News

International aid cuts: What is Parliament's role? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 76

28 Feb 2025
Sir Keir Starmer MP making a statement on Defence and Security, House of Commons, 25 February 2025. ©House of Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Sir Keir Starmer MP making a statement on Defence and Security, House of Commons, 25 February 2025. ©House of Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Parliament passed a law requiring the Government to spend 0.7% of Gross National Income on international aid. So, should Ministers be able to bypass that legal obligation through a ministerial statement? We discuss Labour MP Mike Amesbury’s suspended jail sentence and how a recall petition will be called if he doesn’t voluntarily step down. Plus, we explore the controversy surrounding the Product Safety and Metrology Bill, which Brexiteers warn could stealthily realign Britain with the EU while handing Ministers sweeping legislative powers.

Should MPs have a say on the Government’s decision to cut yet more from the UK’s international aid budget to fund increased defence spending? By law, the UK is committed to spending 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) on international aid. Yet this latest reduction does not have to be put to a vote in Parliament.

With aid spending now slashed to just 0.3% of GNI, could an upcoming Estimates Day debate on Foreign Office funding give MPs a chance to raise concerns about the decision? And with the aid budget shrinking, is it time to reconsider the role of the International Development Select Committee?

Meanwhile, Labour MP Mike Amesbury has had his 10-week jail sentence for assault suspended on appeal — but that may not be enough to save his Commons seat. As Ruth explains, an MP sentenced to jail — even with a suspended sentence — faces a recall petition. If 10% of voters in Runcorn and Helsby back his removal, the Government will be forced into a by-election, unless he voluntarily resigns his seat first.

Also in the spotlight: the Product Safety and Metrology Bill. Ministers are keen to reassure MPs about this seemingly technical legislation, but Brexiteers suspect it’s a Trojan Horse for creeping EU alignment. The bill is a framework of skeleton bill which contains sweeping powers, allowing ministers to legislate in the future with minimal parliamentary oversight. Ruth and Mark ponder why governments keep reaching for framework bills and Henry VIII powers and what it means for democracy.

Hansard Society

House of Commons Library

House of Lords

Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.

[00:00:00] Intro: You are listening to Parliament Matters a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/pm.

[00:00:17] Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.

[00:00:24] Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark D'Arcy. Coming up this week...

[00:00:27] Ruth Fox: A huge cut to overseas aid. How will it reverberate through the House of Commons?

[00:00:32] Mark D'Arcy: As an MP is convicted of assault and sentenced to 10 weeks in jail, will his voters be able to throw him out of Parliament?

[00:00:39] Ruth Fox: And is what sounds like a bland, technical piece of legislation in reality, a Trojan horse for rejoining the European single market?

[00:00:54] Mark D'Arcy: But first, Ruth, that big decision that the Government has just announced this week about cutting the overseas aid budget in order to transfer the money to defence and boost defence spending to meet the requirements of President Trump, and indeed to face the security threat from Russia, is something that is going to cause all kinds of ripples in Parliament.

[00:01:14] First of all, it is a mid-air change in Labour policy. This is a very substantial u-turn. It's not very long since the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy was criticising America's decision to gut its overseas aid budget. It was a manifesto promise of the Labour Party that they would maintain overseas aid spending and that's now been dropped.

[00:01:34] And indeed, they were heavily critical of the Conservatives when they reduced overseas aid, when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. So it's an enormous reversal in policy, and I suppose you can argue circumstances have changed "bigly" since the Donald entered the White House, and it's clear that this is the line of least political resistance.

[00:01:56] Yeah. But is it still for all that a wise decision. To reduce aid that is propping up a lot of countries in, for example, sub-Saharan Africa, where refugees come from, who then cross the Mediterranean, get into Europe, and then attempt to cross the Channel into Britain. So is it a wise, long-term decision or one that might accelerate the kind of people movement that's at the root of a lot of political discontent in Europe already.

[00:02:21] Ruth Fox: Yeah. And of course that was the criticism that David Lammy was making just a few weeks ago about the decisions that the Americans have made about cuts to the U-S-A-I-D department, USAid. And it was a focus of a question that, um, Diane Abbott asked at Prime Minister's questions this week. I think it also raises, whether it's a wise question from a foreign policy perspective, whether it's a wise question from a humanitarian perspective, people have different views on that, and there are other better podcasts than us that can tackle that question.

[00:02:51] But I think from our perspective, in terms of what are the implications for Parliament, I mean, again, we've talked about this on the podcast before, Governments legislating to put targets, policy targets on the statute book, and then effectively finding circumstances change and they can't meet those targets. And that's what we've got here.

[00:03:08] So it's now, well just under a decade since the Government legislated to put 0.7% of aid spending into the statute book, and now for the second time a government is coming forward and saying, well, we're not going to meet that target. And it raises a question, similar to what we heard in 2020-21, when after Covid, Boris Johnson's government said that they weren't gonna be able to meet the target and were going to have to cut back to 0.5% in aid spending. If Parliament has agreed to this target, it has imposed through legislation a duty on the Government to meet that target, then is it free for the Government to just effectively throw that target out of the window and just declare that they're not going to meet it?

[00:03:51] Mark D'Arcy: Apparently, yes.

[00:03:52] Ruth Fox: Yeah. And back in 2021, that was the, the question that was asked by the late Lord Judge.

[00:03:56] Now, of course, sadly, sadly, died, uh, last year, but he asked the question, it's a sovereignty of Parliament question: can the Government expunge or suspend by ministerial statement, which is effectively what we had this week with the Prime Minister at the despatch box, a legal obligation or a duty that Parliament has imposed on the Government.

Subscribe to Parliament Matters

Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.

Briefings / The assisted dying bill: How could the Parliament Act be used?

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – the bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales – fell at the close of the 2024-2026 parliamentary session, after running out of time in the House of Lords. Attention has now shifted to whether the bill could return in the next session and, if so, whether it could be enacted using the procedures set out in the Parliament Act. This briefing explains the Parliament Act procedure, examines previous uses of the Act and the procedural lessons that may be drawn from them, and looks at the constitutional issues involved.

07 May 2026
Read more

News / What now? The local election fallout hits Westminster - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 141

Labour’s disastrous local election results have intensified speculation about Keir Starmer’s future. But if pressure on the leadership continues to grow, how exactly do Labour’s leadership rules work – and what would it take to mount a serious challenge? Now that the Scottish and Welsh elections are over, attention will turn to governing. How do the devolved parliaments return to business? And in Wales, where the Senedd will install a non-Labour First Minister and government for the first time in its history, how will the process work? Could a new administration trigger fresh tensions with Westminster and Whitehall? Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

09 May 2026
Read more

News / Dynamic alignment and Henry VIII powers: What will the Government’s EU reset mean for Parliament? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 139

A major “EU reset” bill could allow Ministers to dynamically align UK law with EU rules using so-called Henry VIII powers, raising fresh questions about Parliament’s role and scrutiny. We are joined by Professor Catherine Barnard to explore the trade-offs and implications. We also examine Parliament’s surprise block on Church of England governance reforms and ask whether shutting down Parliament for a two-week prorogation – when it cannot be recalled – is wise in an increasingly unstable world. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

17 Apr 2026
Read more

Submissions / Written Parliamentary Questions - Our evidence to the House of Commons Procedure Committee

The use of Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) is rising sharply. Since July 2024, MPs have tabled questions at unprecedented levels. By late 2025 MPs were tabling over 600 per sitting day, more than double the long-term average. WPQs are a cornerstone of parliamentary scrutiny, helping MPs obtain information, challenge government policy and put issues on the public record. But this surge raises important questions about how Parliament balances transparency and accountability with the practical limits of the system. The House of Commons Procedure Committee is now examining the issue and has just published our submission containing our latest data and analysis.

06 Mar 2026
Read more

News / Who really decides Immigration Rules: Parliament or the Home Secretary? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 137

Who really controls immigration law when Ministers can rewrite key rules with minimal parliamentary scrutiny? Jonathan Featonby of the Refugee Council explains the Home Secretary’s far-reaching powers over Immigration Rules. We also discuss the Crime and Policing Bill, where amendments on AI and abortion highlight the challenges posed by rushed law-making and executive overreach. And we look ahead to the next phase of the assisted dying debate, as supporters in the House of Commons prepare for a renewed legislative push in the next parliamentary Session. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS

20 Mar 2026
Read more