Eek = legal advice on govt aid cut puts them on dicey ground bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
this raises questions about internal legal advice (remember the Foreign Secretary was once an FCO lawyer) and the judgement of the permanent secretary Philip Barton - should he have asked for a direction?
The International Development Act is vague.. it looks as though its about a retrospective miss - not a plan for a "temporary" cut.. may now be tested in the courts.
Remember when the Brown govt proposed to legislate they specifically added a provision to enable them to ignore the legislated target
The problem is that even if reversed in court much of the damage is done.. swingeing cuts in Sub-Sahara.. contracts terminated; reputation damaged (including in run-up to #G7 and #COP26
the irony is that a better planned aid cut (rather than an emergency temporary one) would have offered much better VFM than this.. another issue for the perm sec to consider (he is responsible for that as well as "regularity" )
personally am not a fan of gesture politics, legislated targets esp those that focus on inputs not outputs.. @instituteforgov report from yonks ago on that instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/l…
but the problem for the govt is they would have definitely had to ask Parliament's permission for a planned cut - and notwithstanding what Ben Wallace said this morning, doubtful it would pass.
so - put bluntly - what a mess - in a dept that is already struggling with an ill-planned shotgun marriage threatening what was a genuine source of soft power and internationally recognised source of strength. Aargh
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
