Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Sarah Champion 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?

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and case against the cut to aid. She knows that the world’s most vulnerable children include disabled children. The Government’s disability inclusion and rights strategy was going a long way towards supporting those children through healthcare, and when it came to social protections. Does she agree that unless we get clear assurances, many millions of disabled children will end up suffering greater loss? Brilliant organisations such as Able Child Africa, which is based in my constituency, are deeply concerned about the impact the cuts will have on disabled children.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has done to protect the most vulnerable—I am thinking particularly of children, people with disabilities and people in marginalised communities—is exemplary, but I cannot stand here and say that we will be able to continue funding that. I just do not think it is technically possible.

Research commissioned by More in Common has found that 55% of the British public support the UK giving both humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine, and that more than half believe that aid spending is worthwhile if it helps to boost the UK economy and protect national security.

Even with a reduced aid budget, much better decisions can and must be taken going forwards. In recent years, a scandalously large amount of ODA has been diverted primarily to the Home Office to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. In 2023, this took up 28% of the entire aid budget, costing £4.2 billion. It is welcome that the proportion of the ODA budget spent domestically is set to decrease very slightly this year, but unless these costs are reduced significantly in the next two years, the UK is set to spend nearly half its remaining ODA budget on domestic refugee costs by 2027. That cannot be right. Of course, these people need supporting, but that should not come out of the ODA budget. I urge the Government to cap the amount of ODA that the Home Office can draw on for in-country refugee costs; if they do not, there is simply no incentive for the Home Office to address its spending.

The Home Office is, of course, not the only Department raiding aid. The Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for Education and for Science, Innovation and Technology all regularly draw down ODA and do not, in some cases, deliver as well or as transparently as the FCDO. Will the Minister comment on taking these programmes back into the FCDO, or asking the Departments to reimburse at least part of the finance that they draw down from ODA?

The supplementary estimates saw a boost in the FCDO’s allocation of headline ODA spending for this financial year. However, a large proportion of this increase—almost £500 million—was sent to British International Investment in what appeared to be a last-minute panic to ensure that the Government fulfilled their commitment to spending 0.5% of national income on aid. Do not get me wrong: BII does excellent work investing debt and equity in businesses in the developing world for the long term to facilitate beneficial and developmental economic growth. However, it is not set up to take immediate and short-term investment decisions, and should not be expected to do so. Debate is also ongoing over giving BII the ability to borrow against its investments; in the fiscal circumstances, I urge the Minister to look at that closely.

There are a number of issues on which the Government could consider changing policy and legislation, including debt relief, illicit finance and special drawing rights. That could have significant impact on the lives of the poorest in the world, at no expense to the British taxpayer. Could the Minister also comment on potential multipliers of aid? I am thinking specifically about philanthropic match funding and UK Aid Match, which could be used more readily.

This year’s estimates enable the FCDO to continue to employ world-leading experts in development aid. In a rapidly changing world in which we face huge challenges, maintaining this expertise is not a luxury but a necessity if the UK is to achieve global progress and safeguard our collective future. Despite the damage done to its budgets, the FCDO must prioritise protecting its skilled staff, who offer so much to low and middle-income countries when deployed effectively. My Committee and I were with FCDO staff in Scotland when these cuts were announced last week. Staff were understandably devastated, with this announcement adding considerably to the uncertainty they have faced over the past five years.

The best way to retain our staff, and indeed our international reputation, is with clarity about the forthcoming spending cuts. Will there be a defined step down or a cliff edge to funding in 2027? A commitment today that the budget will be 0.4%—or more—in ’26-27 would be hugely reassuring, as would confirmation that there will be no additional cuts in the spending review for this financial year. I urge that an equality impact and risk management assessment be done, and presented to the House, before the Government make their tough decisions on what to cut and what to save. In the 2021 round of cuts, we saw funding for women and girls cut by 66% from its peak in 2017. Let us never do that again.

From 2023, the UK was the 10th largest spender of aid as a proportion of its gross national income. A cut to 0.3% will leave us in 25th place. That is simply unacceptable for a nation with such a proud history in helping those most in need and a Government who are rightly placing themselves as a leader on the international stage.

I wish to finish with the powerful words of a speech delivered in this Chamber on 13 July 2021, when the Conservative Government’s decision to reduce aid spending from 0.7% to 0.5% was confirmed. The House was told:

“Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid—we all know this—reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences.”

The speaker continued:

“Our overseas aid budget goes beyond that moral obligation: it also helps build a more stable world and keeps us safer in the UK…This cut will also reduce UK influence just when it is needed most, and of course it risks leaving a vacuum that other countries—China and Russia, for example—will fill.” —[Official Report, 13 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 177-178.]

That speaker was the then Leader of the Opposition putting forward an inarguable case against the folly of making massive aid cuts. His words are as true now as they were then. May I urge the Minister and the Government to listen to the words of the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, and reconsider this?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Colleagues can see how heavily subscribed this debate is. I need to fit in another debate before 7 o’clock, so many colleagues will be disappointed that they will not be called to speak. They can judge that as they may. We shall set a speaking limit of four minutes so that I can get as many people in as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate, and express my deep regret that some were unable to do so, but there are many avenues in this House for Members to make their voices heard. I end by saying that I am very concerned about those who might step in, with less generous intent, if we leave the international stage.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).