ODA Budget

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on reductions in the overseas development assistance budget.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. The pandemic has resulted in the biggest drop in UK economic output in 300 years, and it has had a major impact on public finances; the deficit this year is projected to be double its peak during the financial crisis. That is why we had to take the tough—but, I assure him, temporary—decision at the end of last year to reduce the official development assistance target from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%.

In spite of that, the UK will spend £10 billion on aid in 2021, making us the third largest donor in the G7 as a percentage of our gross national income. Not only that, but we will be the third largest bilateral humanitarian donor, spending at least £906 million this year, and we will invest at least £400 million bilaterally on girls’ education in over 25 countries. We will deliver £534 million of bilateral spend on climate and biodiversity, a doubling of the average spend between 2016 and 2020. We have committed £548 million to COVAX to provide vaccines for poorer countries, and we are multiplying our impact by integrating our aid spend with our diplomatic network, our science and technology expertise and our economic partnerships.

This Government’s commitment to the UK’s being a leader in development has not changed. The integrated review reaffirmed our pledge to fight against global poverty and to achieve the UN sustainable development goals by 2030, and we reiterate our commitment to return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows. This week’s new allocations show that we are following through with the vision that the Prime Minister set out in the integrated review. The way the UK applies our world-leading investment and our expertise must be strategic, in line with the approach defined by the integrated review, it must represent best value for taxpayers’ money, and it must deliver results by tackling poverty and improving people’s lives around the world.

To achieve this, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has conducted a thorough review of aid spending to ensure that we target every penny at the highest-priority global challenges. The Foreign Secretary’s written statement to the House last week set out how this sharpened focus of the FCDO’s aid portfolio lies behind seven strategic priorities for poverty reduction. These are: climate and biodiversity, covid-19 and global health security, girls’ education, humanitarian preparedness and response, science and technology, open societies and conflict resolution, and economic development and trade. We believe that this plan will deliver the greatest impact where it matters most.

[Mr Mitchell]

When Germany will now exceed the 0.7% target, France is now pledged to hit it and the US is increasing aid spending by $15 billion, why is Britain, chair of the G7, breaking its promises to the poorest and the election manifesto commitment on which we were all elected, and which this country previously has so proudly upheld? Do the Government understand that the aid cut to Syria undermines our key ally in the middle east, Jordan, and will increase the flow of refugees into Europe? Do the Government realise that sending 300 troops to Mali while cutting humanitarian aid to the Sahel is a failure of understanding that puts our troops at greater risk? Why are the Government derailing our Prime Minister’s pledge on girls’ education with cuts that will result in 4 million fewer girls going to school while Britain is simultaneously hosting an international replenishment conference asking others to fund this key British objective?

The 0.7% is not just a commitment to the world’s poorest enshrined in law by this House; it is a reflection of the kind of country we aspire to be and the values that we uphold. Ninety-five per cent. of red wall voters approve of life-saving humanitarian aid, but that is exactly what the Treasury is cutting in their name. We are cutting £500 million in humanitarian aid. This will mean that 3 million women and children will not now receive life-saving support. Is it not clear that the original estimate of 100,000 souls who will die as a result is now a tragic understatement? This dreadful political—not economic—decision shames our country and our Government. It should shame us all.

[James Cleverly]

I completely understand the passion with which my right hon. Friend speaks, but the simple truth is that the UK economy is 11.3% smaller than it was last year and is undergoing the worst economic contraction for 300 years. The coronavirus has put in place a unique set of circumstances to which we are forced to respond. Yet despite these difficulties—despite this economic impact—the UK will remain in both absolute terms and percentage terms one of the largest ODA donor countries in the world, and will remain the third largest ODA donor in the G7.

My right hon. Friend speaks of the areas where the UK wishes to be a force for good in the world. We are still absolutely committed to making sure that we use our ODA spend in areas such as girls’ education, the environment and climate and others, but with our diplomatic efforts as part of the joint Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as a force multiplier to ensure that the money we spend is amplified by our diplomatic efforts both bilaterally and on the world stage. I remind him that when the fiscal circumstances allow, we are committed to returning to the 0.7% of GNI which he, others and indeed this Government are so rightly proud of.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

We absolutely respect the independence of the International Criminal Court. We do expect it to comply with its own mandate. The UK will remain a strong supporter of the ICC.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with his G7 counterparts on global flows of official development assistance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)]

The Foreign Secretary and junior Ministers, including myself, speak regularly to counterparts in the G7 and other countries about official development assistance, including in supporting the response to and recovery from covid-19. The Foreign Secretary’s most recent bilateral conversations on international development with G7 partners were with French Foreign Minister Le Drian and Japanese Foreign Minister Motegi. As G7 president and host this year, we are strongly supporting work towards a sustainable, inclusive and resilient recovery, and the Foreign Secretary will host G7 Foreign and Development Ministers in May, when we will discuss sustainable recovery as an integral part of our agenda.

[Mr Mitchell]

Are the Government not a little concerned that when they are chairing the G7 in a global pandemic, when international development has never been more important, the Germans have hit the 0.7%, the French have embraced the 0.7%, and the Americans have increased their international development spending by no less than $15 billion, whereas we in Britain are breaking our promise to the poorest, breaking our manifesto commitment on which we were all elected just over a year ago, and cutting humanitarian aid, leading directly to hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths, particularly among women and children?

[Wendy Morton]

I do not accept what my right hon. Friend is saying. The UK remains a development superpower. Based on OECD data for 2020, the UK will be the third largest official development assistance donor in the G7 as a percentage of GNI in 2021. We will spend a greater percentage of our GNI than the US, Japan, Canada or Italy and, to be absolutely clear, we will still spend £10 billion on ODA in 2021. We have said that we will return to spending 0.7% on ODA as soon as the fiscal situation allows, but we have clear priorities and remain an active, confident, internationalist, burden-sharing and problem-solving nation.

Yemen: Aid Funding

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, if he will make a statement on the level of aid funding to Yemen.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for raising this urgent question. The situation in Yemen remains among the worst humanitarian crises in the world. Two thirds of the entire population—more than 20 million people—require some form of humanitarian assistance. The UN estimates that in the first half of this year, 47,000 people will be in famine conditions and 16.2 million will be at risk of starvation. Improving the dire circumstances faced by so many Yemenis continues to be a priority for this Government.

Yesterday, I attended the high-level pledging conference for the United Nations humanitarian appeal for Yemen. I announced that the UK will provide at least—I repeat, at least—£87 million in aid to Yemen over the course of financial year 2021-22. Our total aid contribution since the conflict began was already over £1 billion. This new pledge will feed an additional 240,000 of the most vulnerable Yemenis every month, support 400 health clinics and provide clean water for 1.6 million people. We will also provide one-off cash support to 1.5 million of Yemen’s poorest households to help them buy food and basic supplies.

Alongside the money that the UK is spending to reduce humanitarian suffering in Yemen, we continue to play a leading diplomatic role in support of the UN’s efforts to end the conflict. Yesterday, I spoke to the United Nations special envoy, Martin Griffiths, and we discussed how the UK could assist him in ending this devastating war. Last week, the United Nations Security Council adopted a UK-drafted resolution that reiterated the Council’s support for the United Nations peace process, condemned the Houthi offensive in Marib and attacks on Saudi Arabia and sanctioned Houthi official Sultan Zabin for the use of sexual violence as a tool of war.

Just last night, a Houthi missile hit and injured five civilians in southern Saudi Arabia. I condemn that further attack by the Houthis on civilian targets in Saudi Arabia and reiterate our commitment to help Saudi Arabia defend itself.

We are also working closely with our regional and international partners for peace. On 25 February, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Saudi Foreign Minister, Faisal bin Farhan, about the Yemen peace process, and he also recently discussed this with the US Secretary of State. I discussed Yemen with the Omani ambassador to the UK on 4 February and spoke to the Yemeni Foreign Minister on 20 January regarding the attack on Aden and the formation of a new Yemeni Cabinet.

The UK is also leading efforts to tackle covid-19 in Yemen and around the world. This month, as part of the UN Security Council presidency, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary called for a ceasefire across the globe to allow vulnerable people living in conflict zones to be vaccinated against covid-19. The UK, as one the biggest donors to the World Health Organisation and GAVI’s COVAX initiative, is helping ensure that millions of vaccine doses get through to people living in crises such as Yemen.

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this question and thank hon. Members for their continued interest in Yemen. The conflict and humanitarian crisis deserves our attention, and the UK Government remain fully committed to doing what we can to help secure a better future for Yemenis.

[Mr Mitchell]

The Minister is a decent fellow and will not have enjoyed what he announced yesterday. Last night, he will have heard the United Nations Secretary-General tell him that, for Yemen,

“cutting aid is a death sentence.”

Cutting it by 50% is unconscionable. As Sir Mark Lowcock, a senior and respected British official at the UN, said, millions of Yemeni children

“will continue the slow, agonising and obscene process of starving to death”.

I understand that I remain the only European politician who has recently been into Sa’dah in north Yemen to see an acute malnutrition ward in the hospital there, part-funded by the British taxpayer—life-saving work, which will now be halved. My right hon. Friend told the House just last month that

“Yemen will remain a UK priority”—[Official Report, 8 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 31.]

and yet the fifth richest country in the world is cutting support by more than half to one of the poorest countries in the world—and during a global pandemic.

Every single Member of this House was elected just over a year ago on a promise to maintain the 0.7%. Aid has already been cut under that formula because our economy has contracted, but the Government told the House that they would protect seven strategic priorities, including “human preparedness and response”. No one in this House believes that the Foreign Secretary wants to do this. It is a harbinger of terrible cuts to come. Everyone in this House knows that the cut to the 0.7% is not a result of tough choices; it is a strategic mistake with deadly consequences.

Mr Speaker, this is not who we are. This is not how global Britain acts. We are a generous, decent country. The 0.7% is enshrined in law. This House must surely have a vote. We must all search our consciences.

[James Cleverly]

I genuinely thank my right hon. Friend. He speaks with authority and passion as an experienced Member of this House and as a former Secretary of State for International Development. I remind the House that the commitment we made at the pledging conference represents a floor, not a ceiling, and that the figures that we have ultimately distributed in previous years have, in every one of those years, exceeded the figure pledged. We are going through a process at the moment where we work out how we distribute our official development assistance. In whatever way that process concludes, we will remain, in both absolute and percentage terms, one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world, and to Yemen itself, we still remain one of the largest donors to that humanitarian crisis.

Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my interests, which are set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The integrated review is a most important moment and, along with my colleagues, I look forward very much to its publication. It will set out what global Britain means post Brexit, and as many have said, there are undoubtedly huge opportunities for us there. It wires together defence, diplomacy and development, and I want to say a few words about development and the importance of soft power, where, hitherto, Britain has been a global leader.

Many on the Conservative Benches, as well as across the House, are very much opposed in principle to the reduction in the 0.7% commitment, not only because it was a promise delivered when the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and I were in government, but because it was a manifesto commitment made by every elected Member of this House at the last election, just a year ago. It is incredibly unwise to break that commitment, particularly in the midst of a global pandemic. We all know that covid will never be beaten here until it is beaten everywhere, and the British development budget has helped to do an enormous amount to build health structures, which have been so important. If we are vaccinating people in the northern part of Uganda, it is not just about a vaccine and a needle; it is about health structures, and having clinics, fridges, and adequately trained staff.

This will be the largest cut that has ever been made in international development spending, and we are the only country contemplating it: the United States has announced that it will increase development spending by $15 billion; France is increasing its level of developing spending above what we are now proposing; and Germany reached the 0.7% figure last year. The 0.7% has gone down so much this year—as of course it rightly does sometimes, because it reflects the state of our gross national income—that £3 billion has already been shaved off the budget. If the 0.5% proposal were to be brought in, we would be talking about another £4 billion, and so nearly half the budget of nearly £15 billion last year. It is wrong in principle to use that to wipe out 1% of the debt we have racked up in the past year. I ask the Government respectfully to think again about this.

I have a second point I wish to make. I read that the Government are worried about losing a vote on this in the House of Commons and are therefore intending to kick it into the long grass. May I suggest a more constructive approach? Brexit was supposed to bring power back to this Parliament, not to Executive fiat, and I think the Government should put this to Parliament sooner rather than later. The reason for that is, first, that development is long-term; many important development programmes run for three or five years. We see this in the example of the Prime Minister’s excellent proposal that all girls should get 12 years of education. If there is doubt over the budget, it is extremely unhelpful in planning those programmes, which will, by definition, then be much less effective. Secondly, as has been pointed out, the Government may be in breach of the law, because the provisions do not allow for missing the target on purpose. If the Government advance down that particular route, they may well get judicially reviewed. So I urge them to think again about this, perhaps getting the £4 billion they would save by this pernicious and shabby cut from a digital online services tax. Why not let Amazon pay fair tax instead of balancing the books in this way on the backs of the poorest people in the world?

UN International Day of Education

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I am a humbled to be the first man to take part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on her brilliant opening speech, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) on her important new appointment.

There are many interventions we can make to fundamentally change the world. We can ensure that people have clean water. Dirty water and water-borne diseases still kill thousands of children every day. We can vaccinate children, which is a UK priority. In the last Parliament, British taxpayers vaccinated a child in the poor world every two seconds and saved the life of a child in the poor world every two minutes from diseases that, thank goodness, our children do not suffer from today. We can exhort contraception and family planning, allowing women in the poor world to decide whether and when they have children.

But for me, education, and educating girls in particular, is top of the list of ways we can change the world. If we educate a girl, she will almost certainly marry later. She will ensure that she educates her own children. She is likely to be economically active. She will adopt a leadership position in her family and her community, and these women are increasingly seen in national government. The UK has been a leader in this area under both parties, and our Prime Minister eloquently extols the importance of every girl having 12 years of education as a critical way of improving the world. We see in Africa the extraordinary way in which education is valued by parents and children as the ladder out of poverty. They walk so far every day to get an education and wrap their textbooks in the brown paper that shows their value.

When so many children cannot go to school here and in the poorest, most deprived parts of the world, this is not a time for Britain to renege on its promise to the poorest through the 0.7%. Every Member of this House was elected on a promise to stand by the 0.7%. It is just 1% of the debt we have racked up this year. The 0.7% is already reduced by nearly £3 billion, because gross national income has gone done so much this year. If these cuts persist, it will mean that 1.6 million fewer children go to school, 12.6 million of the poorest women in the world will not have access to contraception, 3.4 million starving and hungry people will not get humanitarian support, 9.3 million children will not get vaccinated and 6.3 million who would previously have got access to clean water and sanitation will not get it.

If the Government try to protect one or more of those areas, the effect on the others will be even worse. It is a dismal start to the UK’s presidency of the G7 to cut this budget, when we have seen the United States increase its aid spending as a priority just this week. We know from the pandemic that we will not be safe here until we are safe everywhere. It is a terrible mistake to cut the 0.7%, and I urge the Government to think again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We are now going back to Katherine Fletcher.

Russian Federation: Human Rights

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in human rights, as do so many on both sides of the Chamber. We are not aware of any British nationals requiring consular support as a result of detentions during the protest, but we always keep our travel advice under constant review.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) is absolutely right to bring to the House this matter and that of the very brave Alexei Navalny, whose rights under the UN convention on human rights have been trampled underfoot and so grievously disrespected by a fellow member of the United Nations Security Council. Will the Minister confirm that she is co-ordinating collective action with our allies on this matter to hold the Russian leadership to account? Will she also confirm that, through the Magnitsky measures and other ways, not just Russia’s leaders but other officials who abuse Alexei Navalny’s human rights can be held to account in a similar way?

[Wendy Morton]

I know that my right hon. Friend has taken the issue of sanctions and Magnitsky seriously for some time and championed it. When it comes to the case of Alexei Navalny, we have been absolutely clear from the start in terms of mobilising the international community. We galvanised the international community in condemnation of these deplorable detentions with the statement on 26 January through our role as G7 president. In that statement, we emphasised our deep concern about these developments, but we were also very instrumental in leading international efforts in response to his poisoning in August last year, when we worked closely with our international partners at the OPCW to urge Russia to uphold its obligations under the chemical weapons convention.

Xinjiang: Forced Labour

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

We have used the Magnitsky sanctions. We recently announced another tranche of measures in addition to the first, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we are working on proposals to extend the model to corruption, so we have been extremely assiduous in this area. I understand his point about how we actually hold people individually to account for these crimes. Whether it is genocide or gross human rights violations, the label is less important than the accountability for what are, no doubt, egregious crimes, but he has not suggested anything to me that would precipitate that. We are taking the targeted measures that will cut the funding, inadvertently or otherwise, going into the internment camps, and prevent those in the internment camps who are running them from profiting from it. If we want any wider initiative, we will need a far wider range of international support and we will need to get authoritative third parties to have some kind of access. That is why I referred to the work of the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, as difficult and challenging as it is, and why I raised it with António Guterres yesterday.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has made a very well measured and balanced statement. Of course we seek a constructive relationship with China, but it has to be within the rules-based system. As he has so eloquently made clear, global Britain is values-driven or it is nothing. May I add to those who have urged him to keep on the table continuously the Magnitsky provisions, which he, I and others worked so hard to get through the House, to ensure that those provisions are consistently kept under review? On the subject of Jesus College, of which I am also an alumnus, may I make it clear that there are two China centres? My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) was referring to the one run by Peter Nolan.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his knowledge and for his commitment on this issue. He is absolutely right in what he said. I thank him for his support. He is right to say that we need a balanced approach. China is here to stay as an asymmetrical economic influence. There are positives in the relationship as well as the negatives. In particular, it has taken steps on climate change, which is very important. It is the biggest net emitter but also the biggest investor in renewables. We want to try to have a constructive relationship. What I have set out today, what this Government believe in and what this Prime Minister believes in is that we will not duck when the issue of our security is at stake and we will not duck when our values are at stake. Of course we will not take the Magnitsky sanctions lever off the table, and of course it is evidence-driven in relation to the particular individuals; that has to be collated very carefully. Only one country so far has instituted sanctions, but I can assure him that it is not off the table.

Official Development Assistance

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman? I know that he cares about this subject passionately and served as International Development Secretary himself. Frankly, he used rather hyperbolic language, but he should have at least noted the reassurance that I gave about strategic prioritisation—even with a reduced financial envelope—and our commitment regarding disease, particularly immunisation and vaccination around tuberculosis, covid, malaria and the like. He mentioned schools, and he will have noted that I said we would be safeguarding girls’ education. He wanted to trade figures with me, so I hope that he will bear with me: when he became Development Secretary in 2003, ODA spend was 0.34% of GNI; and when he left in 2007, it was 0.36%. The Conservatives are the ones who hit 0.7%, and we are proud of that. We will go to 0.5% next year. I think I am right in saying that the last Labour Government hit 0.5% in only one year of his tenure as Development Secretary, so he should have just a little bit more humility when he engages in quite such hyperbolic critique of what we have achieved on this side of the House.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary very much for his courtesy over recent months, for his extremely welcome support for the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, and for his kind comments about Lady Sugg, who was a brilliant Development Minister. I hope that everyone in the House will read her principled and moving resignation letter, which she released yesterday.

My right hon. Friend and I both know that, seen from the Biden White House, this is a dismal start to our G7 chairmanship. As the former Prime Minister said yesterday, the 0.7% is a promise that we as Tories do not need to break. My right hon. Friend knows, does he not, that taking a further 30% out of the development budget will drive a horse and cart through many of the plans that the British Government have so strongly supported for eliminating poverty. It will withdraw access to family planning and contraception for more than 7 million women, with all the misery that that will entail; 100,000 children will die from preventable diseases; and 2 million people—mainly children—will suffer much more steeply from malnutrition and starvation as a result of these changes. In spite of what he says about prioritising girls’ education, which is extremely welcome, under the existing plans probably 1 million girls will not be able to go to school. I hope that he will bear in mind that these reductions make little difference to us in the United Kingdom, but they make a massive difference to them.

[Dominic Raab]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who was a fantastic Development Secretary. We have talked at length about these issues since our time in opposition, and will continue to do so. He mentioned a number of points. He read out some statistics. With respect, I do not think it is possible to talk with the precision that he did about the implications, because we are not going to take a salami-slicing approach and just say, “We’re going to cut a third from all areas of ODA.” That is not what we are going to do. We are going to take a strategic approach. We will safeguard those areas that we regard as an absolute priority, including many of the things he mentioned, particularly public health and international public health, alongside covid, climate change and girls’ education.

My right hon. Friend talked about ICAI. As he knows, I am committed to reinforcing ICAI’s role; we welcome the transparency and scrutiny. Finally, he talked about the US. With respect, I disagree. At 0.5% next year, we will still be spending a greater proportion of GNI than the US. Given the widespread cross-party concerns in the US about defence spending within the European context, I think they will welcome the fact that we are increasing our security and defence budget.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a range of different issues. I thank him for his words of support for ICAI. It is important to have that external scrutiny. Frankly, as the Secretary of State—and having worked in a range of Departments—I think that scrutiny is useful for leveraging reform and getting the Department to look at new ways of doing things, so I remain open and embrace it. He asked me about the Select Committees. Normally the process is that they shadow the individual Departments, but it will ultimately be a matter for the House.

I have heard the assertion that the Australian example demonstrates how it all goes horribly wrong. Having dug a little further and talked to my opposite number, Marise Payne, I do not think that that is necessarily the case. Although it is true that it is important to learn from the different ways in which different foreign ministries operate, there is only one in the OECD that still has a separate aid ministry with a separate aid budget. Actually, the movement—certainly in the last 10 or 15 years—has all been in the other way, so it is important to draw on those lessons too. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s advice on the 0.7% but, notwithstanding his generosity, I shall decline to accept his offer.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

We are where we are today, so it is only right to wish every success to both sides of this merger as it launches today. I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about the importance of ICAI and of independent evaluation, which drives up transparency, accountability and the interests of the taxpayer in value for money. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the commitment to 0.7%, which he has most helpfully underlined, is inextricably linked to the rules that govern this expenditure, and that we should not—as a country or as a Government—seek to balance the books on the backs of the poorest women and children in the world?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his advice throughout this process, which has been constructive and has drawn on his considerable experience as Secretary of State. He has certainly convinced me and the Government about the importance of ICAI, and I think its mandate can be refined and focused so that we get practical recommendations alongside critical analysis. I take the points that he has made about not just the 0.7%, but the underlying rules. Our commitment, and indeed this was our commitment during the review of official development assistance given the state of GNI, is to make sure that the bottom billion—the very poorest around the world—are prioritised, and that will be the case in the new Department.

China

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

As I have said, we have made a very clear, bespoke offer to BNO holders. Further details will be set out by the Home Secretary. She has already made some comments about the potential gap in years, but I will allow her to set out the full detail and then the House can scrutinise it properly.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I very much welcome both the tone and the content of what my right hon. Friend has said today. He is surely right to emphasise the importance of co-operation wherever we can and not of confrontation wherever possible. After all, we have more in common with China when it comes to climate change negotiations than we do currently with the United States. Will he emphasise to the Chinese authorities that the Magnitsky legislation and the human rights measures that he has so ably and rightly introduced are not aimed at the Chinese per se, but at human rights abusers, corrupt officials and business people wheresoever they may be?

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I welcome and thank him for his support. When the Magnitsky sanctions were originally debated, the Russian Government said that the measure was solely aimed at Russia and when it was originally debated, discussed and enacted in the US, there were different Bills in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. We were very clear in the model that we adopted that this would be a universal mechanism, that it would allow us to target the individuals, whether they were state or non-state actors, and that it did not involve us, as a wider economic embargo or sanctions would do, in punishing the individual people of the country. This is a very bespoke, forensic tool, but it gives effect to exactly what he describes.