like and he said a year. I respectfully say to the Government that if they come to the Dispatch Box and say that it is a year I will acquiesce, I will sit down, and I will accept that a year’s cut is what needs to be done. I would argue that many other Members would do so, too. Unfortunately, we have found ourselves in something of a predicament. The announcement of the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was made off the cuff at such rapid speed that organisations such as War Child and the HALO Trust, to name just two out of many hundreds, had their budgets cut and their international programmes jeopardised.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the speed of the cuts announcement, which is compounded by the cut due to the decrease in GNI. This has been a tremendous cut affecting the most needy across the entire globe. Like he said, if we can have a commitment that this is for one year and one year only, many, including Members from the 2019 intake, will sit down and back off.

[Anthony Mangnall]

That is incredibly welcome to hear. My hon. Friend is right: there has been a double whammy in the reduction. International organisations have to deal with not only the cut itself but the overall GNI reduction. It is in place to make sure that in good years more money is available and in bad years less, thereby making the argument that we take stock of the economic situation. The point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who made the suggestion about the WaterAid programmes.

I am not against reform. I believe that we should be able to reform the ODA rules. I would love to see it spent in different ways that are more transparent and accountable. Many Members have made that point. Let us not take it down to 0.5%, but look at how we can reform it. Taking it from a single calendar year to a multi-year funding period of three or four years would give us the opportunity to look at different options so we can justify it to our constituents.

I believe that global Britain is about four things: defence, diplomacy, trade and development. All four are integrated. Failure to act and to work on one impacts the other. Our two aircraft carriers sailing around the world are hopefully unlikely to see conflict, but there is a humanitarian assistance vessel right there that could be used within our ODA budget. We must look at the impact on those different areas. Our aid pays for our security, as I have already mentioned. It is what stops terrorist organisations from across the world being able to flourish unencumbered.

We heard many from across the House say that if we led on this issue others would follow. They did. Many European countries have followed and are now reaching 0.7% targets. Canada has increased its target. America has increased its spending by £16 billion. We were leading. I ask about the message it sends to the world. In a year in which we host the G7 and COP26, and will have a good presence at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, we have the opportunity to lead by example.

[Alexander Stafford]

My hon. Friend asks what message it will send, but what message does it send to my constituents that overseas lives are more valuable than lives in this country? We have to be realistic about this—[Interruption.] It is not shameful. We are talking about messages and I ask him: what message does it send?

[Anthony Mangnall]

I would respectfully say to all of my hon. Friend’s constituents—I am happy to speak at any association event in the future—that their lives are no less valuable. What we are doing here is taking money from Peter to pay Paul. We must be honest about the value.

[Christian Wakeford]

I cannot speak for the people of Rother Valley, but to me going back to the people of Bury South and saying we support this says that we are compassionate and kind, and that we keep our promises. That is something I am proud of. That is something I want to stick up for. I want to go home and be able to tell my daughter that I did the right thing.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Quite right. If I had children I would be going back to say exactly the same thing—all to come, I am sure.

The debate is also about the British Council. I have lived in Singapore and I have worked in Nigeria. I have seen the value of these organisations. I have seen the value of soft power for the United Kingdom. I look back on 2012, a moment in which the UK exhibited its global superpower soft power. We were able to show that we were leading across the world. I hate that we are going down this route and reducing the two things that promote us in the best way.

[Navendu Mishra]

Does the hon. Member agree that using an us and them attitude is not helpful? The UK is one of the richest countries in the world and has a proud record of supporting projects across the world, and dividing people into us and them is not helpful at all in this debate.

[Anthony Mangnall]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fantastic point, and it is one that I will end on. If we are uncomfortable with how people view 0.7%, it is down to this House and to us as Members to explain it properly and show them the true value of what Britain does in a globalised world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

If I may, I will make some progress, but I would be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.

Probably what makes today’s debate so frustrating for people out there who may be watching and who do not share the consensus that is generally coming across is that in certain speeches—none of which was recent, I might add—it was as if we were arguing about whether to end aid in its entirety. Effectively, we are arguing today about whether we are going to spend an extraordinary amount of money on international aid or an incredible amount of money on international aid. We are allowing a debate to become skewed by a skirmish over an arbitrary percentage that was agreed back in the 1950s by the World Council of Churches on a basis of which I am still not 100% sure.

[Anthony Mangnall]

My hon. Friend is making a tremendous speech, although I happen to disagree with all of it. He is showing his true parliamentary skills, but the point is that we have arbitrary numbers all over the shop when it comes to politics, from the 2% in NATO to the 2.7% R&D commitment. It is a misnomer to suggest that we have them only in foreign aid. They are therefore not something that we should shy from introducing.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have arbitrary targets everywhere; I do not doubt that. One reason that I sought election to this place was to try to get under the skin of those arbitrary targets. Some of the shibboleths that have not been challenged for a number of years have aspects that we should perhaps look at. We might wish to retain them, but we should never be shy of reviewing them again.

I am not saying this to be sharp with hon. Members, but it cannot be that the only approved manifestation of compassion is via a single monetary figure, free from the realities of any vague financial responsibility or even a semblance of fiscal rectitude. That is before we even get into the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes quite rightly brought up about value for money. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee a couple of years ago and some very interesting reports came through on value for money in this area. I accept that it is a very difficult issue to judge, but we may wish to turn to it with as much frequency and as much depth as we talk about this single percentage.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Lee Rowley]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will try to make a little more progress.

I do not think that righteousness should be outsourced to an international sector that I have been really disappointed in in recent weeks as regards this debate. All the emails coming into my inbox, far from acknowledging the UK’s continuing commitment to those in need across the world, seem to be trying to create a frame that turns the UK’s huge generosity against itself and seeks almost to sting us into immotive or silent acquiescence.

It really must not be that virtue can be found only in criticism of one number owned by one country, when that country will still spend proportionately more this year than Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Austria, Iceland, Hungary, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea, the Czech Republic, Greece, Australia or the United States did in the previous year. I say that not just to make a rhetorical point, but because it is important that we understand the context within which we are debating this important point.

I absolutely acknowledge the strength of feeling in today’s debate from those who take a different view from mine. I hope and am sure that hon. Members who do not take my view will acknowledge that people who, like me, do not necessarily speak as loudly or as frequently on the subject, but who also feel strongly about it, also look to such signals as what people think around the country. I am afraid that in my view this debate is moving a little away from the people who placed us here. It is our job, or the job of some of us, to bring it back into balance. We all want to help lift up our fellow man, and it is not disproportionate that some of us want to do that in a way that increases the likelihood of our being able to continue to do so in the future.