Integrated Review: Development Aid

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is customary in these debates that there is a gap on the speakers’ list before the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench speaker. Today, the gap is that Lord Judd is not with us. We on the Liberal Benches pass on our commiserations. Many noble Lords, and those on the Labour Benches in particular, have lost a friend—a very noble one at that—who would have made a major contribution to this debate. He is missed. A colleague who is not missed is the noble Lord, Lord Alton—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I think noble Lords have not interpreted that as I intended. The noble Lord will not be missed for a very long time to come. He is to be commended on bringing this debate to the Grand Committee and on the very powerful way in which he introduced it. It is a commendation to him and to his work in this House.

The whole House was united yesterday in support of the Government providing additional medical equipment and support to India. The Government chose not to deny extra support because of the fiscal situation here at home and instead provided it because of a medical emergency abroad. So, when it is in the Government’s choosing, additional humanitarian assistance is provided. But it is also in the Government’s choosing to halve support for children and mothers in conflict-afflicted Yemen, which is suffering the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. It is in the Government’s choosing to halve health centre and medical provision in South Sudan, which is literally a lifeline for millions. It is in the Government’s choosing, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to cut by 40% UK funding for girls’ education after saying that it is a priority, but then to refuse, as the Foreign Secretary did to the International Relations and Defence Committee yesterday, to be transparent in so doing because it would embarrass the Government during discussions with the Kenyan Government on us jointly hosting an international conference on the subject in the summer. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who will reply to this debate, told the House on 16 March:

“We will use our G7 presidency this year to rally the international community to step up and support girls’ education”.—[Official Report, 16/3/21; col. 179.]


How grotesquely hollow this sounds one month on.

The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, told the House last week that the economy has seen a shrinkage of 11% owing to the pandemic. The law allows for such a reduction in ODA to reflect this, painful as it would be, but it is the Government’s political choice, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, indicated, to cut bilateral aid by 50%. They believe that it is popular, but no one seems—or rather very few seem—to be speaking up for it with confidence. It is a political choice of the FCDO and its Ministers, as the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Alton, indicated, to cut by 80% bilateral water, sanitation and hygiene projects in the height of the pandemic, when the Government themselves paid for advice on handwashing and clean water to be the first line of defence on Covid. These are political choices, because we knew what the extent of the impact on the economy was likely to be by the end of October last year.

Some called for the Conservatives to cut ODA at that stage. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said in response to one of those calls on 23 October—I quote directly from his tweet—

“You couldn’t have got this more wrong. It was the Conservatives under @David_Cameron who put the 0.7% aid commitment into law. And of all the countries who made the same commitment, just 5 (including the UK) have honoured it.”


The Government are dishonouring this commitment, and their 2015, 2017 and 2019 manifesto commitments likewise.

I care less about the Conservatives’ manifesto commitments than I do about the law. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, told the House on 17 March that

“we have had to make some hard choices, including temporarily reducing the ODA target from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI”.—[Official Report, 17/3/21; col. 302.]

This addresses the exact point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, mentioned in his very effective contribution to this debate. It is a breach of the law to set a new target. This is prohibited by the 2015 Act and the duty remains to meet 0.7%. If, however, in the course of honouring that duty, because of unplanned internal or external circumstances, during the reporting year 0.7% had not been met, Section 2 requires a statement to be laid before Parliament. Section 2 does not permit a proactive missing of the target in a forthcoming year, as the Government have announced.

Critically, the element of the law that the Minister chose to ignore when he answered questions on 16 March, and that Ministers have deliberately ignored since November, is that Section 2(4) requires:

“A statement under subsection (1) must also describe any steps that the Secretary of State has taken to ensure that the 0.7% target will be met by the United Kingdom in the calendar year following the report year.”


This Government have announced proactive and deliberate moves to renege on the duty to meet 0.7%. That is not provided for by the second provision and they have not stated how it will return.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

My Lords, we will now resume and continue with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the second major part of this debate refers to the Government’s assertion that we will return to this duty, which they are reneging on, when the fiscal situation allows. This is what the Minister told the House on 16 March. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, three times in the Chamber what those fiscal criteria are and I have not received an answer. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, specifically asked the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the same question today and I hope that there will be a reply. As I said in our debate on the integrated review, the Government either know what the criteria are, and are actively and deliberately withholding them from Parliament, or they are simply using disingenuous language. The Minister must tell us which it is today; he has 20 minutes and there is no reason not to spell this out in his response to the debate, because he has been asked that specific question.

There are, then, two areas of unlawfulness. One is the setting of the new 0.5% target that the Minister has referred to. Can he also state where in legislation it allows the Government to set a target at 0.5%?

One of the themes of this debate, which has been heartbreaking, is that the Government have not carried out humanitarian impact assessments for the extent of the cuts that they are making. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, also refused to answer a question from me about whether the cuts for Yemen came after an impact assessment. Chris Bold, the development director for Yemen, admitted to a House of Commons committee:

“We have not done an impact assessment.”


If the Government believe that the cuts are popular—though not based on evidence and without having carried out an impact assessment—why are they not simply being honest and straightforward in telling us what the criteria are, and what the impact is likely to be?

I said at the outset that I would not cite the broken Conservative manifesto commitments, but I will cite another manifesto, if the Committee will allow me:

“we wish to see the breaking down of barriers to international trade. Greater freedom in international trade will assist the underdeveloped countries who need markets for their products. We support the principle that in accordance with the Pearson Report Britain and other countries should contribute 1 per cent of Gross National Product of official aid to developing countries as soon as possible. We are totally opposed to all forms of racial and religious discrimination.”

That was the Liberal manifesto for the June 1970 election, which predates the UN resolution of October 1970. I cite it not because I am proud that my party has stood the test of time with this commitment but because it was a global consensus on which, after many years, there was a political consensus in the UK between the parties and beyond parties, with Gordon Brown as Chancellor and Tony Blair as Prime Minister, and later under David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Theresa May, which has now been dashed by this Government.

A journalist reported in 2019:

“Penny Mordaunt gave a presentation on foreign aid in which she said 0.7% in the current form is ‘unsustainable’.”


On 29 January 2019, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, replied:

“I hope this is incorrect. The 0.7 per cent commitment isn’t simply about charity. Spent properly, foreign aid makes the world safer, more sustainable and more stable. It benefits us all.”


Our contribution to making the world safer, more sustainable and more stable is being reduced, by an unlawful cut, by one-third this year and next, and there is no transparent commitment for the year after. As was said recently in a meeting chaired by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, which I attended, we are not cutting aid, we are cutting co-operation. We are not a lesser donor, we are a more unreliable partner—but not in my name or that of my party.