Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.