Government has 'no plans' to give MPs vote on overseas aid budget despite Speaker's request
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said MPs should be given an "effective" say over the decision to cut the aid budget by 拢4bn.
Tuesday 8 June 2021 19:10, UK
The government has "no plans" to bring forward a vote on its cut to foreign aid despite the Commons Speaker's request, Downing Street says.
, Sir Lindsay Hoyle said MPs should be given an "effective" say over the government's decision to temporarily reduce its overseas budget from 0.7% of national income to 0.5%.
But on Tuesday, the prime minister's spokesperson said the government did not believe a vote on the matter was necessary.
"We are acting in accordance with the act as set out," the spokesman said.
"It explicitly envisages the circumstances which we now face which is this global pandemic.
"There are certainly no plans to bring forward a vote."
It comes a day after Boris Johnson narrowly avoided an immediate Conservative rebellion over the reduction in support the UK gives to other countries around the world.
Thirty Tories, including former prime minister Theresa May and four other ex-cabinet ministers, had backed a rebellion against the £4bn reduction and had hoped to force a vote on the matter.
But Speaker Sir Lindsay ruled the amendment, proposed by Conservative former minister Andrew Mitchell, was "not in scope" of the Advanced Research and Innovation Agency Bill which it was attached to.
Noting that MPs have not had a chance to debate the matter, Sir Lindsay did however say he would accept applications for an emergency debate.
Mr Mitchell later successfully applied for a debate, telling the Commons: "Parliament has not had its say on this vital matter."
The debate took place on Tuesday, with MPs opposed to the cuts voicing their disquiet during the three-hour debate.
Opening proceedings, Mr Mitchell said the cut was an "unethical and unlawful betrayal".
"The way the government is behaving strikes at the heart of our parliament. It is precisely because the government fears they would lose that they are not calling one [a vote]. That is not democracy," he said.
"What the government is doing is unethical, possibly illegal, and certainly breaks our promise. It's not proper and it's fundamentally un-British and we shouldn't behave in this way."
Mrs May said reducing spending on overseas aid would have a "devastating impact on the poorest in the world and it will damage the UK".
Labour's shadow international development secretary Preet Kaur Gill said the government's move was "utterly shameful" and accused it of trying to "avoid scrutiny and accountability for the cuts that they have imposed".
But Treasury minister Steve Barclay defended the government's decision, telling the Commons: "We are absolutely clear about our intentions to return to 0.7% of our national income on overseas aid when the fiscal situation allows, but cannot do so yet. We will however keep the matter under careful and regular review.
"But for now, the tough choice is the right choice."
The proposed amendment on Monday had intended to make the government commit to reinstating the 0.7% aid target from next year - from the funding for this specific agency, if it is not met through alternative means.
Under parliamentary procedure, the Speaker gets to decide whether to select amendments and allow votes on them based on the advice of his clerks.
Responding to Sir Lindsay's decision not to select the rebels' amendment, Mr Mitchell accused the government front bench of "treating the House of Commons with disrespect".
Britain's aid spending was cut by Chancellor Rishi Sunak last November in what was intended to be a temporary move, but without a vote in parliament.
Mr Sunak told MPs at the time that keeping it at the higher level "cannot be justified to the British people".
The government has said the COVID pandemic has meant difficult decisions for the country's finances.
Just under £10bn is to be allocated to departments for foreign aid spending in 2021-22, down from more than £14bn in 2019-20.
Mr Mitchell told the Commons on Monday that he believed his amendment would have passed if it had been selected by the Speaker.
He said: "Had we secured a vote on the new clause tonight, I can assure the House it would have secured the ascent of the House by not less than a majority of nine and probably of around 20 votes.
"In the week of the British chairmanship of the G7, the government's failure to address this issue will indisputably mean that hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths will result."