My speech during the debate on Official Development Assistance and the British Council

I support the Government’s estimate and I look forward to its passage. I also back the Government’s judgment at this very difficult time, when so many economies, including our own, have been badly damaged by responses to the pandemic. But I also understand the mood of the House and I understand that a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends whom I respect have misgivings about all this. I would just like to make a few remarks in the spirit of trying to build some bridges between the Government and their critics, who have been very wide-ranging in this debate.

The first point I make is that I do not trust the figures. I think that the Government understate just how much we already do and how much we already spend. We are much more cautious about what we regard as aid expenditure than some other countries we are compared against, even though we usually spend more than they do as a percentage.

Let us take, for example, an area that colleagues have already mentioned. This country has received a very large number of economic migrants and asylum seekers in recent years. In the year to March 2020, the last for which we have official figures, 715,000 people came to live in our country, and many of them came from poor countries that have qualified for overseas aid. We do not fully account, in the way that one might, for the first-year set-up costs—the housing, the public service provision, the top-up benefits and the other assistance that people are rightfully given when they come to live with us and we wish them to live to a reasonable standard. Surely, helping people who wish to come here because they find their own countries so disadvantageous is a very important part of our overseas aid.

We are also too cautious about all the expenditure we make through the Ministry of Defence. Why were we in Afghanistan? Afghanistan is one of the main recipients of our aid, and in recent years we have been spending considerable sums of money on support through our military and the advice we offer. Those things should also be taken into account to get a realistic picture of just how much the Government are spending on necessary assistance abroad.

The second issue that has been raised in the debate is that colleagues fear a loss of influence. I would like to reassure them that surely this year, of all years, is when we have seen a major advance in British influence. We have just taken our full seat with a vote on the World Trade Organisation, and we are busily signing off a number of trade agreements around the world that we could not have done in previous years.

The Prime Minister has just very successfully chaired the G7 and has helped to bring together the seven most powerful western democracies in terms of economic strength to reach important agreements to improve the world outlook. We have COP26 coming up, when I trust that British chairmanship will be astute and helpful in order to agree something that many Governments in the world talk a lot about, though not all of them do as much as we do to try and see things through. We are very much the second most important member of NATO in terms of contribution after the United States of America, and we are a force within NATO to make sure that it is used for the good, as a force for peace.

On the 0.7% target, I make no secret of the fact that I do not like targets like that. I did not feel at the time it went through that there was any point in trying to persuade Parliament because Parliament was very hooked on such a target. The difficulty with a target like that is, as we have seen, that national income can change quite rapidly in ways that people did not predict—if something like a pandemic strikes, in particular—and it is not always possible, when we get the recovery, to build up the spending as quickly as the GNI, and it would be silly to have to spend money when we do not have really good projects.

Nor do I like the idea of Governments passing legislation to bind themselves. It seems to me completely pointless. What matters is the word of the Government. If circumstances change, they may have to change, and all the time that the Government control a majority, the fact that it is in legislation does not make any difference. The Government still have to decide whether to keep their word or whether force majeure or force of circumstance requires some temporary or permanent change.

In this debate, I think lots of colleagues have all decided to duplicate and replicate one another’s speeches by saying how much they dislike any kind of cut in our immediate aid programme. I would like to have heard, from all those who are understandably enthusiastic about the good that aid could do, rather more discussion of what works best when we have limited money—as we always will, whether the limit is 0.5% or 0.7% of our GDP—so that we can do the most good with it. We have had several years of 0.7% but we still have the same list of main countries needing aid, so we know that this is not a simple fix, that we are one of many and that we need to work with other partners around the world. We need to harness the private sector and the charitable sector; it does not all have to come from British taxpayers.

When we are looking at progress, we first need to establish a peace. Quite a lot of the countries that need a lot of aid still do not have a peace; they have a civil war going on. That means that any particular projects may just be damaged or wasted because of the lack of that fundamental condition. It is best if there is a decent Government who can deliver and who are not corrupt. To what extent are we allowed to try to influence Governments in the right direction, because we do not wish to become a neo-colonial power?

We need to harness the private sector more so that the money that our taxpayers and other advanced countries’ taxpayers put in is multiplied several times by getting that investment in the water systems, the communications systems or the food systems that are needed, which should come more from commercial work. Above all, I think our message should be that trade is often more effective as a means of promoting economic growth and prosperity than aid. We, above all, should believe that, now that we are leading advocates of freer trade around the world and back there in the WTO. Is it not much better that we help to offer contracts to people who can organise economic activity, which creates better-paid jobs and things to do, rather than just having one-off amounts of aid to ease the particular problems of not having a decent economy?

This year, above all, surely is the year when Britain can be truly proud of its achievements in this area, because, thanks to our scientists, the NHS and the Government, we are giving to the world the cheapest vaccine, the one non-profit vaccine—often a free vaccine, because our taxpayers are standing behind that offer. This surely sums up the generosity of spirit of the British people, and the success of the British economy and our world influence: that it will be a British vaccine that is so often deployed, and that it was a British vaccine at the heart of the Prime Minister’s successful negotiations at the G7 to get other rich countries to get on with the task of vaccinating the world.

131 Comments

  1. Peter
    July 2, 2021

    ‘We do not fully account, in the way that one might, for the first-year set-up costs—the housing, the public service provision, the top-up benefits and the other assistance that people are rightfully given when they come to live with us and we wish them to live to a reasonable standard.’

    ‘Rightfully given’? That’s a politician’s talk.

    Many voters are furious about all this.

    It seems to be never ending despite all the promises. No account is taken of the damage done to a once stable nation and the divisiveness that it brings.

    1. BW
      July 2, 2021

      +1

    2. Cheshire Girl
      July 2, 2021

      I’m afraid I agree.

      The Government’s emphasis always seems to be about the good we can do for the immigrants, and not about the harm unlimited immigration might be doing to us.
      I think this Government should be doing what is in the interests of ‘this’ country, and not what is in the interests of the rest of the world.
      Otherwise, why bother to vote!

      1. Shirley M
        July 2, 2021

        +1

      2. Ian Wragg
        July 2, 2021

        What annoys me is certain sectors are always bleating for more immigration to support their sector, what happens to the 700,000 that have arrived, can’t they be utilised or is it impinging on their human rights to make them work instead of shovelling benefits at them.
        As Merkle found out the majority are unemployable and illiterate, not doctors, dentists or engineers as we were told.
        Our country is being over run and in a generation we will be a minority in our own country.

        1. Shirley M
          July 2, 2021

          Also, those who commit a crime spend years using legal aid money to prevent deportation. It appears that the judiciary think these criminals cannot be deprived of a ‘family life’ in the UK. People who bulldoze and totally ignore the rights of others should forfeit their own human rights. Get rid of the foreign criminals. Not only would it make us feel a lot safer, but it would save us pots of money too.

        2. Enrico
          July 2, 2021

          +1

      3. Original Richard
        July 2, 2021

        Agreed.

      4. Timaction
        July 2, 2021

        Indeed. That is the amount of people in one year alone. 7000,000 more under the failed Tory’s in the last 11 years. Utterly ridiculous and NO benefit to English people. More building on our greenbelt, overcrowding, waits for health treatments, school places etc. Of course they dont have a carbon footprint, power generation, vehicles just an drip drip drip on the erosion of our culture, standards and value system. Would I ever vote for them again? Answers on a postcard. Any update from Priti on stopping and removing the boat people??……Thought so!

    3. MiC
      July 2, 2021

      It would appear that about what, exactly, the voters are “furious” is not what the media – and pollsters for that matter – would have us believe, is it?

      Yesterday’s by-election, it turns out, would have been a walkover for Labour, were it not for Galloway’s unstinting help for the Tories – whose vote fell – which is very different from the picture generally painted.

      I surmise that this is a standby piece which John has posted, therefore.

      Cue the usual squeals of “electoral fraud”.

      1. Peter2
        July 2, 2021

        I don’t think reducing a 3500 majority to a 330 majority in a mid term by-election as Her Majesty’s Opposition can really be described as a victory.
        Lib Dems voting tactically, the Galloway effect, Conservative voters who didn’t bother to vote and 12 other parties that got a hundred or so votes each had their effect.

        1. hefner
          July 2, 2021

          So in your ‘analysis’, voters for Galloway’s Workers’ Party of Britain were unhappy Conservative voters. Interesting.
          Ever thought switching career to become a political pundit?

          1. Peter2
            July 3, 2021

            That’s not what I said Hefner.
            You never read it properly.

    4. MFD
      July 2, 2021

      +1 as I, for one, am angry. When you give your lollypop to a bully, he will come back again and again!
      This 7% must stop as it achieves nothing but greedy bullies.

      1. Everhopeful
        July 2, 2021

        Yes indeed.
        You describe blackmail.
        And generally that involves old sins casting long shadows!

    5. J Bush
      July 2, 2021

      +10
      We are the only country that puts migrants above the needs of the indigenous population. And we do, this is evidenced by homeless ex-servicemen is just one example.

      1. Shirley M
        July 2, 2021

        +1

        1. Mikey
          July 2, 2021

          +1

      2. turboterrier
        July 2, 2021

        J Bush
        +1

      3. MFD
        July 2, 2021

        +1 Those who served or are serving military MUST come first.

      4. Original Richard
        July 2, 2021

        Agreed.

        It is unbelievable that illegal migrants, who have paid large sums of money to be transported to the UK, often all the way from their own home villages/towns, are given free accommodation in 4 star hotels, free healthcare, pocket money and free trips around Anfield Stadium.

        Also the freedom to roam the country despite our not knowing who they really are because they have destroyed their ID.

        Everyone should write to their MP and ask how much the taxpayer is spending each year looking after illegal immigrants.

      5. Timaction
        July 2, 2021

        +1

    6. Alan Jutson
      July 2, 2021

      Peter

      Absolutely agreed, If I choose to go to another Country they would expect me to be responsible for my own accommodation, medical expenses and ongoing income, and so would I.

      Name another Country in the World who would provide accommodation, medical care, education and benefits with no contribution from the recipient.
      You may get some limited help for some limited time with some of the above, if you had some very special skills which the Company/Country needs, but that is usually funded by the employer in some way, and probably with/in some sort of contract terms.

      1. turboterrier
        July 2, 2021

        Alan Jutson

        Well said Alan.
        How much is the real cost to our services to print documents in multi language format. When I lived and worked abroad I got Nada. If I went to the hospital or council offices it was take your own interpreter and pay him.
        Why do we bend over backwards to try and help people who cannot or will not help themselves?

      2. Andy
        July 2, 2021

        If you go to another country you go on a holiday which you have prepared months in advance. You have time to prepare your clothes, passport, travel documents and pad and paper so you can complain about things while you are there.

        The dinghy people aren’t coming on holiday. Saga don’t put you lot on dinghies and have you paddle yourself to your destinations, do they?

        More than likely the dinghy people have had someone like Islamic State rock in their town and murder their neighbours – after torturing them a bit first. In those circumstances – when your life depends on it – you don’t have time to pack neatly. You just go. You don’t spend time on the phone making sure you are insured if Vera’s varicose veins play up.

        I suggest you stick with Saga.

        1. Richard1
          July 2, 2021

          But they are coming from France. There is no such thing as a ‘refugee’ from a safe democratic country. You are talking nonsense.

        2. formula57
          July 2, 2021

          @ Andy ” In those circumstances – when your life depends on it – you don’t have time to pack neatly. You just go. “ – and having reached a haven you keep going through safe country after safe country until regardless of the hazards of a sea crossing you avail yourself of a dingy. Post-Brexit Britain is an attractive home to the unpacked when the Evil Empire countries or others are not?

        3. Enrico
          July 2, 2021

          What an absolutely stupid comment.These immigrants have come from France to the U.K. Why? Oh I know to get everything for free whilst the people of the U.K. scrimp and save for what,I know it’s to looking after the illegals.Why do they not apply through the correct channels? Yet again I’ve got the common sense answer, they wouldn’t be allowed.

        4. Alan Jutson
          July 2, 2021

          Andy.

          Never been with SAGA for anything, am I missing out ?

          All those people you describe have not arrived here directly from war torn Countries have they, they have travelled across many safe countries to get here, paying criminals on the way.

          Good job our mothers and fathers did not desert the UK in 1939 to go somewhere safe, otherwise you may have not been allowed to voice your opinions so readily.

          1. a-tracy
            July 3, 2021

            Alan, it’s a very good thing our grandfather’s didn’t desert the UK and leave the womenfolk and children to their fate. These new asylum seekers are leaving their helpless loved ones to ‘torture’ Andy says, young men in the main.

        5. No Longer Anonymous
          July 2, 2021

          Andy. They’re coming here for one reason only. They HATE France and they HATE the EU.

        6. Peter2
          July 2, 2021

          What’s wrong with France andy?
          Saga like France for holidays.
          It is in their brochures.

      3. Original Richard
        July 2, 2021

        Agreed.

        Basically businesses, governments and wealthy elites are benefiting from cheap labour costs while the taxpayer is funding the additional costs of housing, healthcare, schooling and infrastructure for these immigrants.

    7. forthurst
      July 2, 2021

      I may be mistaken in detecting an ironic undertone; nevertheless, important points were made to a bunch of half-witted virtue signallers. Are the politicians overcome by the grandeur of a legislature that was built during the zenith of British power? They need to wake up. They are simply giving too much away that others are willing to take without any reciprocation and that includes British businesses.

    8. DavidJ
      July 2, 2021

      +1

    9. Original Richard
      July 2, 2021

      Agreed.

      There will be no “levelling up” until large businesses, governments and wealthy elites are no longer able to import cheap labour rather than be forced to increase pay, train our own people and implement better practices and new technology.

  2. Mark B
    July 2, 2021

    Good morning.

    What I would like to know is, when will we be able to stop fooding all these countries with FREE MONEY and see some results ?

    1. Sharon
      July 2, 2021

      Mark B

      I agree! Throwing money year in and year out and no particular change in the countries we send to.

      And one of my son’s friend who’s paid tax since age 15, asked for a loan to buy a suit for job interviews after university
 nah!

      And yet, turn up in a dinghy
you get given the wardrobe in which to store a suit!

      That’s why people are angry! There’s no joined up thinking, just throwing away of money.

      1. DavidJ
        July 2, 2021

        +1

    2. J Bush
      July 2, 2021

      In primary school I can remember being encouraged to bring in donations for Biafra, now part of Nigeria again? and that was over 50 years ago!

    3. Enrico
      July 2, 2021

      +1

    4. Dave Andrews
      July 2, 2021

      Never. The destructive lifestyles continue, oppressive regimes remain in place, tribal fighting goes on, girls and women are deprived of choice. If anything, the need grows.

    5. glen cullen
      July 2, 2021

      Apart from Bob Geldof getting knighted Live Aid (feed the world) the campaign achieve nothing
      I remember some leading academics and industrialist from South Africa pleading to the UN to stop giving their country any Aid – it just stops their own development and keeps the people in servitude and fills the pockets of politicians and charities 
they were ignored

      1. Original Richard
        July 2, 2021

        In 3 decades Western aid organisations have managed to turn a war torn, starving country with a population of 30m to a war torn, starving country with a population of 90m.

      2. Everhopeful
        July 2, 2021

        Charities have to keep the problem going or they’d be out of a job
and government/ council grants!
        Has any charity ever announced
”Problem solved!”?

        1. glen cullen
          July 2, 2021

          ”Problem solved” not to date and I’d suggest never

  3. DOM
    July 2, 2021

    More taxpayer funded policies designed to achieve a party political advantage rather than policies whose aim is driven by value considerations, humanitarian concern and utilitarian effect.

    Let’s get one thing straight. The British political class haven’t a humanitarian bone in their collective body. Foreign aid is merely a tool to express their faux concern. Each party is morally bankrupt at every level and this spending is a grotesque act of concealment.

    Yes, foreign aid can be used to prise open markets for UK products but by and large such aid expenditure is highly political with the cost to the taxpayer disproportionate to the benefit

    Does it matter? No, parties will continue to abuse the taxpayer for party gain. When the bill for all of this politicised virtue signalling nonsense arrives the politicians of the incumbent parties won’t be around to have to justify it

    As an aside. Labour take Batley. Batley, the canary in the cage. Surely, recent horrific events have exposed to vile nature of the British political class and those that comprise it. I though Hate Crime laws were passed to deal with events we have seen in Batley or are these fascist laws designed purely to target the freedoms and speech of the demo-majority?

    Both main parties in England are destroying our most precious land and home and all to maintain their presence at the table of power. This status quo will at some point disintegrate. The hate, bigotry and seething contempt is there for all to see

    It does appear that hate, racism and violence is not a white phenomena as both parties would have you believe. It is time John’s party stood up and confronted the Marxist poison of CRT and its most racist assertions that is causing significant resentment.

    The Tories must stop trying to protect itself from the race lobby and expose these leeches for what they are. It is unacceptable that the majority have to absorb the cost in lost freedoms and exposure to racially infused policies and demonisation to facilitate the Tory party’s rebranding exercise

  4. Lifelogic
    July 2, 2021

    You make very sensible points. I too dislike such legal targets and passing laws to demand say:- net zero carbon by x , y% in foreign aid PA or ban ICE cars by z. They make no sense whatsoever as conditions vary all the time what is right today will wrong tomorrow. Though on these issues it is very wrong today and tomorrow.

    These laws also allows ministers to evade responsibility for judging and defending sensible policies. Ministers say things like “we have to do this (insane, pointless and vastly expensive thing) as a (ludicrous) law forces me and a (deluded) “Independent” Committee on Climate Change demands it by law”. Change the bonkers laws then.

    1. Lifelogic
      July 2, 2021

      So why have they made Diana look like an angry, aggressive & rather hideous man? Was this in the woke job description?

      1. Lifelogic
        July 2, 2021

        Or was it to bring people round to supporting statue removal and vandalism perhaps?

      2. glen cullen
        July 2, 2021

        who and why three children ?

  5. Lifelogic
    July 2, 2021

    So Labour scrape home in Batley & Spen, thanks mainly to Hancock’s double standards and complete contempt for voters (and the Boris dither over this ). I knew I should have taken a wager at 5.1 but I dithered. But what about that poor teacher for just doing his job – silence on it from all the main parties.

    1. Dave Andrews
      July 2, 2021

      Astounding that so many voted Labour. What do people see in the party?

      1. mancunius
        July 2, 2021

        Possibly in this case, they saw a way of rebuking the PM for locking up the population and unleashing police brutality on peaceful demonstrators, while reassuring a misbehaving Minister that his forced resignation would be only temporary. Westminster arrogance does not go down well in the villages of Yorkshire. They even voted for a busted flush to show their disgust.
        Boris should ‘think on!’ – as they say in those parts.

        1. Lifelogic
          July 3, 2021

          +1

    2. a-tracy
      July 2, 2021

      I don’t agree with Lifelogic that it was ‘mainly’ down to Hancock and I say this as someone that thought Hancock has been in the wrong job throughout last year. Low turnout is a sign people can’t be bothered and with all the politicking going on in Batley and Spen it is very troubling. Especially when the candidates are trying to set race against race and promoting one race’s priorities over others.
      But I think this is more about Boris capitulation to the EU and not taking the same sanction against the same EU product imports that they are taking against the UK; the keeping on of the lockdown although I do know a lot of people working in other jobs whilst on 80% furlough from their existing job that are more than happy for this to carry on and think they have the right to refuse to return to their original job rather than it being their employer’s decision!; all of this ‘people can go abroad’, ‘no they can’t’, ‘yes they can’ oh and you need three pcr tests ‘that’ll be a couple of hundred quid thanks’ if you’ve not had the right number of vaccinations that are out of people’s controls (and that we’re in this new situation because Boris/Shapps allowed the Indian variant to flow in freely no proper hardline quarantine for three weeks) – these cruise companies need to get their act together and just sail families to the sunshine and back again for a week; Boris capitulations to France on fishing and the boats setting sail every day.

      People know Labour or Galloway couldn’t sort any of this out either so the majority of them just stayed at home.

    3. Richard1
      July 2, 2021

      Indeed that is disgraceful. the Labour party has sunk very low with identity politics in this bi-election, I would be very ashamed if I had any association with the Labour Party. It probably saves the hopes Sir Keir’s skin though.

    4. Everhopeful
      July 2, 2021

      Labour won by a very small margin created by George Galloway’s intention to split the vote and give Labour a bloody nose.
      He did well.

      1. a-tracy
        July 3, 2021

        Everhopeful, if Boris and his government had done what we were told they would then they would have stormed that election, but people have hit ‘pause’. I’m not at all sure I would vote conservative at the moment if there was a by-election im totally and utterly fed up of the lack of fight and a lack of quid pro quo on the fantastic deal he gave the EU.
        EU musicians got a free for all working pass into the UK,
        The EU settled status scheme was easy to do and there was plenty of assistance over the last few years, all the EU people I know got their status quickly,
        The EU weren’t held to a Jan 1st 2021 deadline on their exports as the UK was,
        The EU haven’t been stopped sending seafood, chilled meats or sausages into the UK, or plants with soil.

  6. agricola
    July 2, 2021

    Yes, trade is better than aid. Offer aid within our economic capacity to do so. Only get involved in civil wars if it is in our interests to do so and that very rarely. When involved in disaster aid, make sure the recipients are aware of where the aid originates. Make sure that any aid given is within the capacity of the recipients to maintain. Use the UN to put pressure on growing economies, like the sub continent, to correct their own social deficiencies rather than bombarding us with guilt via tv adverts to correct them for them. Annualy audit the effectivness of aid given. Correct the norm of the civil service of spending to the limit of a projects budget lest they get a reduced amount the following year. A modus operandi that needs correction across all CS activity.

  7. BJC
    July 2, 2021

    If diverting billions of pounds of our money did anything to reduce long term poverty, the simple fact is the issue would have been resolved decades ago. Instead, it “aids” corruption and those who should be on the receiving end of our largesse are deliberately kept in penury to keep the money rolling in…….and who can blame them, if we’re stupid enough to do it?

    1. SM
      July 2, 2021

      +1

  8. SM
    July 2, 2021

    Sir John, as far as I am concerned, you hit every target (citing Afghanistan particularly) – sadly, I doubt if any of the grandstanders and virtue-signallers in the Government or the media will take the blindest bit of notice.

  9. Nig l
    July 2, 2021

    An excellent and pragmatic contribution. Theresa May once again leading the hand wringing loss of influence brigade, zero evidence as you pointed out, keen to ignore the wishes of the electorate as she did with Brexit.

    Setting a target means getting it out is the objective not a focussed output driven approach and in that respect please continue to push for more openness. Two things. If countries spend money on large armies etc they do not need/should not get our money. Secondly no good money after bad. If a country is not responding or corrupt cut the support. Nothing via NGOs unless very tightly controlled.

    In other news a day of shame as 459 soldiers lives have been wasted as we pull out of Afghanistan. Excellent Mansion House speech by Sunak and Johnson tells us about more restrictions on the day one of the governments experts told us the modelling had vastly inflated the figures and we could have come out on the original date and Williamson has zero idea on schools.

    The government is reminding me of the fabled Oozlum Bird with the head Oozlum in charge. It flies in ever decreasing circles until it disappears up its own backside.

  10. agricola
    July 2, 2021

    Off piste.
    I had occasion to travel towards the centre of Birmingham on the A38, an area I thought I was very familiar with from school days. How wrong, I found myself being sucked into their environmental financial rip off area with no means of escape. In the last 1/4 mile I did so, reversing my route to one past my old alma mater to get to a destination that had been previously a simple left hand turn from the A38. Wherever they get current road engineers from there seems no obligation to provide an acceptable road surface to drive on. The A38 in this area is a symphony of pot holes, disgraceful as a key route to the centre of Birmingham. I will not be heading for the centre of that once great city again to feed the mafiosa that run it. It provides an answer to the reasons why my own rural city is building large numbers of homes for escapees from Birmingham.

    1. Micky Taking
      July 2, 2021

      surely you can wait for the HS2?

      1. Lifelogic
        July 3, 2021

        High speed trains have to have very few stops in order to be high speed. So most people do not live or work anywhere near stations. Door to door with end connections they can be very slow indeed. Not energy efficient or environmental either. Very expensive and useless for most people.

    2. Alan Jutson
      July 2, 2021

      agricola

      Same as you enter the London Zones (soon to be expanded to encompass everything inside the North and South circular roads on October 25th)
      So much signage, impossible to read them all, even at the 20MPH speed limit on the Upper Richmond Road on which I travelled a couple of weeks ago.

      Many, many other examples of Local (Wokingham) road engineering gone wrong recently.
      Have written to the Council about the new Winnersh Junction, and I see they are now in the process of completing modifications only a couple of months after it opening, with numerous accidents.

    3. glen cullen
      July 2, 2021

      That’s what you pay your vehicle tax for

  11. Narrow Shoulders
    July 2, 2021

    A good speech Sir John, you made good points about repetitious funding making little difference and the calculation of our contributions in other areas.

    Did anyone listen to you? It seems that in the House, there is debate but no-one listens to the other side, so deeply entrenched are they in their positions and belief that they are right. It would be interesting to see research into how many positions are changed by these debates, if none what is the point of all the talking. You might as well all just phone in your vote from your previously held positions.

    Those who support the 0.7% regardless – it is easy to spend other people’s money isn’t it. Let them take unpaid sabbaticals and go and volunteer in those countries, not so easy!

  12. Micky Taking
    July 2, 2021

    Why is ‘other assistance that people are rightfully given’ necessary? If 700k people come here to live every year they should do so under their own arrangements. If I go to live in Spain say, or Denmark, or USA then I have to fend for myself ! If housing, education, medicare and transport is not fit to support this annual growth them measures to restrict the numbers must be taken. We are a small island, with a relatively small working, taxpaying population. We cannot be an all-found refuge for the world’s shortcomings.

    1. glen cullen
      July 2, 2021

      Agree

  13. George Brooks.
    July 2, 2021

    All the points you made Sir john are absolutely right and there is no point whatsoever in damaging our economy even more than the pandemic already has. It is utter stupidity to stick to a percentage and ignore all the other help we provide.

    I am not sure this has much to do with foreign aid as I think there is a small number of Tory MPs who do not like Boris or are jealous of the way he ploughs on with getting the party’s manifesto implemented, and just want to cause him trouble. They would be better employed by putting their effort into restoring our economy than giving away money we don’t have.

  14. Peter2
    July 2, 2021

    An excellent article Sir John, which I completely agree with.

  15. Oldwulf
    July 2, 2021

    “We need to harness the private sector and the charitable sector; it does not all have to come from British taxpayers.”

    …… but the charitable sector is funded by the British taxpayer (and British donor)

    1. glen cullen
      July 2, 2021

      Charities – tell all charities that they are going to lose their ‘charitable’ status and revert to a private company
      All charities have to reapply for charitable status and meet the new standards i.e
      1 setting max salary (maybe national average salary +50%)
      2 all premises, stationery, uniforms etc have to fly and show our Union flag
      3 75% of employee have to be UK citizens and
      4 75% of collected funds have to be used for charitable purpose in UK
      
.you get my point

      1. oldwulf
        July 2, 2021

        @glen cullen

        …. and no charity is permitted to trade and compete against normal (taxpaying) businesses if it receives any tax, fiscal or other unfair advantage.

      2. Micky Taking
        July 2, 2021

        a brilliant idea and proposal – therefore no chance.

        1. glen cullen
          July 2, 2021

          Correct

      3. dixie
        July 3, 2021

        +10

  16. turboterrier
    July 2, 2021

    Well highlighted the 715000. Are there no ÂŁ signs against the actual cost?
    Whatever they cost is less the country they have come from has to find.
    You are right to identify all the trade offs we give totheworldthat come of other departmental budgets.
    Your colleagues in the house have got to accept change and this country has got to be far more prudent about the way payments are made to whom and why and did they achieve the aims expected.
    In all areas the government has got to get far more contractual about how and what taxpayers money is being spent on. Foreign aid should be in my opinion should be used solely for natural disaster emergencies.

  17. Bryan Harris
    July 2, 2021

    Very good

    Quite simply, we should stop giving aid because we have failed to cure any of the problems that we are allegedly giving aid for.

    Time we treated other countries as grown ups — If that fails then we should just take over the running of the country in trouble, and establish a real presence, as we did in India, to bring stability and a real work ethic.

    Let’s stop all of this liberal wealth transfer nonsense that encourages corruption – By all means provide some food to stop the starving, but then do something meaningful about the political structure of the country concerned…. OR just leave them alone!

    1. glen cullen
      July 2, 2021

      Apart from maybe natural disaster emergencies, I fully agree

  18. turboterrier
    July 2, 2021

    715000 and that is only the one’s we know about. The pressure of that alone on our ageing basic infrastructure is another hidden cost that is absorbed by the taxpayer through their utilities bill.
    If the bills are paid by benefits it is still the taxpayer.
    Power, sewerage, water treatment,
    roads, GP, dental, emergency, education, social and welfare services do not come free last time I checked my statement from the tax office.
    Not sure parliament needs a whistle-blower more of a horn blower to get them to stop and just think and appreciate they cannot carry on as they are, it is totally unsustainable. Stop for crying out loud, pissing down our necks and telling us it’s raining. We are the mugs paying for it.

    1. Bryan Harris
      July 2, 2021

      @turboterrier

      YES.

      When you look at the disasters successive governments have piled on us over the decades you have to wonder what has been going on. Immigration is a national disaster of huge proportions, but there have been far too many things that went wrong or were made to go wrong – from the socialisation of the masses to the unnecessary wars — WITHOUT A DOUBT PARLIAMENT HAS FAILED US ALL TOO MANY TIMES.

      Time we had a better system, and I’m not thinking about anything as irrational as a global solution nor a New world order. I want common sense back along with realism, not to mention a bit more honesty and transparency.

  19. John Miller
    July 2, 2021

    MPs should remember whose money they are spending.
    Governments have no money. They spend other people’s money, the easiest thing in the world with which to be generous. If MPs wish to salve their conscience, they should dig into their own deep pockets and make donations.

  20. Nig l
    July 2, 2021

    And in clear evidence that the Government is out of touch with the electorate a poll,this morning shows a massive rejection that business leaders etc should be treated differently from anyone else. Boris’s one rule for Hancock etc and another for us plebs is already proving toxic.

    And despite the trumpet blowing BS from our host, Johnson etc from July 1st Europeans are enjoying quarantine free travel across the EU. We are not. Lifelogic rails against politicians with PPE. What about degrees in dithering?

    1. Everhopeful
      July 2, 2021

      Or a degree in treachery and collusion with foreign powers?
      Not dithering
cold, calculated betrayal for perceived gain of some sort.
      All in it together in other words. Global elite that is!
      May they come an enormous cropper.

  21. Everhopeful
    July 2, 2021

    Is this what “Build Back Better” refers to?
    Transfer of wealth to “poorer” nations?
    I rather suspect it does!
    Could someone just explain WHY we are signed up to all this asset stripping?
    Is it kompromat?

    What about that atrocious and disrespectful statue with its illiterate poem?
    No doubt the Dear Leader fully supports such filth.

    1. glen cullen
      July 2, 2021

      ”’Transfer of wealth to “poorer” nations?”’
      Sounds like an EU policy

      1. MiC
        July 2, 2021

        The US do it with their states.

        Only 13 are net contributors to the federal kitty.

        The rest are takers – including pretty well all the ones which voted for Trump.

        Your point is?

        1. glen cullen
          July 3, 2021

          My point is……it sounds like an EU policy
          What part of my earlier comment didn’t you understand

        2. a-tracy
          July 3, 2021

          “Part of the explanation for why southern states dominate the “most dependent” category is historical. During the many decades in the 20th century when the South was solidly Democratic, its congressional representatives in both the House and the Senate, enjoying great seniority, came to hold leadership positions on powerful committees, which they used to send federal dollars back to their home states in the form of contracts, projects, and installations.” The Atlantic.

  22. Everhopeful
    July 2, 2021

    Is it like “offence”?
    If I perceive myself to be in need of aid
then that is in fact the case?
    Ok then
I am in need.
    C’mon Johnson 
get out the swag!

    1. glen cullen
      July 2, 2021

      Are you self identifying as a third world refugee escaping a war torn country with ideas and views against the state – if so welcome aboard; collect your funds at the counter

  23. Micky Taking
    July 2, 2021

    OFF TOPIC.
    Senior doctors in England will be consulted on taking industrial action if the government’s 1% pay rise offer is not improved. The British Medical Association says it will ask members about stopping paid and unpaid overtime if there is not a figure nearer 4%.
    The Royal College of Nursing has already said it will consider balloting over industrial action. It has called for a 12.5% pay rise this year.
    Pay review bodies covering most NHS workers have made recommendations which have not yet been published.

    The public in general think Senior Doctors and GPs have not lived up to their Hippocratic Oath, nor provided acceptable conditions of care. It is widely known hundreds of thousands of cases were not referred on, and those that were have not been acted on within consulting and hospital processes. The public will think the idea of banning overtime will not be noticed since where does it exist?

    1. Nig l
      July 2, 2021

      My next door neighbours wife fell over last week necessitating minor repairs to her face. Her husband patched her and phoned the Surgery for an appointment with the nurse to tidy it up.

      No go to A and E. Subsequently what they did needed some sorting out so he tried the Practice Nurse again. 20 minutes on the phone and passed through 3/4 people he thought it easier to walk in ( 5 mins up the road) to sort it in person.

      Speaking to the receptionist explaining his difficulties he was told he would have you go home and phone for an appointment, the receptionist literally being 6 feet away. He was then quoted ‘Covid rules ‘ but not the substance so needless to say he expressed view of the nonsense of it and eventually got his appointment. You couldn’t make it up.

      Anecdotally I understand this is not unique. Any NHS leaders (oxymoron?) or politicians knocking heads together to get sorted?

      1. Everhopeful
        July 2, 2021

        I guarantee that no politician is knocking heads together. They are just as comfortable as they can get with the status quo.
        However, apparently kids are leading the way to sanity.
        Sadly deceased President John Magufuli of Tanzania condemned PCR tests because he said they had returned positive results on samples taken from a goat and a pawpaw.
        So what better way for pupils to get weeks off school than to use orange juice in their tests?
        So bright of them and at the same time uncovering the scam.
        All based on the myth of asymptomatic transmission.

      2. The Prangwizard
        July 2, 2021

        I was called after no.call last year to go to my surgery for blood pressure test and blood tests. The place was deserted. No seating except for two chairs at opposite sides of the large waiting room i was the only one there. I noticed also that all the toilets were closed. Plenty of laughing and joking in the various rooms off the maim corridor though.

      3. glen cullen
        July 2, 2021

        ….and they all want a pay rise !

  24. ChrisS
    July 2, 2021

    I see that the Times is reporting a plan to increase the costs of petrol, diesel and gas by hundreds of pounds a year for the average family from as early as next year.

    This will be crunch time for the politician’s Green Crap Agenda- the first example of the policy hitting voters in their pockets. Everyone posting here know that this is just the smallest tip of the iceberg and that much, much worse is to going to come along if Westminster doesn’t come to its senses. It will be the Poll Tax all over again but this time every political party will be signed up to it, not just Mrs Thatcher.

    Will any politicians be prepared to break ranks ? Our sensible and grounded host, for example ?

    1. Denis Cooper
      July 2, 2021

      The Times is also reporting that our independent trade policy is not entirely independent:

      https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/high-court-challenge-over-brexit-sugar-tariff-tmg53wcmn

      “High Court challenge over Brexit sugar tariff”

      “The case, brought by British Sugar against Liz Truss, the international trade secretary, is also the first test of how far state aid clauses in the Northern Ireland protocol will affect the government’s ability to issue subsidies.

      Legal experts said that the case would be watched closely by ministers and industry. Under the protocol, any UK state aid decision that has an impact on goods traded with Northern Ireland must be referred to the European Commission for approval.”

      “Lawyers for British Sugar claimed that the effective subsidy would also undercut EU producers and be in breach of both the Northern Ireland protocol and the EU-UK trade deal.”

      1. ChrisS
        July 3, 2021

        The whole controversy over the Protocol just gets worse and worse.
        From what you are saying, Denis, it looks very much like the EU will be able to make a case that any state aid given by HMG will have some effect on NI and they will therefore demand that we always seek their approval. That is not “Sovereignty” as I understand it.

        Given the overall effect of the Protocol, we would be better off giving notice that we are to trigger Article 16 unless the Protocol is extensively revised. The reaction from Sleepy Joe’s administration can be managed and the overall effect would clearly not be as bad as continuing with the current arrangements. After a period of intense bluster and threat, Brussels will eventually have to come up with an alternative arrangement or put their trade surplus with us at risk.

        One has to ask, how on earth did HMG agree to this in the first place ? It looks very much like Remainer Civil Servants deliberately allowed Ministers to get themselves in this position by failing to point out the inevitable and obvious pitfalls with the Protocol.

        Once again, it demonstrates foresight and wisdom of our Host in refusing to vote for that part of the deal.

    2. Lifelogic
      July 2, 2021

      Not the first time, electricity prices already approaching double the price they should be due to “renewables” and the smart meter agenda.

      1. Fedupsoutherner
        July 2, 2021

        Don’t be silly L/L. You have been assured your energy bill will fall. Snigger.

      2. glen cullen
        July 3, 2021

        Its not just electricity prices, its gas, petrol, water, car insurance and council tax

    3. No Longer Anonymous
      July 2, 2021

      Like the planned salt tax and the sugar tax it will all be for your own good.

      1. glen cullen
        July 3, 2021

        I wonder what are the effects of the plaster bag tax, domestic energy environmental tax, transport environmental tax etc etc
..is there any measure to show have useful they are in helping the environment 
.or as we all know its just a stealth tax

  25. a-tracy
    July 2, 2021

    Do you know how many people are employed processing these 715,000 claims?
    Are these people paid to process claims state employees working from home or is this subcontracted out to private law firms?
    How many hours of work did the UK get billed to process them last year?
    How much was billed in total for this work?
    How many people were processed for that fee?
    Was it apportioned to our foreign aid budget?
    What percentage of UK GDP was spent on the high costs of their housing, benefits, food, clothing, medical cover?
    How many other countries process these costs as ‘foreign aid’?

    Also if we take so many young men away from these war-torn, dispute Countries who looks after their female relatives they leave behind? Are we training people in these Countries like Afganistan etc. to defend their areas? What is the cost of all that? Is that classed as foreign aid?

    1. hefner
      July 2, 2021

      Plenty of very relevant questions, but do you really expect any clear answer from ‘our sensible and grounded host’?

    2. a-tracy
      July 3, 2021

      I can’t see anymore because it is behind The Times paywall – “The annual cost of housing asylum seekers has spiralled to ÂŁ220 million with the backlog of claims soaring almost tenfold in the past decade. Home Office data shows that by the end of last year, 33,000 asylum seekers had been waiting at least 12 months for an initial response to their application. This is up from 3,588 in 2010 and comes despite the overall number of applications rising by only two thirds.”

      But the big question is how much was actually spent last year on the UK legal costs and other asylum seekers assistance/interpreters during this process, the government’s asylum claim departments how many people are employed in this, how many claims can they process each month each did they process the same numbers as usual if they were working from home, were more hired as we just allowed extra 1000’s of people to float in, , if working from home is so productive why didn’t this carry on as normal, why are so few being actioned? Your government shouldn’t tell people it will sort this if you’re not willing to.

      Hefner, asks if I really expect answers from you John, actually I’m fervently hoping that GB news or people with more pull start asking the questions that I’m curious about and other people I speak to. I know people that are hopping mad about what Boris’ team are doing on French dingies being escorted to the UK and not processing applications quickly. Boris likes to be liked he’s on his knees agreeing to all sorts to keep in the EU chumocracy – People are saying you’ll all say anything to get elected, but then just sit on a massive majority and do nothing about the big costs that we shouldn’t have and if we do should come out of the foreign aid budget.

  26. formula57
    July 2, 2021

    The figures are indeed untrustworthy. England’s spend is, outrageously, about double the 0.7 per cent target when the subsidy to Scotland is included.

    I deplore the views of some of your parliamentary colleagues in opposing the Government. There is nothing moral about fixing the foreign aid budget by reference to a percentage of GDP when essential expenditures like that on the NHS and Rashford-inspired school meals programmes are not in these difficult times.

  27. anon
    July 2, 2021

    It seems clear to me that our overseas aid spend should be redirected to R&D within the UK and Disaster aid overseas only. With a robust full UK supply chain capable of developing , testing manufacturing , approving of vaccines and other products. This should be large enough to ensure rapid roll-outs to affected areas including the UK.

    The armed forces/TA should be given the logistics challenges of getting the vaccines & disaster relief to the areas nations required. This may entail suitable long range transport aircraft and armed naval mechant marine ships as needed. Ideally able to travel non-stop to allies as far away as NZ.

    This would ensure the funds are spent correctly and not wasted via corruption and or on CEO like salaries or worse.
    This would give a much better return on our aid budget in terms of lives saved.It would also increase our influence in the world.

    Trade not aid.

  28. No Longer Anonymous
    July 2, 2021

    “…the public service provision, the top-up benefits and the other assistance that people are rightfully given when they come to live with us and we wish them to live to a reasonable standard.”

    Hence we’re running at 715,000 pa immigration from poor countries.

    Not rocket science, is it.

  29. hefner
    July 2, 2021

    A special gift to Peter2, Michael Gove’s speech on 19 April 2016 (available on conservativehome.com Paul Goodman, Gove’s EU speech: key extracts)

    ‘There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to 
 After we vote to leave, we will remain in this zone 
 By being part of that free trade zone we would have full access to the European market but we would be free from EU regulation, which costs us billions of pounds a year’.

    Ah, the beauties of the information age and of the internet, the possibility of showing some people they are just windbags (do not take it too badly P2, Aeolus was very proud of his windbags).

    1. MiC
      July 2, 2021

      Gove is neither stupid nor ill-informed.

      I therefore claim that he knew that he was lying to the public.

      The High Court’s ruling that this is not an offence must go to Appeal and then further if needed.

      1. Micky Taking
        July 3, 2021

        He also became called a backstabber over the following:-
        “It was better to say to David (Cameron) that I couldn’t support him and to go with my heart than to suppress my feelings on the matter 
 he thought I would either keep schtum or say, ‘I am going to support the prime minister’.”
        Gove declined to reveal what Johnson said to him when they spoke after he withdrew his support for the former London mayor’s leadership bid. However, he denied reports that he had not spoken to Johnson’s team before issuing a statement announcing his own bid.
        On the morning of that announcement, he said: “I wanted to help build a team behind Boris Johnson so that a politician who argued for leaving the European Union could lead us to a better future. But I have come, reluctantly, to the conclusion that Boris cannot provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead.
        A conclusion so many of us now also share.

    2. Peter2
      July 2, 2021

      Thanks for the hat tip hefty.

      Last time I looked we were still trading with the zone you mention.

      Except it didn’t cost us billions in an annual fee to access it.

      Have another go.

      1. hefner
        July 6, 2021

        Your bad faith is limitless. That was not the point. You were doubting that M.Gove had said such a thing and were asking for the reference. Here you have it, and do not change the topic.

  30. mancunius
    July 2, 2021

    “I think lots of colleagues have all decided to duplicate and replicate one another’s speeches by saying how much they dislike any kind of cut in our immediate aid programme.”
    The all-too evident reason why they are all lining up to parrot this same line is that they are not addressing the House, but the globalist organizations and left-wing quangoes from whom they hope to obtain future preferment!

  31. jon livesey
    July 2, 2021

    It’s right to be concerned about overseas aid, but maybe the problem to address is what happens to the money after it gets to the recipient nation. Places like Gaza City, where there is no regular ambulance system, but there is an entire underground bunker system filled with rockets, after decades of Western aid, is a case in point.

  32. jon livesey
    July 2, 2021

    I have a feeling that Labour may soon regret winning in Batley and Spen. The seat itself, in the face of a huge Conservative majority in the House, is of limited value and the candidate seems to have small talent.

    Losing the seat could have sparked off a clean Leadership change, while such a close win does little to help Starmer, and his rivals will now conduct a campaign against him that will be anything but clean.

    1. MiC
      July 2, 2021

      The present majority is about half of what Blair’s was.

      Kim is deservedly very popular and will do exactly what a good MP should do for her constituents.

      She is something that many Tories will never be – decent, principled, and honest.

      1. Micky Taking
        July 3, 2021

        Principles were are still searching for in the Labour Party…. Next!

  33. jon livesey
    July 2, 2021

    Well, that didn’t last long. London is again the biggest market for European share trading, having overtaken Amsterdam, only a few months after the “huge” transfer of trading to Dutch markets. As usual, simple economics trumps artificial regulation. Remainers will have to find another thing to complain about.

    1. MiC
      July 2, 2021

      You are discussing relatives where absolutes carry the significance.

      The trade which has fled London has been distributed to more than one European centre.

      Of this increased number London may well be the largest just now, but its absolute share is markedly smaller than pre-brexit. And the flight continues.

  34. XY
    July 2, 2021

    All true and weell siad, one point to add…

    A law which says “Thou shalt…” must also detail the consequences for failing to do so. There are no such consequences in the law stating a target for aid.

    In fact, governments have at times “failed” to meet the target and no-one bats an eyelid.

    What is the point in laws of that kind? None that I can see.

  35. margaret brandreth-jones
    July 2, 2021

    There is little chance of us becoming a neo colonial power in warring factions, however there is a chance of adding to peace by connecting and protecting ; protecting not only the victims but ourselves as any contribution to peace would anger a despotic regime.

  36. No Longer Anonymous
    July 2, 2021

    So. 715,000

    Yay. Make sure they’re well welfared up.

    That’s why we voted Brexit.

    Had you told us your position, Sir John we might have voted Remain.

    PS Hancock caused Batley and Spen. People are VERY annoyed. It’s not going away. He delayed Freedom Day to stay with his mistress.

    1. GilesB
      July 3, 2021

      It’s not just housing cost. It’s also schools, roads, hospitals, sewage works, telecommunications etc etc. Plus shops, offices, factories with plant and machinery for places to work. We used to have a million pounds of infrastructure/capital investment per head of population. Now it is less than nine hundred thousand and an increased proportion of it is in the public sector and non-productive consumption.

      With obsolete equipment and insufficient automation, why is anyone surprised that our productivity per head is in accelerating decline?

  37. Pauline Jorgensen
    July 4, 2021

    Aid is a privilege and a gift not a right, if people want to give their own money to aid organisations that help other countries they are at liberty to do so, although I would suggest they look at the remuneration of senior charity employees and where their money actually goes before they donate.

    I don’t support this target and I would prefer that the government carefully identifies projects on the ground that would deliver real benefit to both the UK and the recipient and funds them on a case by case basis rather than setting a target and looking for things to spend it on.

Comments are closed.