Member's statement: International Development Cuts
Member's statement by Mr Stewart Dickson on .
- MLA
- Mr Stewart Dickson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 March 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- International Development Cuts
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4854944
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The United Kingdom has a long and proud tradition of supporting some of the most vulnerable people around the world through its international development assistance, tackling poverty, supporting sustainable development and responding to humanitarian crises around the world. We have a reputation as a global leader in international development. Steady cuts to that budget over recent decades include the most recent and utterly devastating reduction in funding to 0·3% of gross national income (GNI). That undermines leadership and the vital work that is being carried out around the world. The United Kingdom's leadership in international development has been widely respected, but the recent reduction to 0·3% risks undermining that hard-won reputation at a time of unprecedented global challenge. My party, the Alliance Party, has long advocated for restoring the United Kingdom's aid commitment to 0·7% of gross national income. Indeed, when our leader, Naomi Long, was a Member of Parliament, she co-sponsored the legislation that placed 0·7% on a statutory footing. Members of the Coalition of Aid and Development Agencies Northern Ireland work in some of the most difficult areas of the world, providing life-changing and life-saving support. Such work is only possible because the United Kingdom has a development fund. Let me be clear about what the reduction will mean. It will mean that fewer children will receive life-saving nutrition, healthcare and education and that years of progress in tackling global poverty will be undone. To take just one example, 179 of Save the Children's programmes across the world will be impacted on by the cuts. Some 124 of those 179 programmes will be fully terminated. That will impact on approximately 10·3 million people globally. It will mean the closure of 33 health clinics and cash-for-food programmes. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, hundreds of thousands of people will stop being treated for diseases such as cholera, and tens of thousands of children will miss out on testing and treatment for malaria. In Sudan, some 300,000 people will not get the nutrition and food aid that they desperately need at this time. The aid cuts, alarmingly, mirror the reckless approach taken by Donald Trump in slashing the US Agency for International Development (USAID) budget. We believe in tackling poverty, supporting sustainable development and ensuring that marginalised communities are prioritised in humanitarian efforts. With rising global tensions and increasing volatility of US foreign policy under Trump, the need for increased defence spending is urgent, but that should not come at the expense of life-saving aid.
We have a moral duty and a strategic interest in supporting the world's most vulnerable people, and my party, the Alliance Party, will continue to push back against the cuts.
445 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.98 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:12 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.