Tag: Rishi Sunak

Refugee report


April 2024

This month, the report starts with the EU. The Freedom United charity note that so far this year more than 200 people have died trying to leave Libya, many shot by the Libyan Coast Guard. The EU continues to help fund the LCG, and the Institute of Migration say that 600,000 people are trapped in Libya seeking to get to Europe. Needless to say, there are many allegations of breaking international law in this crisis.

Also beyond the UK, the latest news from Rwanda is that, following the lack of progress in deportations, 70% of the properties allocated to receive deportees have now been sold to local buyers. On this topic, the Rwanda Bill returns next week for more ping pong – it could yet go for the Royal Assent within a few weeks. Judges are being given “special training” to ensure speedy delivery of those to be deported to Rwanda, according to the Daily Express. The airline Air Tanker is reported to be in discussions with the government about providing the transport, although they withdrew from previous similar discussions. RwandAir has already declined for fear of reputational damage.

The Prime Minister has claimed that 24,000 irregular migrants were deported last year. Full Fact have checked this and argue that only about 25% were enforced returns, the rest being voluntary. The number of arrivals in small boats this year stands at 4,644 at the end of March – bad weather has reduced the number in the last few days, but the figure is still higher than last year.

Charities and law firms have sent a letter to the Home Secretary seeking a Ukraine-style visa scheme for Palestinians who have family in the UK. The Home Office has also refused to decide on whether to drop the need for biometric data for reuniting family

arrivals from Gaza, although obtaining such data is virtually impossible in the crisis; the Upper Tribunal ruled against the Home Office in two test cases.

In their annual report, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner note that the number of immigration advisers at the Home Office is growing, but not fast enough to keep up (and large numbers are leaving).

Finally, back to Europe, where the European Parliament has passed the Pact on Migration and Asylum today (Wednesday 10 April) against votes from the extreme right and extreme left. The 10 provisions of the pact cover issues like relocating from over-immigrated countries, financial allocation, fast-track routes and exchange of data.

A group of 22 NGOs has issued a statement arguing that “while the adoption … is likely to lead to a detrimental degradation of people’s access to protection in Europe, the new Union Resettlement Framework (URF) adopted alongside the Pact offers a glimmer of hope.

“The URF signals the EU’s political support for global resettlement efforts and has the potential to be a step towards advancing solidarity, capacity-building and responsibility sharing. It must now be operationalised effectively to ensure that more people reach safety and find long-term solutions,” the groups, which include the International Rescue Committee and Oxfam, said.

Andrew Hemming

0

Rwanda report


Cross party committee on human rights criticizes the government’s Rwanda policy

February 2024

The Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill ends its House of Lord’s stage today (12 February) and returns to the Commons. The Bill has been roundly condemned by many human rights and other organisations and the committee said that it is ‘fundamentally incompatible with Britain’s human rights obligations’.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country and the government’s attempt to pass a law simply saying it is is bit like passing a law saying water can run uphill. The Committee went on to say ‘the Bill disapplies laws that might prevent and individual’s removal to Rwanda including many of the key provisions of the Human Rights Act.

‘It might also impact on Northern Ireland, that it would both undermine the Windsor Framework and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement’.

It also raises the point about UK’s reputation. We have they say, a reputation for respect for human rights of which ‘we should be proud’. 

Immigration, and most recently the Channel crossings, have generated a considerable degree of angst and hostile media coverage. This is not recent and goes back many years and started to emerge as a political force during the Blair years. In many respects it goes back further to various waves of immigrants such as the Huguenots from France, Flemings from the low countries and Jews fleeing Russia. All have been met with hostility of some degree. 

Recent immigrants are cast as not really refugees at all but economic migrants, are cheating the system, are living off benefits and so forth. Newspapers – and not just tabloids but the Daily Telegraph and the Independent – have carried hundreds of negative stories and helped keep the temperature high. The Sun even ran a story that swans were being stolen from the London parks and eaten by immigrants (invented). The raised media attention has increased public concern to which the politicians are obliged to reflect. 

Watch the Amnesty video

Anomaly

A curious anomaly is that people who’s offspring emigrate to live and work overseas (as ‘economic migrants’ no less) are spoken of in terms of pride. Emigrants good: immigrants bad. 

Another curiosity is that many of the politicians leading the hostility and proposing ever harsher measures including deportation to Rwanda, are themselves sons or daughters of immigrants. Priti Patel, Kwasi Kwarteng, Suella Braverman, Rishi Sunak, Danny Kruger and going back further, Michael Howard (Romania). 

The benefits of immigration to this country almost don’t get a look in. In November last year, the government’s own statistics show that around one in 5 of people working in the health service were not born in the UK. Indeed, the service would struggle to survive (even more than now) if these people were not working here. 

The entire debate is based on hysteria. Boat people have assumed a disproportionate sense of anger and fear even though they represent a small proportion of all immigrants to this country. The majority do go on to claim asylum. The hysteria and media mis- and disinformation has resulted in the plan to deport a few hundred to Rwanda, a policy which is performative rather than likely to be effective. 

Sources: Daily Mail, FullFact; Liberty; Hansard, Guardian (accessed 12 February 2024)

The Salisbury Amnesty group celebrates 50 years of existence this year

0

Supreme Court decision – Rwanda


Supreme Court declares government’s Rwanda plan ‘unlawful’

November 2023

This morning, 15 November, the Supreme Court in the UK gave its unanimous decision on the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, declaring it unlawful. This puts a flagship policy in jeopardy and it is not clear what will happen next. Huge political capital has been vested in this decision and it had massive, if totemic, significance for the government. One of its motivations was that it would act as a deterrent to the huge numbers crossing the Channel in small boats, something it was never likely to do.

The first flight was planned in June this year and it was due to take off from Boscombe Down airfield (pictured) in Wiltshire just a mile or so from where this post is being written. At the last moment, the European Court ruled it unlawful and the aircraft took off empty the following day.

The court’s decision was based on the human rights situation in Rwanda. The key principle is refoulement: that someone should not be sent back to their country of origin if there is a risk of mistreatment. The situation in Rwanda is poor with extrajudicial killings, use of torture and enforced disappearances a regular feature. The court also took into account that individuals from Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan have all been returned to their home country where they will be at severe risk of mistreatment or death. Other individuals have been clandestinely moved out of the country.

This decision and the whole vexed story of immigration, refugees, the boat crossings, use of hotels and related issues is extremely high profile in the UK. Considerable anger is expressed by many on the subject and it is a regular source of hostile front pages of the tabloid press and outlets such as GB News. It is said to be as a result of the public’s anger on the subject but this is not altogether true. Many it is true, are angry and want the government to deport the boat people forthwith. Other views are more nuanced. It is not always clear whether the ceaseless headlines on the subject and the somewhat one-sided treatment is itself stimulating the public to its hostile attitudes.

This decision, and the previous one to halt the flight in June, will add to those in the Conservative party who have been seeking our departure from the European Convention. This was a threat expressed by the previous Home Secretary who lost her post on Monday. However, the court made clear that it wasn’t just the European Convention that was the key law in this regard. They pointed out there were other aspects of law, as well as international treaties which the UK has signed, all of which had a bearing on the question of refoulement. This has not prevented – in the words of Open Democracy – the ‘marginally less deranged’ members of parliament who are calling for us to abandon all international covenants. One such is Danny Kruger the member for Devizes in Wiltshire, another is the deputy chair of the party Lee Anderson.

It is important to recognise that the court ruled that the policy of deporting asylum seekers is not unlawful. What was at issue was the human rights in Rwanda itself. So the policy lives on and the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said in the Commons today that he was willing to “revisit domestic legal frameworks” in their desire to pursue this policy. This might mean the Human Rights Act (one of the acts the high court referred to) comes under attack again, a long time goal of the Conservative Party.

Such is the level of political capital involved in this issue and its place in the Prime Minister’s five priorities that they cannot allow it to go away quietly. We will have to see what emerges in the coming days and weeks. If the decision to remove ourselves from the aegis of the European Court, that will be a retrograde step. We will have to leave the Council of Europe, it will weaken our voice internationally and will hinder our efforts at improving the rule of law around the world.

Photo: Boscombe Down. Salisbury Amnesty

UPDATE: Prime Minister announces they will conclude a new treaty with Rwanda which will override the Supreme Court decision (which he does not agree with) and will enable refugees to be sent there.

0

Visit by Mohammed bin Salman


A visit to the UK by Mohammed bin Salman planned for October

August 2023

It has been confirmed today that a visit is planned to the UK by Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) of Saudi Arabia in October and the prime minister Rishi Sunak has apparently phoned him to discuss details. It places the UK into something of a quandary and is a test of our adherence to moral standards in our international relations.

It was only in October 2018 that the journalist Jamal Khashoggi entered the embassy in Istanbul where he was murdered and dismembered. It is highly likely that MBS ordered the assassination. It caused an international outcry at the time and a British minister referred to it as an act of ‘appalling brutality’. This was not an isolated incident which could perhaps be explained as an overzealous act of a group of secret police. The human rights situation in Saudi is grave. Executions have increased since MBS came to power. Between 2010 and 2021, 1,243 were executed and in 2022, at least 147. 81 were executed in one day last year. The six bloodiest years have occurred since he came to power. The process is highly secretive and torture is practised to secure confessions. Minors are also killed.

Human rights organisations are banned. Critics of the regime are arrested. Women are not free although after a long campaign they are now allowed to drive.

Bin Salman has used the enormous wealth of the country to try and ‘buy’ a better image and we have commented before on the purchase of Newcastle United Football Club as part of a widespread programme of sportswashing. Football, golf, tennis, boxing, F1 motorsport and recently, some high profile purchases of footballers. Sporting organisations and sportsmen have happily accepted the largesse with seemingly no qualms about its source. Slowly, the issue of sportswashing has made it out of the back of newspapers into the news pages. It does seem however, that there are no misgivings or revulsion evident from sports people who are only too keen to take the money.

The vast wealth of the country, its immense reserves of oil and its desire to acquire weapons, means it has considerable influence over governments like the UK. There is thus a conundrum: we simply need Saudi wealth in a variety of ways and so we are forced to deal with an odious regime. We cannot it seems, afford to be squeamish. They can buy their weapons from a variety of countries and invest their wealth other than in, or via, the City of London. To pretend to be concerned about their human rights record, the executions, the treatment of women and their activities which have so immiserated Yemen, is not an option. Sporting people and their millions of fans are mostly unconcerned so why should we? Roll out the red carpet – which after all the French have done – arrange meetings with the King, hold our noses and sign the deals so vital for our economy. Is this where we are?

Money or morals?

The government has to choose: money or morals? It is likely to choose the former. They might wrap it up in claims of realpolitik but the power and immensity of the money – a wall of cash estimated to be around £1tn – is the deciding factor.

The UK was one of those countries which, sometimes reluctantly because of our continuing activities in the colonies, took a leading role in promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the war. For a time we had an ‘ethical’ foreign policy. But it seems that slowly but surely, the need for business has led to the watering down of policies and quietly dropping our commitments to some kind of moral compass in our dealings with countries who flagrantly abuse the human rights of their citizens. Outrage is expressed at the treatment of the Rohingya in Burma but little seems to happen to stop insurers enabling jet fuel for example being sold to the regime. More outrage was expressed at the treatment of the Uyghurs in China but little action followed and cotton produced by forced labour still finds its way onto our shelves. Public outrage – let it go quiet – then back to business as usual. Is this the new policy? Will human rights be mentioned when MBS visits? It is doubtful.

Perhaps the visit by MBS represents the final curtain call on any claim we might have had for moral leadership to the rest of the world.

Sources: Channel 4; Reprieve; Amnesty International

0

Apartheid in Israel


The group hosted a talk on the Apartheid state established by Israel against the Palestinians

June 2023

UPDATE: 17th June. British parliament to debate the UK/Israel trade agreement in which there is a risk that illegal settlements will be recognised to be Israeli

On 13th June, the Salisbury group and Salisbury Concern for Israel Palestine (SCIP) hosted a talk on the apartheid state established by Israel against its Palestinian citizens. The talk, with slides and film clips, was given by Garry Ettle who is the voluntary coordinator for Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. It was mostly built around the report Amnesty prepared last year.

The speaker went through the main thrust of the report’s conclusions and the evidence compiled by Amnesty over a three or four year period. It is some 280 pages in length and together with similar reports by Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem in Israel (who first used the apartheid term) and the UN, represents a compelling case of how the Israel authorities have created a two state solution where the Palestinians are deprived of land and housing, denied economic and social rights, suffer from the segregation of their communities and they are subject to illegal acts against them including the arrest and mistreatment of Palestinian children.

The denial of rights for Palestinians is enshrined in the 2018 Nation State Law which says that the ‘State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people’. This follows years of oppression which started in 1948 with the expulsion of thousands of Palestinians and the destruction hundreds of their villages. Since 1948, 700 new Jewish settlements have been created but no Palestinian ones have been allowed. Palestinians are caught in a kind of Catch 22: their properties are demolished because they do not have permits but permits are almost never given.

The policy of fragmentation means travel around Israel is almost impossible. Gaza is essentially an open prison, with travel out of it almost impossible and there is a 3 mile limit from the coast. It is surrounded by a buffer zone. The most distressing evidence during the presentation was the arrest of children in the middle of the night who are then held, sometimes in solitary confinement and there is evidence of rough treatment.

Response

Despite the huge weight of evidence from several agencies compiled over several years, the Israeli government has not sought to refute it. They have simply accused the agencies, and Amnesty in particular, of being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. There has been no point by point rebuttal of the evidence.

UK Government

The response by UK governments over many decades has been shameful and continues today even after the compelling evidence of the various reports mentioned above. Rishi Sunak, now the prime minister of the UK in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle in August 2022, praised Israel as “a beacon of hope“. When asked about the Amnesty report in particular said “[it] could only make a solution to the Israel, Palestine conflict more elusive“. He then made the outrageous claim that “those who label Israel an apartheid state also deny Israel’s right to exist”. But arguably the most egregious remark in the interview was “the Amnesty claim is not only factually incorrect but frankly, offensive“. No evidence is provided for these remarks and it simply seems to be an echo of the Israeli government’s own propaganda.

The Foreign Office simply says it is “aware of these reports and does not agree with the terminology used within them” (August 2022). Again, no evidence is provided. The full statement of UK government which follows is considerably one-sided. It is in response to a petition following the various reports.

“[…] As a friend of Israel, we have a regular dialogue with the Government of Israel. This includes encouraging the Israeli government to do all it can to uphold the values of equality for all. Minister for the Middle East, Amanda Milling, emphasised this point in her recent meeting with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Roll during her visit to Israel and the OPTs“.

The response simply does not address the huge imbalance of power between the Israeli’s and Palestinians. It is blind to the fragmentation of territories which make travel for Palestinians almost impossible. To read the weight of evidence in the three reports and compare it with the FCO’s response is to wonder if it is the same country being described.

Labour Party

Labour has had its own problems concerned with alleged anti-Semitism within the party in the Corbyn years. In a video interview a year ago with Sir Keir Starmer by the Jewish Chronicle, Sir Keir was asked about the Amnesty report and did he agree with the apartheid claim made by Amnesty? His response was “No, I’m very clear about that. It is not the Labour party position”. Once again, a simple denial with no explanation. He was very insistent earlier in the interview about his desire to ‘root out anti-Semitism’ within the party.

The accusation of anti-Semitism against anyone who criticises the actions, over many decades, by the Israeli government against its Palestinian citizens seems to have struck terror into our politicians. Terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups against Israeli settlements are rightly condemned. But the numbers of Israelis who have died is but a tiny proportion of the numbers of Palestinians who have died at the hands of Israeli forces.

To criticise Israel and to provide copious evidence of its policy of apartheid, is not anti-Semitic. The evidence shows that it is and it is up to the Israeli government to rebut the evidence presented in the reports.

0

Government’s attitudes to human rights


The new government under Rishi Sunak does not bode well for human rights in the UK

October 2022

Rish Sunak was appointed the new prime minister yesterday (25 October 2022) and it is worth looking at his, and some of his minister’s, approaches to human rights. They are not promising. The key people are, in addition to the prime minister, Suella Braverman (Home Office) and Dominic Rabb (Justice Dept). All three have made a range of statements and speeches which, taken together, set out a decidedly negative attitude to our rights.

Sunak is a keen supporter of the Rwanda policy to deport people to Africa, indeed he wants to double the number sent and one means is to reduce the qualifying gaol term from 12 to 6 months which will apply to immigrants who commit crime. He wants to tighten the definition of who qualifies for asylum in the UK. He wants to increase powers to detain, tag and monitor illegal immigrants.

He is a keen supporter of repealing the Human Rights Act claiming in an interview that ‘human rights law was acting as an obstacle for government’ and ‘making it difficult [for the government] to achieve our objectives’. He also voted against the retaining the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Suella Braverman is back as Home Secretary only just having resigned a matter of days ago for having breached the ministerial code. We have reported before on her highly manicured cv including the claim that she had contributed to the writing of a legal textbook, the actual author of which said that she did help with some photocopying.

She too is keen to end the HRA and extricate the UK from the European Court of Human Rights. She claims there is now a ‘rights culture’ and that this has caused confusion and distress in some areas. She wants to introduce a permission stage to claims to ‘limit trivial human rights cases wasting the courts’ time and public money’.

Dominic Raab is back as the Justice Secretary and in a previous post we reviewed his book Assault on Liberty. He agrees with the above policies. The book is useful because it enables us to examine the thinking and beliefs which many politicians share. They have this profound belief in liberty which they see as threatened by protest and human rights. They think that there has been too much focus on individual rights at the expense of collective responsibilities. Sunak seems to believe that these rights prevent good government in ways that are not exactly clear.

They are supported in their beliefs by much of the press with a steady stream of anti-immigrant stories particularly focused on people crossing the Channel in boats. To what extent this represents the views of the general population is a moot point. Among the population at large, according to YouGov, they are not happy with the government’s approach to the boat people. It is however, a much more salient issue among Conservative supporters where there is pressure to limit the crossings.

With all three top positions occupied by politicians with these beliefs we can look forward to further aggressive moves against immigrants and asylum seekers. It is ironic to note however, that two of them are offspring of people who came here from overseas and made successful lives for themselves. Both had parents who, having settled here, were sufficiently successful to enable both to receive good educations and succeed in the law (Braverman) and the City (Sunak). Sunak went to Winchester one of the elite public* schools in Britain.

Note for US readers: ‘public’ schools are in fact private and Winchester is one of the most expensive in the UK.

Sources: Each Other; Save Our Citizenship; They Work for You; the Guardian; Conservative Home; the Spectator; Daily Mail; Refugee Action; Amnesty International

UPDATE: 28 October. The following is a link to EachOther with a more detailed analysis of the above three plus two other members of the cabinet with similar views. Again, we note that two of them are offspring of immigrants welcomed here.

0

Human Rights and the new PM


July 2022

The likely human rights policies of the new prime minister are becoming clearer. Both are decidedly negative

In a previous post we commented on Rishi Sunak’s attitude to human rights if he becomes prime minister. At the time he looked to be the favourite as he had the most votes from his fellow Conservative MPs. His prospects look to be less clear now and there is a distinct prospect that Liz Truss will succeed when the Conservative party supporters vote. The reason is that they are largely from an older generation, mostly white and and live in the south of England. They are fearful of immigration and this may have led both contestants to ‘up the ante’ with regard to immigration and human rights.

Rishi Sunak has consistently voted against socio-economic policies which may benefit the poorest in our society. He has voted against policies which would tackle tax avoidance which in turn means the Treasury is denied billions of pounds of revenue which could be used for investing in our infrastructure.

Both Truss and Sunak are not exactly enthusiastic for environmental matters. Sunak has voted against on-shore wind turbines and Truss wants to abolish the Green Levy.

Both are against retaining the European Charter on Fundamental Human Rights and the abolition of the Human Rights Act to be replaced by a new Bill of Rights the details of which are awaited.

Both are keen on the Rwanda deportation policy and Truss is keen to extend it to other countries as well. Sunak has promised to increase the size of the Border Force and also introduce storage of immigrants in cruise ships moored around the UK.

There seems to be something of an arms race between them with daily statements by their supporters and in speeches promising to make immigration harder than ever to achieve. It seems to be to appeal to this narrow group of people who will vote for the new PM, who are thought to be anti-immigrants and want to see ever tougher action against them, particularly those arriving by boat. Some of these hostile attitudes are promoted by sections of our media, a pattern we have seen for some years. It is difficult to say whether it is the tail wagging the dog however. Whatever the outcome, it is depressing to note the desire by both candidates to express their hostility to human rights and the plight of immigrants.

In all these claims for ever tougher policies, the issue of legality has been raised. It is not just European laws but treaties we have signed over the years which make carrying out aggressive policies in this area difficult.

Rishi Sunak is supported in his bid to be PM by our local MP for Salisbury, Mr John Glen. His wish to see the Human Rights Act repealed is well known and his They Work For You profile shows his general antipathy to human rights. The question is to what extent does he support these ever more aggressive attitudes to immigrants and asylum seekers? Perhaps he should be asked …

0

Rishi Sunak MP


If Sunak becomes the new prime minister, what can we expect on the human rights front?

July 2022

Rishi Sunak is, at the time of writing (15 July 2022), in the lead in the race to become the new prime minister of the UK. Asking about his attitude and voting record in connection with human rights is therefore of considerable interest. It doesn’t look good.

They Work for You, the site which analyses MP’s voting records shows that Sunak ‘generally votes against laws to promote equality and human rights’. He voted against retaining the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. He is in favour of repealing the Human Rights act which has been Conservative party policy for some years now and a draft Bill of Rights is awaited.

When asked about withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights he is quoted as saying (vaguely) ‘all options [were] on the table’.

He has voted consistently for policies to increase mass surveillance.

He is in favour – despite being the grandson of an immigrant from Africa – for sending immigrants to Rwanda.

Altogether a grim collection of negative attitudes and there seem to be no speeches or much information about his attitudes or likely policies on this important subject. There was nothing in his manicured promotion video. It very much looks like we shall get the existing policies carried forward unchanged. He seems to be part of the party which is hostile to human rights, wants to see them rolled back and to detach the country from European norms and treaties.

He is supported in the election by the MP for Salisbury Mr John Glen who likewise has a record of voting against equality and human rights issues according to They Work for You.

Sources: Open Access Government; LBC; Metro; They Work for You [we carried out an extensive search for any other relevant material but were unable to find any]

2

Foreign Aid cut


Chancellor proposes a cut to the level of foreign aid

On 25 November 2020, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, announced in the spending review, that the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid will be reduced to 0.5%.  As it is a legal commitment, it has to be voted on by parliament.  He is likely to have thought that the proposal would be popular with many of his backbenchers and with the public at large.  Apparently, focus groups show that this funding is unpopular and a recent YouGov survey – taken after rumours of the likelihood of the cut began to circulate and be commented on in the media – showed that 66% were in favour of the cut and this rose to 92% of Conservative supporters.

It wasn’t all plain sailing however and a number of Conservative MPs rose to criticise the proposal.  Andrew Mitchell MP was interviewed on Channel 4 and on LBC, expressing his concern.  He also pointed out that the aid had already been reduced this year [because of the drop in our GDP].  Baroness Sugg, a junior minister in the Foreign Office, resigned from her post.

Foreign aid is a tortured subject in British politics.  There were many arguments last month, following the decision to merge the department dealing with foreign aid, DfID, into the Foreign Office precisely because it was feared that it was a precursor to cutting the aid and the commitment.  The promise was in the Conservative party election manifesto:

We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development, and do more to help countries receiving aid become self-sufficient.  p53

Media hostility

It is easy to see where some of the hostility comes from.  The tabloid press has carried out a sustained campaign against foreign aid, and the department, for a number of years.  Recent examples in the Daily Mail include: ‘Foreign aid Farce (9 June 2020); Good riddance to Foreign Aid’s self-serving Department for International Narcissists’ (17 June 2020) and ‘UK could rip up rules on how foreign aid is spent so handouts serve our interests more’ (17 October 2020) [all accessed 26 November 2020].  There are many more examples and other tabloid titles have similar stories.  Despite this, David Cameron as prime minister, maintained the link.

The prime minister, Boris Johnson, has always wanted to merge DfID with the FO and has referred to the aid as ‘a giant cash point in the sky’.

There are legitimate criticisms which have been made about the department and the management of the funds.  A National Audit Office report referred to a number of failings and in particular, failure to demonstrate the effectiveness of aid programmes.

However, the ceaseless criticisms of aid are not based primarily on efficiency grounds (and NAO reports on other parts of government spending make similar points but do not invoke concerted tabloid campaigns) but on a fundamental dislike of the principle of foreign aid.  Corruption is seen as a major point of concern and attitudes changed following the scandal in Haiti.  A DfID research study found that 48% of people agreed with the statement ‘corruption in governments in poor countries makes it pointless donating money to help reduce poverty‘.  Conversely, when images of the dead little boy Kurdi appeared in western media, attitudes became more positive.  Another research study showed that concern for international poverty declined from 70% in 2011 to 46% in 2014.

Birmingham University has researched the question of attitudes to foreign aid and perhaps surprisingly, their Aid Attitudes Tracker showed little change in the period 2013 – 18.  This has now changed to the Development Engagement Lab showing similar findings for more recent periods.  Attitudes seem largely stable over time: people are either in favour or they are against.

It seems that there are those who think we, as one of the richest countries in the world, do have a responsibility to help the poorest in the world.  As Andrew Mitchell said, the aid has helped vast numbers of women to achieve family planning and millions to have clean water.  Indeed the point seems to be that the achievements of our aid are simply not recognised or sufficiently reported on.  Good news stories find it hard to gain traction against a tide of disasters, wars, famines and natural disasters.  Add to this, the flow of negative stories in parts of the media which portray overseas aid as wasteful, unnecessary, squandered by corrupt regimes or helping terrorists, then it is perhaps unsurprising that many people feel that we should help our own especially during the current economic crisis, the worst in three centuries.

We should play our part if only for self interest.  Another concern is immigration which has had an enormous effect on the UK political landscape.  By improving life and conditions in the poorest countries of the world, it will help reduce pressure on emigration.  There is also a moral argument which seems to have been lost.

The decision to slash aid at a time of such great need is hugely disappointing and a bad omen of the direction of travel this Government is choosing in Foreign Affairs.  Such a significant cut requires proper consideration of the human rights implications and we are concerned it has been undertaken without due consultation with those who will be affected.  Any reduced aid spending must still focus on the most marginalised and the poorest.  Amnesty international statement 25 November 2020

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑