Foreign aid cuts to hit women and girls, minister admits
Foreign aid budget cuts will hit education programmes and women and girls' initiatives, a Cabinet minister has admitted.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, who is charged with delivering the 40 per cent reduction to the overseas aid budget, has outlined her plans for the first time to MPs.
She said that 'inevitably' there would be cuts in some areas, adding that it would be 'likely to be on education and gender'.
Lady Chapman, a long-time ally of Sir Keir Starmer, was brought in after Anneliese Dodds quit as development minister ahead of the announcement to reduce the budget to fund defence.
Speaking to the Commons international development committee, she said: 'Inevitably, this means that in some areas and countries there will be less to spend, and I think there's no point in being anything other than completely open about this, I think that is likely to be on education and gender.'
She added: 'But in those areas, we can't turn away from them, we've got to make even more of our technical expertise – in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and across the UK more widely – and our diplomatic influence to lead.'
The minister said that the Government instead would be focusing on programmes that tackled humanitarian crises in conflict zones, health and climate initiatives.
The remarks prompted criticism from Sarah Champion, the committee's chairman and a senior Labour MP, who said that it showed the Government was 'no longer prioritising women and girls'.
She told the Cabinet minister: 'I was just thinking of the girl in Malawi who's no longer getting her education supported. She probably doesn't care whether it's driven by ideology. She just knows that her opportunity is just collapsing.
'I have to say we've known each other for a long time, I know how passionate a defender you are of the rights of women and girls. Why on earth are you putting on record that we are no longer supporting education and we're no longer prioritising the rights of women and girls?'
Lady Chapman insisted that the department would 'integrate and mainstream' support for women and girls, something that organisations involved supported.
'If you work in development and you don't have a passion for work on gender inequalities running through you, you're in the wrong business.'
'Deeply concerned'
But when asked about plans for gender programmes, she said: 'I can't promise to protect every good programme, I just can't.'
The charity sector also expressed concern about what the remarks meant for gender funding.
Amelia Whitworth, of Plan International UK, said: 'We are also deeply concerned to hear that funding to support and promote gender equality may be under threat. We can only uphold the rights and dignity of girls and women if we invest in addressing their specific needs.'
The details about how the cuts will affect Britain's contribution to international aid are likely to prompt further anger amongst Labour MPs, who have already expressed frustration over the plans.
The Prime Minister promised earlier this year that defence spending would be increased to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, a move announced after Donald Trump's inauguration.
Lord Cameron wrote into law that foreign aid should be 0.7 per cent of gross national income (GNI) after he won the 2010 general election, but the foreign aid budget already falls below it.
About £2 billion a year is still being taken out of the budget to fund housing for asylum seekers in British hotels.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
13 minutes ago
- The Sun
Kemi Badenoch BACKS Donald Trump-style travel bans and says Britain is being ‘mugged' by migration
KEMI Badenoch has said she would back Trump-style travel bans — as she warned Britain is being 'mugged' by illegal immigration. The Tory leader said there are scenarios where blocking people from certain countries is 'viable'. 3 3 3 It comes days after the US President signed an executive order banning citizens from 12 countries from entering America — in the name of national security. Asked by The Sun if she would ever consider following suit, Ms Badenoch said: 'Parliament needs to be able to decide who comes into the country, for how long, and who needs to leave — and that does include travel bans. 'On a country-specific basis it's much tougher, it's often more vague. "But I think there are scenarios where that is viable.' She added: 'That doesn't mean that I agree with what Donald Trump has done… I haven't actually seen the list of countries that he's banned people from. "I'm much more focused on what's happening here.' Mr Trump's new executive order blocks entry to nationals from 12 countries — including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan — citing the threat of foreign terrorism. The crackdown revives his first-term 'Muslim ban' and forms part of his hardline immigration pledge. Back in London, the Tory leader delivered a fiery speech declaring the UK had 'lost control' of its asylum system and said she would "likely" pull Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights to fix it. She warned: 'We cannot become the destination for everyone looking for a new home or a better life. Nor can we be the world's softest touch. 'In some years our approval rate was above 80 per cent. Last year, Japan's was 2 per cent. "Britain is being mugged.' She said human rights laws had been 'stretched and distorted' by activist lawyers and were now being used to block deportations of dangerous criminals. The Tory chief announced a commission, led by Shadow Attorney General Lord Wolfson, to draw up plans for how the UK could leave the ECHR — with a final decision due by the autumn Tory Party conference. Ms Badenoch said: 'I have always said that if we need to leave the Convention, we should. "And having now considered the question closely, I do believe that we will likely need to leave — because I am yet to see a clear and coherent way to fix this within our current legal structures.' She also confirmed the Tories are working on a new third-country deportation scheme to replace the scrapped Rwanda plan. Her intervention comes amid growing anger over blocked deportations - with Nigel Farage 's Reform UK already pledging to quit the ECHR altogether. Calls to overhaul the ECHR are also gaining traction across Europe - with the treaty's own chief yesterday saying there should be 'no taboo' on rewriting the rules. Council of Europe boss Alain Berset told The Times the 75-year-old convention must 'adapt' to tackle the scale of modern migration. He urged governments - including Britain - to open political talks, saying: "We need discussion about the rules that we want to have, and there is no taboo.' It comes after leaders in Italy, Denmark and seven other nations have demanded more power to deport criminals and block irregular migration. Downing Street this morning welcomed discussion about changing the Convention. The Labour Government has always vowed to pass laws ordering courts to throw out ridiculous appeals to European laws by foreign offenders or illegal migrants. A No 10 spokesman said: 'Border security is vital to national security, and we welcome efforts to ensure the European Convention on Human Rights is being applied correctly and allowing countries to protect their borders. 'It's important there is discussion on how the ECHR operates to ensure it can safeguard human rights while meeting the needs of democracies. The Prime Minister has been clear on this, it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration and Government that makes the policy. 'That's why this Government is actually taking action on the ECHR. Our immigration White Paper sets out new plans through legislation to tighten the application of the ECHR, giving courts the clarity they need so our immigration rules are no longer abused, and as the Prime Minister has said, we want to ensure the right balance is made in migration cases in relation to the national interest.'
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
NHS body revokes guidance advising hospitals to allow trans people to use chosen bathrooms
An NHS body has been criticised after it quietly withdrew guidance advising hospitals to allow trans people to use bathrooms and changing rooms of their choice. The NHS Confederation - which represents NHS trusts across the UK - confirmed to The Independent that it had removed the guidance from its website as it became 'dated' after April's Supreme Court ruling. The judgment found that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex, sparking disputes on how Britain should treat its equality policy. In the weeks after the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim guidance which stated that trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services such as shops and hospitals'. The guidance is being legally challenged by trans-rights groups. The NHS Confederation said it had withdrawn its previously trans-inclusive advice and will issue new guidance when the EHRC updates its official Code of Practice. But trans rights groups have warned guidance on access to single-sex spaces is currently a legal 'minefield'. "The Supreme Court decision about the Equality Act doesn't mention toilets - not even once - and their provision is governed by separate legislation,' founder and executive director of Good Law Project, Jo Maugham KC, told The Independent. 'What the Supreme Court was very careful to say is that its judgment about the meaning of "woman" was solely about that word in the Equality Act. The 'toilets question' will be determined in judicial review proceedings that Good Law Project is filing today. 'For the NHS (or any other service provider) to take a position before the outcome is known is to invite lawsuits against it and risk wasting money that ought to be spent on patient care in the pursuit of ill-advised culture wars." TransActual, an organisation that supports the rights of trans people, said the development highlights the confusing implications of the ruling. "This decision may - or may not - be required as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling,' a spokesperson said. 'However, what appears abundantly clear, based on advice from multiple lawyers and experts in this field, is that the supposed 'clarity' welcomed by the prime minister shortly after the ruling is, itself, in need of some clarification. "The law, based on a narrow interpretation of the Equality Act, may support this action. Equally, any future challenges on human rights grounds, which were not considered by the Supreme Court, may lead to a different outcome. It is a minefield. Organisations are damned if they act; damned if they do not. "We sympathise with the NHS Confederation and the position they find themselves in. Nonetheless, we believe they have reached the wrong conclusion - and that will, in turn, lead to significant harm to trans people needing medical care, as they now put off, or refuse treatment that may require a hospital stay." The NHS Confederation - which does not set official NHS policy - said its intention remains to provide its members with 'information that helps them best support their staff and patients', as it confirmed it had taken its previous guidance down. A spokesperson said: 'We will update and reinstate our guide as soon as the EHRC has updated its Code of Practice, which will need to be approved by the UK government, and when NHS England has then updated its guidance for what the changes mean for NHS organisations. 'The withdrawal of our guide does not change our explicit commitment to support our members to reduce the unacceptably high levels of bullying, abuse and discrimination at work that trans and non-binary staff and patients face.' On Monday, a hearing in a case against the EHRC over its consultation period for guidance in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling is set to go ahead. Human rights group Liberty is arguing the equalities watchdog had breached its statutory duties by implementing a six-week consultation period rather than a 12-week one. The EHRC will issue official post-ruling guidance after the consultation period.
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Zia Yusuf didn't leave Reform because he was a victim of racism
Zia Yusuf was billed by some as one of the rising stars of British politics – so his abrupt resignation as chairman of Reform UK has created quite a splash. Wading in with his typical opportunistic identitarianism, former leader of the SNP, Humza Yousaf, said on X that Yusuf's departure from Reform should serve as an example to all 'people of colour' – that the 'hard-right' would never accept them, even if they make sizeable financial donations. He added that it was no surprise that the insurgent challenger party of the Right eventually dispensed with their 'brown, son-of-an-immigrant, Muslim' party chairman. While there have been reports of Yusuf being sidelined within Reform for some time, the straw that broke the camel's back appears to be a disagreement between him and the party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin. In PMQs, the recently elected MP for Runcorn and Helsby asked Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer whether he would entertain the possibility of introducing restrictions on the wearing of the burqa in the UK. Yusuf seemingly took issue with this by publicly rebuking Pochin on X. He said it was 'dumb' to argue for measures which were not official Reform policy. The writing was on the wall for Yusuf after the spat with Pochin. She is Reform's first female MP, and insulting her in public over a question in the Commons about banning the burqa – being a Muslim man – was political self-destruction and contradicted his own emphasis on 'professionalising' the party. The question itself was an entirely reasonable one. Morocco – a predominantly Muslim country where Sunni Islam is the state religion – banned the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the burqa back in 2017. This was on the grounds of security considerations and part of a broader approach to combat Salafist influences in the North African country. If Yusuf was disappointed that certain procedures should have been followed by Pochin, this should have been discussed in private and he should have raised the importance of party discipline and order as chairman. This would have been responsible and professional chairmanship. While there is no doubt that Yusuf suffered a great amount of racist and anti-Muslim abuse from what the Reform leader has labelled 'alt-right' trolls, a more plausible explanation for Yusuf's resignation is that he found the transition from business to politics difficult – and understandably so. In the world of business, he is unquestionably successful: he co-founded a luxury concierge company which was later sold to Capital One in a £233 million deal. But chairing a fledgling political party requires a greater degree of patience – especially when it comes to instilling organisational discipline and order as part of a broader professionalisation strategy. Whether it was restlessness, disillusionment, or clashing with other personalities, Yusuf the businessman had clearly grown frustrated in his political role. And nobody can blame him for that. While the likes of Humza Yousaf would love nothing more than to portray Zia Yusuf as a non-white Muslim victim of ethno-nationalist persecution, the reality is far more complicated.
