Official Development Assistance Reductions

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.