Why has the coalition delayed its aid bill?

The government must keep its promises to the world's poorest.

On page 18 of the Sun today, Political Editor Tom Newton Dunn, exclusively reveals that legislation to ensure Britain meets the UN goal of 0.7 per cent spending on international aid will be delayed. The International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, explains:

"The British public would not think it was sensible for us to bring forward declaratory legislation ahead of vital legislation for our economic recovery. I don't think it physically can now because there is not enough time left. We have signed off on the Bill and it's now with the business managers. They will proceed with it when there is parliamentary time."

In the Coalition Agreement, on page 22, it says:

"We will honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013, and to enshrine this commitment in law."

Looking back at page 117 of the Conservative manifesto, the timeframe for that promise is even clearer:

"A new Conservative government will be fully committed to achieving, by 2013, the UN target of spending 0.7% of national income as aid. We will stick to the rules laid down by the OECD about what spending counts as aid. We will legislate in the first session of a new Parliament to lock in this level of spending for every year from 2013."

This has been one of the longest ever Parliamentary sessions in history, running from May 2010 to May 2012. So what's gone wrong?

There are still ten weeks left in this Parliamentary session and another three when MPs will be on holiday. DFID's Bill is short with just a handful of clauses. It has already had pre-legislative scrutiny from the International Development Select Committee and there is cross-party consensus. There is no prospect of it being overturned in the Lords. It could probably be passed on a one line whip on a Thursday afternoon or Friday morning.

Are the government worried about the destabilising impact of another backbench rebellion so soon after their European troubles? Or are they worried that the next Parliamentary session does not have enough business? In a story in the Times today, Political Editor Roland Watson reports that the next Queen's Speech will contain just 12 Bills because the Conservatives and Lib Dems are struggling to find enough common ground to agree a legislative programme.

Aid spending is now 0.59 per cent. As Mitchell tells the Sun: "the most important point, is that we are actually doing it -- and we have set that out in the figures". But the principle is also important. The last time they were in office, the Conservatives halved the aid budget. Labour trebled it. The reason the Conservatives made the promise was to achieve all-party consensus and put the issue beyond doubt.

Desmond Tutu said that "a promise made to the poor is a sacred thing". Politicians should keep their promises, or risk proving cynical voters right when they say that politicians never keep their word.

Richard Darlington was Special Adviser at DFID 2009-2010 and is now Head of News at IPPR. Follow him on Twitter: @RDarlo

Richard Darlington is Head of News at IPPR. Follow him on Twitter @RDarlo.

Carl Court/Getty
Show Hide image

To stop Jeremy Corbyn, I am giving my second preference to Andy Burnham

The big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Voting is now underway in the Labour leadership election. There can be no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is the frontrunner, but the race isn't over yet.

I know from conversations across the country that many voters still haven't made up their mind.

Some are drawn to Jeremy's promises of a new Jerusalem and endless spending, but worried that these endless promises, with no credibility, will only serve to lose us the next general election.

Others are certain that a Jeremy victory is really a win for Cameron and Osborne, but don't know who is the best alternative to vote for.

I am supporting Liz Kendall and will give her my first preference. But polling data is brutally clear: the big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Andy can win. He can draw together support from across the party, motivated by his history of loyalty to the Labour movement, his passionate appeal for unity in fighting the Tories, and the findings of every poll of the general public in this campaign that he is best placed candidate to win the next general election.

Yvette, in contrast, would lose to Jeremy Corbyn and lose heavily. Evidence from data collected by all the campaigns – except (apparently) Yvette's own – shows this. All publicly available polling shows the same. If Andy drops out of the race, a large part of the broad coalition he attracts will vote for Jeremy. If Yvette is knocked out, her support firmly swings behind Andy.

We will all have our views about the different candidates, but the real choice for our country is between a Labour government and the ongoing rightwing agenda of the Tories.

I am in politics to make a real difference to the lives of my constituents. We are all in the Labour movement to get behind the beliefs that unite all in our party.

In the crucial choice we are making right now, I have no doubt that a vote for Jeremy would be the wrong choice – throwing away the next election, and with it hope for the next decade.

A vote for Yvette gets the same result – her defeat by Jeremy, and Jeremy's defeat to Cameron and Osborne.

In the crucial choice between Yvette and Andy, Andy will get my second preference so we can have the best hope of keeping the fight for our party alive, and the best hope for the future of our country too.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland