Official Development Assistance Reductions

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of planned reductions in Official Development Assistance on international development.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, and my co-sponsors from across the House—the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding)—for their support in securing it.

It is almost a year since the Prime Minister announced sweeping cuts to official development assistance, a decision that prompted the resignation of a former Minister for International Development, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who could not in good conscience support the dismantling of Britain’s global leadership in aid to fund increased defence spending. That decision marked a turning point. It signalled that Britain, once a leader in development and compassion, was willing to trade its soft power for short-term savings, instead of taking strong and bold decisions such as increasing taxes on tech giants or a bespoke customs union with the EU, as my party has so often urged.

The UK’s proud record as a global leader in aid has been left shredded. The previous Conservative Government reduced the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of our gross national income. This Labour Government now plan to cut it further to just 0.3% by 2027—the lowest level this century. Nearly one third of what remains of the UK aid budget is being spent not on tackling global poverty, preventing instability and migration, but on in-country asylum accommodation. That leaves far less for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. The very budget designed to prevent displacement is being used to pay for its effects. At far greater cost to society, we are left treating the symptoms, not the cause.

These cuts come even as global need rises. Over 123 million people are displaced by conflict. The World Food Programme warns that reduced funding for aid could push another 13.7 million people to severe hunger. In Sudan alone, 30 million people now need humanitarian assistance, with 25 million facing food insecurity. Children in Gaza are enduring unimaginable suffering, with families driven to starvation amid a humanitarian catastrophe. Over 640,000 people now face catastrophic food insecurity, and projections warn that as many as 43,000 children could die from malnutrition by June 2026.

The Liberal Democrats have always helped to lead on international development. We proudly enshrined the 0.7% target in law, because it was an investment in peace and prosperity, but also in long-term security. Aid is not charity; it builds peace, prevents conflict and addresses the root causes of instability and migration.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is raising some good points about national security and migration. He is probably well aware that the top three nationalities that come to the UK on small boats are from conflict-affected states: Afghanistan, Syria and Iran. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the UK dismantling the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s conflict and migration department is the wrong decision at a time when we should be investing in conflict prevention, rather than withdrawing from it?

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member, who is my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee. His background and expertise in this area is unrivalled, and I agree 100% with his sentiment; it is money badly spent when we do not invest in conflict prevention. The decision to cut our official development assistance from 0.7% to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 comes at the worst possible time. It adds to the nightmare caused by earlier cuts in 2021 and the devastating aid freezes in the United States by Trump’s White House. If we stay on this trajectory, by 2027, Britain will be spending over £6 billion less on aid than if we had simply maintained the 0.5% commitment. That is equivalent to cutting the entire education or health portfolio from our overseas spending.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My hon. Friend speaks about security and education. A charity in my constituency, School in a Bag, based in Chilthorne Domer, has delivered 160,000 school bags filled with stationery to children all over the world, giving those who live in the most deprived circumstances the tools for an education and a lifeline out of hardship. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the reach of brilliant charities such as School in a Bag will be shrunk without stable ODA-backed grants?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100%. What is so wonderful about Britain is how, time and again, communities step into the void left by Government spending, but we cannot rely entirely on the charity and good will of others.

The UK’s contribution to global health, education and nutrition, which are the foundations of our stability, is being eroded. Nutrition-focused aid has fallen by 60% and education spending has declined by 83% since 2016. Aid for reproductive health has fallen by 68%, and primary education now accounts for only £71 million of the entire ODA budget. The list goes on, and they are not just statistics. They are classrooms that will never reopen; vaccines that will never be delivered; and children who will never have a fair chance in life.

As a member of both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I have seen at first hand how aid and development are integral to our security. In recent weeks, we have seen the malign influence of China and Russia on our domestic politics. Those malevolent threats are already prevalent in the countries we support. We must not give them space to grow because, when we retreat, the vacuum is filled by those countries that do not share our values.

The strategic investments of Russia and China are already exploiting that space. China would have no difficulty stepping in to replace UK influence, especially in the global south, where its belt and road investments already run deep. But Beijing’s model of aid is transactional, not transformative. We should not be surprised when those nations fill the void, with motives far removed from our liberal and democratic values.

As Members of this House, we should never forget that the world watches what Britain does. When we lead, others follow. When we stand firm, others shrink back. Development and defence are not opposites; they are two sides of the same coin. Soft power—the influence we exert through compassion, diplomacy and culture—is what gives our country the moral legitimacy that has underpinned our diplomacy since the post-war era. It is what makes Britain a leader on the world stage. When we cut aid, we cut influence. When we weaken our global reach, we make ourselves less safe.

The Government have argued that the reduction is necessary to fund a rise in defence spending, to reach 2.6% of GDP by 2027. Yes, we must invest in defence, but we cannot defend Britain by turning away from the world. We cannot keep our citizens safe by cutting the very programmes that prevent conflict and suffering at source.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. This weekend, the Government announced £5 million for Sudan and £6 million for Gaza. By contrast, the Government are spending £2.2 billion of ODA on hotels to house asylum seekers in this country. Does my hon. Friend share my view that the money would be better spent on preventing conflict and keeping people safe in their own regions?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Purely on a value-for-money basis, it is wiser to spend money where people are, to prevent them from getting on the road, than to try to house them here.

Migration and global instability do not begin at our borders. They begin when climate change destroys livelihoods, when wars displace families and when hunger drives desperation. Compassion and prevention are not opposites of security; they are the foundations of it.

Climate change remains the single greatest threat we face. Carbon knows no borders; it does not respect treaties or national boundaries. If we cut funding to those on the frontline of climate vulnerability, we are cutting our own future resilience. Whether that is in the Caribbean, the Sahel, the middle east or the Pacific, our partners need leadership, and Britain should be that leader.

The Government’s commitment to meet their £11.6 billion international climate finance pledge by 2026 is welcome, but it is increasingly hollow if other aid streams are being dismantled. We cannot claim climate leadership while simultaneously cutting the very funds that protect vulnerable nations from its impact and help them to decarbonise sooner. The UK has always been at its best when leading with principle and pragmatism. We led on eradicating smallpox, on fighting HIV/AIDS, on girls’ education, on tackling modern slavery and, of course, on the creation of the United Nations.

Today we must show that same moral courage. The cuts to the ODA budget are not only a betrayal of those values, they are a strategic mistake. Every pound we invest in aid saves far more in the long term, by preventing wars, stopping pandemics and reducing the need for emergency interventions. We live in a globalised society. Our economies, supply chains and security are inter- connected. Disease, conflict and climate crisis spread across borders with ease. To imagine that Britain can isolate itself from those realities is naive; if we fail to act abroad, we will pay the price at home.

I pay tribute to the humanitarian workers who continue to serve in some of the world’s most dangerous environments, and who risk their lives daily to deliver aid. They embody the best of British values, yet their work is getting harder. From Gaza to Sudan, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Ukraine, aid workers face extraordinary challenges. In 2024, one in eight people worldwide was exposed to armed conflict. Humanitarian staff have been detained, attacked and even killed, and entire operations have been halted due to insecurity. Our response to that sacrifice should not be to cut funding for their organisations—they deserve not only our gratitude but our tangible support. We must ensure that safeguards and funding are extended to humanitarian workers, who represent British values in the most fragile corners of the world.

The Government expect aid reductions to provide £500 million for defence in 2025-26, £4.8 billion in 2026-27 and £6.5 billion in 2027-28. That may satisfy Treasury spreadsheets, but it will come at the cost of lives, stability and influence. In the coming weeks, this House will debate spending priorities at the Budget. The timing of this debate could not be more important. It is a time of hardship and high costs of living for all. There are difficult decisions to be made, both domestically and abroad. But we should remember that the choices we make here ripple far beyond our own borders. They shape how the world sees us, and how safe, stable and prosperous our shared future will be.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that at a dangerous moment geopolitically, with tensions high and multilateralism facing challenges—which, as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we are more than aware of—it is incumbent on all of us to advocate an approach that treats global co-operation, our international obligations and our defence and security as interconnected?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100% with the hon. Member. The more we work with our partners, the more we can deliver. We are living in an interconnected society; there is no way we can do this alone. We must work with others, and we must show leadership in that space.

If aid spending remained at 0.5%, it would have reached £15.4 billion by 2027. Instead, it will stand at £9.2 billion, the lowest in real terms since 2012. When we retreat, Russia and China advance; when we stay silent, violence speaks for us. There can be no security without stability, and no stability without development. Development is not an add-on to security and foreign policy, but what that policy is built on.

I therefore urge the Government to reconsider the planned reductions ahead of the Budget, and to bring forward sustainable, long-term plans for funding both our defence and our diplomacy, rather than setting them in competition. I urge them to recognise that global leadership cannot be built on cuts and withdrawals, but on conviction and compassion. The world we are shaping today, through the choices we make on aid, diplomacy and climate will determine whether future generations—our children and grandchildren—inherit a planet of opportunity for all.

We must stand up for liberal values, for compassion and for the rules-based international order. Britain has always stood tall on the world stage. Our leadership has mattered. It must matter again.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I call Sarah Champion. I suggest five minutes.

09:43

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for his powerful and accurate speech, with which I associate myself.

Recent reductions have meant that UK ODA has dropped from the legally enshrined 0.7% to 0.5%, and it is now projected to be at 0.3% by 2027. That represents a significant retreat of UK leadership on international development and on the international stage. If ODA were to remain at 0.5% of GNI in 2027, it would total £15.4 billion; at 0.3%, it would be £9.2 billion, the lowest ODA in cash terms since 2012. That is a reduction of more than £6 billion in support for millions of vulnerable people around the world—people whose safety, health and long-term stability are in the UK’s immediate and long-term interest.

The Government acknowledge that this reduction requires many hard choices. In May, when Baroness Chapman appeared before my International Development Committee, she told us:

“The days of viewing the UK Government as a global charity are over”.

As I said to her then, money spent on aid and development is not charity; it is an investment. Let me give two examples.

First, the support that we give to fragile and conflict-affected states helps stabilisation efforts and prevents the creation of conditions ripe for generating extremism, which can lead to problems that end up on the UK’s doorstep and to a direct impact on our national security. Aid is now being cut for victims of the raging conflict in Sudan, from £146 million to £120 million, but the casualties, the victims and the devastation are only increasing. The many millions of Sudanese civilians displaced by the war are at severe risk of food insecurity and may seek security in Europe, worsening the pressure on the continent’s already struggling refugee protection systems. The lack of support for the Sudanese people over recent years has been devastating. My Committee was told last week by Shayna Lewis, an independent expert who works on the ground in Sudan, that the UK has refused to heed warnings and invest in atrocity prevention in Sudan over the past year, which could have been vital in preventing the horrors that are unfolding today in el-Fasher.

Secondly, UK ODA has been vital to global health programmes such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which has cut the combined death rate from those three diseases by 61%, saving 65 million lives—arguably the most effective global health initiative of all time. Experts have warned our Committee that cuts to such programmes will reverse the gains in disease prevention, maternal health and pandemic preparedness.

Similarly, the Government must protect investment in global nutrition. ODA reductions in 2021 led to a cut in nutrition spending of more than 60%, and in 2023 nutrition spending was drastically cut. In Afghanistan, it was down £87 million to £8.9 million; in Nigeria, it was down £11.8 million to £15.9 million; and in Myanmar, it was down £9.9 million to just £0.2 million.

How will the Department deliver the four essential shifts announced by Baroness Chapman when funding, staffing and support programmes around the world are being so dramatically scaled back? It is not clear how the Government will deliver more with so much less. With the United States Agency for International Development shut down, and with other Governments reducing aid, it seems that instead of stepping up to fill the gap, the UK is stepping further back.

What is most concerning is that the Government do not seem to have a strategy to manage the impact of the cuts on those who are affected. For example, the Government’s own equality impact assessment acknowledges the disproportionate impact of aid cuts on women and girls, risking the reversal of hard-won gains in that area. Previous cuts to ODA led to a 41% cut in programming to prevent violence against women and girls, and a 66% cut in funding for women’s rights organisations. Furthermore, even a 30% decrease in funding for sexual and reproductive health rights could lead to an additional 1.1 million unintended pregnancies. These programmes are vital for the safety of women and girls and the sustainability of societies around the world.

Reducing ODA is not merely a budgetary adjustment. It is a political choice: a choice not to consider the longer-term benefits of investing a small percentage of taxpayers’ money in return for vast benefits to the poorest communities around the world and to our own safety and security. I urge the Government to reconsider the damaging, deadly trajectory that we are on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. I suggest four minutes from now on.

09:48

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the International Development Committee, because I want to refer to one or two things that the Committee has been doing. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing the debate.

Given that this is a major change in Government policy, there has been very little debate in Parliament about it. I fear, though, that we will not be able to secure an increase in spending unless we can increase public support for development. Those of us who have been committed to development have to concede that we have been complacent in thinking that that support would automatically be there, and that people would see good for what it is. That is not the case. As I think most Members would recognise from their mailbags, when this change was made there was very little public reaction.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The right hon. Member hits on a very important point. There is not much wider public support, for two big reasons: corruption in some of the countries to which aid is going, and the misappropriation of food and other produce that is delivered. Until we address those issues, we will face an uphill battle in getting public support in the UK for more money.

[David Mundell]

That is partly right, because negative stories have prevailed and we have not had people on the other side rebutting them, as we have not had advocates on the ground. I feel that many non-governmental organisations became far too corporate in their approach: they did not have the local people who were able and willing to collect money or to stand up and make the case in their community environments.

The International Development Committee has visited the US, to try to find out what is happening there. One of the great ironies is that—subject to the budget currently being frozen—it looks as though the US cuts will be less than the cuts in the UK, because various interests in the US have pushed back on them. There is no doubt that what is happening in the US will significantly affect the global development structures, and we must react to that. We cannot simply say, “We want to go back to 0.7%, and it will all be all right.” That is not the world we are in.

We will have to demonstrate specific things that the UK can contribute in a leadership capacity. For example, we have heard that the US will not be funding any family-planning activity or LGBT activity, so others will have to step up in a strategic and co-ordinated way. Whether it is our Government, other Governments or philanthropists, we must find a co-ordinated way of doing this.

We must also look at how we can deliver most effectively with the reduced funding that we have. As the hon. Member for Rotherham knows, I have been a strong advocate for nutrition. One of the biggest disappointments to me of late has been that, after the International Development Committee conducted an inquiry into sustainable development goal 2, we received a very, very poor response from the Government. I accept that it took place during a period of change, but there was nothing concrete in the response. In fact, there was less in it than what was said a few months ago at the nutrition for growth summit in Paris.

It seems to me that the Government embarked on these cuts without a strategy. We might disagree with the strategy in the US, but at least there was one: there was a clear objective, and it took certain actions to pursue it. I am not aware of any clear strategy being pursued in the UK.

Finally, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, I want to make a pitch for the Global Fund. The Global Fund has been a huge success in combating HIV and AIDS, and I hope that the Government can proceed with a replenishment of £1 billion. I campaigned against my own Government to get £1 billion last time, and it would be very disappointing to find an incoming Labour Government cutting that.

09:53

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG on global education. I will focus on the transformative nature of ODA for the education of children worldwide.

Education has been a crucial component of the UK’s international development effort over the past two decades. It has long been recognised that providing education improves health outcomes, contributes to economic growth, improves gender equality and reduces poverty. In 2013, the percentage of the UK ODA budget spent on education was 13.5% of 0.7% of GNI, but just a decade later it was 3.5% of 0.5% of GNI. With the further projected cuts to ODA—to 0.3% of GNI by 2027, equating to a real-terms cut to funding of roughly 73% since 2019—the situation in the education sector looks dire, with a projected 2.2 million fewer children in school and learning.

The Global Partnership for Education is the largest multilateral fund for education in the world. Its work started here in the UK and now reaches every corner of the globe. It works tirelessly to ensure that every child has, in its words, the “hope, opportunity and agency” that a quality education brings. In 2021, the UK pledged £430 million for GPE. That money has helped to enrol 5 million more girls in school, train 4.7 million teachers and support 372 million children with better education. Although 60% of partners have kept or raised their education budgets to over 20% of total spending, planned cuts raise the possibility of limited or no funding for the upcoming replenishment of GPE. Without UK aid, GPE will struggle to continue its life-changing work.

In the past, UK development has allowed the FCDO to support the strengthening of education systems world- wide, to improve teacher quality, to build accountability mechanisms and to reach the most marginalised children, particularly girls and those in crisis zones, but we cannot celebrate those achievements without recognising the dangers of the planned cuts. To understand the risks, we must understand what is being planned. By 2027, UK aid spending will fall to 0.3% of GNI. At the end of 2025-26, bilateral aid from the FCDO will be down £600 million on the year before. New aid spending decisions have been paused, and payments to multilateral bodies such as GPE have been delayed.

Alongside the planned cuts, the Government have set out new priorities for development aid: health, climate and humanitarian spending, all underpinned by economic growth. Funding allocations have not been confirmed, but those priorities cannot leave education behind. Without investment in education, low and middle-income countries cannot unlock jobs, trade and innovation, and economies cannot grow. The foundation of our priorities must be education.

Conflict zones are in desperate need of development aid. We have seen conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yemen, to name but a few. One extra year of education can reduce the risk of conflict by up to 20%. Although I did not welcome the cuts, I ask the Minister whether she will commit to 0.7% when the economy allows. Will she confirm that the UK has committed to funding GPE and Education Cannot Wait in future rounds?

09:57

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech.

As we have heard today, Britain’s aid budget supports international development in countries facing extreme poverty and conflict. We can see it every night on our television screens—in Gaza and Sudan, to name but two places. The aid budget also helps people in developing countries to address the impact of climate change. We have recently seen the devastating damage wreaked by Hurricane Melissa. Communities will need our help to rebuild their roads and housing and get clean water back again. Those are the sorts of things that our aid budget funds.

I am proud that in coalition the Liberal Democrats increased the aid budget to 0.7% of GNI. It is shocking that the Conservatives very quickly reduced it to 0.5%, and I cannot believe that Labour is now planning to reduce it further to just 0.3%. By 2027, as we have heard, that will be £6 billion less than it would have been even at 0.5%. That means £6 billion less for maternity care, vaccination programmes, food aid, education, clean water, flood protection and more. People at the sharp end of the climate crisis and in extreme poverty will die because of the cuts. We should not shy away from that.

At 0.3%, ODA stands at the lowest proportion of gross national income since 1999. That represents an abdication of our moral responsibility on the global stage. Of course, we have to strengthen our national security and defence in uncertain times, but not at the cost of withdrawing support from some of the poorest communities around the world. Does the Minister accept that not only is proper investment in ODA critical to tackling poverty, but it can help prevent conflict abroad? Strengthening national security and stability and addressing poverty and development abroad is not a binary choice: they are intertwined; they are essential for each other. The Government’s decision represents a further retreat into insular attitudes when we need to be doing what we can to tackle poverty and security threats abroad as well as here at home.

For decades, international aid has been vital in growing our nation’s stature through soft power and building a hard-won reputation for supporting the poorest countries in the world. In opposition, the Labour party agreed with us, so it is regrettable that it abandoned those values upon entering government. I hope that the Government will take the contributions to this debate in the spirit that they are intended. We want the UK to be seen as the gold standard for promoting international development, just like the Labour party said in opposition.

This cut is a risk to international security and plays into the hands of Russia and China, so I hope that the Minister will reflect on the message of this debate and explore alternative ways of meeting defence spending commitments, rather than this ill-thought-out cut. In the long term, will the Government consider increasing taxation on social media giants and tech firms to fund defence and increase official development assistance back to 0.7% of GNI? We live in dangerous times, and we are not alone in that. Now is the time to step up on the global stage, not step back.

10:01

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Desmond, for chairing the debate, which I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing. The huge amount of consensus from all parties shows that this is not a big-P political issue; it is about how we make the world, and the UK, more secure.

Development is about UK security. I agree that the new global reality means that we have to increase our defence spending, but we should be looking at how to increase our development spending at the same time, because the two serve each other. China and Russia have their own agenda, which is in conflict with our values of democracy and human rights. Their agenda is to destabilise the international rules-based system; they want to exploit, not support. I saw that with my own eyes when I lived in Kenya, where they promised roads in exchange for minerals, and also seemed to kill a bunch of elephants for their ivory on their way out.

The BBC World Service is being picked up at every opportunity, every time we step back. For so many around the world, it has been their only link to the outside world and to free and fair reporting. When we withdraw, desperate countries that need the infrastructure spend have only Russia and China to turn to, and that comes with a very heavy cost. It is destabilising our Commonwealth, which the King leads and for which we have a huge moral responsibility. Countries’ economies are collapsing and famine is returning. That drives migration, as people flee war looking for work and safety, and millions are dying.

We have an opportunity to change that. Malaria has been eradicated from many countries, HIV treatment is on the cusp, based on UK science, and polio has almost been eradicated. We could protect millions across the world, as well as in the UK—because we know that viruses know no borders. We are co-hosting the Global Fund replenishment, yet last time, under the Conservatives, the UK was the only country to cut its commitment. We risk global embarrassment by cutting it further at a time when the world needs global leadership again from the UK. Even the US is not cutting its commitment. There is a huge job ahead to rebuild Gaza and, now, Jamaica. We could demonstrate our generosity by using aid match—I should declare that I am the chair of the APPG for aid match—to show the public that, for every pound they contribute, the Government contribute too in helping to rebuild Jamaica and Gaza.

This is the time not for short-termism just to make the balance sheet work, but for long-term thinking—it is in our Labour values and our Labour history. The world needs the UK to lead. The Prime Minister said that this was one of the hardest cuts that he had to make and that it would be temporary, so what is the route out of the cut and how will we rebuild over the coming years to ensure that development spending is seen as spending on UK security, alongside our defence spend?

10:05

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for bringing this vital debate to Westminster Hall. I want to start with the words of Jane from Cheadle, who wrote to me to ask:

“How will the Government’s cuts impact the world’s most vulnerable children?”

I would like to put that very question to the Minister today.

The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned by the Government’s decision to reduce the UK’s official development assistance from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3%—the lowest UK aid contribution as a percentage of GNI since 1999—thereby diminishing the UK’s long-standing reputation as a global leader in humanitarian assistance and development. What will happen to the countless children across the world who will no longer receive healthcare, education, vaccines, social protection or climate disaster mitigation? Millions of children will grow up in a less stable world, more likely to be drawn into extremism or crime, more likely to suffer poor mental and physical health, and less likely to be educated, employed or able to participate in and contribute to democracy—the cornerstone of global security.

The statistics are stark: 2024 was one of the worst years on record for children in conflict. Almost 20% were affected—double the figure just two decades ago. This year, 63 million children have gone hungry, as food insecurity due to violence has increased. The Government’s decision to cut aid is deadly, dangerous and short-sighted. Although we agree with the importance of strengthening the UK’s national security and defence commitments, particularly in the light of increasing global security challenges, we recognise that cutting ODA diminishes the UK’s soft power.

There is an intimate connection between supporting international aid and preventing conflict abroad. ODA investment is an essential tool in tackling poverty, promoting stability and reducing the causes of conflict and migration, all of which serve the UK’s own security interests. It is concerning that the UK’s retreat from its status as an international aid superpower creates a vacuum into which Russia and China flow. The UK’s influence in the world comes through a combination of hard power and soft power, including our development funds. Further diminishing the UK’s soft power will only play into those states’ hands.

A recent briefing from key organisations including UNICEF highlighted the dire impact that these cuts will have on ground operations. Operations across the globe will be scaled back, causing serious harm to citizens of affected countries and those putting themselves in harm’s way to help others—the humanitarian workers. I have highlighted in this Chamber the impact that reducing the aid budget will have on those selfless workers and, as a consequence, on those who need aid. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber knows that 2024 was the deadliest year on record for humanitarian workers. Violence against aid workers has reached unprecedented levels, with injuries, harassment, kidnapping —the list goes on. Slashed budgets mean that the workers have fewer protections and less security, that less aid reaches victims of conflict, natural disasters and climate change in their hour of need, and that children in Sudan, Gaza, the west bank, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ukraine will miss out on vital lifesaving support.

According to Plan International UK, in Sudan, at least 638,000 people are already experiencing famine conditions, and children are dying of starvation; there have been reports of mothers and children eating leaves from trees just to stay alive. The people of Gaza have suffered beyond anything that we could imagine; with a very fragile ceasefire now in place, we need unprecedented amounts of aid to be pumped into the region. According to Action for Humanity, nearly half of Yemen’s people are already at crisis-level food insecurity, with another million people expected to fall to that level in the coming months.

I will conclude with a quote from David, another resident of Cheadle, who said to me:

“Strengthening our defence should not come at the expense of international aid. These cuts are short-sighted and they are counter-productive.”

I have said before that we must not underestimate our soft power. We must invest in our future security to maintain democratic values, reduce displacement and decrease the chances of conflict. Ministers must reaffirm the UK’s commitment to global security. We can be a beacon of conscience and compassion. Helping now will help the world.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. I am imposing a formal four-minute limit.

10:09

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing the debate.

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have recently met Unite representatives who work for development agencies. They set out the challenges that they face, professionally and personally, from the cuts to the aid budget. As they face job losses here and around the world, their greater concern is the impact of the cuts, not least given that $44 billion of development funding has been cut this year alone. That is a scandal, given that the UN highlights that for every $1 invested in peacebuilding and development initiatives, $16 are saved, and that for every $1 invested to stimulate economic growth and stability, $103 can be saved by averting future instability.

The World Health Organisation warns that the cuts will mean 38 million essential immunisations not being delivered to children, and that we will see regression in TB, AIDS, malaria and many other programmes. The UN World Food Programme will be starved of vital funds, and the loss of education will deny too many, especially girls, a future. This is a false choice between development, defence and diplomacy, which are now out of balance with one other, causing instability to grow.

I urge the Government to rethink and restore our 0.7% commitment, and to look to raise it to 1%, as we are now learning of the real climate devastation that is causing so much unrest around the world. The last Labour Government built global respect as we modelled our investment approach on building resilience and enabling local providers to sustain services for themselves, multiplying their impact. The erosion we have witnessed since we lost office—the shutting of the Department for International Development, the removal of a Cabinet member and the diversion of funds to pay for the asylum hotels scandal—has been stark. We need to reset our strategy and focus.

Climate and geopolitical challenges are unabating, so the UK approach is needed more than ever to de-risk and build stability in the system. Get this wrong and demands on defence will rise; cut too deep and diplomacy will lose impact. Scaling down funding will have a particular cost for women and girls—it is gendered. Yet fund them, and their empowerment and resilience is unparalleled. Cutting our aid presence gives countries such as China and Russia further space to intervene, as we have heard. Their interests are far removed from ours: while we seek independence, they drive dependence. Their economic models are self-serving; they seek power, control and extraction, and escalate risk for recipients and for us.

We have been such pioneers in providing leadership. Staff have excelled globally. Now they are fighting for others, so today I am fighting for them. The Minister knows the arguments all too well, and I trust that her powerful voice will echo around the Treasury over the coming days so that we can avoid this futile cut, which will cause such harm, cost lives, and cut hope and opportunity. We cannot afford to look away now, when the world is looking to us to step up and lead again.

10:13

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this important debate.

Getting UK aid spending to 0.7% of GNI was undoubtedly one of the Liberal Democrats’ proudest moments. It fulfilled a promise and it put us ahead of the game in the race to reach the Brandt target, but more importantly it meant that the UK was doing its bit to make poverty history around the world. The cut to 0.3% is a tragedy for the poorest on the planet, and it diminishes our reputation and influence.

I want to focus on my own area of expertise: water, sanitation and hygiene, or WASH. Sustainable development goal 6 is clean water and sanitation, but WASH also underpins most of the other SDGs. We know that the world could face a 40% shortfall of fresh water by 2030, and that progress on the sustainable development goals is way off track for meeting that 2030 deadline. More seriously, the UK’s annual budget for WASH has been cut by approximately 82% since 2018—from £206.5 million to a critical low of just £37 million in 2022. Two thirds of healthcare facilities in the 46 least developed countries do not have access to basic handwashing facilities, and without access to WASH, infections are more likely to spread. That increases the risk of antibiotic-resistant infections, which cause 5 million deaths annually.

There are also economic costs. Research by WaterAid has shown that infections developed in healthcare facilities cost seven countries across sub-Saharan Africa $8.4 billion each year. In Malawi, those infections are consuming almost 3% of the country’s GDP, and a staggering 10.9% of its annual healthcare budget is being absorbed in treating them. Many antibiotic-resistant infections treated by the NHS originate elsewhere in the world. Healthcare-acquired infections already cost the NHS at least £2.1 billion a year—a cost that will increase as those infections become increasingly resistant to antibiotics. To protect the NHS, we need to ensure global health security, and that requires investment in WASH.

Women’s health is disproportionately affected by inadequate access to WASH, because they are the primary household managers of water and sanitation, and because of their specific needs in childbirth and menstruation. Every year, more than 16 million women give birth in healthcare facilities that lack WASH, and infections associated with unclean birth environments account for 11% of maternal mortality. Some 1.7 billion people do not have a toilet, which makes managing periods much more challenging. With no facilities at school, at work or in public places, many women and girls stay at home every month. Many girls opt out of school altogether when they start their periods. I could go on at great length, but I will say this: let us do the right thing and restore the 0.7% aid spend.

10:17

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

Official development assistance is changing. Just two weeks ago in Nigeria, one of the UK’s largest development partners, my colleagues and I from the International Development Committee had a glimpse of the future. Although the FCDO runs dozens of centrally managed programmes in the country, what stood out was not just the scale of the UK’s presence, but the way that we worked hand in glove with state Governments and public institutions to build the capacity that underpins long-term development. Whether that was in technical assistance to the revenue service or tax administration, support for reforming the public health system or advice on the macroeconomic reforms that Nigeria is beginning to implement, the emphasis was unmistakeable: partnership not paternalism.

That is a mature partnership that points the way to the future of international development. As painful as it is for a proponent of international development to say this, when the Government cut aid earlier this year, the writing was on the wall. The system must evolve from trade, not aid, and to transformation rather than transactions.

In that evolution, the UK possesses an extraordinary toolkit. We remain a leader in technical co-operation and capacity building, we are a pioneer in development finance and, perhaps most importantly, we sit at the centre of the global financial architecture. Nearly half of sovereign debt worldwide is governed by English law. That fact alone gives the City of London a moral and practical responsibility. If we want to see fairer, faster and more transparent debt restructuring and prevent another lost decade for low-income countries, the UK is uniquely placed to lead. Global debt reform will not happen in New York or Beijing unless it also happens in London.

In British International Investment—I declare an interest as a former employee—we have a leader among European development finance institutions, one that understands that development finance is not just about providing capital but about building markets. BII’s mission is to identify the bridges that must be built to get economic activity off the ground, create jobs and lift people out of poverty, while delivering a fair return, even when that return is concessional to the British taxpayer. That is smart, modern development policy, which will strengthen Africa’s hand.

Nowhere is the shift from aid to investment more necessary than in northern Nigeria. While parts of the south of Nigeria power on, the north is facing a humanitarian crisis, deep insecurity and environmental stress. Yes, there is an urgent need for aid to combat famine, strengthen healthcare systems and stabilise communities, but we must also confront the structural causes. A major driver of that instability is economic exclusion. Across the Sahel and the north of Nigeria, young people are being pushed off their land by drought, flooding and declining soil resilience. Many of those who end up in the orbit of Boko Haram or bandit groups are not idealogues; they are victims of climate and market failure.

Those problems are not insurmountable, but aid without investment is not the answer to that market failure. If we can give rural farmers the means to invest in sustainable crops and farming practices, agriculture can be a source of peace, dignity and security. The World Bank’s forthcoming Nigeria agricultural value chains growth project—on which I hope the Minister will comment—is now at concept stage, but it aims to do just that, and to mobilise more than $500 million to foster the kind of growth that I have described. I also commend the work that BII is doing with its investee Babban Gona in that realm.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order.

10:21

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I declare an interest in that my wife works for Save the Children. Indeed, I met her while working in the sector almost 11 years ago to this day.

I start by setting out some context around the erosion of the budget, because it has not just been reduced in absolute terms but as a proportion. That makes some of the arguments about not being able to afford official development assistance due to the lack of growth in the economy slightly disingenuous—because, of course, when the economy does not perform, the amount that we contribute goes down anyway.

There has also been a lot of salami-slicing of the budget. The merger with the FCDO was bad for the amount of aid being directed to the global south; we have also heard about the Home Office eating into the budget. With regard to the latest reason for reducing the aid budget—which is about defence—a lot of the uplift in the defence budget has been on the capital side. We are borrowing to invest in that capital. Therefore it is also slightly disingenuous to say that there is a direct transfer between the international aid budget and the money that is going into defence. That needs to be made clear.

The public misunderstand how much we commit to spending on international aid. In polls, they consistently overestimate it. I believe that if the British public truly understood that the commitment was 0.7%, they would stand by that commitment. It is like asking somebody who is down to their last £100 if they would give 70p to somebody more needy than them. I know that the British public are generous, and that they would not baulk at that figure. I think that they would maintain that commitment.

I now move to the points that were excellently put by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on how we have allowed public support to erode over time. The public’s perception of international aid is that a lot of it is wasted, that some of it is spent on woke projects, that it goes to corrupt Governments, and that the trade-off between investment in the poor overseas and the poor in the UK is a zero-sum game.

It would be easy for me to say that it is the fault of right-wing populists, the media and so on. However, I think that the sector itself has failed to communicate properly. It has failed to tell a long-term story of its success. For 30 years, we have had the same images on our screens—starving African children with flies hovering around their noses. That is the image that we consistently feed to the public, instead of telling some of the stories of progress, such as how we have halved infant mortality and lifted a billion people out of destitution. Those are the stories that we should have been telling the public all along.

I believe that the development sector was one of the most scrutinised in terms of its monitoring and evaluation. From time to time, I am sure that there have been pet projects that were useless. However, generally speaking we have achieved so much from our investment in international aid, so we need to get that message across.

The following points were made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), so I will not go into them in detail. However, we need to sell the changing purpose of aid—how it is about not dependency but creating independence, how we work in partnership because it is not mere charity, and how it is based on shared values because we all want a good future for our children. It is about telling those stories of progress.

Other Members have already made good points about how this is also in our self-interest—the raw, naked interest of Britain. If we vacate this field, it will be filled by others. When I lived in Uganda for a period, I saw how China is moving in where the UK is moving out, so this has an impact on soft power all over the world.

The points made about conflict security have been well put; whether we feel it in inflation or migration, these problems arrive back on our shores. The arguments against the aid budget are rooted in moral confusion, they demonstrate a poor analysis of the efficacy of aid, and they are strategically short-sighted. That is why we need to restore the 0.7% budget and recreate an independent Department for International Development, so that we can start marshalling that money towards the good, effective and important work that it has always done.

10:25

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for setting the scene so incredibly well. International development aid has been significant in helping at-risk individuals and groups around the globe. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I acknowledge the importance of providing financial and physical support to religious minorities that are facing threats, violence and persecution on a daily basis.

International aid has long served as a lifeline for minority groups to rebuild their lives, to provide additional education and to support local organisations. It is a reminder that we have not forgotten those facing the most horrific forms of persecution simply because they choose to believe, whether that is the Rohingya population in Myanmar, Christians in the middle east or the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan, all of whom face ongoing violence, forced displacement and deep-rooted discrimination.

The devastating effects of global cuts to international aid have been evidenced most clearly in the decision to dissolve USAID. In January 2025, thousands of humanitarian and international aid projects were put on a 90-day freeze, and over 80% of its projects were permanently terminated. Global organisations such as World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse, which are active in my constituency of Strangford, were directly impacted, as well as Catholic Relief Services.

Several affected projects involved a focus on freedom of religion or belief, such as Asia and ethnic freedom, or the documentation of religious freedom incidents in Sudan. The NGOs and faith-based humanitarian organisations have now been left with depleted resources, unfinished missions and heartbreaking reports from the field, where support is now absent. That is the effect of the cuts: the staff, volunteers and international partners, who are driven by compassion, conviction and service, now find themselves unable to meet human need because the infrastructure that enabled them to do so has been abruptly dismantled.

The termination of USAID has led to a global vacuum in which NGOs struggle to survive, rendering communities such as the Yazidis in Iraq increasingly vulnerable to the termination of psychosocial support and humanitarian aid. The effect is like a stone hitting water—it ripples the whole way out. Persecuted religious minorities are suffering more than ever without the commitment of permanent, ongoing support. The Government must ensure that their needs are protected and addressed.

The UK has long been a leader in championing freedom of religion or belief, and the Government made a good decision by renewing the appointment of a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief—the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) —in December 2024. To ensure that we are upholding our reputation and protecting the right to religious freedom, we must strongly oppose cuts in the budget that clearly harm the vulnerable individuals that we are striving very hard to protect.

I believe that we must remain committed to providing high-quality international aid that will contribute to a long-lasting positive change in areas where the persecution of individuals is most targeted. We cannot allow the most vulnerable to be left to suffer, and we cannot turn our backs on injustice.

I am always minded of Proverbs 31:8-9—I know you will appreciate this, Sir Desmond, as I do—which states:

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,

for the rights of all who are destitute.

Speak up and judge fairly;

defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

There must also be full transparency about how our international aid is being used to promote the fundamental right to freedom of religion or belief, particularly in countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan and Myanmar where so many continue to suffer simply because of their faith. While continuing the aid is vital, it is equally essential that receiving Governments uphold their responsibilities and adhere to the highest human rights standards. Our support must be accompanied by a clear expectation that Governments respect the dignity and freedoms of all people within their borders. I ask the Minister that, where aid is extended, so too must there be a commitment to protect vulnerable religious and ethnic minority groups.

10:29

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate on a critical issue. It is critical because we are at a cliff edge. This year, with 120 armed conflicts, more than at any moment since the second world war; this year, with nearly 320 million people facing acute hunger; this year, when 2024 was the hottest year on record; this year, when the deadly trio of climate, conflict and hunger collide to force the displacement of 123 million people, this Government decided to slash the aid budget to the lowest level this century—after, because of or in spite of the United States Administration’s decision to close USAID, cut the foreign assistance budget by 85% and shed 10,000 jobs.

This year, under a Labour Government, we surrendered our global leadership on aid and development. That represents one of the most consequential and devastating decisions of recent years, with long-term consequences for our stability, security and prosperity, and it will cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

It is a mistake, both morally and strategically—strategically, because aid is not an act of charity, as we have already heard today. It is a long-term investment in our future; it is not a cash machine in the sky, but a deposit account from which we withdraw for our own prosperity. There is a reason why some of the most vociferous voices against these cuts are those of former military leaders. In contradiction of the Government’s attempt to reframe the cuts as a choice between defence and development, they argue instead that the two are mutually supportive. To undermine one, is to weaken the other; as former US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis said:

“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”

These are short-term decisions with long-term repercussions—easy now, but so hard further down the line, and costing Britain more in the long run.

Through our development spend, we invest in peace and resilience building. We know that when fragile states collapse, they create breeding grounds for extremism and terror, and that preventing wars is cheaper than fighting them. The ONE campaign has emphasised that every dollar invested in conflict prevention saves more than $100 in emergency response. However, funding for the UK Integrated Security Fund has been reduced by over £130 million this year, leaving vital peace building efforts without support.

Strategically, cutting aid is a mistake because aid keeps our borders safe. When we invest in the economic development of a nation, we give people opportunity and a stake in the success of that nation, so they will choose to stay there rather than feeling compelled to seek those things in Britain by migrating to these shores. As the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world unfolds in Sudan, in 2024 alone more than 2,000 Sudanese nationals crossed the channel on small boats.

Strategically, cutting aid is also a mistake because development spend protects our health and security, and the NHS, keeping disease from our shores. Strategically, it is a mistake because development spend creates the conditions for trade and partnership, strengthening economies that become markets for British goods and services and promote growth.

Strategically, cutting aid is also a mistake because development is an investment in our soft power—the global influence that comes from being a trusted partner. When Britain leads on aid and development, our voice carries further in diplomacy, trade and security; when we withdraw, our influence diminishes and our adversaries, who watched us jealously, knowing the value of that influence, move in. As we cut our soft power tools, such as the British Council and the BBC World Service, China and Russia cement their influence across the African continent.

Those are the strategic arguments against cutting aid, but the moral arguments alone are enough. Government projections show UK aid spending falling from £14 billion to around £9 billion by 2027, a near one-third reduction in real terms, and the actual numbers are far worse. In-country donor refugee costs, or asylum accommodation costs, are consuming a fifth of our entire aid budget. What right have the Government to spend taxpayers’ money—including that of my Esher and Walton constituents—money that had been allocated to help the poorest in the world, in our own country to balance the inefficiencies of the Home Office?

Will the Minister ensure that the FCDO follows the International Development Committee’s recommendations, as set out in its report on the FCDO’s approach to value for money, published last week, that formal steps should be taken to cap the ODA that the Home Office can use for in-country donor refugee costs, including capping those costs at a fixed percentage of total ODA, and make a formal commitment that unspent ODA funding by other Government Departments is channelled back into the FCDO?

Analysis by Save the Children estimates that UK aid cuts will leave 55 million of the world’s poorest without access to basic resources, 12 million without access to clean water or sanitation and 2.9 million fewer children in education. This year’s cuts to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, alone will mean 400,000 fewer lives saved.

Let me be clear about what all that means on the ground: in the DRC, a flagship girls’ education programme that we supported will close early next year, and 170,000 children, mostly girls, will lose access to education. Other hon. Members have mentioned Yemen. In the DRC, around 27 million people face acute food insecurity, while cholera and measles spread unchecked. In Afghanistan, half the population—23 million people—require humanitarian assistance. All those are unprioritised by Government cuts. I could go on.

The Liberal Democrats believe Britain can and must reclaim its leadership on development. We need a clear road map to restore the legally enshrined 0.7% aid target. I ask the Minister: will the Government rule out any further cuts, and set out a plan to return to 0.7%?

We must embrace the role that the US has abandoned as the facilitating and convening power. I urge the Government to take up that mantle again, as successive Governments have done before, including Prime Ministers from the Minister’s own party—Blair and Brown, pledging to make poverty history. Before she retorts that those were the good times, I remind her that the coalition Government reached 0.7% for the first time, after the financial crash of 2008. Those were choices. This Government’s choice is to follow Boris Johnson, but to cut deeper, and to join the Conservatives and Reform in a race to the bottom.

I urge the Government to retrieve their progressive mantle; reverse these cuts; restore our legally enshrined commitment and reclaim our leadership on the world stage. Let us make sure that Britain’s generosity, leadership and belief in humanity remain not only a lifeline but a light in our ever-turbulent world.

10:37

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this timely debate. I also welcome the Minister to her place on the Front Bench; I think this is the first time we have met across the Dispatch Box in Westminster Hall, and I genuinely wish her well. I also thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who, as ever, demonstrates a very deep understanding and knowledge of development issues and, importantly, the challenges that we face in today’s world.

The UK has a proud record as a global leader in international development. I am proud that that record was shaped and delivered by successive Conservative Governments. On this side of the House, we have always believed that development is not simply about charity, but about partnership, soft power, security and the projection of our national interest. Over the past decade, Conservative Governments delivered real and lasting results that have made the world healthier and safer, and unlocked economic opportunities.

Millions of people were lifted out of poverty through targeted aid programmes and economic development initiatives. We were the single largest public contributor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which has saved over 18 million lives. Our water, sanitation and hygiene programmes reached over 120 million people worldwide. That is a record that we Conservatives can be proud of.

Today, though, the world we face is very different from that of just a few years ago. We are living through an era of multiple and overlapping crises: conflict in Europe and the middle east; state fragility in the Sahel and the horn of Africa; climate and weather-driven disasters displacing millions and a growing contest of influence, where authoritarian regimes ruthlessly exploit entry points. Against that backdrop, the UK must ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money spent abroad delivers maximum impact and advances our critical national interests.

We need to focus our resources where they make the greatest difference, where they advance our economic prosperity, strengthen our national security and support global stability. Our country will always play its part internationally, but our development funding must work harder for Britain. Development assistance is a powerful tool of foreign policy: it helps us to prevent conflict before it reaches our shores, to tackle the root causes of migration, and to build the partnerships that underpin trade, investment and shared security.

Our approach should therefore be guided by one simple principle: every pound we spend abroad should strengthen Britain’s influence, advance our prosperity and help to keep our people safe. That does not mean turning our back on those in need—far from it: it means ensuring that our aid budget is targeted, effective and sustainable, not fragmented across hundreds of small programmes, but concentrated in areas that serve both moral purpose and strategic value.

To achieve that, we must also work differently. First, we need to harness the power of economic development. Development finance should not just be about grants; it should open markets, create opportunities and support British business too. When our aid helps to build capacity, digital connectivity and a resilient infrastructure, it lays the groundwork for trade and investment that benefit both sides. British International Investment is a vital vehicle for that. We should go further in aligning ODA with our export strategy and business partnerships. I ask the Minister what specific steps the Government are taking to ensure that private investment is being leveraged to its full potential. How is the FCDO supporting British International Investment and other financial instruments to deliver maximum value and measurable returns for both partner countries and the UK taxpayer?

Secondly, we must modernise our partnerships. Development should be about partnership, not paternalism. It should empower countries to build their own institutions, tackle corruption and take ownership of their future. That is how we strengthen democracy, counter malign influence and help our partners to become resilient, prosperous nations and reliable allies of the UK. We also need to be bolder in linking aid to security outcomes. Our support has helped to build resilience in countries targeted by Russian destabilisation, such as Moldova.

Those are examples of ODA directly strengthening our own national security. Will the Minister set out how the Department is embedding that security lens across its ODA portfolio, and whether new co-ordination mechanisms exist between the FCDO, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to align aid spending with defence and resilience goals, including in relation to combating disinformation from hostile actors? In doing so, we should continue to ensure that our support reaches those to whom it makes the greatest difference. Women and girls must remain at the heart of our international development approach. Targeted programmes save lives and support education, health and safety. This work is not only a moral responsibility. It is one of the most effective and value for money ways to deliver on our wider development and foreign policy goals.

[Bobby Dean]

The right hon. Lady is making an excellent case for international aid and is talking about the need for it to evolve and to be better and bigger in some ways. Why therefore is her party proposing cutting the aid budget to 0.1%?

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I was just going to come on to the point that I believe answers his question.

Our development partnerships must adapt to the changing geopolitical landscape that we face today. That is at the heart of this issue. The minilateral model, where like-minded countries pool resources for shared objectives can be a powerful force multiplier, nimbler and more accountable than large multilateral programmes. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are exploring new minilateral partnerships to deliver aid more efficiently and to help to ensure that developing nations choose genuine partnerships of openness and mutual benefit with the UK over one-sided deals with authoritarian powers that can often lead to debt traps?

Within that same vein, the Commonwealth is an immense asset, so what are the Government doing to use ODA to strengthen democratic resilience, improve internal trade and support the new Commonwealth secretary-general’s priorities on prosperity and governance?

We owe it to the British taxpayer to ensure that every pound of ODA is well spent, fully accountable and transparently reported. That means rigorous evaluation, better oversight and a clear demonstration of value for money. It also means having the courage to stop funding programmes that are no longer effective or aligned with our priorities, and to focus on what works. I ask the Minister to set out how her Department is strengthening accountability and transparency mechanisms across its ODA portfolio.

We must recognise that defence, diplomacy and development are interdependent. Strategic flexibility matters in an increasingly dangerous world, and reprioritising elements of the aid budget to strengthen our defence and security capabilities is pragmatic and responsible. We must deliver on that. Security is the foundation of development. Without stability, prosperity and progress, it cannot take root.

Finally, I return to the question raised last week at the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) regarding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Given the position expressed in recent days by the US Administration about its future role in Gaza, can the Minister confirm what discussions the UK has had with the US and other partners on that issue? What assessment has been made of the implications for UK aid, and what safeguards are in place to ensure that British taxpayers’ money is being used responsibly, effectively and in line with our values?

As we look ahead, our approach to international development must continue to reflect who we are as a nation: outward looking, confident and compassionate. My party’s approach stands for a proud record of global leadership, a focus on results and accountability and a belief that partnership, not dependency, is the path to lasting progress and security. Britain will remain a force for good in the world, not because of the size of our aid budget, but because of the clarity of our ambition, the strength of our partnerships and the integrity of our leadership.

10:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and to respond to an incredibly thoughtful and important debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this debate, and I thank him for his work on the Foreign Affairs Committee and multiple APPGs.

The Minister for Multilateral, Human Rights, Latin America and the Caribbean, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who covers development in the Commons, would have been here to participate in the debate, but is currently representing the UK at the world summit for social development in Doha. I am sure that the House will understand his unavoidable absence. I am grateful to respond on behalf of the Government. I will endeavour to cover a number of the points that were raised today, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will also be willing to pick up on some of those issues that hon. Members have put on the record. I also thank the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for her work, her remarks today and the Committee’s recent report, which the Department will be responding to in due course.

A number of issues were raised today, and the same very important point was made by a number of hon. Members about the connection between our security and global security. We continue to be clear-eyed about risks to security, which are at the forefront of our minds. We believe that international development is an important lever in delivering mutually beneficial outcomes, including security for us and across the world. A number of other issues were also raised, including on soft power influence in the world, long-term planning, shaping the world of tomorrow and aid matching. Let me add context to those challenges and the question of whether this Government are looking inwards more than outwards. The whole direction of our Government over the last 18 months has been to step up on the global stage. We are a Government who inherited a very difficult set of finances, but more than that, we inherited a broken Government in so many respects, which had stopped looking outwards and had lost respect and trust across the world.

I am proud that we are a Government focused on our responsibilities and place in the world. I am proud of the work that we have done to bring stability to our economy, but we are also now focusing on the long term here and abroad. That is also illustrated through some of the main trade deals and resets that we have had with the US, the EU and India, but we have been upgrading our partnerships with so many countries. I recently participated in the Aqaba process in Italy, hosted by the Italian Prime Minister and the King of Jordan, with a focus on counter-terrorism, development and support in the Sahel region. It is important that we recognise the links between security and prosperity across the world.

Earlier this year, to enable a necessary increase in defence spending, the Government made the decision to reduce our official development assistance budget. We have consistently affirmed the UK’s commitment to international development and to restoring spending of 0.7% of GNI on ODA when the fiscal circumstances allow. It is also the case—this point has been made by a number of hon. and right hon. Members—that it is not all about how much we spend, but about how we spend. It is crucial also that we modernise our approach for today. A more volatile and uncertain world demands a new development model. With less money, we must make choices and focus on the greatest impact. Every pound must deliver for the UK taxpayer and the people we support.

I note the comments about corruption and misappropriation, and I will say that from the conversations I have had with Baroness Chapman, I know that ensuring that we are spending wisely and have value for money—this has been identified as a strength of the UK by the International Development Committee—are top of her list. It is important that we keep that focus.

It is worth spending a little time on our strategy and what is at the heart of our new approach and fundamental shift. First, we are moving from donor to investor, partnering with countries to unlock growth, jobs and trade through innovative finance and private sector investment. Secondly, we are moving from service delivery to system support, helping countries build their own education, health and economic systems, so that they can thrive without aid. Thirdly, we are moving from grants to expertise, leveraging UK strengths such as our world-class universities, the City of London, the Met Office, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the education, health and tech sectors. Fourthly, we are moving from international intervention to local leadership, working increasingly in partnership with local actors, rather than through internationally driven interventions. That does speak to the point that a number of Members made about partnership rather than paternalism.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Seema Malhotra]

I am conscious of time, so I will make some progress.

[Sarah Champion]

You have lots of time.

[Seema Malhotra]

I have a number of points to make, but I will come back once I have made them. On changing from donor to investor, a number of comments were made about British International Investment and other development finance institutions. These are central to the UK’s shifts. BII deploys patient capital to stimulate private-sector growth in developing countries, balancing financial returns with development impact. Indeed, we have seen our partnerships grow, such as with the Gates Foundation. Our co-investments with the Gates Foundation in breeding wheat with higher zinc and climate resilience have benefited more than 97 million people in Pakistan, positively impacting their health and quality of life. In Ghana, the UK is using its development relationship to support Ghana’s goal to move beyond aid. A Ghanaian textile factory financed by British International Investment has grown into one of west Africa’s largest, providing 6,000 jobs, mainly for women, and exporting garments globally.

[Sarah Champion]

It is of course the Government’s right to make whatever policy decisions and budget cuts they feel appropriate, but how are they planning to do the four priorities with a 25% cut in staffing and a £6 billion cut in the available money?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will go through how we will take some of the priorities forward and some of the changes that we are seeing through our strategy. I hope that helps answer my hon. Friend’s question. I want to make a point about our investment in Gavi, of which we were a founding member under the last Labour Government. It has generated £250 billion in economic benefits through reduced death and disability. It is a partnership based on the UK’s world-leading expertise in not just funding but research.

From grants to expertise, that partnership comes up in conversations that I have with countries that I work with as Minister with responsibility for the Indo-Pacific. It is important in terms of how we are working to increase the expertise of partners, including the Bank of England, the City of London and the University of Cambridge. We are helping to train financial regulators across countries, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ partnership with the Ghana Revenue Authority used the UK’s expertise to increase Ghana’s tax revenue collection by £100 million last year—revenues that will help fund Ghana’s transition from aid.

I am conscious of time, but I will make a few further remarks. Reducing the overall size of our ODA budget will necessarily have an impact on the scale and shape of the work that we do. But we are sharpening our focus on three priorities, which match partner needs and the long-term needs of people in the UK, and are also in areas where we can drive real change. These priorities have been highlighted in this debate—humanitarian, health, and climate and nature—and they are underpinned by economic development. They will help maximise our impact and focus our efforts where they matter most.

I reassure the House that the UK will continue to play a key humanitarian role, including responding to the most significant conflicts of our era, in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan. We will not let Sudan be forgotten. We are the third-largest bilateral humanitarian donor to Sudan, and in April we announced £120 million to deliver lifesaving services to over 650,000 people affected by the conflict.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am sorry, but due to time I will be wrapping up. At the weekend, the Foreign Secretary announced a further £5 million of support to the crisis in el-Fasher. While we have seen cuts, we have avoided disproportionate negative impacts on women and girls and people living with disabilities in this year’s ODA allocations, as confirmed by the equalities impact assessment that we published. We will continue to strengthen actions to help mitigate some of the negative impacts on equalities, including by putting women and girls at the heart of everything we do.

I will make a final point in relation to the ODA budget for supporting refugees in the UK. The Government are focused on reducing asylum costs and ending the use of migrant hotels by the end of the Parliament, and we have already made progress on that. The UK remains committed to international development. We are working with our partners to shape the next stage of global development, and at the same time, we are strengthening the UK’s safety, security and prosperity—and global safety, security and prosperity—which is essential for delivering all the missions of this Government.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Edward Morello, you have less than a minute.

10:58

[Edward Morello]

In that case, I will not thank everyone individually for their contributions. Thank you, Sir Desmond, for so wisely chairing the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for her continuing leadership in this area. I will use my one remaining minute to make the point to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), that the 0.1% that her party envisages will leave literally no money, once in-country costs are accounted for.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for stepping in to respond. She made the point that the UK is a leader on the partnership model, but she failed to mention that when we withdraw from that leadership role, others step in. It will be China and Russia. Every Member in the Chamber made the same point about the importance of British leadership in this space, so I very much hope she will take the message back to her Department that we want to see the ODA budget restored.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of planned reductions in Official Development Assistance on international development.