Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the UK’s international development budget.
Before entering Parliament, I worked for a British Foreign Secretary. In that capacity, I was able to see first-hand the true value and extraordinary reach of the UK’s aid budget and that impact that it has around the world.
I have long believed that while we are no longer a global superpower, we are a global leader in two areas; defence and international development. Our commitment to 0.7% makes us unique in the world and above all it is a commitment to the world’s poorest.
Therefore, I like you am disappointed that we have decided to reduce the development budget from 0.7% to 0.5%. I also share your concerns about the impact of the decision to reduce the ODA budget will have on funding for Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), and on the lives of those living in countries such as Syria.
In the Foreign Secretary’s recent statement to the House of Commons, I added my concern about the impact of such a decision. I have included the exchange below:
Question: Anthony Mangnall
To say that I am disappointed by the decision is an understatement. I am horrified that we have decided to break a manifesto commitment, and I am horrified by the message it sends to the many women who have suffered such horrendous acts of sexual violence in conflict, especially given the fact that yesterday was the UN International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I know how hard it is and that the Foreign Secretary did not want that decision, but why did he and the Government not look at reforming this and at a multi-year funding formula—rather than one based on the calendar year—to reach the 0.7%? That would have given us the long-term strategy and the commitment to the world’s poorest.
Response: Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for what he is saying, and I understand that he is trying to be constructive. I think he is referring to the idea that we could reform and change the approach, as many have suggested even before the pandemic, to say that the 0.7% commitment is averaged out over several years. I understand that, and I think it is a good proposal. It is something that perhaps we should consider in any event, but the reality is that the depth of the economic hit, the depth of the contraction and the knock-on effect to the public finances mean that I am afraid that would not be able satisfy the challenge and the extent of the necessity that we face in trying to reconcile domestic and international priorities.
However, while I will do all I can to see the 0.7% returned as soon as possible I am pleased that the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will be working with all parliamentarians to ensure that the £10 billion we do spend over 2021 to fight poverty, tackle climate change, support girls' education, resolve conflicts and improve global health is effective and reaches those most in need.
I believe the UK must remain an open and outward-looking nation that stands up to the injustices of the world and helps those in some of the most difficult regions and situations across the globe. The international development budget has been our commitment to those people and I always fight to safeguard the commitments we have made and to help the world’s poorest.