£5bn UK overseas aid cuts cannot be challenged in court, say government lawyers
Cuts of £5bn to the UK overseas aid budget cannot be challenged in the courts, government lawyers have said, even though ministers have no plan to return spending to the legal commitment of 0.7 % of UK gross national income (GNI).
The assertion by Treasury solicitors that ministers are immune from legal challenge over aid cuts comes in preliminary exchanges with the aid advocacy group One Campaign. It is the first step in what could prove a highly embarrassing judicial review.
In the spring statement in March the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, said she was slashing aid from 0.5% to 0.3 % of GNI. The international development minister, Jenny Chapman, recently said in a Guardian interview that this level of spending was the new normal.
The 40% cut, due to be imposed by April 2027, is being billed as necessary to fund a new permanent increase in defence spending required by long-term changes to the security landscape.
The previous aid cut, from 0.7 % to 0.5 %, imposed by Dominic Raab, the then Conservative foreign secretary, was billed as temporary. It was accompanied by aspirational timetables for aid spending to return to 0.7%, the target set out in the 2015 International Development Act entrenching that figure as the government commitment on overseas aid.
One Campaign says that for ministers to comply with the law, they face a choice of either repealing the act, a vote that some Labour MPs will be reluctant to justify to their electorates, or to set out a credible pathway to return to the target.
The campaign said it is impossible for ministers to keep legislation on the statute book that places duties upon them they intend to defy.
In their legal defence – a written exchange on the legal merits between government and One Campaign prior to a potential judicial review – government lawyers claimed a section in the act shields ministers from all legal challenge.
They said the act's only mechanism for securing accountability is through a ministerial report to parliament. They pointed to a section of the act on the ministerial duty to report to parliament that states the reporting duty 'does not affect the lawfulness of anything done or omitted to be done by any person'.
The lawyers told One Campaign that 'this puts beyond doubt that parliament intended the courts would have no jurisdiction'.
This interpretation is being contested by the Liberal Democrat peer Jeremy Purvis, who helped draft the legislation and steered it through parliament.
He said ministers cannot hide behind the narrow section of the act on minister's reporting duty to claim it ousts the courts. He added: 'This government has not just missed the target but is changing it, and there is no scope to do this.
'The simple fact is the government is seeking to avoid a vote in parliament, avoid the courts and avoid all accountability for reneging on all requirements under the act.' He added the government had set out no pathway to return to 0.7 %.
One Campaign says the cuts are likely to be devastating. Its director, Adrian Lovett, said there was no evidence that ministers had met the requirement to undertake impact assessments of the cuts on poverty reduction and gender equality.
Ministers say they only have to make such an assessment when cuts to specific programmes are being made.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Earth doesn't recognise national boundaries – we must collaborate for Net Zero
Almost sixty years ago, in 1966, I arrived at St John's College, Cambridge, on a scholarship from BP to study physics. This would turn out to be a golden period for the oil and gas industry. Two new frontiers – the North Sea and Alaska – were on the cusp of opening up, and the industry's reputation as a source of innovation, diplomacy and prosperity was strong. How times change – both in obvious and less obvious ways. The North Sea peaked long ago, with Britain sadly ever more reliant on energy imports. A fuller understanding of climate change has laid bare the duality of hydrocarbons, with most energy companies far too late in taking action. The focus in most developed countries is now on how to produce more and more energy from zero-carbon sources. This is all part of what is commonly meant by the 'energy transition', which is essential if we are to save humanity from the uncontrollable and destructive impact of climate change on health, food supplies and migration. But a less obvious energy transition has been taking place, right in front of our eyes. In 1966, the UK consumed more energy than it does today, despite decades during which both the economy and the population have grown. And the UK now no longer consumes any coal to speak of. If someone had told me this as an undergraduate, I would have scarcely believed them. Some of this change is down to deindustrialisation, but much of it can be attributed to steady gains in energy efficiency. The direction of travel is the same in the US, Canada and the EU. This should give cause for great optimism. The energy transition is a serious challenge which will take years to complete, but it is underway, and it is inextricably linked to energy security. The idea that energy security can be based solely on oil and gas is wrong and dangerous. So too is the view that we can achieve an overnight transition simply by setting net zero targets. Countries need a diversity of sources of energy so that when one source is attacked or interrupted, the supply can be made up by another. UK supplies are much more secure when they are domestic and do not rely on long-distance supply chains. Those such as renewable sources and nuclear fission also happen to be carbon-free. To make progress in the energy transition, we need serious and realistic plans, driven forward by a sense of common purpose and supported by the necessary resources. Plans will vary from country to country, but if they are to succeed, they should have four things in common. The first is to start by working out what will be needed in 25 years. It is clear to me that we will need carbon-free flexible electricity from renewables and nuclear power, both fission and perhaps fusion. At present, electricity accounts for about 20 per cent of global total energy demand; by 2050, it could be closer to 50 per cent. We will continue to need liquid fuels to power heavy transportation such as ships, trucks and long-haul flights, but may be able to create them – and other materials – by transforming waste, wood and crops using enzymes created by AI. And we could use the inevitable super-intelligence of AI to become more efficient everywhere. This future of low-carbon and mostly domestic secure energy is very possible if we commit now to the right level of consistent R&D investment in areas of highest potential. But, of course, we cannot afford to wait, so we must deploy the technologies already available and capable of continuous improvement. This is the second pillar of any successful approach. Electricity from wind and solar is already competitive with the lowest-cost hydrocarbon alternative. What is needed is better long-duration storage and the infrastructure to bring supplies to market. The efficiency of energy use can be dramatically improved by deploying more advanced software and strengthening economic incentives. New nuclear power, including the exciting potential of small modular reactors, can be deployed. Greater deployment of EVs reduced oil demand, but because we are still using oil and gas as 70 per cent of the UK's energy and will continue to do so long into the future, we must use them cleanly. Eliminating methane emissions is feasible and commercially viable. Capturing carbon and storing it is possible, but it needs further deployment and improvement before it is economically feasible to do so. Third, it is important to remember that no one country can achieve all these goals on their own. Competition is a good thing, but in a time of tight budgets, it is better to work in collaboration with other willing partners. The Earth's climate does not recognise national boundaries. We cannot wait for everyone to join in or allow ourselves to be forced to work at the pace of the slowest. Those who are able must act. For governments, that means putting in place internationally coordinated regulations and incentives, and directing funds to the necessary research. There is a strong case in the UK for creating a central national direction of the science and engineering required for the necessary breakthroughs, because efforts are currently too fragmented. It is also essential that we get a grip on a malfunctioning electricity market in which prices are too high, for which green energy is wrongly blamed, undermining efforts to secure public support for the energy transition. But it should be obvious that governments cannot do everything. That is why the contribution of the private sector is so important, and is the fourth pillar of any successful approach. Companies can bring the organisational capacity and international reach to take discoveries from the laboratory to the market. They cannot run away from the issue because they are part of society, serving its needs. But their success must also be nurtured, supported and celebrated. History shows that the private sector is the engine of human progress. We forget this at our peril. There is much that can be done, and no reason to despair. A major transformation of the way we live and work will take time. Industrial revolutions are complex processes replacing established embedded systems with something new and better. But in this case, the necessary changes will only come if we have a clear plan and a visible path to a world which is truly Beyond Petroleum.
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves must rethink how tax and spend decisions are made after welfare U-turn
There are many lessons for Labour's bruised leadership from last week's embarrassing U-turn on welfare cuts, but one is surely that how – and when – fiscal policy is set is not working. Binary fiscal rules, a slim margin for error (less than £10bn), and the Office for Budget Responsibility's twice-yearly forecasts, have combined to turn tax and spending decisions into a grim spectator sport. City analysts are constantly second-guessing exactly how Rachel Reeves's hand will be forced next. As the Bank of England governor, Andrew Bailey, put it last week, before the benefits climbdown, 'having the financial markets marking fiscal policy to market on a daily basis is not a good state of affairs'. The chancellor promised to hold only one budget a year, at which tax changes would be announced: a decision aimed at demonstrating stability and strength. However, the Treasury began signalling during the bond market panic in January that she was prepared to use her spring statement to make spending cuts, if higher interest costs set her on course to break her fiscal rules. Some wise heads argued at the time against the idea of hastily drawing up cuts, tailored to close whatever gap the OBR identified in five years' time – the period over which the rules are assessed. As the former Bank deputy governor Charlie Bean put it: 'I think we want to get away from this idea that we continually have to be neurotically changing taxes and spending to try to control this OBR forecast so that it's hitting our target.' In his understated way, Bailey effectively agreed with that this week, arguing: 'There is a danger in overinterpreting a five-year-ahead forecast.' They are right: one result is hasty policy changes driven by cost-cutting targets (although the Treasury lays part of the blame on the Department for Work and Pensions for, it claims, dragging its heels over the reform package). Another consequence is that the debate over economic policy ends up being reduced to a desiccated row over tax and spend. That is especially depressing, given that the contours of an economic strategy are starting to emerge more clearly, a year into Labour's term. The focus last week was meant to be the 'modern industrial strategy' – a hefty document that set out a new approach to nurturing eight strategic sectors, including clean tech, advanced manufacturing and the creative industries. There was much to praise – a senior figure at one business lobby group joked that they would struggle to know what to campaign on next, as so many of their long-running asks had been met. Unions were gratified at the focus on creating jobs and funding additional training – and the promise of workforce strategies for sectors experiencing skills shortages. The government's pragmatic trade strategy, also published last week, was another victim of the overwhelming focus on the welfare row. All this was lost in the Westminster drama of defending the cobbled-together cuts and then negotiating the concessions that already looked inevitable when Reeves insisted on Monday that there would be 'no U-turn'. Her team now have two unenviable tasks ahead of them. First, they will have to start work on a possible package of tax increases to announce in the autumn. As her aides are keen to point out, she could yet strike lucky: growth could bounce back; inflation could ease more rapidly than expected, freeing the Bank of England to crack on with rate cuts; and gilt yields could slide. Treasury officials will be pushing hard over the summer to try to convince the OBR to take into account the growth-friendly nature of some of the government's policies, perhaps nudging forecasts in the right direction. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion However, the majority of independent experts currently believe it is more likely than not that the OBR will downgrade its expectations of productivity – and therefore growth – setting Reeves on course to breach her fiscal rules, even without the £4bn-plus cost of the policy swerves on winter fuel and disability benefits. Reeves could ditch those fiscal rules, of course – but that would be sticking two fingers up at flighty financial markets. Tweaking the rules to allow herself more leeway seems less unthinkable, given how many times previous chancellors rewrote their own rules – but she would have to proceed with caution. While they deny that they are poring over a menu of potential tax rises (although they surely must be), Reeves's allies privately concede that they are thinking about how to avoid another debilitating annual cycle of fevered speculation about fiscal policy. Here they have a number of options, some of which were set out by the International Monetary Fund in its recent report on the UK economy. One is just to build up a bigger buffer against the fiscal forecasts, of course, to reduce the constant sense of jeopardy – but that would probably require an even bigger tax grab. Another would be to commission only one OBR forecast a year instead of two – dodging the spring iteration that prompted the scramble for welfare cuts. This possibility alarms the Treasury, with its echoes of Liz Truss, who saw the OBR as part of the 'anti-growth coalition' and paid the price in the bond markets. A sensible halfway house might be to continue to commission two forecasts but treat the spring one – given there is no budget alongside it – simply as a useful waymarker, for what the chancellor might have to consider in the autumn. Whatever emerges from this rethink, it must allow Reeves to be more flexible in the face of changing economic circumstances because the framework she so carefully constructed to project strength has instead trapped Labour into decisions that ultimately proved untenable.
The Sun
35 minutes ago
- The Sun
Cheapest shop to buy a Dyson fan revealed and the dupes that are £338 cheaper
BRITS are bracing for temperatures up to 34C as glorious sunshine continues to hit the UK. For those looking to keep cool over the next few days and into the summer, you don't have to spend a bomb on Dyson fans. 5 We've scoured retailers online to find the cheapest deals, with prices starting from £249. Shoppers with smaller budgets can opt for a number of dupes that do just as good a job for less as well. Of course, prices and stock change on a regular basis so it's worth double-checking if you can find any better deals than us. Price comparison sites like Trolley, Price Spy and Price Runner are all useful for comparing prices across the major retailers. That said, here are the best Dyson-branded fans we found and dupes which won't set you back as much. Dyson desk fan - John Lewis, £249 John Lewis is selling this Dyson desk fan, ideal for any home workers, for £249. Most other retailers we've seen are selling it for the slightly more expensive £249.99. Shoppers can't currently buy the fan online as it is out of stock, but there is some availability in stores. You can find out which branch nearest you has it in stock on the fan's product page. The nifty gadget comes with a night mode, which makes it quieter, and a timer so you don't have to worry about turning it off before falling asleep. Users can control the fan, which comes with 10 airflow settings, with a remote. Dyson tower cooling fan - Donaghy Bros, £269 We found this Dyson tower cooling fan cheapest at Donaghy Bros, which comes with a 4.8 out of 5 star rating on Trustpilot. The £269 fan comes with 10 speed settings, an up to nine hour timer and is adjustable so you can direct cold air up or downwards. The retailer is also offering free home delivery on the device, which measures 1metre high and weighs 2.85kg. The fan comes with a two year warranty in case anything goes wrong after purchase. Dyson jet focus fan hot and cold heater - Argos, £290 Argos is selling the dual-purpose Dyson hot and cold air fan for £290 which is cheapest we've seen out of the major retailers. It comes with 10 heat settings, is remote control-operated, and works either on the floor or tables. It's also, Dyson claims, super quiet meaning it would work well in the bedroom. The fan comes with a two-year parts and labour guarantee. Shoppers with a Nectar Card can also get 290 Nectar points when purchasing the fan. Dyson cool purifying fan - Donaghy Bros, £448 This slightly more expensive fan is cheapest at Donaghy Bros, where it costs £448. Dyson says the fan works by not only keeping you cool but sensing and removing pollutants around your home as well. The fan turns 350 degrees, weighs 4.85kg and is just over 1metre tall. You can place it on desktops, bedside tables and side tables, depending on where you need it most. THE BEST DYSON DUPES Dyson is, arguably, one of the most recognised brands selling fans on the market, but you can save money buying a dupe version. We haven't tested the dupes below - they are just suggestions we've made based on our own research. B&Q is selling a 32inch Pro Breeze bladeless tower fan which purifies the air and comes with nine speed settings for just £109.99. That makes it around £338 cheaper than the Dyson cool purifying fan we've listed above. The Pro Breeze model is slightly smaller, coming in 0.8metres tall, but still has plenty of five star reviews on the Argos website. One customer said the "Dyson looking fan" was super quiet and comes with good power and air purifier settings. Tesco is also selling a Russell Hobbs desk fan that's just £24.99 and £224 cheaper than the Dyson desktop model in John Lewis listed above. The Russell Hobbs fan is smaller than the Dyson one, at 0.3metres tall, but does come with a one-year guarantee. Lastly, Screwfix is selling a Blyss three-in-one bladeless fan which heats, cools and purifies the air, for £137. That's £153 cheaper than the Dyson focus fan hot and cold heater we spotted in Argos for £290. How to save money on summer essentials SUNNIER days and warmer weather will leave many of us wanting to kit out gardens and outdoor areas. Sun Savers Editor Lana Clements explains how to get a great deal on summer essentials… It pays to know how to bag big savings on the likes of hot tubs paddling pools, egg chairs and outside bars. Many retailers have flash sales across entire ranges – often this ties into payday at the end of the month or Bank Holiday weekends. Sign up to the mailing lists of your favourite brands and you'll be first to know of special offers. It can be worth following retailers on social media too. Keep a close eye on the specialbuys at Aldi and middle of Lidl drops which drop a couple of times a week and usually mean great value seasonal items such as beach gear and paddling pools. If you are not in a hurry to buy an item, try adding it to the shopping cart and leaving it for a couple of days. Sometimes big brands will try to tempt you into the sale by offering you a discount. Always check if you can get cashback before paying. It's especially worth using sites such as Topcashback, Quidco and app Jamdoughnut when buying bigger ticket items such as garden furniture as you'll get a nice kickback. .
