Official Development Assistance Reductions

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

I call Sarah Champion. I suggest five minutes.

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.

Order. I suggest four minutes from now on.

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.

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.

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.