UK Parliament hears multipartisan call for a vote on aid cuts

U.K. politicians from across the political spectrum dissented against the government’s aid budget cuts, causing a second day of poor publicity for Prime Minister Boris Johnson as he prepares to host a summit of the G-7 group of nations this weekend in Cornwall, England.

Out of more than 70 speakers, just a few members of Parliament — along with Steve Barclay, chief secretary to the Treasury — spoke in favor of the government’s position.

The emergency debate took place on the day following Conservative rebels’ failed attempt to force a vote on the aid cuts, after their amendment addressing the issue was ruled out on technical grounds. The rebels, led by former International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell, have insisted they have enough votes to defeat the government in a parliamentary vote on the cuts.

But Mitchell dismissed the characterization of himself as a rebel and told MPs, “It is the government that is rebelling against its indisputable commitments,” referring to the legally enshrined target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid.

“We are … supported by every former prime minister and, I believe, every former leader of all four major political parties,” said Mitchell. He said millions of supporters of climate and development campaigns opposed the cuts and would be protesting at the G-7’s summit in huge numbers were it not for the COVID-19 restrictions in the U.K.

“It is precisely because the government fears they would lose that they aren’t calling [a vote],” Mitchell continued. “That is not democracy. When countries behave like that in Africa, we British, we say they’ve got it wrong. The government and the executive needs to remember they are accountable to Parliament — not the other way around.”

Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee of MPs, used much of her speech to list the “savage” cuts known to have been caused by the government’s decision so far and said these showed that the government’s approach to development was "dripping with hypocrisy."

“The wide range of MPs opposed to the cuts from all parties shows that this issue goes beyond politics,” she said in a statement. “It is simply wrong for us, as one of the richest countries in the world, to take money from our aid programmes which help people build better lives in poorer states.”

Preet Kaur Gill, Labour’s international development spokesperson, described the cuts as “utterly shameful,” saying they would "cost people their lives" — a point echoed by numerous other MPs.

Barclay, speaking for the government, said the U.K. is “a generous and outward-looking country whose impulse has always been to help others.” He added: “But at the tail end of a huge economic emergency, we also have a responsibility to the British people. We are clear about our intention to return to 0.7% of our national income on overseas aid when the fiscal situation allows but cannot do so yet. … The tough choice is the right choice."

But Ian Blackford, leader of the Scottish National Party in Westminster, retorted that Barclay’s defense of the cuts reminded him of the phrase “he knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

NGOs welcomed the reinvigorated debate around the aid budget cuts. “We are heartened to see MPs stand up for what is right by voicing their support for overseas aid in Parliament today,” said Danny Harvey, executive director at Concern Worldwide (UK).

He added: “Right now, the world is at the brink of multiple famines in the midst of the worst health crisis in recent history, while millions in fragile countries are grappling with conflict and the devastating consequences of climate change. We hope that the U.K. government will keep its promise and return to spending 0.7% [of national income] on aid as quickly as possible.”