0.7% Official Development Assistance Target

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing the debate. I admire the authentic passion that he brings to this subject.

I oppose these unjustified and unwise cuts to aid. The Government are said to be motivated by a wish not only to balance the books and manage public spending, but to court popularity in the red wall seats. I can tell the Minister that opinion in Wales is very much against the Government on this and it will do them no good. When we get that long-overdue by-election in the north-east of Wales, they will see that for themselves.

From a Welsh perspective, I note that smaller European countries—Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway—have met their 0.7% of GDP targets. Indeed, Sweden has provided not 0.7% but 1.14% of its GDP in aid. Sweden and the others can do this, and they achieve the 0.7% and more. Unfortunately, the UK can but chooses not to do so.

Leading figures in Welsh public life and local constituents alike have expressed their dismay, describing this cut as a double blow to the world’s poorest communities at the time of a pandemic. The Welsh Government themselves, in their policy documents on international matters—their agenda—say that they are

“committed to promoting social justice, fairness and equality”.

What value have those fair words from the Welsh Labour Government when we are tied to and overruled by this mean-spirited, short-sighted policy from the Westminster Government?

The United Nations Population Fund is to be cut by 85%, UNICEF’s core funding to support children by 60%, and total funding by £4.5 billion. Those figures would be a disgrace to any country, but given this Government’s pretensions to be a leading global power and an example to others, they are not only a disgrace but a major self-inflicted blow to the UK’s international standing.

I referred a moment ago to the United Nations Population Fund. What does that cut mean in real terms? Funding is to reduce from £154 million to £23 million, which will lead, it says, to up to 7 million unintended pregnancies, 2 million unsafe abortions and 23,000 maternal deaths. UNICEF says that it is “too soon” to judge effects, but

“children…in some of the world’s worst crises and conflicts will suffer”

as a consequence—as a deliberate effect, unfortunately—of this policy. Lastly, Save the Children says:

“These cuts will trim UK borrowing by a fraction, but devastate lives across many of the world’s poorest countries.”

Because of all that, I join others in appealing to the Minister and the Government to withdraw these cuts.