Connect with us

Published

on

Conservatives rebels have been among those calling on the government to reverse its plan to cut foreign aid.

Since 2015, it has been enshrined in UK law for the country to give at least 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) to lower and middle-income countries to aid their development.

The plan to reduce the UK’s contribution to foreign aid to 0.5% of GNI – despite a United Nations target of 0.7% – has been met with widespread domestic and international criticism.

Here, we look at how much the UK gives in comparison to other countries.

Who gives foreign aid?

Most richer countries give aid, including some that are classed as middle or lower-income.

But the 0.7% target applies to countries that are on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC).

More from Politics

These 30 countries are made up of many in the European Union, the UK, US, and other highly developed nations like Australia and New Zealand.

A couple of other countries are participants on the DAC, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bulgaria and Romania.

Last year, the UK was one of only seven countries reporting to the OECD that met the 0.7% target, giving the equivalent to $17.4bn – exactly 0.7% GNI. Out of European countries, only Germany spent more than the UK on aid in absolute terms ($27.5 billion or 0.73% of GNI). But several OECD countries gave more as a percentage of GNI.

In 2020, the proportion of GNI given by countries varied significantly from country to country, despite the UN’s target.

What is the money spent on?

The aid from DAC countries is called Official Development Assistance (ODA), which is intended to promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries, according to the OECD.

In 2020, the last year for which net flows of aid were reported, member countries sent $161bn to those developing countries, an increase of 7% in real terms compared to 2019. About three-quarters of that came from G7 countries.

Broadly, this falls into one of four categories: 1. Bilateral projects, programmes and technical assistance, which represent just over half of total net ODA; 2. Contributions to multilateral organisations (about a third of total ODA); 3. Humanitarian aid; and 4. Debt relief.

Foreign aid cuts: ‘Far more’ than 100,000 people will die, leading rebel MP warns

Foreign aid cuts not only a tragedy for the developing world – but the UK too

This can include grants that fund improvements to the health of people in developing countries, such as vaccination programmes, but it can also include programmes that can benefit donor countries, such as infrastructure projects that allow greater levels of trade and investment.

Many countries, such as Japan, offer a sizable proportion of their aid in the form of loans.

How has the UK been doing up until now?

In 2013, the UK achieved the 0.7% target for the first time.

It came about after the Conservative Party committed to the target in its 2010 manifesto, when it also proposed setting up a dedicated department for international development to help achieve its aim.

It has maintained the commitment in subsequent manifestos, including in 2019 when it pledged to maintain the proportion of spending.

In 2010, then leader David Cameron defended the move, telling business leaders at the Lord Mayor’s banquet in London’s Guildhall that it saved lives, prevented conflict and was the “most visible example of Britain’s global reach” for millions of people.

Since 2015, the Government has also been under a statutory duty to meet the 0.7% target, as a result of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act.

But, in the wake of the impact of the pandemic, ministers want to slash the proportion to 0.5% saying that, while it is only a temporary measure until the nation’s finances are repaired, it will save £4bn.

If the UK had spent 0.5% of GNI in 2020, as it plans to in 2021, it would have ranked 10th in the world for its aid spending as a proportion of GNI, instead of seventh, according to the House of Commons Library.

How did the 0.7% target come about?

A target for international aid was originally proposed as far back as 1958 – at first by the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, which suggested a 1% of GDP figure would be appropriate, and the idea was then circulated to all United Nations delegations at the 1960 General Assembly.

The 0.7% target was first agreed by the DAC in 1970 and it has repeatedly been international endorsed.

Among the key moments at which the 0.7% figure has been backed are the 15 countries that were members of the European Union by 2004 agreeing the following year to reach the target by 2015 and the 0.7% target serving as a reference for 2005 political commitments to increase ODA at the G8 Gleneagles Summit and the UN World Summit.

This impoverished school shows how cuts to UK’s foreign aid budget hurt those most in need

UK cutting aid to help fight AIDS and HIV branded ‘maddeningly short-sighted’ by charities

In 2017, the UK government said it wanted to modernise the ODA rules to include some peacekeeping-related spending.

Currently, spending on military equipment or activity, including peacekeeping expenditure and anti-terrorism operations, are excluded, apart from the distribution of humanitarian aid.

Aid that relates to nuclear energy can be included as long as it is provided for civilian purposes.

Do countries outside the OECD provide international aid?

OECD countries are not the only ones that provide foreign aid, in its widest definition.

Evidence has been presented that China, India and Russia – which are classed as middle and upper-middle income countries – provide aid that would qualify under the ODA rules, but the amount they provide is not subject to the degree of transparency of DAC aid budgets.

US research group Aid Data has examined the Chinese loans paid to developing countries for a wide range of projects and businesses, with tens of billions in ODA payments given to lower or middle-income nations.

The vaccine diplomacy engaged in by Russia and India illustrates how two other countries outside the OECD offer one form of help.

And the World Bank reported that Russia’s ODA was $1.2bn in 2017, the last year for which figures were available, and India’s Ministry of External Affairs says it has offered “lines of credit” to 64 countries, worth $30.6bn.

Continue Reading

Politics

Child poverty strategy unveiled – but not everyone’s happy

Published

on

By

Starmer wants to lift half a million children out of poverty - but does his plan go far enough?

A new long-awaited child poverty strategy is promising to lift half a million children out of poverty by the end of this parliament – but critics have branded it unambitious. 

The headline announcement in the government’s plan is the pledge to lift the two-child benefit cap, announced in Rachel Reeves’s budget last week.

It also includes:

• Providing upfront childcare support for parents on universal credit returning to work
• An £8m fund to end the placement of families in bed and breakfasts beyond a six-week limit
• Reforms to cut the cost of baby formula
• A new legal duty on councils to notify schools, health visitors, and GPs when a child is placed in temporary accommodation

Many of the measures have previously been announced.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Two-child cap ‘a real victory for the left’

The government also pointed to its plan in the budget to cut energy bills by £150 a year, and its previously promised £950m boost to a local authority housing fund, which it says will deliver 5,000 high-quality homes for better temporary accommodation.

Downing Street said the strategy would lift 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030, saying that would be the biggest reduction in a single parliament since records began.

More on Poverty

But charities had been hoping for a 10-year strategy and argue the plan lacks ambition.

A record 4.5 million children (about 31%) are living in poverty in the UK – 900,000 more since 2010/11, according to government figures.

Phillip Anderson, the Strategic Director for External Affairs at the National Children’s Bureau (NCB), told Sky News: “Abolishing the two-child limit is a hell of a centre piece, but beyond that it’s mainly a summary of previously announced policies and commitments.

“The really big thing for me is it misses the opportunity to talk about the longer term. It was supposed to be a 10-year strategy, we wanted to see real ambition and ideally legally binding targets for reducing poverty.

“The government itself says there will still be around four million children living in poverty after these measures and the strategy has very little to say to them.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘A budget for benefits street’

‘Budget for benefits street’ row

The biggest measure in the strategy is the plan to lift the two-child benefit cap from April. This is estimated to lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030, at a cost of £3bn.

The government has long been under pressure from backbench Labour MPs to scrap the cap, with most experts arguing that it is the quickest, most cost-effective way to drive-down poverty this parliament.

The cap, introduced by Conservative chancellor George Osborne in 2017, means parents can only claim universal credit or tax credits for their first two children. It meant the average affected household losing £4,300 per year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated in 2024.

The government argues that a failure to tackle child poverty holds back the economy, and young people at school, cutting their employment and earning prospects in later life.

However, the Conservatives argue parents on benefits should have to make the same financial choices about children as everyone else.

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: “Work is the best way out poverty but since this government took office, unemployment has risen every single month and this budget for Benefits Street will only make the situation worse. “

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

OBR leak: This has happened before

‘Bring back Sure Start’

Lord Bird, a crossbench peer who founded the Big Issue and grew up in poverty, said while he supported the lifting of the cap there needed to be “more joined up thinking” across government for a longer-term strategy.

He has been pushing for the creation of a government ministry of “poverty prevention and cure”, and for legally binding targets on child poverty.

“You have to be able to measure yourself, you can’t have the government marking its own homework,” he told Sky News.

Lord Bird also said he was a “great believer” in resurrecting Sure Start centres and expanding them beyond early years.

The New Labour programme offered support services for pre-school children and their parents and is widely seen to have improved health and educational outcomes. By its peak in 2009-2010 there were 3,600 centres – the majority of which closed following cuts by the subsequent Conservative government.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Lord Bird on the ‘great distraction’ from child poverty

PM to meet families

Sir Keir Starmer’s government have since announced 1,000 Best Start Family Hubs – but many Labour MPs feel this announcement went under the radar and ministers missed a trick in not calling them “Sure Starts” as it is a name people are familiar with.

The prime minister is expected to meet families and children in Wales on Friday, alongside the Welsh First Minister, to make the case for his strategy and meet those he hopes will benefit from it.

Several other charities have urged ministers to go further. Both Crisis and Shelter called for the government to unfreeze housing benefit and build more social rent homes, while the Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, said that “if we are to end child poverty – not just reduce it” measures like free bus travel for school-age children would be needed.

The strategy comes after the government set up a child poverty taskforce in July 2024, which was initially due to report back in May. The taskforce’s findings have not yet been published – only the government’s response.

Sir Keir said: “Too many children are growing up in poverty, held back from getting on in life, and too many families are struggling without the basics: a secure home, warm meals and the support they need to make ends meet.

“I will not stand by and watch that happen, because the cost of doing nothing is too high for children, for families and for Britain.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Did Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves mislead us?

Published

on

By

Did Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves mislead us?

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

The chancellor is being accused of “lying” over what she knew and when ahead of her budget – so did Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer actually mislead the public?

Beth walks us through a detailed timeline of the OBR forecasts, the so-called “black hole”, and why journalists now feel they were given only half the story.

Ruth and Harriet weigh in on political honesty, the dangers of selective briefing, and why trust between the government, the media and the public is fraying fast.

Plus, former Number 10 director of communications Matthew Doyle joins the trio to discuss Labour’s early months in power, the turbulence around political messaging, and how governments lose (and can rebuild) narrative control.

Send us your messages and Christmas-themed questions on WhatsApp at 07934 200 444 or email electoraldysfunction@sky.uk.

And if you didn’t know, you can also watch Beth, Harriet and Ruth on YouTube.

St. James’s Place sponsors Electoral Dysfunction on Sky News, learn more here.

Continue Reading

Politics

Ex-Signature Bank execs launch blockchain-powered bank N3XT

Published

on

By

Ex-Signature Bank execs launch blockchain-powered bank N3XT

A group of former executives from the collapsed crypto-friendly Signature Bank has launched a new blockchain-based, state-chartered bank called N3XT, with the goal of enabling instant 24-hour payments.

N3XT said on Thursday that it aims to settle payments instantly at any time using a private blockchain and offers programmable payments through smart contracts. The company added that its systems have been designed for interoperability with stablecoins, utility tokens, and other digital assets.

Signature Bank founder ​​Scott Shay founded N3XT, which will operate under a Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI) charter and will not offer lending services.

Signature Bank was one of three crypto-friendly banks, along with Silicon Valley Bank and  Silvergate Bank, that collapsed in the 2023 US banking crisis due to a bank run and ties to the then-rapidly falling crypto market.