Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

MPs vote to approve £4bn foreign aid cut amid claims it could last for years – as it happened

Boris Johnson in the Commons.
Boris Johnson in the Commons. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/AP

It is not a good day for David Cameron. As well as abandoning the 0.7% aid spending target that he championed, later tonight MPs will vote to abandon English Votes for English Laws (Evel), another of his legacies.

Updated

The 24 Tory MPs who voted against government motion to cut aid budget

And here are the 24 Tory rebels who voted against the government motion to cut the aid budget.

David Amess (Southend West)

Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire)

Peter Bottomley (Worthing West)

Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands)

Steve Brine (Winchester)

Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham)

Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire)

David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden)

Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East)

Roger Gale (North Thanet)

Damian Green (Ashford)

Simon Hoare (North Dorset)

Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border)

Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey)

Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire)

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham)

Theresa May (Maidenhead)

Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View)

Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield)

Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North)

Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton)

Mark Pawsey (Rugby)

Bob Seely (Isle of Wight)

Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling)

Updated

How MPs voted on cutting aid by party

The CommonsVotes app, which is currently the place where Commons division lists appear first, has just posted the full results for the aid cut vote.

It shows that 332 Tory MPs voted for the motion, plus Rob Roberts, a former Conservative who now sits as an independent. He is back in the Commons after his six-week suspension for sexual harassment.

And 298 MPs voted against. The party breakdown was:

Labour: 197

SNP: 45

Conservatives: 24

Lib Dems: 12

DUP: 8

Independent: 4 (Jeremy Corbyn, Jonathan Edwards, Margaret Ferrier and Claudia Webbe)

Plaid Cymru: 3

Alba: 2

SDLP: 2

Greens: 1

Alliance: 1

I will post the names of the Tory rebels shortly.

David Cameron describes cutting aid budget as 'grave mistake'

David Cameron, the former Conservative PM, has restated his opposition to cutting the UK’s aid budget, describing it as a “grave mistake”. He has just issued this statement.

In theory ministers should not have to worry too much about the electoral consequences of cutting the aid budget (see 4.55pm), because for years opinion polls have shown strong public support for this proposal. Here are some recent figures from YouGov.

But these figures do not reflect the salience of the issue. It may well be that cutting the aid budget matters much more to those who are opposed to the idea (the voters the Lib Dems are targeting) than to those who like the sound of it.

Updated

These are from HuffPost’s Paul Waugh.

Sky’s Sam Coates argues today’s vote will make it easier for Rishi Sunak to resist pressure to raise taxes.

Coates is referring to this passage in the Treasury written ministerial statement, which MPs today voted to endorse. It said:

However, if the house were to negative the motion, rejecting the government’s assessment of the fiscal circumstances, then the government would consequently return to spending 0.7% of GNI on international aid in the next calendar year, and with likely consequences for the fiscal situation, including for taxation and current public spending plans.

Ed Davey claims cut to aid budget could alienate millions of Tory voters

And Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has said the cut to the aid budget could alienate millions of Conservative voters. In a statement he said:

Boris Johnson has just switched off millions of Conservative voters by callously breaking his promise and abandoning millions of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our world.

It’s decisions like this that will make millions of voters, especially in the Blue Wall, move away from the Conservatives in droves. This Conservative government has lost touch with the values of our country.

There is some evidence that Davey is right. Cutting the aid budget was always a key Ukip policy and the cut to the aid budget has been seen as evidence that under Boris Johnson the Tories are becoming a vehicle for Faragist/Vote Leave national populism, and abandoning the mainstream conservatism of leaders such as John Major and David Cameron.

This has been seen as one of the reasons why the Tories lost some seats in their so-called blue wall heartlands in the local elections, and why they suffered a shock defeat in the Chesham and Amersham byelection.

(When I made a point earlier about Giles Fraser not representing a key demographic - see 4.22pm - I was not saying the aid cut will not affect how people vote. I was just trying to make a joke about there not being a lot of Tory-voting broadcaster vicars.)

Updated

Sir Keir Starmer has said the aid cut is damaging Britain’s global reputation.

Church of England says it's concerned cut to aid budget could become permanent

The Church of England has also criticised the vote to confirm the cut to the aid budget. In a statement the Bishop of Worcester, Dr John Inge, the church’s lead bishop for lead bishop for international development, said:

I am very disappointed that parliament has not seen fit to honour this country’s laudable promise, enshrined in law, to devote 0.7% of GNI to aid.

As Andrew Mitchell commented this morning, it is not right that the world’s poorest should be the only ones to suffer from a reduction in spending following the pandemic.

The commitment was one of which the Conservative party could be proud and I hope it will be restored very soon.

It is a matter of some concern that the criteria which the government has now set out for a return to 0.7% are so stringent that it risks making permanent rather than temporary the reduction in our overseas development.

Aid agencies strongly condemn budget cut

As you would expect, aid agencies have universally and strongly condemned the spending cut confirmed by MPs this afternoon. Here are some of the comments they have issued.

From Pete Moorey, head of advocacy at Christian Aid:

This reckless and controversial vote will essentially decimate aid for years to come. It beggars belief that, in the middle of a global pandemic with extreme poverty rising, we are turning our backs on the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world.

From Danny Sriskandarajah, Oxfam GB chief executive:

The outcome of today’s vote is a disaster for the world’s poorest people. With more people in need of humanitarian assistance than at any time since World War II, aid is needed more than ever.

From Neil Heslop, chief executive of the Charities Aid Foundation:

It is no exaggeration to say that this decision by parliament will devastate international development charities all around the world and the end result is that lives will be lost as a direct consequence.

The UK has a proud history as a world leader in international development and to turn our back on that legacy is an historic mistake.

From Sarah Brown and Justin van Fleet, chair and president respectively of Theirworld

We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of today’s vote. It is shameful that this government is choosing to walk away from the world’s most vulnerable children at a time when they are facing hardship on a scale never seen before.

Whatever the government may say through clever spin and rhetoric, the truth is that an indefinite cut to our aid budget - which, let’s be clear, this is - will leave the very poorest weaker in the fight against the threats of poverty, climate change and the current pandemic.

From Stephanie Draper, CEO of Bond, a network for UK aid organisations

Today, MPs broke their promise to the electorate to address global challenges and turned their backs on those in need. It means that children can no longer go to school, vaccines are left to expire and marginalised communities are left to face hunger, malnutrition and disease.

Updated

Here is the first lost Tory vote, from Giles Fraser.

(Fraser is a left-leaning vicar, broadcaster and member of the intelligentsia, who backed Brexit and the Tories in 2019. He is an interesting chap, but probably not representative of a key electoral demographic.)

Here is reaction to the vote from three journalists.

From my colleague Patrick Wintour

From the Spectator’s James Forsyth

From Metro’s Joel Taylor

Sunak claims Commons vote makes commitment to 0.7% aid target 'more secure for long term'

After the division was announced Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, rose to make a point of order. He argued that both those voting for and against the government were voting, in different ways, for the 0.7% aid target. That was the salient point, he said. He claimed that vote had “made that commitment more secure for the long term, whilst helping the government to fix the problems with our public finances”.

He also said he and the PM would continue to work with MPs on how the UK could continue to be global leader helping the world’s poorest.

MPs vote to approve £4bn aid cut amid claims it could last for years

MPs have voted for the government motion to approve the £4bn aid cut by 333 votes to 298 - a majority of 35.

MPs are now voting.

The result will be announced in about 15 minutes.

Updated

Sunak says the government remains committed to the 0.7% target.

The motion before the house today sets conditions for it being restored. He says the conditions are practical and realistic.

If the motion is defeated, MPs will be voting to restore the 0.7% aid target, regardless of the economic circumstances, he says. That would not be responsible, he says.

He ends by quoting from the Bible: “Charity is kind, is patient.”

Sunak says the 2015 act specifically said the aid target could be abandoned in a crisis. If the worst economic shock for 300 years does not meet that test, then nothing will, he says.

Sunak says debt is set to peak at 100% of GDP. That is why the government must act now to rebuild its fiscal resilience.

Chris Matheson (Lab) says the government’s commitment to international aid was shown by its decision to scrap the Department for International Aid, and merge it with the Foreign Office.

Sunak says he does not accept that. That move was about creating “coherence” in policy, he says.

Updated

Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, is now winding up.

He praises those Tory MPs who made the point in the debate about the 2015 legislation for the aid target specifically saying it could be abandoned in certain circumstances.

He thanks those Tory MPs who have worked with the government on finding a compromise.

(My colleague Patrick Wintour argues that in fact this is not a compromise. See 3.28pm. It is only a compromise if the alternative was no promise at all on returning to 0.7%. But the government had given non-binding assurances that it wanted the cut to be reversed when possible.)

Back in the Commons Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, is now winding up for Labour.

She says this motion today is a direct attack on the notion of global Britain.

She asks what moral compass is guiding the government as it makes this move.

She says the spending cut amounts to a 30% cut. Never has the aid budget been cut so savagely.

Turning to the Treasury’s tests for restoring the 0.7% target, she repeats the point made by David Davis (see 1.57pm), saying the government has only very rarely run a sustainable surplus. She says this plan would stop the aid budget returning to 0.7% under a Conservative government.

Updated

Boris Johnson has summoned tech companies to Downing Street to order them to do more to tackle online abuse, amid mounting criticism of the government after black England players were deluged with racist posts in the aftermath of their Euro 2020 defeat. Our full story is here.

The all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus has been hearing today from both parents of children with long Covid and the clinically vulnerable, as well as epidemiologists and other experts on the government’s plans to drop legal restrictions on July 19.

The overall impression was one of deep concern.

Dr Bill Hanage, an associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, said there was no real epidemiological sense whatsoever in the plans to open up on 19 July, and stressed that the UK was already experiencing an uncontrolled epidemic among unvaccinated people. He said:

If you open now with a larger reproductive number and minimal mitigation, then the total number of people who become infected will be larger and that means that the total burden that there will be on healthcare will be larger.

The concerns were echoed by Prof Adrian Hayday, a professor of immunobiology at King’s College London, who also criticised the government’s approach, noting that clinically vulnerable people face uncertainty and insecurity – including people with cancers of the blood system, well over half of whom are not responding immunologically even to a boosted vaccine.

Hayday added the gamble to open up now rather than later in the year “might not pay off” as it might actually provoke a winter peak. He said:

It is not a shrewd gamble, as it [has] often been painted. In my view it is an unnecessary and inappropriate self-inflicted harm.

Mark Harper (Con), a former chief whip, says he has been surprised in the debate to hear MPs implying £5bn is a small sum. That is not true, he says. He says spending has to be paid for. And with all the government borrowing, the UK is very vulnerable to an increase in interest rates. He says a one percentage point increase in interest rates would cost the government £25bn.

My colleague Patrick Wintour says the BBC was wrong to describe the Treasury proposal on aid spending today as a compromise when it is more like a hardening of the government’s position. When the government first announced it was cutting the aid budget last year, it implied the cut might be reversed quite soon, but the conditions for restoring 0.7% announced today imply that moment may be a very long way off.

Tobias Ellwood (Con), chair of the defence committee, says this vote is about Britain’s soft power. He says China is using its aid spending to extend its influence, but the UK is the only member of the G7 to be cutting its aid spending.

He says he thinks the government will win the vote, but it will lose the moral high ground. That is not how to promote the global Britain agenda, he says.

Tim Loughton (Con) says he will vote against the government motion because he fears it will lock in 0.5% as the target for aid spending for the foreseeable future.

He says he was very proud when the Conservative-led government legislated for that target. People have talked about having to take tough decisions, he says. But he says it was precisely to protect the aid budget from such tough decisions that the target was enshrined in law.

(The Liberal Democrats would take issue with Loughton’s analysis. The Tory-led coalition did pass the legislation, but only because the Lib Dems insisted on it.)

Ruth Edwards (Con) says voting against the government today will take £5bn out of public services, or necessitate tax increases.

She says the pandemic has forced MPs to do many things that they previously would never have considered, like stopping people seeing their parents.

Patrick Grady (SNP) says there was a reason for 0.7% being set as a target when it was established as an international benchmark in the 1970s. But a 0.5% target is just arbitrary, he says.

Aid works best when it is stable and predictable, he says. He says there will be no undoing the damage caused by some of these cuts.

Back in the Commons Stephen Crabb (Con), the former cabinet minister, has just finished his speech. He said he would not be supporting the government. He said he was worried the aid cut would become permanent, and 0.5% would become the default. When parliament legislated for 0.7%, that was a high watermark for what the Commons could achieve, he said.

What is a difficult moment for us fiscally and politically, it’s an absolute tragic, devastating moment for the poorest people around the world for whom the pandemic has been the cause of another wave of dire poverty and suffering. That’s what we’re debating this afternoon.

Updated

The House of Commons library has produced a useful briefing note for this afternoon’s debate. It’s here.

It includes this chart showing the difference a 0.5% target compared to a 0.7% target makes.

Aid spending
Aid spending Photograph: Commons library

And this chart shows when the two targets set by the Treasury might be met.

Treasury conditions for increasing aid spending
Treasury conditions for increasing aid spending Photograph: Commons library

Stephen Timms (Lab) says for the last 20 years there has been a cross-party consensus on aid spending. He says he very much regrets that is no longer the case.

Campaigning by churches helped to build that consensus, he says.

Sarah Dines (Con) says Labour cannot lecture the Tories on aid spending because since 2010 the Conservatives have spent more on aid than Labour did.

She also says Labour is out of tune with public opinion.

Back in the Commons, Alicia Kearns (Con) said the act enshrining the 0.7% target in law specifically said that in exceptional circumstances the target could be ignored. If she had been asked in the 2019 election campaign, she would have said that it should only happen in “the darkest of times”. But we are in the darkest of times, she says.

Updated

Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the public spending thinktank, says the formula set by the Treasury in the aid spending plan being voted on this afternoon could lead to huge amounts of money being wasted.

Sturgeon confirms Scotland to move to level 0 Covid restrictions on Monday

Scotland will move to level 0 on July 19 as planned, Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, has said. But she said mitigations such as mandatory face coverings will remain in place, PA Media reports.

Sturgeon told a virtual meeting of the Scottish parliament that lifting certain mitigations would “put all of us at greater risk”. She went on:

So while Scotland will move to level 0 from next Monday, we will do so with certain modifications to our indicative plans.

This is intended to ensure that our pace of easing restrictions is sensible in light of the challenge we continue to face from the Delta variant.

And I will confirm that certain mitigations - such as the mandatory wearing of face coverings - will remain in place, not just now but, in all likelihood, for some time to come.

Measures like the continued wearing of face coverings are important, not just to give added protection to the population as a whole, but also to give protection and assurance to those amongst us who are particularly vulnerable and previously had to shield.

Updated

I have beefed up some of the earlier posts with direct quotes from the speeches in the debate, taken from PA Media. To see the updates, you may need to refresh the page.

Liam Byrne (Lab) says the sums represented by this cut is just 0.14% of the national debt stock. But defence spending is going up by £24bn, he says. That tells you everything about the government’s priorities, he says.

Tom Tugendhat (Con), chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, says this debate is not just about the world’s poorest; it is also about Britain, and how it exerts influence around the world.

For 20 years the UK has won debates around the world, by doing good globally.

Hilary Benn (Lab) and Pauline Latham (Con) have both given speeches opposing the government’s plan.

UPDATE: Benn said:

I urge the house to reject it because there is a principle here - what is it about the level of Government spending on helping the world’s poorest people that it alone is going to be subject to these tests?

No other area of government expenditure, just this one. If this is about protecting the public finances, then why is this area of government expenditure, which is the money we spend on getting children into school or vaccinating children so they don’t die of diseases that our children do not die of, then why is it being singled out?

Updated

David Davis says loophole in Treasury pledge means aid spending might never return to 0.7%

David Davis, the Conservative former Brexit secretary, says that he thinks of himself as an economic Thatcherite. But when it comes to a choice between saving money and saving life, he would always choose life.

He says the government plans are “morally reprehensible”.

He says the MPs who have spoken already and talked about how hard it would be to meet the government’s conditions have understated the problem. The government statement does not just say the current spending budget would have to be in surplus for aid spending to go back to 0.7%. It says the government has to be running a sustainable surplus.

He says that has never happened since 1970. He says the UK might never meet this target.

Davis is right. This is what the Treasury written ministerial statement says about the tests for raising aid spending again.

Consistent with the fiscal principles set out at March Budget 2021, and with the principles contained within the Conservative party 2019 manifesto, the government commits to spending 0.7% of GNI [gross national income] on ODA [official development assistance] when the independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s fiscal forecast confirms that, on a sustainable basis, we are not borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling, as explained in more detail below.

Treasury aid pledge would not stop aid spending being cut even further, says committee chair

Sarah Champion (Lab), the chair of the international development committee, says the conditions set by the government for returning to the 0.7% target would only have been met once since 2015, when the target was established in law.

And meeting the target would depend on what happened to other departmental spending, she says.

Each of these tests is a high hurdle and, combined, these conditions become incredibly strict. Since the 0.7% target was introduced in 2013, these tests have been met only once. They explicitly link ODA [official development assistance] spending to policy decisions made by other government departments on tax and spending.

This double lock could lead to an indefinite cut in aid spending, and of course the tests do nothing to prevent them dropping lower than the 0.5%.

She says this is a “breathtakingly cynical manoeuvre”.

Updated

Andrew Mitchell, the former international aid secretary and leader of the Tory rebels on this issue, starts his speech by welcoming the decision to hold a debate.

He says in the last 20 years there was only one year that met the conditions set by the government for restoring the 0.7% aid target.

Sir John Redwood (Con) says the OBR is always excessively gloomy.

Mitchell says there is no need to consult the crystal ball; he can look to see what happened in the past.

He says he was proud to be part of a coalition government that did not cut spending even during the period of austerity.

He says this cut amounts to just 1% of government borrowing.

And he says this is the only cut announced by the chancellor.

He ends with a warning to the Conservative party. It took the party years to win back an overall majority, with the support of decent, internationalist voters.

Anyone who thinks this is not affecting our party’s reputation is living in cloud cuckoo land.

In Chesham and Amersham they have the biggest Christian Aid group in the country, there’s an unpleasant odour wafting out under my party’s front door.

This is not who we are, this is not what global Britain is and I urge MPs tonight to vote against this motion.

Updated

Chris Law, the SNP’s international development spokesman, says the cuts being proposed by the government will cost lives. He describe the cuts as folly.

Although supposed a temporary measure, this move would cause long-term damage.

And he says it is wrong for the government to claim there is no alternative. Every other G7 country is increasing aid spending, he says.

Peter Bone (Con) says those G7 countries are raising spending from a lower level. The UK will still be the third largest aid spender in the G7.

But, Law says, the UK is a wealthy country, the sixth wealthiest in the world. He says the Tories cannot talk about global Britain if they shrink Britain’s influence.

Law says the PM thinks spending £200m on a new royal yacht is more important than aid, even though the royal family does not approve.

Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, reprimands Law. He reminds him that MPs are not supposed to talk about the royal family.

Law goes on:

This isn’t global Britain. This is a nasty, short, poor and brutish, and most of all a very little, Britain.

Former Tory PM Theresa May says she will vote against government to stop promise to poor being broken 'for years to come'

Theresa May, the former PM, says she will be voting against her party in a three-line whip for the first time in her time as an MP. She says the government made a promise to the poorest people in the world. She says it should keep that promise.

She says if the government wins tonight, that promise may be broken “for years to come”.

UPDATE: May said:

Where is that vision now as the government turns its back on some of the poorest in the world? With GNI [gross national income] falling, our funding for aid was falling in any case, to reduce it from 0.7 to 0.5% is a double blow.

This isn’t about palaces for dictators and vanity projects, it’s about what cuts to funding mean: That fewer girls will be educated, more girls and boys will become slaves, more children will go hungry and more of the poorest people in the world will die ...

I stood on a manifesto to maintain international aid funding at 0.7% of GNI, not just that, we said we will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on development.

I have been in this house for nearly a quarter of a century, during that time I have never voted against a three-line whip from my party. As prime minister I suffered at the hands of rebels, I know what it is like to see party colleagues voting against their government.

We made a promise to the poorest people in the world, the government has broken that promise. This motion means that promise may be broken for years to come.

With deep regret, I will vote against the motion today.

Updated

Starmer ends by saying that, although the PM says he wants to return aid spending to 0.7% of national income, he has a track record of breaking his promises. He cites the trade border down the Irish Sea (which the PM said he would not allow), cuts to armed forces number (which the PM ruled out) and having a plan for social care (still not published, even though the PM said it was ready in 2019) as examples.

Starmer says MPs will be voting for indefinite aid cut if they back PM today

Starmer says, according to the OBR, debt as a percentage of GDP will not start falling until 2024 or 2025.

So if MPs vote for the government tonight, they will be maintaining this cut for this parliament.

He challenges Tory MPs, including the PM, to intervene if they disagree. No one takes up the challenge.

And he says only five times in the last 30 years has the budget been in surplus, mostly under Labour.

So this is not a vote on a temporary aid cut; it is a vote on an indefinite aid cut, he says.

In effect the chancellor is today proposing a double-lock against reverting to 0.7%.

What the chancellor is setting out today isn’t a temporary cut in overseas aid, it’s an indefinite cut.

Updated

Andrea Leadsom (Con), the former cabinet minister, says aid spending averaged at just 0.36% of national income when Labour was in office.

Starmer says Labour more than doubled aid spending.

Starmer says the aid cut will reduce Britain’s influence overseas. This is particularly serious when the UK is hosting Cop26, he says.

And he says the UK is the only G7 country cutting its aid budget.

UPDATE: Starmer said:

Every living prime minister thinks this is wrong, there is only one prime minister who is prepared to do this and he is sitting there.

Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid, we all know this, it reduces conflict, it reduces disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that doesn’t have consequences.

This cut will also reduce UK influence just when it is needed most, and of course it risks leaving a vacuum which other countries, for example China and Russia, will fill. And at a time when Britain is hosting Cop26 and of course hosted G7 we should be using every means at our disposal to create a fairer and safer world, but we are the only G7 country which is cutting our aid budget.

Updated

Sir Edward Leigh (Con) intervenes to tell Starmer that the UK never reached the 0.7% aid target when Labour was in power.

Starmer says aid spending more than doubled when Labour was in office.

Mark Harper, a former Tory chief whip, asks Starmer what taxes he would raise, or spending cut, to meet the 0.7% target. If he won’t say, people will not believe him, he says.

Starmer says it is a bit rich for Harper to say that when he is voting to break a manifesto promise.

Starmer says Labour is opposing the motion for three reasons.

He says the cut in aid spending is wrong, and against Britain’s interests.

He says, under the terms set by the Treasury, aid spending would not return to 0.7% of national income until after this parliament.

And he says MPs have a duty to keep their word.

Starmer says PM's aid proposal 'typically slippery'

Sir Keir Starmer starts by saying Johnson’s refusal to take interventions shows he does not have confidence in his arguments.

He says the motion tabled by the PM is broad and “typically slippery”.

Johnson refuses to take interventions from MPs as he claims he is committed to aid spending

Johnson says the government is still spending at least £10bn a year on aid. He says it would be a “travesty” if MPs were to suggest that the UK was retreating from its international obligations.

He lists some of the aid projects funded by the government.

But money for aid has to be borrowed, he says.

Any MPs who comes to him to make the case for aid is “preaching to the converted”.

I can assure any MP who wishes to make the case for aid that they are - when it comes to me or to anyone in the government - preaching to the converted. We shall act on that conviction by returning to 0.7% as soon as two vital tests have been satisfied.

First, that the UK is no longer borrowing to cover current or day-to-day expenditure, and second that public debt - excluding the Bank of England - is falling as a share of GDP.

The moment that the forecast for the Office for Budget Responsibility shows that both of those conditions will be sustainably be met, then from the point at which they are met we will willingly restore our aid budget to 0.7%.

Various MPs are trying to intervene, but Johnson is refusing to take their questions. In parliamentary terms, that is viewed exceptionally bad form. He has only taken one intervention, for a supportive Tory. (See 12.59pm.)

Updated

Sir Bob Neill, one of the Conservatives who has now been persuaded to support the government on this (see 12.47pm), asks the PM to confirm that the government wants to return to 0.7% “at the very earliest economically-sustainable opportunity”.

Johnson says he can give that confirmation.

Johnson insists government remains committed to 0.7% aid spending target in principle

Boris Johnson is opening the debate.

He says the government wants to return aid spending to 0.7% of national income. The only debate is when.

So this is not an argument about principle, he says.

Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, reminds MPs before the vote starts that he complained some weeks ago about the Commons not getting a vote on the aid cut.

He says the procedure being used today - a vote on a motion referring to a Commons written ministerial statement - is not unusual way of settling this matter, because MPs are not voting for binding legislation.

But Hoyle says he has been assured the government will respect the vote.

He thanks the government for allowing it.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing the prime minister’s spokesman rejected the assertion that the conditions on returning to spending 0.7% of national income on aid were an attempt to wriggle out of a manifesto commitment. The spokesman said:

We don’t accept that.

The test we have set strikes the balance between the need to respond to the extraordinary circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic and our commitment to providing 0.7%.

By putting these conditions in place we will strengthen the public finances, keep debt under control and prevent borrowing to finance day-to-day spending. That’s both a manifesto commitment and a fiscally responsible thing to do.

Downing Street has confirmed that Boris Johnson will open the debate on aid spending.

The call list of MPs down to speak is here. Theresa May, Johnson’s predecessor as PM and one of the Conservatives strongly critical of the aid cut, will be the first backbencher to speak.

Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, will close the debate for the government.

Vote to confirm aid cut would prevent 0.7% spending target for years, rebel Tory Andrew Mitchell claims

MPs will soon start a three-hour debate that will decide whether or not the UK maintains the £4bn cut in aid spending announced by the government, possibly for many years to come.

The Conservatives, and all other main parties, went into the 2019 general election promising to be bound by the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 that says the government must spend 0.7% of national income on aid. But the act allows the government to ignore this in exceptional circumstances, and the government used this opt-out to cut spending to 0.5% of national income.

Until now ministers have not allowed a vote on this, fearing that they would lose. But this afternoon there will be a vote on a Treasury plan saying the government will keep spending at 0.5% until a) the government is no longer borrowing to finance day-to-day spending and b) underlying debt is falling.

The fact that the government has decided to schedule the vote suggests that No 10 expects to win, although it may be close. Here are some key developments ahead of the vote.

  • Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former international development secretary who had led Tory opposition to the cut, has said that a government win today would effectively end the 0.7% aid spending target. He told Sky News:

The Treasury proposal, which may have temporarily convinced some of my colleagues, is coming apart at the seams. It’s clear that it’s a fiscal trap and, if you look back over the last 20 years, there’s any only year in which those circumstances would have seen us implementing our promise on 0.7%.

So if this vote goes through tonight, and we don’t win it, it is effectively the end of the [0.7% target] and that has huge effect on the number of avoidable deaths there will be around the world. It has a massive impact on Britain’s international reputation and, frankly, it will have quite a strong impact on the Conservative party, who will be seen to have broken their promise in this very important area.

  • Mitchell hinted that the government is likely to win. Asked if he was confident that his side (Tory rebels plus the opposition) would win, he replied: “I’m confident that there will be a substantial rebellion. I hope it will be enough.” This is very different from the line that Mitchell, a former Tory chief whip, took in early June when, ahead of a vote on this that was disallowed by the Speaker, he said he was sure that if it had gone ahead he would have won by at least nine votes.
  • Fourteen Tory MPs who were going to vote against the government on this have been “turned”. In his London Playbook briefing Alex Wickham has the details. He reports:

Playbook has been passed a letter from 14 former Tory skeptics who are now going to vote with the government today. They are: Bob Neill … Ben Everitt … John Penrose … George Freeman … Huw Merriman … Mark Garnier … Alec Shelbrooke … Andrew Selous … David Warburton … Craig Tracey … Simon Jupp … Desmond Swayne … Oliver Heald. They write: “We have worked with the government to fashion a compromise that will ensure the 0.7 percent commitment to aid spending is not only reasserted, but also for the first time to clarify the conditions on which we will return to it. Importantly, these conditions are based on the independent economic forecasts of the Office of Budget Responsibility.”

The Commons motion being debated this afternoon is straightforward. It just says: “That this house has considered the written ministerial statement relating to Treasury update on international aid, which was made to the house on Monday 12 July.” That means a yes vote counts as parliamentary approval for the written statement, which is here. The Treasury press release explaining it is here.

Andrew Mitchell
Andrew Mitchell. Photograph: Sky News

Updated

More than 800,000 pupils in England out of class for Covid-related reasons, latest figures show

Covid-related pupil absence in schools in England has hit a new record high since all students returned to class in March, PA Media reports. PA says:

Around 11.2% of state school pupils did not attend class for Covid-19 related reasons on 8 July, up from 8.5% on 1 July, and 5.1% on 24 June, according to Department for Education (DfE) statistics.

These include approximately 747,000 children self-isolating due to a possible contact with a Covid-19 case, 35,000 pupils with a suspected case of coronavirus and 39,000 with a confirmed case of Covid-19.

The attendance figures for pupils have been adjusted to exclude those year 11-13 students not expected to attend because they are off-site, the DfE said.

Updated

Train operators and major bus firms in England rule out making mask wearing compulsory after 19 July

No domestic train operators or major bus and coach firms will require passengers to wear face coverings on services in England from Monday, PA Media reports. PA says:

Transport companies have the power to turn away customers who refuse to cover their noses and mouths even when the legal requirement is lifted on 19 July.

Yesterday Boris Johnson said “we expect and recommend” that people continue to wear face coverings in “crowded and enclosed spaces ... such as on public transport”.

Cross-Channel train firm Eurostar and airlines such as British Airways, easyJet and Ryanair will continue to require passengers to wear face coverings from 19 July.

But train industry body the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) announced that all domestic train operators, such as Avanti West Coast, TransPennine Express and Southeastern, will not go that far.

An RDG spokesman said: “Rail companies will ask people to follow the government guidance and, out of respect for others, wear face coverings if an indoor setting is busy.

“Train travel is low-risk, with the majority of carriages well ventilated by air conditioning systems or by doors and windows.”

The Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT), which represents major bus and coach operators such as National Express and Megabus, announced that its members will not mandate the wearing of face coverings from Monday.

A CPT spokesman said: “We expect that many people, especially in busy places, will follow the prime minister’s call to continue to wear a face covering as a courtesy to others.

Yesterday Edward Argar, a health minister, suggested rail companies might want to make mask wearing compulsory, implying that if they did so, the government would not raise any objections.

Last night the government published some of its new guidance for what people should do in England after 19 July: it’s here (pdf) and here (pdf).

Ed Miliband, the shadow business secretary, has said the advice is contradictory and confusing. In a statement he said:

Once again, businesses have been left to scramble with confusing and contradictory advice, with ministers ducking doing the right thing and loading responsibility onto Britain’s firms.

Ministers are passing the buck to businesses and individuals with vague and unclear advice, encouraging but not mandating the use of masks as well as the NHS Covid pass, with no details about how this would work, and the sectors and businesses in scope. Inexplicably they are also ending the provision of free workplace testing.

Ministers should continue to mandate the use of masks, continue to provide lateral flow testing for workplaces, and give workers the right to continue working from home if they can. And they must also urgently consult with businesses and trade unions about vital new guidance to keep employees safe.

Rees-Mogg says he will mostly stop wearing mask from Monday because 'what would be the point?'

Jacob Rees-Mogg has said he will not wear a mask after 19 July, saying that people who have been double-vaccinated have already done their “societal bit” by getting jabbed.

The Commons leader said on his fortnightly podcast with the ConservativeHome website said it was “sensible” that wearing of face coverings will become an individual choice rather than mandated from next Monday. He said:

This morning I wandered round the Palace of Westminster wearing a mask and met almost nobody in those circumstances.

I will not be wearing a mask, what would be the point? From whom am I protecting myself? Or whom am I protecting?

Rees-Mogg claimed that those who were fully inoculated only had a “slight” chance of transmitting the disease to others. But he added:

Would I rule it out completely? No, I may find there are circumstances where I feel it would be good manners to wear a mask.

Am I going to wear one with any enthusiasm? No, I never have worn one with enthusiasm but I see there are circumstances where it may be advisable.

Jacob Rees-Mogg in the Commons last month.
Jacob Rees-Mogg in the Commons last month. Photograph: UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor/PA

The Office for National Statistics has also published figures showing that 109 of the 8,808 deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending on Friday 2 July - or 1.2% - involved coronavirus. The previous week there were 99 coronavirus deaths, accounting for 1.1% of the total.

Clinically extremely vulnerable people twice as likely to feel lonely during pandemic as others, says ONS

People who are clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) are twice as likely to say they feel lonely always or often as other people, according to Office for National Statistics figures published today.

The ONS says 13% of CEV people in England feel this way, compared with 6% of the general population.

People who are CEV, because of underlying health conditions, are at particular risk from Covid. There are are around 3.7 million of them in England, of whom 2.2 million were identified as CEV by clinicians. The other 1.5 million were categorised as CEV through a risk assessment.

For most of the pandemic CEV people were asked to shield (ie, to stay at home as much as possible). In April that advice was paused, but the ONS says 29% of CEV people were still shielding in mid-June.

The advice to shield was replaced with guidance, and last night the government issued new guidance advising CEV people in England what they should do from 19 July.

Commenting on the figures, Tim Gibbs, head of the public services analysis team at the ONS, said:

Clinically extremely vulnerable people are more likely to feel lonely than the general population, likely because they’ve taken more measures to keep themselves protected during the pandemic.

Just over a quarter of clinically extremely vulnerable people are still shielding despite shielding guidance being relaxed in April this year, with a further two-thirds following the latest precautionary guidance.

Updated

Nicola Sturgeon is to announce this afternoon whether Scotland’s coronavirus restrictions can be eased as planned on Monday, PA Media reports. PA says:

The first minister has said she hopes to move the whole country to level 0 from 19 July, depending on the latest case numbers, hospital admissions and the vaccination rollout.

Level 0 would reduce the 2-metre distancing rule to 1 metre in indoor public spaces.

Indoor gathering restrictions would be further lifted to allow up to eight people from up to three households to meet.

The 11pm closure time for pubs operating indoors will also be scrapped, with local licensing conditions applying instead.

But nightclubs and adult entertainment will have to remain shut.

July 19 is expected to be the date when all Scottish adults will have been offered their first vaccine dose as well as being three weeks on from over-50s being double jabbed.

The Scottish parliament has been recalled from the summer recess for Sturgeon’s announcement.

Updated

Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, has renewed his criticism of the government for lifting the legal requirement for people to wear masks on public transport in England from Monday next week. He told the Today programme:

The test is this: is expecting and recommending people to wear face masks enough to give those people the confidence that they can go out and about on public transport safely? I don’t think it is and that is why one person’s freedom day is another person’s fear day. Many people will feel fearful next week ...

I expect that when this policy hits the real world and we have to deal with it, we will be receiving complaints come Monday that people don’t feel able to go about essential tasks and they will not know what to do.

He likened the situation to expecting people to tolerate passive smoking in enclosed spaces.

Greenpeace dumps plastic waste outside Downing Street in protest against government policy

Greenpeace activists dumped bags full of plastic waste outside Downing Street this morning to protest about the government’s failure to stop plastic waste being sent overseas. It explains its reasons for the protest in a Twitter thread starting here.

Workers removing bags containing plastic waste this morning that were dumped outside Downing Street by Greenpeace activists in London
Workers removing bags containing plastic waste this morning that were dumped outside Downing Street by Greenpeace activists in London Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Reuters

Stephen Barclay, the chief secretary to the Treasury, was doing the morning interview round for the government this morning, and he defended Priti Patel, the home secretary, in response to the claim from the England footballer Tyrone Mings that she stoked the fire around racism. (See 9.20am.) Barclay said:

The home secretary has repeatedly taken a stand against racism. The home secretary herself has been the subject of appalling online racist abuse.

She has consistently condemned racist abuse online and she has taken action as home secretary against some of the extreme rightwing groups that are responsible for this.

Updated

Doctors warn of ‘devastating consequences’ of lifting Covid rules in England

The British Medical Association has warned of “potentially devastating consequences” after Boris Johnson confirmed yesterday that he would press ahead with lifting most remaining Covid restrictions in England on 19 July, my colleague Jessica Elgot reports.

Dr David Nabarro, a World Health Organization special envoy on Covid-19, told the Today programme this morning that he thought the government was lifting restrictions in England too soon. Asked about the decision to start relying more on personal responsibility, not law, to get people to act safely, he said:

All this doesn’t quite fit with the position that was taken by Britain, along with other nations, some months ago when there was a real effort to try to prevent large numbers of people getting the disease, partly because of the risk of death and partly because of the recognition of the risk of long Covid ...

I accept that vaccination has changed the nature of the equation in the UK but quite honestly from any point of view it’s too early to be talking about massive relaxation or freedom when the outbreak curve is on such a sharp ascent.

Yes, relax, but don’t have these mixed messages about what’s going on. This dangerous virus hasn’t gone away, it’s variants are coming back and are threatening those who have already been vaccinated - we have to take it seriously.

Updated

Mask wearing 'probably won't do any good' once no longer compulsory, says Sage expert

Here are some more lines for Prof Graham Medley’s interview on the Today programme. As I reported earlier (see 9.18am), Medley, chair of SPI-M, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, also warned that the next peak would be longer than the first two, putting a “considerable burden” on the NHS.

  • Medley said that mask wearing “probably won’t do any good” once it is no longer compulsory in England in certain circumstances. He explained:

I personally will wear a mask to protect other people.

I think it’s quite a reasonable thing to do; it doesn’t have a huge imposition in terms of economic impact or in terms of freedom, and I think there is evidence to suggest it does good, but only if everybody does it.

So I think that, without the mandation, then we end up with a situation where even if the majority of people, let’s say 70% of people wear a mask, will that actually do any good because of the 30% who don’t? I think that is something which still needs to be determined and discussed.

I understand the government’s reluctance to actually mandate it. On the other hand, if it’s not mandated it probably won’t do any good.

  • He confirmed that modelling suggests that half of Covid deaths this summer will occur in people who have been fully vaccinated. He explained:

That’s because everyone has been vaccinated. So, once you’ve got to the point where the great majority of people have been vaccinated, then clearly all of the disease and death will come from those people who have been vaccinated.

But the numbers will be much, much smaller than they would have been without the vaccine. Without the vaccine we would be looking at 300, 400, 500 people dying a day at the moment. And we are not seeing those numbers we’re seeing 100 times smaller than that, and and that is the effects of the vaccine.

  • He said he thought between 1,000 and 2,000 hospital admissions per day were “likely” this summer. But he said it was hard to make predictions because how people would behave was “unknowable”.
Graham Medley
Graham Medley. Photograph: BBC Newsnight March 2020

Updated

The England footballer Tyrone Mings has criticised the home secretary, Priti Patel, in her condemnation of the racist abuse faced by his teammates, after she called players taking the knee “gesture politics”, my colleague Jesssica Elgot reports.

Here is Mings’ tweet.

Sage expert warns next peak in cases could last longer than previous ones

Good morning. Yesterday the government released the modelling from its scientific adviser showing what might happen to cases, hospitalisations and deaths when most Covid restrictions are lifted in England from next week. As we report in our overnight story, it said that the “exit wave” could result in more than 200 deaths a day and thousands of hospitalisations.

This morning Prof Graham Medley, professor of infectious disease modelling at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and chair of SPI-M, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, was on the Today programme giving further details of what the experts think might happen, and he warned that the next peak – although likely to be much smaller than the previous two, in terms of deaths – could last much longer. He explained:

We’ve never seen a peak before that hasn’t been controlled. In the previous peaks we’ve had, they’ve gone up and come down very sharply because we’ve introduced a lockdown.

The intention is not to introduce a lockdown for this peak. Then we are going to see a natural peak and that may well be long and disseminated.

So even if we don’t get up to very high numbers, the numbers that we get up to might last for several weeks, six weeks or so, in which case there’s still a considerable burden on healthcare.

So, although we might not get over 2,000 admissions a day, if that lasts six weeks then that’s a lot of people.

SPI-M is a sub-group of Sage, the Scientific Advisory Group of Emergencies. I will post more from Medley’s interview shortly.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Boris Johnson chairs cabinet.

9.30am: The ONS publishes its weekly death figures for England and Wales, as well as a report on the impact of Covid on clinically extremely vulnerable people.

10am: Teaching union leaders give evidence to the Commons education committee about the impact of Covid on schools.

10am: Andy Street, mayor of the West Midlands, hosts a net zero local leaders’ summit.

12pm: The Department for Education publishes the latest school attendance figures for England.

12pm: Downing Street is due to hold its daily lobby briefing.

Around 1pm: MPs are due to begin a debate on cutting the aid budget. The vote, which will decide when the 0.7% target (saying aid spending should be 0.7% of national income) will be restored, will come three hours later.

2pm: Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, makes a statement to the Scottish parliament on whether Covid restrictions will be eased as planned on Monday.

Politics Live has been a mix of Covid and non-Covid news recently. That will probably be the case today, although this afternoon I will be focusing mostly on the debate on cutting the aid budget.

For more coronavirus developments, do follow our global Covid live blog.

I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
E. coli cases are on the rise in the United States, and the internet rightfully blames RFK Jr.
Who wants raw milk anyway?
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
'It Made Me Shy Away': Barry Keoghan Says Online Hate About His Looks is Affecting His Confidence
Barry Keoghan has opened up about the impact of online hate, saying negative comments about his appearance have become a serious issue affecting his daily life.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
The internet is convinced Jeffrey Epstein was just spotted alive in Florida and the viral footage is genuinely haunting
The internet is absolutely buzzing right now thanks to a viral video showing a man dubbed “Palm Beach Pete” cruising through South Florida, and people are convinced he’s none other than convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. This footage has really lit up social media, sparking immediate comparisons.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Not just boys: The overlooked story of ADHD in women and girls
When people think about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), they often picture a hyperactive young boy running around a classroom, not the quiet girl daydreaming in the corner, the chatty student who can’t finish her work or the mother who is chronically late and constantly searching for her keys.
The Conversation
The Conversation
A new start after 60: I went on 75 first dates – and wrote a book of Kama Sutra-inspired poetry
Zack Rogow thought he was ready for love after the end of a long relationship – but not everyone agreed. How did he get over the rejections?
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
New social media study identifies the children ‘more likely to develop anxiety’
Experts from Imperial College London suggest the relationship between social media and mental health is ‘complex’
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play