RISHI Sunak’s decision to cut the UK’s aid budget has been slammed, with one former international development minister saying he feared it could ultimately lead to 100,000 preventable deaths.
The move also saw Tory peer Baroness Liz Sugg resign as a Foreign Office minister, telling Boris Johnson the scrapping of the commitment – which was part of his 2019 General Election manifesto – was “fundamentally wrong”.
The Scottish Government described the move as “deplorable”.
The Chancellor announced yesterday that as part of the Government’s spending review, he would no longer allocate 0.7% of gross national income to international development.
From next year it’ll be cut to 0.5%, resulting in roughly £4 billion less for aid.
Sunak said: “During a domestic fiscal emergency, when we need to prioritise our limited resources on jobs and public services, sticking rigidly to spending 0.7% of our national income on overseas aid is difficult to justify to the British people, especially when we’re seeing the highest peacetime levels of borrowing on record.”
He added: “At a time of unprecedented crisis, Government must make tough choices.”
Sunak insisted that the Government’s “intention” was to return to 0.7% “when the fiscal situation allows”.
Andrew Mitchell, a former Tory international development secretary, said the move would cause “100,000 preventable deaths”, mainly among children.
“None of us in this House will be able to look our children in the eye and claim we did not know what we were voting for,” he told MPs.
Former health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said the cut sent the “wrong signal out to the world about our values as a country”.
“We spent a decade winning the argument,” he said. “Even a temporary cut will create an enormous clamour of people who will say we should not go back to it.”
READ MORE: George Kerevan: What we learned from Rishi Sunak's Spending Review
In her resignation letter to the Prime Minister, Sugg said: “Many in our country face severe challenges as a result of the pandemic and I know the Government must make very difficult choices in response. But I believe it is fundamentally wrong to abandon our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development.
“This promise should be kept in the tough times as well as the good. Given the link between our development spend and the health of our economy, the economic downturn has already led to significant cuts this year and I do not believe we should reduce our support further at a time of unprecedented global crises.”
The Scottish Government’s Minister for International Development, Jenny Gilruth, called the decision “deplorable”.
She added: “The Covid-19 pandemic has caused untold distress and damage to people and economies across the world, and as the UK Government’s primary source of development assistance, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must do all it can to help the world’s poorest countries to both respond and to build back fairer. This move also raises questions about trust in the Government. In June the Prime Minister said he would abide by the legally-binding commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas development aid.
“That commitment was again confirmed in correspondence to the Scottish Government by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs in July, when concerns were raised with the UK Government about the merger of the Department for International Development with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.”
She added: “It is a dangerous and deeply irresponsible move at a time when the world is responding to a pandemic that does not respect borders.”
Save the Children accused the UK Government for choosing to “balance the books on the backs of the world’s poorest people”.
Oxfam said it would “mean less support for the poorest communities when they need it most” and it will have “serious implications in the global fight against Covid-19”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel