Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this subject for this very timely debate, which is in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I also thank the members of the International Development Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee for their support in securing it.
Let me start this debate by welcoming the Government’s commitment to increasing our defence spending; that is long overdue and much needed. However, there was no need to announce a decision on where the funding was coming from before the spending review or, indeed, before the defence review concluded. It will not surprise the House to learn that I will use this debate to argue that the decision to take all the defence uplift from official development assistance was wrong.
When the former US Defence Secretary General James Mattis was asked in Congress whether it was wise to properly fund international development work, he replied:
“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition”.
It pains me to say so, but the Prime Minister is setting exactly this dangerous course for the UK. By planning to take 40% out of ODA, he is taking the axe to our most effective tool for reducing global conflicts and for increasing our national security. Do not take my word for it. Instead, consider this warning given last week by General Richard Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff:
“Every pound we cut from development aid today risks costing us far more in future military operations…slashing aid further to fund defence spending is not just shortsighted—it is dangerously counterproductive.”
He added:
“we are setting ourselves up for greater instability, which will require even more military spending in the long term…If we cut aid, we will be forced to deploy military resources in areas where we could have mitigated instability through targeted development.”
I urge the Prime Minister to recognise that if we abandon our commitments to the world in this way, we will see greater numbers of people displaced from their homes as a result of climate disasters, poverty and war. More people will lose hope, and will instead look to extreme ideologies for the answer, and civil societies will no longer have the skills to hold rogue Governments to account.
It concerns me greatly, as it should the whole House, that the Government have yet to carry out an assessment of the impact of their decision, which has been rushed through without proper scrutiny. I urge Ministers to study carefully an analysis by the ONE Campaign, which demonstrates the real-world impact of cutting ODA assistance from 0.5% to 0.3% of national income. It has calculated that if the 40% reduction in UK aid is distributed evenly across global health and food programmes, there will be nearly 40 million fewer children immunised; 600,000 fewer lives will be saved because of reduced support to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria; and almost 300,000 fewer school children will receive nutritious meals and essential food assistance through the World Food Programme.
I appreciate that the Prime Minister has pledged to protect what he considers to be the most vital areas of spending—Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, vaccinations and climate—but as the powerful resignation letter written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the former development Minister, lays bare, that is, sadly, a delusion. As my right hon. Friend, who knows the reality better than anybody else, has written:
“It will be impossible to maintain these priorities given the depth of the cut; the effect will be far greater than presented…It will likely to lead to withdrawal from regional banks and a reduced commitment to the World Bank; the UK being shut out of numerous multilateral bodies; and a reduced voice for the UK in the G7, G20 and in climate negotiations.”
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her work as Chair of the International Development Committee, on which I sit. Earlier today, I had the privilege of meeting representatives from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to hear at first hand about its lifesaving work. Gavi has, of course, played a pivotal role in ensuring that millions of children worldwide receive vaccines against deadly diseases, protecting global health and preventing pandemics. Does she agree that we need to make an urgent commitment to the Gavi replenishment, which is under debate at the moment?
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Committee member. As he is well aware, the Committee is doing a value-for-money inquiry, and Gavi is one of the best ways to get value for money by vaccinating children around the world. It is not just that the House wants that commitment to Gavi and all other bodies. Do the British public really want us to step away from the international stage, and to lose all our soft power and ability to support the most vulnerable in the world, so that they can lead a healthy, prosperous life?
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and case against the cut to aid. She knows that the world’s most vulnerable children include disabled children. The Government’s disability inclusion and rights strategy was going a long way towards supporting those children through healthcare, and when it came to social protections. Does she agree that unless we get clear assurances, many millions of disabled children will end up suffering greater loss? Brilliant organisations such as Able Child Africa, which is based in my constituency, are deeply concerned about the impact the cuts will have on disabled children.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has done to protect the most vulnerable—I am thinking particularly of children, people with disabilities and people in marginalised communities—is exemplary, but I cannot stand here and say that we will be able to continue funding that. I just do not think it is technically possible.
Research commissioned by More in Common has found that 55% of the British public support the UK giving both humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine, and that more than half believe that aid spending is worthwhile if it helps to boost the UK economy and protect national security.
Even with a reduced aid budget, much better decisions can and must be taken going forwards. In recent years, a scandalously large amount of ODA has been diverted primarily to the Home Office to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. In 2023, this took up 28% of the entire aid budget, costing £4.2 billion. It is welcome that the proportion of the ODA budget spent domestically is set to decrease very slightly this year, but unless these costs are reduced significantly in the next two years, the UK is set to spend nearly half its remaining ODA budget on domestic refugee costs by 2027. That cannot be right. Of course, these people need supporting, but that should not come out of the ODA budget. I urge the Government to cap the amount of ODA that the Home Office can draw on for in-country refugee costs; if they do not, there is simply no incentive for the Home Office to address its spending.
The Home Office is, of course, not the only Department raiding aid. The Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for Education and for Science, Innovation and Technology all regularly draw down ODA and do not, in some cases, deliver as well or as transparently as the FCDO. Will the Minister comment on taking these programmes back into the FCDO, or asking the Departments to reimburse at least part of the finance that they draw down from ODA?
The supplementary estimates saw a boost in the FCDO’s allocation of headline ODA spending for this financial year. However, a large proportion of this increase—almost £500 million—was sent to British International Investment in what appeared to be a last-minute panic to ensure that the Government fulfilled their commitment to spending 0.5% of national income on aid. Do not get me wrong: BII does excellent work investing debt and equity in businesses in the developing world for the long term to facilitate beneficial and developmental economic growth. However, it is not set up to take immediate and short-term investment decisions, and should not be expected to do so. Debate is also ongoing over giving BII the ability to borrow against its investments; in the fiscal circumstances, I urge the Minister to look at that closely.
There are a number of issues on which the Government could consider changing policy and legislation, including debt relief, illicit finance and special drawing rights. That could have significant impact on the lives of the poorest in the world, at no expense to the British taxpayer. Could the Minister also comment on potential multipliers of aid? I am thinking specifically about philanthropic match funding and UK Aid Match, which could be used more readily.
This year’s estimates enable the FCDO to continue to employ world-leading experts in development aid. In a rapidly changing world in which we face huge challenges, maintaining this expertise is not a luxury but a necessity if the UK is to achieve global progress and safeguard our collective future. Despite the damage done to its budgets, the FCDO must prioritise protecting its skilled staff, who offer so much to low and middle-income countries when deployed effectively. My Committee and I were with FCDO staff in Scotland when these cuts were announced last week. Staff were understandably devastated, with this announcement adding considerably to the uncertainty they have faced over the past five years.
The best way to retain our staff, and indeed our international reputation, is with clarity about the forthcoming spending cuts. Will there be a defined step down or a cliff edge to funding in 2027? A commitment today that the budget will be 0.4%—or more—in ’26-27 would be hugely reassuring, as would confirmation that there will be no additional cuts in the spending review for this financial year. I urge that an equality impact and risk management assessment be done, and presented to the House, before the Government make their tough decisions on what to cut and what to save. In the 2021 round of cuts, we saw funding for women and girls cut by 66% from its peak in 2017. Let us never do that again.
From 2023, the UK was the 10th largest spender of aid as a proportion of its gross national income. A cut to 0.3% will leave us in 25th place. That is simply unacceptable for a nation with such a proud history in helping those most in need and a Government who are rightly placing themselves as a leader on the international stage.
I wish to finish with the powerful words of a speech delivered in this Chamber on 13 July 2021, when the Conservative Government’s decision to reduce aid spending from 0.7% to 0.5% was confirmed. The House was told:
“Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid—we all know this—reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences.”
The speaker continued:
“Our overseas aid budget goes beyond that moral obligation: it also helps build a more stable world and keeps us safer in the UK…This cut will also reduce UK influence just when it is needed most, and of course it risks leaving a vacuum that other countries—China and Russia, for example—will fill.” —[Official Report, 13 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 177-178.]
That speaker was the then Leader of the Opposition putting forward an inarguable case against the folly of making massive aid cuts. His words are as true now as they were then. May I urge the Minister and the Government to listen to the words of the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, and reconsider this?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Colleagues can see how heavily subscribed this debate is. I need to fit in another debate before 7 o’clock, so many colleagues will be disappointed that they will not be called to speak. They can judge that as they may. We shall set a speaking limit of four minutes so that I can get as many people in as possible.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the brave and principled speech of the Chair of the International Development Committee.
The Government are absolutely right to increase defence expenditure, and President Trump is right, too, in saying that Europe must shoulder the burden against Russian imperial expansion. But development should be part of that strategy. Development, defence and diplomacy are intertwined. I remind everyone that the development budget tackles conflict, helps build better societies and builds prosperity. It helps tackle migration, disease, medicines, education, vaccinations, growth, jobs, British International Investment—I do not entirely agree with the hon. Lady on this, because BII is an outstanding example of British success in development—transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption. All are independently verified by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which is the taxpayers’ friend. That is what development does and it ought to be unanswerable that this is of vital importance.
The cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was terrible, but we did manage to find a number of ingenious ways of augmenting that money through guarantees, co-financing, insurance, and the use of special drawing rights, but the reduction to 0.3% will destroy any incipient recovery. And, as the hon. Lady said, who will fill the gap? It will be China and Russia. It will be music to the ears of the many terrorist organisations that exist across sub-Saharan Africa. The failure to do some of the things that the hon. Lady set out so clearly will result in the clarion call of the terrorist being heard.
Furthermore, the stopping and starting of development is very bad value for money for taxpayers. I know that Foreign Office Ministers will have fought against this terrible decision and it gives me a chance to pay tribute once again to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the civil servants and diplomats who work there. It is the finest diplomatic corps in the world. I also want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) whose principled and brave resignation letter will serve her very well.
We all know that this is an example of the iron fist of No. 10 cynically conquering the extremely good arguments put up by the Foreign Office, to take the low-hanging fruit. In my view, that is entirely wrong. Many are horrified to see a Labour Government behaving in this way, bludgeoning development, which was already badly damaged by the abolition of the Department for International Development and the previous cuts in the last Parliament.
I ask colleagues on the Labour Benches to make a principled decision and ensure that their voices are heard in government. They should imagine those Prime Ministers who really drove forward international development and the cause of development, turning Britain into a development superpower: Prime Minister Blair, Prime Minister Brown, Prime Minister Cameron and Prime Minister May. Those four Premiers drove the cause and did so much good, saving so many lives. I very much hope that Labour Members will exert influence and explain to the Government why this is the wrong decision at the wrong time and that it must be reversed.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Since the election of the Labour Government last July, I am proud to say that Britain is back on the world stage. When we are at our best, we are a respected and influential global player. We have many things to our advantage: we are the bridge between the US and Europe; we have a place on the Security Council; and our security services and defence are very respected. Under recent Governments, it must be said that we lost our way, fighting among ourselves about Brexit and everything else and threatening to break international law, but under this Government we are taking a lead again.
The question is: are we going to step up to the challenge? We are more than capable of that, but we cannot do it on two Chewits, a button and a postage stamp. Alongside a pivot to hard power, the Prime Minister has set out his priorities for the reduced aid budget: Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine. To achieve peace, we need that investment in hard power, but if we abandon Britain’s soft power strength we cannot secure it.
In Ukraine, for example, political and financial investment and military might are key to ending the war, but when we reach the ceasefire, there will be shockwaves across eastern Europe that must be absorbed. There are many ways in which Russia will continue on the offensive, and that is not just about tanks; it is about misinformation, telling lies and trying to influence people by not telling the truth. The best way to counter that is to tell the truth.
How are we going to tell the truth? Well, we could rely on the BBC World Service, which is internationally respected and recognised. There is nothing like the BBC World Service, yet we spend only £137 million on it, which is given from the Foreign Office, and roughly 80% of that comes from ODA. Russia and China combined spend more than £8 billion each year on their state media. When we vacate the airwaves, which we have done, Russia moves in and takes over the same frequencies.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I entirely endorse what the right hon. Lady says about the BBC World Service. There used to be a ringfenced grant for BBC Monitoring as well, but now that falls on BBC general income and expenditure. Does she agree that that monitoring service performs an equally crucial role to the World Service in terms of open source information?
Emily Thornberry
I do, although I think that the role has changed given the rise of the internet.
If we lose the World Service, will this be remembered as the moment not just when Britain abandoned Africa to the Chinese, but when we abandoned our historic role of telling the truth and speaking the truth of a united west around the world?
The second priority for the aid budget is Gaza. I visited Jordan last week with the Foreign Affairs Committee. Jordan, which relies on US and UK aid, has absorbed over 2 million Palestinian refugees. Its continued stability is fundamental to a lasting peace in the region. Can that be guaranteed if we no longer have a humanitarian budget to spend on it?
The third priority from the Prime Minister was Sudan, where we are the penholder and we face a situation where Russia has secured a Red sea base that it has long coveted. The situation reminds me of warnings given by Lord Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff, that every pound cut from spending on development today risks costing us more in future military operations.
Soft power is not just a nice-to-have; it is core to peace and security. I have looked into the numbers following the latest cuts, and after taking into account the ODA money spent on asylum costs as well as our commitments to the UN and the like, we have only about £1 billion left for the Foreign Office to spend on overseas aid. Is that really going to be enough, even just for those three priorities and the money that needs to be spent on that?
I am concerned that the ODA cuts will not be the last of the challenges. There are also rumours that the Foreign Office is expecting cuts, on top of those, of between 2% and 11%. In that scenario, it will sell its buildings. Will embassies shrink? I am concerned that we will lose the British Council, which only receives 20% of its funding from the FCDO and generates the rest of its income itself. I trust that an enormous amount of work is being done on the details of the cuts, but at the moment, we have heard nothing more than an aspiration about where the other funding will come from. I fear that we may look back at this time and say to ourselves, “This is when Britain left the world,” and yet, it really should be the time when we are able to say, “Britain is back, and we are back as a force for good.”
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Let me begin by saying that the decision by the Government to increase defence spending, funded in the short term by a cut in the ODA budget, is the right one given the current global context. It is an immediate solution that was necessary to bolster our defence budget to send a clear message to our allies and our adversaries alike.
Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has brought a state of war back to Europe, but the security challenges we face as a country do not stop with Russia. Iran continues to be a destabilising influence in the middle east and globally. Meanwhile, China’s growing influence demands our attention. The rules-based international order, which the UK proudly defends, is under threat from many sides.
A strong foreign policy starts with hard power. That is why I support the Prime Minister’s decision to reallocate ODA to the defence budget, and I agreed with my hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when she called for that in advance of the announcement. It is important that we respond to the challenges of the day with a well-equipped, well trained and well supported armed forces. Our adversaries need to know that we have a credible deterrent, and our allies need to be able to look to us as a leader in Europe on defence.
It is clear that we are living in a time of mounting geopolitical tension and without a credible foreign policy strategy, those driving global instability will continue to gain ground. A successful long-term foreign policy strategy must recognise that hard and soft power are inseparable. As was referred to earlier, it was the retired US general and former Defence Secretary James Mattis, who said,
“if you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”
These are exceptional times, but as stability returns to Europe, I urge the FCDO to prioritise restoring a strong ODA budget. It is critical that if the ODA budget is to be spent on defence in the immediate term, that money is spent directly on enhancing our national security and strengthening our armed forces, and not on the Government’s foolhardy decision to cede British sovereignty over the Chagos islands to Mauritius, in a deal that is likely to cost the British taxpayer billions of pounds, all at the expense of our security and strategic interests. With a substantially reduced ODA budget, it is critical that it is spent effectively. It cannot be right that a third of the overseas development assistance budget is spent here in the UK on supporting refugees and asylum seekers. It is clear that we need to rethink where our priorities for the remaining ODA lie.
One important area of ODA funding, which the Foreign Affairs Committee has been investigating as part of our inquiry into soft power, is the BBC World Service. With unreliable sources seeking to undermine our values, the World Service is on the frontline, so I encourage the FCDO to continue supporting it, especially as new challenges in information dissemination arise. The consequences of disinformation gaining traction are severe and we must safeguard that key asset in our soft power arsenal.
The lines between hard and soft power are increasingly blurred, yet they must complement each other to be effective. It was necessary to divert funding to meet security challenges. Now the FCDO must rethink how to preserve our soft power, tackle urgent issues such as disinformation and ensure British taxpayers’ money spent overseas serves our national interests. Above all, we must use those resources to expand our global influence and enhance our security in the face of evolving challenges.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I would like to thank the Clerks of the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, and the International Development Committee for their support, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this supplementary estimates debate. Late last year, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard evidence from the Foreign Secretary and the now former permanent under-secretary. It was a valuable opportunity for Committee members to hear, in the words of Sir Philip Barton, about the
“tough choices that have been made and will continue to have to be made”.
Those are the tough choices on our spending, on the aid budget, on investment spending and on our soft power resources. Those tough choices are not new, but in these volatile times when the power of diplomacy and our soft power matters more than ever, they can have seismic impacts.
In 2011, under the coalition Government, the BBC World Service had to eliminate five language services due to cuts of £46 million per year. This included the entire BBC News service in North Macedonia. Coalition cuts to grant funding from the Foreign Office meant that this trusted service with extensive reach—one in every eight Macedonians listened to the BBC—had to close. At the time, the country was attempting to join NATO and the EU. Russia was opposed. Since this cut, North Macedonia has been subject to a decade-long propaganda campaign from Russia—a campaign of misinformation that has spread fake news on covid, amplified regional tensions and demonised NATO and our European allies. In the past years, the UK has deployed military experts in disinformation to counter the malign influence of Russia on the western Balkans—an influence seeking to destabilise our entire continent.
The example of North Macedonia shows that we cannot risk a fractured approach. Cutting the BBC World Service, a globally trusted news source, and neglecting our soft power while our defence spending is countering misinformation does not seem the right thing to do. The absence of the BBC World Service allows our adversaries to step in and fill the vacuum left by the UK’s withdrawal, as was alluded to by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry).
There are real dangers when we allow hostile propaganda to go unchallenged. It has been described as a tsunami of bad actors. When Conservative cuts forced the BBC World Service in the middle east, BBC Arabic, to cease broadcasting, the same frequency was taken over by Russia Today and Sputnik. The global director of BBC News told the Foreign Affairs Committee that, on the day of the walkie-talkie explosions in Lebanon, that frequency was “essentially Russian propaganda”. Russia is investing in disinformation to target Arabic-speaking audiences and to create false pretexts for its invasion of Ukraine.
Disinformation has real-world consequences, and where UK soft power retreats, hostile states step in. They are pumping in billions of pounds because they know what is at stake: the battle for the truth. Future assessments of funding for the World Service must consider the impact on international and national security of disinformation in our world. This is just one example that demonstrates that our national defence and our spending overseas are both vital for this nation’s long-term security.
I am pleased to see the Government’s commitment to BBC World Service grant funding reflected in the FCDO supplementary estimate. We know that there are tough choices to be made, we know that there are those who wish to do harm to Britain and we know that the defence of our country in an ever more dangerous world is essential, so we must put Britain’s defences and Britain first. I am also pleased to see that, despite this, the Government have reiterated their firm commitment to prioritising programmes in Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza.
There are clearly many strategic calculations to be taken into account, but the impartial and trusted journalism of the BBC World Service is an antidote to disinformation. The risks from malign actors who want to undermine democracy will not go away any time soon. I strongly urge Ministers to ensure that assessments of funding for the World Service take into account the national security consequences of disinformation.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office plays a vital role in supporting and protecting people around the world, upholding Britain’s diplomatic presence and promoting our values and interests. In my short time on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have been repeatedly struck by the impressive quality of the people we are fortunate enough to have working on our behalf around the world. However, even as we face increasing geopolitical instability, transactional diplomacy and wars in multiple regions, the financial pressure on the Department is testing our ability to play the role that Britain should be playing in the world. For over a decade, the maintenance of the FCDO overseas estate, which includes 6,000 properties across 180 countries, has been funded through the sale of assets. That is not a sustainable model, and the reality is that there is no more silverware left to sell.
Giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Philip Barton, the then outgoing permanent under-secretary, acknowledged that the current funding structure will not work for much longer. The cost of essential maintenance is estimated to be £250 million a year, and that figure is only rising. From next year, the ability to draw down from receipts of previous asset sales will disappear completely. Unless the Treasury allows for that additional cost in future budgets, the cost will have to be met by cuts elsewhere in an already overstretched Department.
This issue goes beyond bricks and mortar. The UK’s overseas presence is a direct reflection of our diplomatic standing and soft power. We cannot expect our embassies to champion British interests when they are in dire need of investment. The Foreign Secretary himself has recognised the need for a sustainable funding settlement and highlighted the condition of our estate in China as a particular concern. The Government must set out an alternative long-term funding model—one that does not rely on the fire sale of national assets.
At the same time, we must address the deeply concerning cuts to ODA. The UK has long been a world leader in international aid, and we are the fourth highest donor in absolute terms. The Government’s decision to reduce our aid budget risks undermining our ability to deliver on those commitments and the ones we have made to the world’s most vulnerable. The Prime Minister has rightly stated that the UK will prioritise Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, climate finance and global health, but with a shrinking budget, delivering on those priorities will be close to impossible.
I recognise that difficult choices must be made to stand firmly with our allies in Ukraine during this critical time. Our support for the Ukrainian people must be strong and unwavering. It is a sad indictment of the current state of global affairs that in a war between the west and Russia, the first to withdraw from the fight was the United States. It is therefore even more vital that we increase defence spending to ensure that our allies around the world know that they can continue to rely on Britain in this increasingly unstable world.
The answer, however, is not to cut ODA. The Foreign Secretary himself warned of the risks of stepping back from development aid. The reality is that budget cuts will severely limit our ability to counter malign influence and to support fragile states. My party has warned that the UK’s decision to reduce its aid spending will
“leave a vacuum for Russia and China to fill”.
James Naish
It is worth reflecting on the fact that UK service personnel are obviously key to the defence of our country, and those cuts started during the time when the Liberal Democrats were in government. The hon. Member talked about his party regretting the actions of this Government. Does he regret the decision to start cutting our service personnel from 2010 onwards?
Edward Morello
I am not going to waste time re-arguing the coalition years—we have a global crisis happening. Either we all work together on this, or we keep nit-picking over the past. That is not the way to go forward.
I urge the Government to look at Liberal Democrat proposals to fund the much-needed uplift in defence spending not by cutting vital overseas development aid, but by reversing the tax cuts for banks introduced by the previous Government and by taxing the social media companies that, even now, are profiting from spreading disinformation on behalf of our enemies. We must work together to secure a sustainable funding model for the FCDO—one that protects our overseas estate and ensures that our diplomats have the resources they need to represent Britain effectively.
Finding a pathway to a just peace in Ukraine, a workable solution for the Palestinian and Israeli people, security for Europe and a united global approach to tackling the climate crisis, as well as the many other issues facing the world right now, in the face of a US Administration seemingly intent on joining malign states like Russia and Iran in rejecting international norms, requires the UK to be centre stage in international relations. Having a Foreign Office able to project British influence has never been more important. I urge the Government to set out a clear path on how we will maintain our diplomatic and development commitments in this increasingly uncertain world, and to ensure that Britain does not become just “some random country” but continues to play its historic role in global affairs.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I will start, as many Members have, by recognising the urgent need to increase defence spending. Over recess, I went to Ukraine for a week—it is an existential crisis. If Ukraine falls, I am convinced that the Baltic states will be in Putin’s line of sight too. Like others in this House, I am obviously extremely pained by the decision to partly get there by cutting aid to 0.3%.
Members will know that I spent my career prior to coming to this House in international development. I set up the Labour Campaign for International Development and had the privilege of working for former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who did such great things to lead on the world stage in this area when he was Prime Minister and Chancellor. I want to offer my expertise to the Government to find a way through this. I recognise that, across the House, and particularly on the Labour Benches, there are other Members who, like me, have expertise in development, and we offer ourselves to the Government to find ways to make the best of this bad situation.
The first point that I want to make is about front-loading multilateral commitments into 2026. We know that the ODA budget will go down to 0.3% of gross national income from 2027. We believe that by front-loading some of our multilateral commitments—to the Global Fund, for example—we can get round the cliff edge and help the largest number of people for the longest possible time. I know that there have already been discussions about the budget potentially going down in 2026. I urge the Government to look at other options so that we can keep aid spending at 0.5% for as long as possible.
My second point refers to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about asylum costs. We strongly urge the Government to consider those costs and to reduce as quickly as possible the amount being spent in the UK. Every penny spent in the UK is not being spent helping the most vulnerable. To deliver that, the Government could formally budget for and commit to project reductions in in-donor refugee costs, with any overspends funded from outside the aid budget and any underspends provided to the FCDO as additional ODA resources.
My third point, which I will not talk about for long because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) has done a lot of advocacy on it, relates to the £2.5 billion of Chelsea FC money. The sooner we can get it into Ukraine and humanitarian aid the better, because it should, in theory, free up ODA money for other situations around the world.
My final point is that we now must focus time and effort on alternative forms of ODA spending. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), particularly in his role as chair of the MP group on the World Bank, has some fantastic ideas about how we might be able to use things such as special drawing rights. I know that other colleagues are working on debt relief, which could offer alternative sorts of development financing.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
On alternatives, does my hon. Friend agree that it sometimes creates a false dichotomy to separate defence and ODA? In a human security approach, when there are crises such as conflict, famine or pandemics, we can utilise our forces to go in and deliver aid, as well as utilising traditional ODA.
David Taylor
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which I hope he will get to make in more detail in due course. In the time available to me, I will carry on with a few other suggestions.
Another suggestion relates to British International Investment. I am not here to criticise the work that it is doing, but the point of ODA is first and foremost to help people in extreme poverty. Although admittedly it has improved, BII has a track record over the years of not necessarily focusing on the very poorest in society. For that reason, I think the Government should look at ways of making BII capitalisations additional to the 0.3%.
David Taylor
I will not, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The justification for that could be that the BII makes capital investments, which are ultimately an asset on the Government’s balance sheet, and that finance does not count towards the Government’s budget deficit. That could be one way of justifying such a measure without going against the Government’s fiscal rules.
I have only 30 seconds left, so I will end where I started. Other Members have made points about how aid is in our national interest, and they are right to say so. For me, it has always been about how we can ultimately benefit other human beings. Where we are born is an accident; I am privileged to live in what I consider to be the best country in the world, but many are not. We must do everything we can to support the most vulnerable.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
That a Labour Government, after all they said during their years in opposition, have decided to take essential life-saving overseas aid away from the poorest people on the planet is truly astonishing and utterly shameful. They know that removing £67 billion of overseas aid will have devastating consequences. It will mean that the world’s poorest children will go unvaccinated, millions of girls will go uneducated, and projects set up to help communities recover and protect themselves from climate change will come to an end.
There is no running away from the fact that millions of people, mainly children, will die or have their lives permanently changed as a result of that decision. Nor can the Government escape from the fact that this was a premediated political decision taken by a Labour Prime Minister. That Prime Minister has tried shamefully to frame this debate as an either/or—we either spend the money on defence, or we spend it on overseas aid—but that is palpably not true. Indeed, it would be laughably disingenuous were it not so serious.
If we are—and I agree we are—heading into uncharted waters for European security and defence, the Government need to rip up their self-imposed fiscal rules and have an honest conversation with the public about what must be done. Explain to the public that with an emboldened Putin, and with America no longer a trustworthy or reliable ally, we in Europe have to look after and fend for ourselves, and that is going to mean tough choices.
This is morally reprehensible. The Government know that cutting overseas aid will make us less secure. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, if they need convincing, they should read the Prime Minister’s speech from 13 July 2021, when he laid it out line by line. It was an excellent speech—Labour Members should read it—but I just wish he had meant it. Absolutely no one believes that we can make ourselves safer and more secure by making the world’s poorest even poorer.
When the Prime Minister announced the decision to increase defence spending by cutting overseas aid, he attempted to justify it, saying that it could only be funded “through hard choices” and that this was a “difficult and painful decision” for him. Well, it is not nearly as painful or as difficult as it will be for millions of impoverished children who do not know where their next meal is coming from, for girls who do not know when they will next be able to go to school, or for children who wonder why their siblings are dying of preventable diseases because they have not been vaccinated, or where their father has gone when he has gone to Europe to try to find work. Prime Minister, save me your crocodile tears about this being a “difficult decision”. This was not a difficult decision; this was an easy option.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
Let me begin by declaring that I chair the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, an organisation that has done incredible work around the world and is partially funded by the FCDO.
The Foreign Secretary was right last week when he stated that realism includes being clear about what our values are. The reality is that alongside the military security gap left by the approach of the US Administration, we must also fill the gap in support for accountability, inclusion, and the rule of law. This is about UK security and prosperity. Our ODA budget supports stability and alliances that are critical to our national interest. We are losing the battle for hearts and minds in many parts of the world, while our rivals help friendly rulers, silence opposition, control the media and outlaw NGOs. If we do not step up, others will fill the vacuum.
The WFD is part of the answer. It operates in 50 countries, strengthening democracy and the rule of law. Its FCDO grant this year was about £8.5 million, with additional country-specific grants to maximise the impact globally. However, funding cuts are already hitting us. The WFD’s spending review bid for flat cash of £8.5 million in 2026-27 would fund programming in 20 countries and 14 global initiatives on artificial intelligence in Parliaments, public debt, climate, electoral integrity and women’s political leadership. Its reach would be significant: 5,000-plus participants, half of them women, would engage with over 1,600 parliamentarians, 2,400 parliamentary staff and 1,700 political party officials. This work delivers results, including anti-corruption reforms, improved rule of law, climate legislation security and a stronger UK relationship with democratic leaders.
However, inflation could leave a funding gap of over £500,000, equivalent to 70% of the WFD’s work in the Indo-Pacific. We cannot afford to let that happen. Investing in democracy is investing in the UK’s security, prosperity and global influence. With so many bad-faith actors now in the world, and with a constant assault on democracies across the world, the important work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is vital and should be protected.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I share the horror, outrage and deep disappointment and disillusion- ment of many hon. Members in the House, across many parties, and of people across the country at the Government’s terribly short-sighted and counterproductive decision to fund greater investment in defence through slashing the development budget.
Like many hon. Members, I know how important the development budget is because I spent practically my entire career before I came to this place working in that field. I have seen it face to face and on the ground. I know that investing in health, education and nutrition helps increase human security for the long term, and that investing in conflict resolution, peace building, democracy support, and women’s and girls’ rights builds human security globally and makes the world, and us, more secure in the long term, as well as in the short and medium terms. So it is impossible to understand why the Government have taken this incredibly counterproductive decision. The three D’s of defence, diplomacy and development are united: they work together. We cannot possibly increase one by slashing another.
It is unbelievable that this decision has been made, because it is so unnecessary. A Member on the Government Benches talked earlier about needing to “send a clear message”, but what is the message that has been sent by this decision, which follows in the slipstream of President Trump’s blocking and dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development? It is the wrong message. Members on the Government Benches—indeed, the Prime Minister himself—have talked about “tough choices”, but it is a wrong choice, because there is an alternative. We did not have to fund this investment on the backs of the poorest and most marginalised.
There are other choices available to us. We should ask those with the broadest shoulders to bear the burden of increased investment in defence and security. Our neighbours in France are doing exactly that by looking at wealth taxes. In his summing up, will the Minister explain why the Government have decided to fund investment in defence by undermining diplomacy and development in slashing the aid budget, leaving us all more insecure in the long run?
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we have heard from FCDO representatives about the important work the Department does and how essential it is for the Department to have the resources to execute its work effectively. The world is witnessing a watershed moment unfolding before our very eyes. The world order is visibly in the process of being challenged, and it is transforming all aspects of organised human life. That provides an immensely challenging environment for foreign policy, from wars in Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine to concerns about climate change.
Last week, the Prime Minister demonstrated strong leadership and reinforced that we have a strong presence in the global arena, which highlighted that we must continue to remain actively engaged and agile in our foreign policy. The Prime Minister’s commitment to increase defence spending in light of the volatility is the right one, but while I recognise that defence spending is important, so too is international development, particularly given the diplomatic soft power that it lends the UK. As we navigate these changing and unpredictable global power dynamics, international development is an area of historical strength for us. UK aid makes the world safer and saves lives, and cutting support for countries that need it the most will only add to insecurity worldwide.
We have heard from voices outside the aid sector, as colleagues referred to earlier. Lord Richard Dannatt, a former head of the British Army, said that
“cutting aid risks making us weaker, not stronger…well-targeted aid prevents conflict and reduces the burden on our armed forces in the long run.”
Analysis from the ONE Campaign supports that; its evidence demonstrates that every 80p spent on activities that spur economic growth and political stability can avert spending of up to £80 on future conflicts. Cutting the aid budget will undercut our ability to build global partnerships and alliances. When the UK helps countries to adjust to climate change and to grow and prosper, we build our relationships and our influence. When countries such as ours withdraw, China and Russia stand ready to step in.
I turn to the impacts that the cuts will have on a specific group: women and girls across the world. As we celebrate International Women’s Day later this week, it is critical that we stand up for protecting gender equality with the UK’s ODA budget. That includes improving access to education and maternal healthcare, preventing and responding to malnutrition and gender-based violence and combating early marriage and female genital mutilation. When ODA is reduced, we know that women’s equality programmes are the first to be cut. When a cut was implemented in 2021, 41% of initiatives for women and girls were the first to be lost. When Governments take action to close gaps and eliminate barriers for women and girls, to realise their rights to live safely and to learn and earn equally, we create safer, healthier and wealthier societies.
The UK’s leadership in international development has long been a source of national pride and global respect, and we should not now head in the opposite direction. If we are to see a decline in aid to support the world’s most vulnerable communities, the Government could show serious ambition to reform the global economy, which could include tackling the broken global debt system to enable the countries most in need to emerge from poverty. Fixing global debt for developing countries could be achieved by compelling private lenders operating in the City of London to co-operate in debt relief negotiations.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to follow the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and four fellow members of the Committee.
I make it clear that I strongly support the increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. I fear that that may not be enough and that we will have to spend more if we are to maintain our security against the threat that is now clear. I therefore accept that part of the funding of that needs to come from ODA, although I feel the pain of both the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). That makes it even harder to swallow the £9 billion bill we face paying to maintain a base on the Chagos Islands.
I will focus specifically on soft power. I welcome the establishment within the FCDO of the Soft Power Council; it is very important that strengthening hard power should not be at the expense of Britain’s soft power. A number of Members have already talked about the BBC World Service, which is one of our great assets. It was very welcome that in the Budget, the Government increased their contribution by £32 million, but it was concerning that the BBC recently announced a reduction in its contribution of £6 million, with the loss of 130 jobs. While all 42 language services are being maintained, the World Service defence committee has already pointed out some of the damage that those reductions will do, with the loss of regional editors, science coverage and business programmes. I am particularly concerned about the letter that the Chair of our Committee received a few days ago from the director general, in which he said:
“In the last few days we have been asked to prepare for further engagement with the FCDO on the impact of the reduction in Overseas Development Spending.”
I would like the Minister to assure us that there will be no reduction in the Foreign Office’s funding of the BBC World Service. Indeed, I hope he will give serious consideration to the BBC’s request that in the longer term, the Government consider taking on the full funding of the World Service.
We on the Committee have also heard from the British Council, another aspect of soft power. It is absurd that the loan of £250 million given to the British Council has to be renewed each year, creating huge uncertainty. I hope that a solution can be found to put that funding on a long-term basis.
I finish by referring to an issue of huge concern to me and many others: media freedom. Both this Government and the previous Government have very good records on supporting media freedom around the world; we set up the global Media Freedom Coalition. However, as the Minister knows, media freedom is under huge threat. I urge the Government to continue to press the cases of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen imprisoned in Hong Kong, and of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British citizen imprisoned in Egypt. The Minister also knows that in Ukraine, 97 journalists have been killed since 24 February 2022, 12 while on duty, and the most recent withdrawal of funding—that of USAID—will put at risk over half the media outlets that are bravely reporting what is happening in Ukraine. I hope that the Minister can provide support to them, too.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is appropriate that we have such a distinguished internationalist in the Chair for this debate. [Interruption.] That did not get me any extra time for my speech.
I recognise the impossible decisions that the Government have to take, but I hope that we do not set up a false dichotomy in which we believe that our moral preferences have to be at odds with our strategic interests. I recognise, though, that the Government are making budgetary decisions in response to very painful real-world events that are taking place every day. I represent many of the FCDO workers from East Kilbride, and I myself worked for 10 years delivering aid. I do not want to repeat what others said in pleading for the international development budget, but I want to ask the Government about one thing, and perhaps challenge them on it.
If, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said, we are not still the development superpower, what is our offer to the global south? We know what Russia’s offer is: blood for gold. It will kill your enemies for you, through mercenaries, and take precious minerals out of your country. We know what China’s offer is: infrastructure in return for debt that keeps you in its power. We cannot offer violence, and we cannot demand subservience. It seems to me that our offer is values, but values need to be projected through vehicles. In the time I have, I want to mention two of those vehicles.
I add my voice to those of right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in defence of the BBC. Others have spoken about how development helps to save money on defence. That also works the other way around: when defence fails, development picks up the pieces. If we need one example of that, we can look to Afghanistan. When we left Afghanistan, we left behind the BBC World Service. It is now the only broadcast journalism in the country—the only thing that is still there, saying to those people, “We have not abandoned you.” The cuts that we are discussing imply very deep cuts to the World Service, which I hope we will not see.
The second thing I wanted to plead for is the democratic infrastructure that supports dissidents and democrats around the world—the people I worked with. As we stand here, that infrastructure is being dismantled because of Elon Musk’s vandalism. The most extraordinarily brave people I have ever met are being utterly abandoned.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on his contribution. He and I disagree on a lot, but not on this. Will he pay tribute to those who work with the conflict, stability and security fund, which is particularly important in all the areas that he rightly touched on?
Blair McDougall
I am very happy to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I have worked closely together on Georgia—a country in the backyard of Vladimir Putin that is on day 96, I think, of huge street protests, all for lack of the cost of a single storm shadow missile in recent years. We cannot fill all the gaps, but I hope that we can triage, and can look at places such as Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Belarus, where a small amount of money makes an enormous amount of strategic difference.
If investing in arms allows us to fight, we must remember to invest in the reasons why we want to fight in the first place. The fundamental weakness of the authoritarians with whom we are in this unspoken war is the same. Every act of brutality is a confession of their weakness. They know that if their people were free to choose, they would not choose the form of Government that is there. All that those authoritarians offer is corruption, violence and brutality against their own people, who will choose to be on our side in the global fight, but we need to put in the resources to make that case every single day around the world with confidence.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Like everyone in this House, I stand in full solidarity with Ukraine and recognise the threat posed by hostile actors such as Putin. I agree that UK defence spending must increase to enhance our national security. However, the decision to raid the development budget does not increase security. It does the very opposite.
Decreasing overseas development assistance is utter folly, and it fundamentally undermines efforts to bring about justice, peace and security in the world. The Prime Minister knows that. He stood in this Chamber and criticised Boris Johnson and the previous Conservative Government when they made their first cuts. He made these very points. He was elected on a manifesto that pledged to rebuild Britain’s reputation for international development, with a new approach based on genuine respect and partnership. We all agree with the need for that. Instead, in a fashion that has become typical of his leadership, he has U-turned on his promise, and went even further in making cuts than the Conservatives were willing to go.
Put simply, this decision by the Prime Minister is a death sentence for hundreds of thousands of people. It will have a devastating impact on millions of the world’s most vulnerable and marginalised. Children will go hungry and will miss out on lifesaving vaccinations. They will die as a result. Girls will lose access to education, family planning and reproductive health clinics. As a consequence, they will be forced into early marriage and will have an increased risk of being victims of gender-based violence. Refugees will lose access to accommodation and vital support services, and will be displaced once again. The Prime Minister has reneged on his promises, and the UK Government have abandoned their moral duty, all without any impact assessment whatsoever. They have done this with a callous disregard for the lives of others throughout the world.
It does not have to be like this. In 2023, Germany, our G7 European ally, spent 0.82% of GNI on ODA, while others such as the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway spent greater percentages than the UK. We are all facing the same threats, so why is the UK the only one cutting back? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that.
The Prime Minister has once again sought to appease President Trump, and to follow the leader of Reform and short-sighted right-wingers who believe that those in the rest of the world simply do not matter, and that our actions abroad have no impact at home. It is wrong. The UK’s role in the world is built on hard power, soft power and diplomacy. As a former member of the International Development Committee, I travelled around the world, and heard of the devastating impact of the UK’s first cut to ODA in 2020. I heard how trust in the UK has been eroded, and I heard directly from leaders of countries who are increasingly turning to others, such as China and Russia, to fill the void left by the UK’s absence.
The threats that we face are interconnected and disregard international borders. We have faced a global pandemic and we will encounter more. We are in the midst of a climate emergency, which is not going away. We are experiencing war in Europe and a challenge to the rules-based system. These issues should be a catalyst for increasing development aid and for solving these problems collectively, but tragically, this Labour Government are following in the footsteps of the Conservative Government, who used covid as an excuse to make cuts. Labour is using defence spending as its excuse to step away when it should be stepping up. This madness must stop. All of us in this House must come together and find another route for financing defence spending—a route that is in our national interest. This simply cannot come to pass without a fight.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chair of my Select Committee for securing the debate. Twenty years ago, the words of Nelson Mandela rang out just down the road in Trafalgar Square. He called on the world to “make poverty history”, stating that
“as long as poverty, injustice and gross inequality persist…none of us can truly rest.”
I hope we remember those words as we continue this conversation.
I do of course welcome the uplift in defence spending, but to someone like me who has campaigned and worked in international development for years, the decision to cut aid is, as the Prime Minister himself acknowledged, very painful. When I think of why our aid matters, I think of the women I met in Dadaab refugee camp, who had finally secured some safety after years of uncertainty. I think of the children being vaccinated against life-threatening diseases. I think of the response to the Ebola crisis, which not only saved lives in the countries affected but protected us all. I think of our development work as not only lifesaving, but a form of international insurance for us all.
UK aid constitutes about 1p in every pound of public spending, and, as we have heard before, it brings a huge return on investment. It is a down payment to prevent the spread of disease and conflict, to tackle the upstream drivers of migration, and to increase prosperity. I say that because many of my constituents wrote to me urging me to speak today, but I think we receive far fewer emails about aid than about other matters. As we continue this conversation about the very difficult choices that have to be made and other forms of financing, we must continue to make the case for aid, both in its own right and in our own interests.
I do not want to repeat all the points that have been made, but I think we need to focus on a few key issues. As the Chair of the Select Committee emphasised, the timeline is key, and I hope that the Minister will respond on that. Can we expect aid expenditure to remain at 0.5% next year and the year after, before we get to 0.7%? That could save billions of pounds and millions of lives. I would not like to be in the Minister’s shoes, because these are difficult if not impossible decisions, but will the House be updated on the spending criteria that will be used? Will it be a decision between bilateral and multilateral, between one country and another, and between this or that programme? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) pointed out, there is expertise, and we hope to work with the Government constructively on this.
UK legislation already sets out what we need to consider. Ministers must be satisfied that our aid
“is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty”,
and is provided in a way that contributes to reducing gender inequality, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). That focus on women and girls is vital. I back the call from many non-governmental organisations, including CARE and UNICEF, for a new commitment to target at least 20% of bilateral official development assistance on gender equality, and I hope that the Minister will respond directly to that call.
I echo what has been said about the need to reduce the amount of money spent in this country on refugee costs. According to the most recent figures, it was 28% of the aid budget. I know that our Government are committed to bringing down that spending and tackling the backlog, but the sooner we can do that, with a clear commitment that the money will go back to the aid budget, the better. I hope that the Minister can update us on the conversations with the Home Office about that. There should be a whole-Government approach taken, involving the Treasury, the Home Office and development.
We must leverage other forms of financing. I am short of time, so I will just mention debt. We have done a great deal on that before as a Labour Government, and I hope we will do so again, because 32 African countries are spending more on their external debts than they can spend on healthcare and education, which is a scandal. I hope we can also do more on remittances. We know how much is sent overseas from diaspora communities here; the cost of doing so is still far too high, and reducing it would not be a cost for this Government.
These are indeed challenging times, and I appreciate that these are tough choices, but we must retain a clear commitment to returning to 0.7% as soon as circumstances allow. We are an internationalist party that believes in the power of aid, and we will fight to ensure that remains the case.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
East Kilbride in my constituency has a long and proud history as a key part of the UK’s international development efforts. Generations of dedicated civil servants have worked there to tackle global poverty, strengthen partnerships, and uphold Britain’s reputation as a force for good in the world. However, I must express my deep concern about the fact that the Government are on the verge of severing that proud connection. The proposed closure of the overseas development office in East Kilbride is a mistake, not just for my constituents but for the integrity of Britain’s global development work. Let me be clear: East Kilbride is not a suburb of Glasgow. It is a town in its own right, designated as part of the new town movement by the post-war Labour Government.
Joani Reid
I am sorry, but I will not, for reasons of time.
East Kilbride is Scotland’s second largest town, with its own economy, its own economy, its own identity—
Mr Mitchell
Yes, it is. As far as I am aware, it is not true that the office in East Kilbride is being closed. It is being moved to Glasgow, and I am advised that the Government have no plans to change that arrangement.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The point of order is noted, but that is not a matter for the Chair. Time is limited, so we will go back to Joani Reid.
Joani Reid
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I said, East Kilbride is not Glasgow. Closing the development office and shifting the jobs to Glasgow is not just tinkering with the administration of the FCDO; it is a blow to our community, which has built itself around the development opportunities that the office provides. It is taking well-paid, skilled jobs from a town and centralising them in a city—the kind of decision that too often leaves towns behind. I know that many of my hon. Friends share my concerns about the hollowing out of towns such as East Kilbride, and I urge the Government to think again.
The decision to close the development office has been made at a moment of deep uncertainty for the civil servants working in international development. The Government have already made this very difficult and painful decision. It is not a decision that I celebrate, but I support it, because governing means taking tough choices, not easy ones. However, closing the office and moving it to Glasgow, at a time when there is such deep uncertainty about the international development budget and no clear evidence that it will do anything other than cost money in the immediate term, is ill advised.
Labour has a proud legacy, built by pioneers such as Judith Hart, and we must not allow it to be weakened by short-term thinking. We are now in an era where words are not enough and an era of show, not tell. If we really believe in the role that East Kilbride can continue to play in shaping Britain’s international engagement, the answer is clear: take the closure off the table, and use the money to focus on the announced priorities in international development.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I support the Government’s increase in defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP. I would like to see them go further, and for it to rise to 3% as soon as possible. There is an urgency to increase defence spending, and it would have been wrong to wait until the spending review later this year, yet the reduction in development assistance is the wrong place to look for the money. It is not only devastating for humanitarian projects and development assistance; it has significant geopolitical consequences.
For years Britain has led the way in providing development assistance to countries in desperate need, helping them to develop while also strengthening our global influence. However, with both the US and the UK now cutting back on aid, we risk creating a vacuum that will be filled by authoritarian actors. Countries that were previously aligned with the west will have little choice but to shift fully towards countries that are hostile to the UK. This is not speculation, because I make my observation based on historical precedents.
In 2021, France suspended €10 million in aid and halted military co-operation with the Government of the Central African Republic. The Central African Republic sought alternative partners, including for security, and went to Russia’s Wagner Group. Wagner deployed mercenaries to support Government forces in their fight against rebels, solidifying Russia’s role in the Central African Republic. Russia then secured economic resources and mineral resources, such as gold and diamonds, from the Central African Republic.
When Russia expanded its foothold in Africa, it gained both economic leverage and political influence, and the political shift is apparent in the Central African Republic’s voting record at the United Nations. Historically, the Central African Republic aligned with the west in supporting key resolutions, such as on the continuation of the UN Observer Mission in Georgia. More recently, on critical UN votes—for example, the votes on Ukraine at the General Assembly—the Central African Republic has either abstained or voted against resolutions condemning Russia.
We are also seeing that elsewhere—for example, with China’s belt and road initiative. It is well known that China has deepened its ties with both Tanzania and Zambia by investing in roads, ports and energy projects. Meanwhile, western influence in those countries has waned, with China emerging as their primary partner. We have seen senior Zambian Government officials, including Ministers and permanent secretaries, participating in training programmes focusing on governance in Beijing every year, thus pushing China’s authoritarian ideology and influence across Zambia. Historically, when the west withdraws, China and Russia step in, and that is exactly what will happen with the cuts to the FCDO budget, particularly the cut in development aid to 0.3% of GDP.
To conclude, let us not erode democratic values across the globe or weaken our ability to advocate for a fairer and more democratic world, because that is also in British interests.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We are dropping the time limit down to three minutes.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
In the uncertain global situation we currently live in, I welcome the announcement of increased defence spending. I am sure it will also be welcomed by 63 Military Intelligence Company in my constituency of Stourbridge. It is based at the Army reserve centre, with minimal permanent staff and more than 90 reservists from across the Black Country and beyond. It was great to see a female officer leading the Remembrance Day parade this year—a celebration of its diversity and strength.
As part of the increased defence spend, we must harness the power and skill of British business. Last week, I visited Welin Lambie, the UK’s leading designer, manufacturer and service provider of davits, winches and lifting appliances for the global marine and offshore industry. Founded in 1901, the business found a home in Brierley Hill in 1989. It proudly employs over 40 local people and trains multiple apprentices each year. I was impressed to hear that it sources nearly all its materials from within a five-mile radius, and it is the leading supplier to the US navy and the US coastguard. Welin Lambie is keen to break into the UK defence market, but when under the previous Government it bid for Ministry of Defence contracts, it narrowly lost out to a Spanish firm.
I also welcome the Government’s continued support for Ukraine. Last year, I had the opportunity to visit, and some of the things I saw and heard will never leave me. We visited a children’s hospital in Kyiv that had been bombed by Russia just a few weeks before, showing that, by targeting civic infrastructure, Russia is not even following the rules of war. I met the strongest and most resilient people who were steadfast in their continued fight against Russian aggression, and Ukrainian MPs who are battling against Russian propaganda and misinformation on a new frontier of digital combat. I also met ordinary people helping one another rebuild their homes and villages, and doctors and nurses treating and rehabilitating the ever-growing number of casualties. On a visit with the mayor in Chernihiv, it was clear that funding to Ukraine is not always reaching the people who need it most—ordinary hard-working Ukrainians—and I urge FCDO Ministers to ensure that funds sent to Ukraine are fairly distributed across the country to the communities that need them most.
It was disappointing to hear that the increased funding will come at the expense of ODA, and I am still not convinced it is the right thing to do. I understand that security at home is of vital importance, but should we as the Labour party really be cutting support to some of the world’s most vulnerable people? There is crucial work happening in developing countries in health, education and climate change, and abandoning that work leaves a void for Russia and China to fill. What does it leave for our support for Gaza, Sudan and beyond at a time when the US is pulling its aid? Investing in international development is an important contribution to security both at home and abroad.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I believe the UK’s international development spending must be used effectively, with a primary focus on poverty reduction, and we must reverse the ODA cut and get back to 0.7% of GNI, which was probably our proudest achievement as Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government. We must put the United Nations sustainable development goals at the heart of our international development policy, including access to clean water, sanitation, health, education and achieving food security.
However, for now we are where we are, and with our total aid budget likely to be cut to around £9 billion a year, we must strive to get the very best value for our money—not just for the sake of the Exchequer, but for the massive good that British aid can still do in the world if it is not squandered. For example, approximately £4.3 billion is spent on asylum seekers arriving in the UK each year, a large proportion of the overall aid budget, leaving only £4.9 billion for actual aid work overseas. Now that budget has been further depleted to increase defence expenditure, it is vital that we bring down the costs associated with asylum seekers urgently. That could be done in the following way.
Asylum seekers arriving in the UK illegally, in small boats or by other highly dangerous means, need protection. They need support, they need compassion—they are people—but what they do not need is to be put in hotels with no plans for their future. As anyone who has been cooped up in a hotel for more than a few weeks will know, that will cause their mental health to suffer, and their drive and determination to wane. Asylum seekers come here full of hope for a better future for themselves and their families. They want to work. We should give them the chance and the support to do so, instead of leaving them in administrative limbo in hotels around the country, costing the taxpayer billions. If they have the chance to work their way into our society, instead of remaining a burden on the Exchequer and a burden to themselves, it would free up a large part of the remaining aid budget that could be spent on improving lives in the developing world, so that people do not need to risk their lives to come here in the first place.
People come here risking their all and that does not cease once they enter our borders. To protect them from the clutches of human trafficking—[Interruption.] I had better sit down.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing the debate.
The enormity of the challenges facing the world right now can seem somewhat overwhelming. We are all, at varying speeds, suffering from the existential threat of climate change. We live in a global economy that is stacked in favour of the few, to the detriment of the many. These issues are driving forces for the volatile, unstable world we live in today. Our Government’s attitude to the international community and how we tackle our own domestic issue of increasing inequality should, therefore, be shaped by the principles of human rights, compassion and social justice—the very principles our party and our wider movement were founded on.
To cut overseas aid is a moral failing. Foreign aid should not be considered as an expense to be cut. It is an investment in global stability, security and a commitment to making the world a better place. As with all cuts, whether domestic or foreign, it will be the poorest, the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable people who will be hardest hit.
Tomorrow, we have the International Women’s Day debate. Women and girls in conflict-ridden areas such as Sudan, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Syria and Gaza absolutely need our help. Cutting aid in those regions is not just short-sighted. It will abandon and consign millions to persecution, famine, illness and death.
The Government claim the cut is necessary to fund an increase in defence spending, but framing things in that way is, frankly, wrong. Cutting international development, as many hon. Members have mentioned today, does not strengthen our security—actually, it weakens it. Aid is a strategic investment in our long-term national interest. We have seen the United States slash its foreign aid budget. AIDS and HIV clinics in Ukraine, Uganda, Liberia and South Africa are running out of medicine. In Sudan, 80% of emergency food kitchens have been shut down. People will starve because of the American decision. Let us not make that same mistake.
International leadership is desperately needed, arguably now more than ever. The UK cutting overseas aid damages our credibility and diminishes our role on the world stage. Let us lead by example, not retreat into isolation. Let us reaffirm our commitment to being a force for good: a nation that stands up for its values, its security and, frankly, our global responsibilities. I implore the Minister and the wider leadership to restore the UK’s overseas development aid budget.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Twenty years ago, I joined the Royal Marines. Roughly a year later, I was deployed to Afghanistan. I remember the challenges we faced: daily attacks from rockets and mortars and daily threats of improvised explosive devices, and the massive underfunding and disappointments with the Ministry of Defence’s procurement system. Many of us had to buy our own body armour. We ran out of desert boots had to walk around in 40° heat in black boots. We were driving weapons-mounted installation kit Land Rovers, which provided no protection against the landmines in the area.
I understand that defence underfunding is not new. However, since 2010, when the UK last spent 2.5% of GDP on defence, a decade of austerity under the Conservative Government has completely hollowed out the capability of our armed forces. With Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine now in its third year, it has never been more important for our military to rebuild its capability to show strength and support for our allies in Europe. I completely back our Prime Minister and his decision to increase defence spending back to 2.5% of GDP, and his ambition to go further in the next Parliament.
This is the right course of action. The most effective way to ensure peace in Europe is through strength. However, state-on-state conflict is not the only conflict that threatens us in the UK. There are more active conflicts across the globe than at any time since the end of the second world war—in Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar and the Sahel—and we need a strong military to protect our citizens and deter our enemies.
However, hand in hand with defence is our vital spending on international development. When I was in Afghanistan, serving alongside British soldiers and marines were humanitarian workers, doctors and engineers. Our armed forces were working side by side with aid workers, just as British-backed aid workers are now doing in Ukraine alongside the brave Ukrainian armed forces. There are so many stories of the bravery of aid workers across the world’s conflict zones, where fighting is causing destruction, starvation and violence against women.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing deeply fragile and unstable conflicts such as Afghanistan into this discussion. Does he agree that aid plays a deeply stabilising role in such conflicts and, as such, contributes to global stability and security and to our own national security? Does he agree that that should be recognised in the tough choices we have to make on development spending?
Alex Ballinger
Absolutely. I think that those of us who have served would recognise that development and defence are completely complementary. When we reduce our development spending, our defence spending needs to go up.
After leaving the Royal Marines, colleagues and I worked with civil society in Syria, helping to keep hopes of a different, more tolerant country alive during that civil war. Those groups are probably now the best hope for Syria’s civil society and for a more tolerant and stable country.
Aid helps to mitigate the worst impacts of conflict and to prevent further conflict. I am concerned that cutting our development budget so deeply will undermine our ability to stabilise fragile states, reduce the drivers of extremism and stop further conflicts emerging. The implications of that will be felt here in the UK, with a greater chance of spikes in food and energy prices, increased migration and threats from extremist groups. Our military and security services will face those challenges at a time when their attention should be on Ukraine. While I wholly support raising our defence spending, I encourage the Government to look over the next two years at opportunities to avoid such drastic cuts to our aid budget, in particular our investments in conflict zones and on conflict prevention. Each pound we spend on conflict prevention can save £16 in aid to mitigate the destruction caused by conflict.
I welcome the pledge the Prime Minister made for an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace last December, and I hope that that remains a priority for the FCDO after the latest announcements. I strongly support the increase in defence spending announced last week, but, as a former marine, I also urge the Government to value the critical role our aid budget plays in delivering vital aid in conflict zones and preventing conflicts altogether.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Due to time constraints, we now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
This month marks 10 years since the passing of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, which committed this country to spending 0.7% of our national income on international development. It was a proud moment that represented the culmination of almost half a century of effort and advocacy by my party, the Liberal Democrats. However, that legislation was created through a political consensus across the House, which built on the work of the reforming Labour Government of 1997, who committed to make poverty history, and was continued by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Britain is a leader in international development due to both our expertise and our generosity, and our influence on the world stage has grown as a consequence. Development opened opportunities for trade and growth, and worked alongside defence and diplomacy as a third element of our foreign policy to keep us secure at home. The Prime Minister’s cut to the international development budget last week to 0.3% of GNI puts an end to that shared consensus. Let me be clear: Liberal Democrats support the increase in defence spending. We called for the uplift to 2.5% of GDP even before the Prime Minister committed to it, but we have laid out alternative funding plans.
The world is changing fast, not least in the past six weeks, so we must adapt. But this diminishing of our development spend will make us less, not more, secure. International development serves our national and border security interests. It is our investment in a more stable world and it pays dividends. By contrast, when we retreat, actors whose values and interests are not ours seize the opportunity. Even as we watch, President Trump and Elon Musk gut USAID, which was responsible for a fifth of global development spending. China is moving to fill the gap, deepening its partnerships in the Indo-Pacific and Africa, where, in 2024 alone, Beijing agreed more than $50 billion in loans and aid. As we have heard, when budget cuts forced the closure of the BBC World Service’s Arabic radio in Lebanon, Radio Sputnik—the Russian-backed radio service—moved in.
Development spending serves our health here in the UK, and that is put at risk by the Prime Minister’s cut. Through our support for multilateral organisations, such as Gavi and the Global Fund, we have not only saved millions of lives, but prevented diseases such as Ebola from reaching pandemic proportions and causing devastation on British shores.
As Anneliese Dodds’ resignation letter makes clear, last week’s decision will make it impossible to maintain all of the UK’s development commitments. It may mean cutting strategic programmes that make vital contributions to UK security, including peacebuilding and deconfliction work in fragile states. This will only produce more violence, more failed nations and more refugees and, in the breeding grounds of instability and extremism, risks the emergence of new terrorist groups that could threaten us here at home.
The development cut will mean scaling back the climate finance that develops resilience and mitigation measures for countries on the frontline of climate change and reducing anti-poverty programmes for those very same nations. We know that for every 1% increase in food insecurity, there is a 2% increase in migration. The interaction of climate change and poverty with the high birth rates and extremely young populations in much of the global south is a recipe for the vast displacement of people. We know that in the next 10 years, 1.1 billion young people across the global south will become working-age adults, yet in those same countries we expect only 325 million jobs to be created, so supporting these economies is in our interests. More conflict will only exacerbate the situation. Last year, even as the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe unfolded, more than 2,000 people from Sudan crossed the channel on small boats.
We already have the highest levels of refugees and migration since the end of the second world war, and the Prime Minister’s decision risks further displacement. Will the Minister clarify why no impact assessment was done in advance of these cuts? When will it be done, and when will this House see it?
In 2023, the UK spent 0.2% of GNI on official development assistance within the UK, more than £4 billion of which was used to host in-country refugees. If anything like that continues, we will be left with just 0.1% of GNI to finance our overseas aid objectives. That would make our aid spend the smallest of any of the 32 countries that comprise OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, save for Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, and lower than the rest of the G7. That is a long way to fall from being a global leader in development spending and the second biggest donor of the G7.
Will the Government reconsider their decision to count in-country refugee costs as ODA, so that what little remains after this cut can be used to advance UK interests abroad? Will the Minister confirm that, in view of the Government’s statements in the other place yesterday, the money for the Integrated Security Fund will be ringfenced? Can he also confirm that, to safeguard British soft power, the current level of ODA allocated to both the BBC World Service and the British Council will be protected?
Will the Minister clarify how much of the total 0.3% has already been assigned to multilateral commitments? Is the money still ringfenced? If it is, how much will be left available for bilateral assistance? How will this cut affect UK-run programmes in Sudan; in Gaza and the west bank; in Jordan, where UK ODA is used to support displaced people and prevent future waves of refugees; in the DRC; and in Myanmar? Most importantly, is 0.3% the floor or the ceiling?
In the past, Britain’s overseas aid spending, which has reached 13.8 million people with food aid, helped 95 million people to cope with the effects of climate change and inoculated 15 million children with lifesaving vaccines, has reflected the deep generosity of the British people—we see that again and again in just how much is donated to appeals in response to natural disasters across the world—but we should never mistake development for charity. We reap the benefits of a safer, richer world through increased trade and growth and—critically—through our security, national health and border security.
I had hoped that the Government would reset the UK’s place on the world stage, as they promised. I had hoped that they would return us to the 0.7% target, as promised in their manifesto. In the past, Labour Front Benchers, including the Prime Minister, spoke with vigour about the importance of development for security and the short-sightedness of previous Conservative cuts. Now, in dereliction of its values, Labour has gone further than the Conservatives ever did.
The world is becoming ever more dangerous. The norms of the international order have been turned on their head. Only yesterday in the UN, the United States denounced the sustainable development goals developed collaboratively in pursuit of a better world. The Liberal Democrats had hoped that the UK would step up and lead on development, recognising its vital importance to our future security. Instead, the Government have cut development to its lowest level this century. That is a short-sighted, strategically unwise decision that will leave us less safe. It is not only the millions of the world’s poorest who will feel that, but our constituents, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, I remind Members that they should refer to other Members by their constituency or by their title if they are a Minister, not by their first name.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I begin my remarks by paying tribute to the many speakers in the debate, and in particular the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has been a long-standing advocate for development aid. I have had the great privilege of working with her, and I thoroughly understand her commitment.
I will pay tribute to a few other colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) has been a long-standing, dedicated and passionate advocate not just for 0.7%, but for the effective use of that funding, and for working with the private sector, which he and I have both had the enormous privilege of doing. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) for her commitment. I have had the privilege of working with her as well, and during her time in government she was professional and committed to her brief. Of course, last week the Government sent her here to defend Labour’s indefensible Chagos surrender deal, which uses money transferred from the aid budget to defence to pay for the lease of a site that we have sovereignty over.
Priti Patel
I will not give way because I do not have time.
To spare the blushes of the Minister, I will not relitigate the debate. I am glad that he is in his place because there is a lot to cover. He will speak passionately about development aid and assistance because of his background and experience. I would like to ask him a question about the British Indian Ocean Territory and which budgets the lease costs will come from. Will it be from the FCO, defence or ODA budgets? We still need an explanation of that. I thank the Minister, because before the debate started I received a flurry of answers to some of the questions I have been posing on this issue. However, just for the record, I still do not have clarification, so there will be more.
I want to speak about defence spending and ODA. The Government were right to follow our calls to redirect some ODA funds to support the defence budget at this critical time.
Priti Patel
I will not give way as we are very short on time. I hope that the hon. Member will respect that.
The threats that we and our allies face necessitated that decision, and there is consensus across our respective Front Benches on that. Importantly, it shows our enemies and adversaries that we as a country are serious about dealing with the malign influences and challenges we face. The Minister knows the implications, but we must always look to increase our defence spending and resources. We will work collectively on that.
We all recognise, as I think the debate has shown, that many of the decisions on ODA are difficult. There are strong views in this House on the choices that have been made, including among those on the Opposition Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) pointed out some of the choices. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) spoke about how we must still champion media freedoms, about some of the real pressures that exist and about the key values that we will stand up for.
As a former Secretary of State for International Development—I have been there and I understand— I know the benefits and the impact of UK aid: how we stand strong in the world, the use of soft power and the way in which we save lives. Whether that is through the Global Fund or Gavi, we know those funds very well. We have been a huge supporter of them, and Britain has saved and changed lives around the world. We are all proud of that; there is no question.
These points have been made already, but I ask the Minister: where will the Government take the lead—on which development programmes in particular? We know about Sudan—the Prime Minister has referred to that—but there are so many other areas of conflict in the world. They include Yemen, and I am afraid to say that I have not heard Yemen mentioned in this House for too long. Where will we be on the replenishment of Gavi and the Global Fund? I know Ministers will say that they will wait until the spending review, but given that ODA spending will still be pegged to a proportion of GNI, will the Minister give a commitment on the potential for published plans?
We want to know more about the split of ODA between Government Departments. Home Office spending of ODA on asylum has already been raised several times, and I know that the Minister will want to speak about that. We also want to know more about the integrated security fund and the decisions and choices that will be made on that. What clarity can be given? Similarly, CDC was mentioned. Can there also be clarity on its role and that of British International Investment, and some of the opportunities that exist there?
I want to briefly touch on Ukraine, and some other areas too. It is quite clear that we stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. The Ukrainians’ fight is our fight. They are on the frontline protecting the very principles that underpin our way of life: sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law. Can the Minister say, particularly with the forthcoming changes in defence spending, whether the Government will turbocharge the work following the summit the Prime Minister led at the weekend? Importantly, the Americans have already spoken about pausing military aid and intelligence sharing. What work will we do now to make sure that that does not happen in the headline ways that we have heard? How will we respond to that? Are we having constructive dialogue with our friends in the US Administration to safeguard key intelligence and security assets? This is a defining moment.
I want to touch on the middle east as well, and particularly on some of the discussions we had in the urgent question yesterday on Gaza and the ceasefire. We must ensure that we always stand strong when it comes to standing up for the hostages. New discussions have taken place in Cairo. When plans are forthcoming, what role will we play as a country in some of those areas?
I must raise the issue of Iran. Our diplomatic and security efforts obviously have to ensure that we address that malign influence. I welcome the Government’s actions, which were undertaken yesterday, on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. However, I want to press Ministers to go further and have a consistent and serious approach to security and defence across Government, because this is a whole of Government effort now.
We have heard day after day in this House about the threats posed by Russia, Iran and China, which continue to cast a dark shadow over freedom, democracy and our national interests. We have to stop going cap in hand to China. We have to do much more, and I hope the Minister will reflect upon what I consider to be the Government’s reckless approach in kowtowing to China. What will we do to ensure that the vacuum that will now be created in some parts of the world will not be filled by China? How will we stand up to it?
Finally, it is pretty clear that we live in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world. The threats are increasing and growing. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has one of the world’s greatest privileges, which is to stand up and look after our security, defence and freedom using soft power and all its levers. We urge Ministers, within the scope that they have now, to tackle the real threats and challenges that we all face globally, while also giving voice and representation to many of the issues that colleagues have spoken about today in the House.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I start by thanking all hon. and right hon. Members for their passionate and sincere contributions to today’s debate. We have an incredible wealth of experience here, not least among the former Ministers and former and current Committee members. I am a former member of the International Development Committee. I also want to thank the many people who work in the international development sector and on wider foreign affairs and security issues, notably those who have served in our armed forces. We thank them, and all those who have served our country in humanitarian, security and defence roles, for their service.
I particularly want to thank the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for opening the debate. She made her points strongly and forcefully. She has played an important role as Chair of that Committee, and we take very sincerely the points that she made and hear them all. I will make sure that they are communicated to the new Minister of State in the other place. These are challenging times, and they demand tough choices and clear leadership. I would also like to pay my own tribute to the work of my former ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I have known her for nearly 30 years, and she is a person of absolute integrity and sincerity. I am sure she will continue to contribute in the House on many matters of importance. I thank her for her work.
I also want to thank all the staff in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, in our arm’s length bodies and in other organisations including the BBC World Service and the British Council for the incredible work they do. Ministers and Conservative former Ministers will know the incredible work that our teams of staff have done on these matters, both for the previous Government and for this Government, and it is absolutely right at times of uncertainty such as these that we recognise their contribution and their work. I thank all the hon. Members who made that point in the debate.
I want to be as transparent and as open as I can. I have noted all the many different points made today, including those about specific geographic locations and programmes. I am going to be completely honest: I am not in a position today to answer some of the questions about specific funding for specific programmes, but I will ensure that those points are heard loud and clear by the new Minister of State. I take those points with sincerity, and this debate has been helpful in allowing me to understand the priorities of the House.
Emily Darlington
I know my hon. Friend’s absolute passion and the experience in this area, particularly on international development, that he gained under the last Labour Government. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on aid match, can I ask whether he sees a role for the generosity of the UK public in ensuring that they can match and supplement our efforts in rebuilding countries, but also in furthering our aims right across the world?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her experience and work on these issues over many years. She is right to say that aid match is crucially important, and we very much hope to continue that work. The generosity of the British public is remarkable, whether in relation to Gaza, to Ukraine or to the many other crises around the world. I pay tribute to all the communities and individuals up and down this country for their brilliant generosity and fundraising.
Sir Julian Lewis
Would it be fair to say that the step that has been taken to use development money for the immediate or relatively prompt increase in defence spending is essentially a short-term measure that will have to be substituted with long-term measures, given that the increase in defence spending, if it is to fund a security contribution to a divided Ukraine, will be an indefinite commitment?
Stephen Doughty
I obviously cannot speak for what will happen many years into the future, but the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: our intent is to get back to 0.7% of GNI as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow. The Prime Minister has been very clear about that.
Stephen Doughty
I will not take any more interventions, because of the time; I need to respond to the points that have been made.
It was clear that all of us across the House agree—with a couple of exceptions—that our defence spending needs to go up. There is absolutely clear unity on Ukraine. We will obviously be setting out the further work following the summit at the weekend and how we will go forward. There have been important conversations on that over recent days involving myself, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others.
At this time of profound change, with conflicts overseas undermining security and prosperity at home, the Prime Minister rightly took the decision to increase spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP from 2027. That will be funded by cutting our spending on overseas development from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI. The Prime Minister was absolutely clear that this was not an announcement that he was happy to make—I know that a couple of Members suggested the opposite. The Prime Minister is a man of integrity and sincerity on this issue, and I urge colleagues to look carefully at what he said about it.
For me, this was a sincere but difficult decision, not least given my experience working for humanitarian and international development NGOs and, indeed, at the former Department for International Development. I too have seen the positive impacts of Britain’s proud record on overseas development on lives around the world, as hon. Members reflected on. As the Prime Minister said, we will continue to play a key role in doing everything we can to move towards rebuilding our capacity, and we remain committed to working in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza and on tackling climate change, on supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges such as vaccination, and on our commitments to the overseas territories.
I have to level with the House, and I hope that people can see and feel this: in this dangerous new era, the defence and national security of this country must come first. This is not the 1990s. This is not even 2005, and I cannot look at what I, or indeed other Ministers, do every day and not recognise that we have to respond differently to the very serious threats facing this country, our continent and the world. I say that in deep candour.
This difficult choice reflects the evolving nature of the threats we face and the strategic shifts required to meet them, while maintaining economic stability—the foundation of this Government’s plan for change. We will ensure that every pound of development assistance is spent in the most impactful way, equipping the FCDO to deliver the plan for change internationally. The changes in this estimate reflect that approach, and the FCDO will continue overall, not just through ODA, to focus on growth, security, Europe, migration, climate and nature, and development.
Reducing the overall size of our ODA budget will necessarily have an impact on the scale and shape of the work we do. We will consider how to maximise the value of our budget throughout the ongoing spending review, but ODA alone is not, and has never been, the single answer to the many challenges of international development. We have to use all the levers at our disposal to support our development aims and make use of all forms of development finance to maximise the impact of our ODA. We have set out the detail of the changes being made.
Many Members have raised concerns about asylum spending. The Home Office introduced policy and operational changes within the asylum system to reduce the impact on UK ODA spend. The Home Secretary is committed to ensuring that asylum costs fall, and indeed there has already been an impact. The Government have taken measures to reduce the asylum backlog and the use of expensive asylum accommodation in the next spending review period, and to increase detention capacity to facilitate more removals.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury considered the impact of the rise in GNI and the reduction in asylum costs, among other changes to ODA forecasts, in the round and agreed that the FCDO would receive an uplift to its 2024-25 ODA settlement in the region of £540 million. Many colleagues have raised questions about 2025-26. We will be setting initial budgets for 2025-26 to minimise disruption to key programmes as we transition financial years. The details of that will be set out in due course. The ODA budgets for future years are under review by the Government, and we will confirm details to the House in due course. I want to be honest that we cannot provide categorical assurances at this stage, but I assure Members that their points have been heard clearly.
Many Members raised debt relief. Supporting developing countries to tackle unsustainable debt is a key development priority of this Government. We need to take the twin-track approach of tackling the immediate challenges and the underlying drivers of unsustainable debt.
BII was mentioned, and it is a crucial part of our development architecture. We have provided additional support to BII, and we will work closely with it on its role. Indeed, in 2023, BII-backed businesses provided more than 1 million jobs, paid $2.5 billion in taxes and generated huge amounts of electricity, and we need a clearer role for it. I have taken on board the important points about the British Council and the funding that we give it, and about the BBC World Service, which we hugely support—our part of the funding for it has gone up by £32.6 million in the 2025-26 fiscal year. The role of SDRs has been pointed to.
I want to highlight that we will continue to centre absolutely everything that we do internationally on women and girls. Impact assessments have been mentioned many times. Of course, impact assessments, including of impacts on women and girls, will play a crucial role. I have mentioned UK Aid Match and many other things.
These are incredibly difficult choices, but they are the right choices for the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They are not choices that we make lightly. I say sincerely that I have heard all the contributions that Members have made. We will come back to the House in due course with further information. I commend the estimates to the House.
Sarah Champion
I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate, and express my deep regret that some were unable to do so, but there are many avenues in this House for Members to make their voices heard. I end by saying that I am very concerned about those who might step in, with less generous intent, if we leave the international stage.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Emily Thornberry
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For clarification, when I made my contribution, I referred to Jordan. I should have referred the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I recently went to Jordan at the invitation of the King, and I should have said so.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for putting that point of clarification on the record.