Integrated Review: Development Aid

Debate between Lord Purvis of Tweed and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Grand Committee

[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.