Ministers have won the backing of 14 Tory MPs who were threatening to oppose cuts to Britain’s aid budget before a critical Commons vote today.
The backbenchers have written to their colleagues urging them to back a government plan to reinstate the aid budget of 0.7 per cent of GDP once borrowing is brought under control.
Ministers are increasingly confident that they will win the vote despite opposition from figures such as Andrew Mitchell, the former international development secretary, who wants the target to be reinstated as soon as possible.
Alok Sharma, Boris Johnson’s international climate change envoy, has also privately criticised the proposal, warning that it will damage Britain’s attempts to agree an ambitious global warming deal at November’s Cop26 conference.
Sources claimed last night that he could abstain from the vote rather than support the government.
Under the plan being proposed by Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, the £4 billion of aid cuts which were imposed this year would be reversed when two fiscal targets are met.
These are when the Office for Budget Responsibility confirms the government is no longer borrowing for day-to-day spending and when underlying debt is falling.
Critics have claimed that under current forecasts this will mean that aid spending will not return to 0.7 per cent of GDP — from the present level of 0.5 per cent — for four or five years.
But the chief secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Barclay, said that the economy was “bouncing back better than previously forecast” and the target could be met earlier.
“This was a test that was met in 2018-19, so what we are saying is, this is a test that has been met in the past, this is a test that will be determined independently through the measures that the OBR set out, and that the direction of travel, the trajectory, is very positive,” he told the BBC.
Mitchell, who has led a campaign against the cuts, called on the rebels to “stand firm”. He said if the motion failed then the 0.7 per cent target would be brought back from next year.
“I think I’ve only rebelled against my own party and government about three times in the 34 years since I was first elected to the House of Commons, but I shall do so today with conviction and with enthusiasm, because I think it’s the most terrible thing to break our promise,” he told Times Radio.
“I am urging colleagues to stand firm, stick to our promise and reinstate the target.
“Unless we do, it could be long after Covid before we see this country restore the commitment we made to the poorest people in the world and [it will] continue to undermine our reputation on the world stage.”
In a letter to colleagues, passed to the political website Politico, the 14 rebels said they believed that the government’s offer was acceptable.
“We have worked with the government to fashion a compromise that will ensure the 0.7 per cent commitment to aid spending is not only reasserted, but also for the first time to clarify the conditions on which we will return to it,” they said.
“Importantly, these conditions are based on the independent economic forecasts of the Office of Budget Responsibility.”
Jeremy Hunt, the former foreign secretary, who had opposed the cuts, told Times Radio he had still not made up his mind which way to vote.
“I want to look at what the government’s alternative is, before finally deciding,” he said. “The thing I want to understand — which I’m not clear about — is when this means we will return [to 0.7 per cent].”
The commitment to 0.7 per cent is written in law and was restated in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, but was dropped as the government attempted to save money in response to the economic damage caused by coronavirus.
The present 0.5 per cent level means £10 billion will be spent on aid this year, about £4 billion less than if the original commitment had been kept.
Preet Kaur Gill, the shadow international development secretary, said the plan would lead to indefinite cuts to the aid budget.
“Labour opposes this shameful attempt by the government to weasel out of their commitments to supporting the world’s poorest and most vulnerable during a global pandemic,” she said. “The chancellor’s proposal would lead to an indefinite cut to the aid budget and is not in our national interest.
“Cuts to international aid will leave the very poorest weaker in the fight against the threats of poverty, climate change and the current pandemic.”
