Question
It remains crucial that the Government engage wholeheartedly with our friends and partners in the Commonwealth, especially now, in an insecure world, when other partnerships may be fraught. While I am pleased to see CHOGM emphasising the challenge of food insecurity, protecting our oceans and tackling climate change, it added up to warm words but sharp cuts in UK aid to Commonwealth nations. The aid budget to the Commonwealth has been slashed from £546 million in 2024-25 to £131 million in 2028-29, with over half of that going to Nigeria alone. All this is happening while humanitarian crises are continually underfunded and El Niño is already causing havoc around the world and is likely to force many millions more people into acute food insecurity over the next year. The King attended the launch of the Commonwealth nature initiative, but the UK Government failed to make a contribution. These cuts to official development assistance are hurting our partnerships in the Commonwealth, our international understanding and our influence. The Prime Minister has talked about Labour values driving his agenda and not making the mistake of wearing too many Tory clothes. Does the Minister agree that presiding over the deepest aid cuts this century—deeper than Donald Trump’s in America—looks like trying on the last Conservative Government’s clothes, and that Labour values would involve a return to the 0.7% aid target, which has been legislated for by this House? Will the Minister lay out a timeline to do this? I applaud the Foreign Secretary’s desire to take action on development finance and tackle unsustainable debt, but with the G20 fast approaching, will the Minister make a statement on how he will do this, alongside taking action on illicit financial flows and multilateral development bank reform, and with COP31 in Antalya this week, will he reassure the House that the UK will uphold its commitments to tackling the climate crisis?
Answer
I thank the hon. Lady for her various questions. I agree with her on food security and I hope she knows the importance that the Government, and particularly the development Minister, place on that. She is right to challenge me on ODA funding. We do not agree, however. We have made difficult decisions in relation to defence spending and ensuring that the defence of this country is a first and clear priority. We have 0.3%, and we have set out on multiple occasions that the ambition is to return to 0.7%. I am not going to set out a timeframe for that from the Dispatch Box. I talked in my statement about the priorities around the G20, and I said that CHOGM was the first in a series of events, including COP, that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will be in attendance for as we build towards the G20. I can confirm to the hon. Lady that we have allocated additional support in relation to pressures around El Niño. She is right to mention this, and the UK Government will always be supportive of tackling the climate crisis, however we are able to.14% vibes
Verdict: RED (22/100)
Only the first part of the question, whether the Government agrees with the proposed cut, received a clear and direct answer, and even that came with a thin reason. The reply gave the current 0.3% aid figure and restated an 'ambition' to return to 0.7%, but it refused to give a timeframe and offered no reason for that refusal. Questions on development finance and unsustainable debt got only generic references to G20 priorities, and illicit financial flows and multilateral development bank reform were not addressed at all. The climate-finance answer was a general, hedged assurance with no concrete commitment, so the asker would likely need to submit a follow-up on most parts of the question.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Minister agree that the scale of the aid cuts, the deepest this century, reflects the approach of the last Conservative Government rather than Labour values? | Addressed | Direct | The Minister directly answers the 'do you agree' question with a clear 'We do not agree', and the following statement gives a reason by pointing to difficult defence spending decisions. The reason is thin, but the item asked for agreement or disagreement and receives a clear answer. |
| Does the Minister agree that Labour values would involve a return to the 0.7% official development assistance target, which has been legislated for by this House? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply states the 0.3% current position and the 'ambition' to return to 0.7%, which engages with the target, but it does not directly address the 'Labour values' framing or commit to any concrete action. The 'We do not agree' may be a response to this item, but it is unexplained. |
| Will the Government set out a timeline for returning to the 0.7% official development assistance target? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The Minister restates the ambition to return to 0.7% but explicitly refuses to give a timeframe 'from the Dispatch Box' without giving any reason, so the 'why not' is left unanswered. |
| What is the Government's plan for taking action on development finance and unsustainable debt ahead of the G20? | Partially Addressed | Generic | The reply only refers back to unspecified 'priorities around the G20' and lists upcoming summit events, without describing any plan on development finance or unsustainable debt. |
| What is the Government's plan for taking action on illicit financial flows ahead of the G20? | Not Addressed | Generic | Illicit financial flows are never mentioned; the only relevant statement is a generic referral to earlier G20 priorities with no content on this topic. |
| What is the Government's plan for multilateral development bank reform ahead of the G20? | Not Addressed | Generic | Multilateral development bank reform is not addressed; the reply only points generically to G20 priorities stated elsewhere. |
| Will the Government reassure the House that the UK will uphold its commitments to tackling the climate crisis at COP31? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The Minister gives a general assurance that the Government will 'always be supportive of tackling the climate crisis', but the qualifier 'however we are able to' hedges it, and COP31 is only mentioned in terms of ministerial attendance, with no concrete commitment. |