(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting a debate on this topic, which takes place at such a crucial time for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I also take this opportunity to thank FCDO staff for their ongoing efforts to support British nationals caught up in the conflict in the middle east.
Over successive Governments, we have seen a sustained reduction in the United Kingdom’s development budget, ODA—official development assistance. First we saw the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI, and there is now a stated path towards 0.3% by 2027. It has also been reported that the UK’s international climate finance commitment is now to be slashed by £2.6 billion. Those cuts have consequences: they affect how the UK is perceived internationally, as well as our ability to support stability and prosperity, both overseas and in our own country.
Aid has always been a highly cost-effective way of preventing conflict and reducing pressures that eventually reach our own borders. It allows girls to be educated, women to work, farmers to feed their communities, and disease to be challenged and contained. It also allows civil society to hold Governments to account. It is our soft superpower, and its benefits must not be underestimated.
The FCDO, as the past weekend proved, is constantly dealing with fast-shifting geopolitical sands. In this current financial year, as part of the FCDO’s supplementary estimate, we see further cuts to both day-to-day and investment spending, both of which have reduced quite dramatically—day-to-day spending by £457 million, and investment spending by £228 million. Most of these cuts are focused on the ODA budget, although Parliament has not yet been provided with details showing exactly where these reductions will fall.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady—a champion by name and a champion by conviction. We are very pleased to see her in her place, and we thank her very much for what she does.
I sometimes think there are opportunities for partnerships. For instance, churches in my constituency have very active partnerships in Zimbabwe, Malawi, Swaziland, Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria, so there is perhaps a way of partnering with church groups, non-governmental organisations and individuals that have an interest in helping. Does the hon. Lady feel that the Minister and the Government should take that on board and look at it?
Sarah Champion
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words and for expressing that sentiment. Of course, faith communities do so much internationally, because it is the right thing to do, but they should be complementing what Governments are doing. At the moment, we know the scale of the cuts, but we do not know the distribution—it is not fair to be looking for philanthropic kindness to fill those gaps.
We know that reductions are taking place, but we do not know which programmes will be impacted. That is not just us in this House but the people on the frontline trying their very best to deliver these programmes to the very poorest.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate that my hon. Friend’s answer to this question may well be that we do not know, which I think is the point she is making, but I have asked the Minister a number of questions about the UK leading on the eradication of polio, and I have actually received some very good answers—I am not just saying that because he is in his place. How reassured is my hon. Friend on that issue? Has she asked the FCDO about the need to ensure that the UK remains a leading player in the eradication of polio worldwide?
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Polio is one of the success stories to show what can happen when countries work together, and we have almost completely eradicated it—I think we are at 99.98%. I urge the Minister not to step away from that programme.
The FCDO has indicated that more information will soon be released about such programmes, including the eradication of polio, that will set out ongoing further funding for ODA projects. However, at present we must be realistic. Members are being asked to vote on billions of spending authority without having that complete picture, which greatly limits our ability to assess the real-world implications of the Government’s decisions. This uncertainty has consequences for long-term partnerships, humanitarian operations and communities that are relying on our support.
The estimate also raises questions about staffing and our capability. Crises from Sudan to Gaza, and from the horn of Africa to Ukraine and, of course, the middle east, require experienced personnel and effective programme oversight. Any reduction in FCDO staffing risks weakening the Department’s ability to deliver and evaluate programmes effectively.
In this context, the fact that the FCDO faces cuts to its headcount seems incredibly short-sighted. A major restructure is ongoing right now, and it is expected to reduce the workforce by 15% to 25%—we do not know and, unfortunately, the staff do not yet know. The failure to produce and share a workforce plan or equalities impact assessment does little to reassure me that the FCDO has sufficiently engaged the staff or unions in its restructuring, or that it has considered the implications of staffing reductions on its ambitions for ODA. There are unanswered questions about the FCDO’s ability to retain sufficient expertise and manage its complicated portfolio with such a tight funding envelope.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her very powerful and pertinent speech. One of the big shifts is from aid to trade, and as trade envoys, we are trying to deliver some of our aid ambitions through trade relationships. However, if we just do not have the people available, there is no way that we can make that shift. I know that she has already started to talk about the importance of ensuring that we have people present, but can she elaborate on the importance of retaining them in the country so that we can deliver the transition that we expect to see?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we have FCDO and trade staff working together to support the work that he and many others are doing. Trade is fantastic—it is something that we support. I support British International Investment, which I will come on to in a moment, but it is not something that can stand alone. Our ODA money is there to support the very poorest in the world, to enable them through training, education and entrepreneurial skills to get to a point where we hope they can be a trading partner with the UK.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about how we develop communities and individuals. Does she agree that co-operatives have an important role to play in economic development, as they not only create jobs but give people a stake in the future of those jobs?
Sarah Champion
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The only way that I am aware of co-operatives starting is by groups of local people coming together. That is what FCDO and ODA money is particularly good at doing—supporting civil society. I mentioned holding Governments to account, but of course, the economic empowerment that comes from communities being involved in the development of their own countries is something that we have supported so well for decades. I really hope we are able to continue to do so.
One concern I have is about the money that will likely be spent on staff redundancies that would be much better spent on furthering British priorities overseas. Of course, there are also pressures on the wider network of institutions that further the UK’s interests overseas, such as the British Council and the BBC World Service. Those institutions play a really important role in projecting the UK’s soft power, and require stable and predictable funding. Although more funding has been provided in the supplementary estimates, this follows a long period of damaging uncertainty, which has really weakened our hand.
Inadequate transparency over aid spending has been a persistent theme for the past few years. I am proud of the work my Committee has done to shine a light on where aid cuts have fallen and the impact they have had. I am also extremely grateful to the excellent support provided in this task by my Committee staff and the House of Commons financial scrutiny unit, but we do not do this work alone; independent scrutiny bodies such as the Independent Commission for Aid Impact play a central role in maintaining transparency and accountability and in ensuring that Members have the information we need. I am deeply concerned that ICAI may be axed as part of these cuts, and I hope the Minister can reassure us that I am wrong about that.
This estimates debate sits within a broader shift in the UK’s aid strategy towards investment-led development, which is evident in nearly £0.5 billion funding for British International Investment this year. BII’s model is built on long-term investments rather than rapid humanitarian response, but that raises questions about the breadth of our development portfolio, and whether we are still there to help the poorest of the poor if we do not have the other support that underpins BII.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I thank the Chair of the International Development Committee for her opening remarks, and I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Does she agree that it was extremely disappointing that the previous Government, and indeed this Government, did not follow the recommendation of the International Development Committee that there should be someone from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the board of BII—not to make investment decisions, but to ensure it is aligned with Government strategy and policy?
Sarah Champion
I thank the right hon. Member, my fellow Committee member, and I share his sentiment. For those who do not know, BII is our development bank. The FCDO is its sole stakeholder, and it does seem very short-sighted and out of line with other international development banks that we do not have a seat on the board, even if it is a non-voting seat. I urge the Minister to consider that report of the Committee and its recommendations. I recognise the truly excellent work that BII does, but it is a strategy—
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Noah Law
I declare an interest as a former employee of BII. Might I gently share my disagreement with the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and my hon. Friend the Chair on this point? Although it is incredibly important that our development finance institutions adhere to the FCDO’s strategy, my personal experience is that politicisation of some of these state-backed financial institutions can end up with them lurching to and fro. Does my hon. Friend share some of my concerns about the potential for that kind of political influence over some of these institutions?
Sarah Champion
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. I do not agree with him on the board point, but if we look at the countries that BII was asked to focus on under the last Government, it is clear that political interference—if we want to call it that—is alive and well. I agree that when we invest in organisations, we should trust them to do their job, but that requires scrutiny, so again, I will be very concerned if ICAI is cut. I will move away from BII now.
Today’s debate gives Members a crucial and timely opportunity to influence the Government’s approach to funding for the FCDO and overseas aid. We face a combination of a diminished budget and a change of strategic direction, all happening at a time of unprecedented global need. Parliament must insist on clarity about where cuts will fall. We must also insist on reassurance that development expertise will be protected and confidence that the United Kingdom’s aid spending remains focused on reducing poverty, supporting development, humanitarian need and contributing to global stability. This House rightly places a premium on transparency, accountability and value for money. Every pound now matters more than ever, and let us be reminded—as I frequently am—that it is the taxpayer’s pound that we are overseeing. Although our formal powers to amend the FCDO’s spending limits are limited, debates such as this allow us to exert influence and have our say at a pivotal moment in the UK’s foreign policy. I know that my colleagues in the House will use this moment wisely.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate the future spending of the Foreign Office. The Foreign Affairs Committee, which I sit on, shares the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about the impact of the settlement, which will result in significant reductions in headcount within the Department. We have tried in vain to discover exactly how that will impact on its different activities, but at a time when the world is becoming an ever more dangerous place and when the need for British diplomacy and soft power is increasing, it seems utterly extraordinary that we should be cutting back spending on the Foreign Office.
I fully support the Government’s ambition to increase spending on defence—indeed, I press them to go further—but soft power is as important as hard power. That is the area in which this country has built an extraordinary reputation for effectiveness, yet we are potentially going to cut it back exactly when it is needed most. Will the Minister say specifically what the future is of the Soft Power Council, which was set up by the previous Foreign Secretary and was something I strongly welcomed? The Foreign Affairs Committee took evidence about the work of that council, but it has gone very quiet in recent months, and I hear disturbing rumours that it is no longer regarded as a priority by the Department. I hope that in his response, the Minister will be able to assure me that that is not the case.
I want to touch on three areas of Foreign Office funding. The first, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rotherham, is the BBC World Service. The need for reliable, trusted information around the world is greater than ever before, yet we are seeing America withdraw from that. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia have all been cut right back, leaving a gap that I was told this morning is being filled by Russia and China. That makes the BBC World Service even more important as virtually the sole reliable source to which people can turn, yet I understand that it has still not been told how much money it will get in 2026-27. I was allowed to attend the Public Accounts Committee a few weeks ago when the director general of the BBC and the director of the World Service told us of the impossibility of planning ahead in such circumstances. Here we are, just a few weeks before the beginning of the financial year, and they still have not been told. I ask the Minister to confirm whether the BBC World Service can find out how much it will get, and I also press him to increase that money.
Originally, the BBC World Service was told that it should plan for a real-terms freeze or a possible cash cut. That comes at the same time as the licence fee is under pressure and the BBC is reducing its contributions to the World Service through the licence fee. So the World Service is subject to a double squeeze. I have considerable sympathy for the World Service, but the right mechanism of funding is through the Foreign Office, and I support the BBC’s request that the Government consider returning to the position of the World Service being fully funded by the Government.
Secondly, I want to touch on the British Council, which we know faces huge challenges, principally as a result of the loan that was advanced to it during the time of covid. Unlike many other organisations that were given loans and not required to repay them, the British Council is being required to repay the loan even though it appears to have almost no prospect of being able to do so. At the moment, the British Council’s outgoings are greater than its income, so it cannot pay the loan and nor is it viable.
I thank the Minister for the briefing that I and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee have been given about the future of the British Council, and I urge him to press ahead with drawing up a plan that will both meet the existing challenges and set out a route forward that will put the British Council on a firm footing. It does incredibly important work, especially in those parts of the world where malign forces seek to influence democratic elections and people’s attitudes.
Mr Calvin Bailey
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the British Council and the work that it does. Much of that work is required to counter malign Russian and Chinese influence. There are a number of countries that are desperate to get out of the grasp of China and would like to have greater friendship with us. To do that, they are trying to encourage a shift in the culture and how their young people engage, and that is delivered through the British Council and English language training. Does he agree that some of the value of that training is not necessarily seen directly and should perhaps be assigned to security and defence?
Sir John Whittingdale
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He is right about the importance of the work, which is not always fully visible, including in established countries—I have a particular knowledge of and interest in the Baltic nations, which are on the frontline against Russia. Latvia especially has a Russian minority population that is subject to a constant barrage of attempts by Russia to influence it. That is an area where the British Council is very active, and I am concerned by reports that it may be forced to withdraw from its activities in the Baltic nations. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, Russia and China are active in other countries that are of huge importance strategically but at risk of tipping back into the orbit of hostile powers. The British Council can play an important part in seeking to prevent that.
Mr Bailey
That is a very good example, but there are also examples that are far from the frontline against Russia. Some of the countries in Africa actively need our help—aid and other contributions—to get away from that influence. We should actively support countries such as Gabon, which is trying to be a strong Commonwealth partner, and Mozambique, despite English not being spoken as widely there.
Sir John Whittingdale
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Africa is of huge importance, and if ever we needed a reminder of the risk posed to the values we hold dear from hostile powers, in particular China, we had a perfect demonstration in the statement earlier today.
Thirdly, I want to touch on media freedom, which I am delighted that the Minister has specific responsibility for. I welcome the commitment he has already shown to it. The Media Freedom Coalition was established under the last Government by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). It is great news that the Foreign Secretary was able to announce in Munich recently that the UK will take back the chair of the coalition. It is even more important today than it was when it was set up. I hope that taking back the chair will not just be symbolic but matched by a real commitment to promoting media freedom, which is under huge threat in a wide range of countries. We have seen journalists threatened with imprisonment, harassed and, in some cases, murdered. The UK has a very important role to play in promoting media freedom and taking a lead on such things as the introduction of visas for journalists who are under threat and sanctions. I was pleased to see that we have just placed sanctions on Georgia—[Interruption.] You suggest to me that other Members wish to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will just say that I hope the Minister will be able to say more about those three areas in his response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If colleagues could keep their contributions to under 10 minutes, it would help other Members. I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I begin by paying tribute to the strength and bravery of FCDO staff in the middle east. They are giving support and guidance to hundreds of thousands of Brits who are stranded, scared and desperate to return home. There are so many lessons to learn from what is happening in the Gulf at the moment, but for the purposes of this debate, the lesson we should learn is the vital importance of the Foreign Office. It is not all about wearing linen and drinking gin under jacaranda trees—[Laughter.] I have done it. It is a great deal of hard work and it is very important that we recognise that. It has never been harder—look at what they are having to deal with now.
I heard on the radio a few days ago an interview with a 21-year-old who went to Dubai to celebrate her birthday. She was there by herself, and she was clearly really frightened, but the embassy will look after her and, I hope, it will get her home to her mother. It is our brave Foreign Office staff who have to step up at times like these. I am sure that they must also be terrified, but they will get this girl back. They will have to call in favours and rely on relationships that they have developed over years. They will rely on relationships and the credit that they have in the bank because of their professionalism and their work on behalf of our country. They cultivate relationships and use that strength, and hundreds of thousands of Brits in the Gulf will rely on that professionalism in the next few weeks and months.
Those staff will be acutely aware that they are also charged with attempting to sow the seeds for peace in the future, and that will also rely on their relationships and their professionalism. They do that knowing that it is important that Britain continues to be a force for good—as we can be at our best. We expect them to work twice as hard, against a background of rumours and stories about cuts to their jobs—25% of them could lose their jobs. It is important for the House to remember the sacrifices that these civil servants make. They do a different job from our armed forces, but effectively through their work they are keeping us safe, and it is important for that to be understood.
I fear that the strategy for the restructuring of the Foreign Office is not very clear. It seems that we are taking a top slice off. The directors are being shorn—there are fewer of them—and they in turn will be expected to cut their staffing by, we are told, about 25%. Let me warn the Minister, who should perhaps reflect on this, that restructuring of that kind is not particularly sensitive to Ministers’ priorities. It would appear that we are simply restructuring in order to restructure, while not looking first and foremost at what the Foreign Office is about, what we should be doing, and how we can ensure that we retain the expertise, the knowledge, the connections, the best people, in order to deliver those priorities. I fear that we will yet again undermine morale in the Foreign Office. I could go into one of some of the reasons why, under the last Government, Foreign Office morale was gravely undermined. This is not the place for that, but I do not want us to do it again ourselves.
Given the limited time, I will not go into any more details, but let me say this. I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) about the British Council. He has great expertise. We have had private meetings; we have had public meetings; we have had the National Audit Office over; we have sent our own auditors in; we have spoken to the unions. We in the Foreign Affairs Committee are doing everything we can to help the Foreign Office to ensure that the British Council, when it is restructured, is restructured in a way that is for the benefit of our country, the benefit of our culture and the benefit of soft power. “We are watching you carefully”—that is all I am saying at this stage.
I will now move on, given the time that I have left—I have promised myself to give myself full range until you stop me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to talk about one of the most important things that we do as a country, which is supporting the BBC. Across the world, countries are using huge amounts of money every year—China and Russia are spending £8 billion on their global news platforms—to spread lies. We have, against that Goliath, the David that is the BBC. The advantage the BBC has is that it is a badge of truth, like no other organisation. Other countries would just die to have what we have. We have the BBC; we have the World Service. People change to the World Service from other channels. When a war has been called, they say, “Let us hear what the BBC is saying,” because they want to hear the truth, not just the nonsense and the spin.
What are we doing at this time when there is a new type of warfare that is not about guns and not about tanks rolling over the hills, but about the war for people’s minds? The war for people’s minds is about the promotion of lies: that is the new type of warfare, and we are so complacent about it. We are not sufficiently alive to the amount of manipulation that is going on. We are allowing this jewel, this gift that Britain could give the world, to diminish. Why are we doing that? I personally feel that it is not just a matter of ensuring that the funding for the World Service is not cut. I would say, particularly if our presence in Africa is to be diminished—as it unfortunately will, given what is happening to our aid budget—“At least let those countries hear a bit of truth, and let it be promoted.” It is not as if we were nothing. I do not want to overstate this, but we are already communicating with 313 million people worldwide, which is pretty good. Let us make sure that they all have an opportunity to hear what it is that the BBC can do. The new fact-checking unit is second to none, and is especially important at times like this, when it is able to crack the lies so that people can see the truth.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I absolutely endorse everything that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has said about the BBC World Service. Will she, in the time available, make a brief comment about its sister organisation, BBC Monitoring? That monitoring service used to receive a modest ringfenced grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it then was, but that was done away with, and it is now entirely dependent on the BBC’s wider organisation for its funding. Is not the restoration of that dedicated ringfenced grant for BBC Monitoring, which filters all the most interesting comments that other countries’ broadcasters are making, long overdue?
Emily Thornberry
I do not think I need to repeat the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and made very well. Perhaps I could mention another specific service: BBC Persian, which is particularly important at this time. It is doing incredible work. It is sharing vital, lifesaving information with millions of Iranians who are suffering right now during internet blackouts. It is BBC Persian that is doing the fact-checking. It is a source of truth. It is an independent voice. It is not propaganda. If we want to understand its effectiveness, we need only bear in mind that the regime absolutely loathes it. If we require a badge of truth and a gold star, that alone must be sufficient. Why are we not supporting BBC Persian? And why did the Arab radio station that was broadcasting in Lebanon get cut? Guess what? Sputnik took over the airwaves immediately afterwards. What are we doing? What is the matter with us? This must surely be a priority.
I see your beady eye on me as I speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me end by giving what I think is the best example. I have been told that BBC usage is growing in the fringes of China—in the countries around the edge of China—more than anywhere else, through TikTok accounts. What story does that tell us? It tells us that young people want the truth and are desperate to find it, and they are doing that in the way young people do, through TikTok—but they go to the good old BBC.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Let me begin with a very specific request to the Minister, which I hope he will be able to grant. My request is for a continuing commitment to Abercrombie House in East Kilbride as the FCDO’s second headquarters. The Government scrapped plans to build a new headquarters in Glasgow, and have so far confirmed that they are staying at Abercrombie House. However, as the International Development Committee has heard, that building requires significant investment, and at a time of such significant cuts in the FCDO budget and, obviously, staffing changes, there is concern about whether this will actually be done.
As a member of the International Development Committee, I now want to turn to the issue of official development assistance and development finance. As the Financial Times has reported, recent analysis from the Centre for Global Development reveals a startling reality: that this Labour Government are presiding over cuts in our overseas aid budget that are not only deeper but faster than those being implemented by the Trump Administration across the water. I cannot believe that that was the objective of a Government who said that they wanted to achieve global leadership in these matters.
I understand the necessity of financial discipline, and, of course, the funding pressures with which the Treasury is wrestling, even if some of them are self-inflicted. I have often argued in the House that we must be pragmatic and strategic with our development resources, looking for where we can make the best and most profound difference. I agree with the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), that scrapping ICAI, which is monitoring how we obtain value, is the best way to achieve that. There have been some very significant ICAI reports, including the 2020 report that dealt with the extent of the value the Government obtained from investment in nutrition for every pound that was spent. As a champion of nutrition, I have long supported the Child Nutrition Fund. With a relatively modest investment from the UK Government, the fund can leverage philanthropic and private capital while mobilising domestic resources to dramatically improve the wellbeing of millions of women and children. In my view, the child nutrition fund meets the test of public expectations for ODA funding: it puts food in stomachs and jags in arms.
Because I realise that we are in a changing world, I have also supported the IDC’s inquiry into the future shape of aid. We recognise that things will have to be different, but we want to see leadership from the UK Government in this regard, and we want to see a plan. When the UK Government are slashing development spending by some 27% by 2027—outpacing the reduction proposed in Washington, as I have said—one must ask: how does this stack up against other Government objectives, and where is the plan? Whereas the US Congress has acted as a vital check, I see little of the same approach here in the UK, despite the very best efforts of the International Development Committee. As I have said before, if cuts have to happen, they need to be thought through, and that thinking needs to come prior to the cutting. Sadly, that has not been the case. Unless the Minister pulls it out of the hat at the end of this debate, there is no evidence of a plan.
Reductions in ODA were announced over a year ago, but the UK’s future of aid conference will not take place until May this year—if at all, I suspect. In the meantime, services that could be put on a sustainable footing through new and innovative approaches, or through being transferred to capable local partners, are falling over. The change in US policy has significant ramifications, which we should address now, particularly the withdrawal of funding for LGBT and family planning issues. This is most certainly not the time for the FCDO to cut its LGBT budget, as the Elton John AIDS Foundation, among others, has highlighted. We are told that the reductions are to fund our defence capabilities against Russian and, indeed, Iranian aggression. However, the Government must be careful not to create a vacuum of influence and allow malign actors to move in while we do this, as others have already highlighted. One need only look at the example of Russia’s Wagner Group and its operations in Africa, particularly around critical minerals.
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, I want my final remarks to focus specifically on the impact of the changes on the fight against HIV/AIDS. I particularly commend The Independent newspaper and its correspondent, Bel Trew, for highlighting some of these issues. Last November, I was pleased to welcome the Government’s pledge of £850 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. At a time of tight resources, it offers real value for money by dealing directly with devastating and widespread diseases, but also by building capacity in the health systems of partner countries. The fund can be a crucial pathway to ending dependency, but although £850 million was welcome, it was none the less a £150 million reduction from 2022, and it was also coupled with uncertainty for other organisations, such as the Robert Carr Fund, Unitaid and UNAIDS. The One Campaign expects the shortfall to result in a very tangible 250,000 additional deaths and 1 million new infections. Here in the UK, the Government’s ability to reach our own target of zero new transmissions by 2030 would be imperilled by rising rates of HIV elsewhere. The UK’s life sciences and pharmaceutical sector—for which the Global Fund, among other organisations, is such an important partner—will also suffer.
What that tells us, as we have heard already, is that the reductions come at a cost, particularly if they are not thought through. They come at the cost of influence, the economy and, sadly, lives. At the end of this debate, I want to hear from the Minister what the Government’s plan is. Everybody understands that there will be reductions, but they must be on a planned basis.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There is now a speaking limit of seven minutes.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Government are cutting our aid budget by a third, from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income, by 2027—the steepest reduction in a generation, driven by the defence spending review. Much has already been said on this matter, and I am not here simply to oppose the cuts or argue that, in the current climate, we must instantly reverse them. Perhaps it is precisely the right moment in the arc of economic history to ask how we can do more with less, what we are actually buying with this money, and how we can get to the point at which we can say, hand on heart, to our constituents that we know the impact of our spend.
The FCDO’s stated aim remains
“alleviating poverty and stabilising countries to enable them to go on that journey themselves”.
That is the right ambition, but the model we have used to deliver that has been confused for far too long. We often hear of the financing gaps—the trillions that must be filled to meet the sustainable development goals and to overcome the challenge of climate change—but the reality is that overseas development assistance cannot so much as touch the sides in all this.
Furthermore, we know that our developing country partners across the world primarily want investment, not aid, and partnership, not paternalism. To unleash that investment, we must ensure that we level the financial playing field and build capital markets, both public and private, that ultimately drive growth and prosperity in those countries. Global debt reform, an area in which the City and the English courts could play a globally leading role, is just one of many ways in which we can strengthen the macroeconomic stability and financial capacity that these countries so desperately need.
Less aid need does not mean less investment overall; it means that we can no longer afford the luxury of, at worst, waste and, at best, a misallocation of resources. When done well, investment means trusting local knowledge, building local institutions, and empowering local businesswomen and businessmen, who are ultimately responsible for delivering economic growth that sustainably lifts people out of poverty.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech, and some powerful points are being made. Does he agree that many development charities have made these points for some time, including Oxfam, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development and many others? In their experience, this is a well-known approach.
Noah Law
I greatly welcome the advocacy work of the charities that my hon. Friend mentions, as well as the grassroots work of charities, which are increasingly not funded directly by ODA. I welcome the work that they do; it is really important that we build a coherent view of the financing, investment and donor ecosystem that we need to work within this constrained world.
As I have suggested, I very much welcome our Government’s shift from donor to investor, but I have a question for the Minister. At a time when we effectively have an in-built bias towards capital investment over resource spending in our Government’s fiscal policy, why are we not able to go further in capitalising on some of the very institutions that we know will deliver on the development and climate goals, and in helping to mobilise the vast sums that we know are needed to develop the world’s poorest economies? That capital could return to Britain’s public coffers, so that it can be put to future use.
First and foremost, overseas development aid must be allocated to problems that investment cannot solve, be they the world’s worst humanitarian crises or investment in public goods, such as climate adaptation, which cannot easily be monetised yet can save billions of dollars-worth of damage to some of our most climate-vulnerable countries around the world in the long term.
At a time when we have been considering cutting ICAI, why are we looking to create new bodies such as the ODA delivery board and the new Soft Power Council, rather than working to embed rigorously or incorporate better the assessments of value for money—an explicit, albeit qualified, return on our goal of raising the number of people lifted out of poverty for every £1 spent—in every aspect of the FCDO’s development work, so we can say to our constituents, hand on heart, that beyond all doubt the money is well spent, and show that, despite the smaller sums, the money is going further every year?
Let us be partners, not patrons; let us invest smarter, trust deeper and step back a little further where necessary; and let us measure success not by how much we give, but by how little is eventually needed.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I have to declare an interest. before coming to this place, I had a 30-year career as an aid worker, working in WASH: bringing water, sanitation and hygiene to some of the poorest people on the planet—so, yes, I am passionate about this issue, and I make no apologies for that.
A number of sectors have been assisted by UK aid—from girls’ education, health, nutrition and climate finance to disaster and war mitigation in places such as Gaza and Sudan. Since I was elected, I have had the privilege of serving on the International Development Committee, so I have had a chance to hear about the results and implications of the cuts to our aid programme, and indeed to USAID, which has been virtually destroyed, to the shame of the US Administration and the President.
Let me say a few words about the sector I know best. Even prior to the recent cuts, things have been bad for WASH. Between 2018 and 2023, the UK’s annual budget for water, sanitation and hygiene was slashed by 82%, from £206 million down to just £37 million a year. Currently, WASH represents a mere 0.71% of our bilateral aid, and I hate to think what will be left after the latest cuts are announced. In my opinion, at a time of rising humanitarian crises and need, with growing instability globally, this is not just short-sighted, but indefensible.
We cannot ignore the global water crisis: 2.1 billion people—one in four—lack access to clean water, 3.4 billion do not have a safe toilet and nearly 400,000 children under five die each year from diseases caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation. These are preventable tragedies. WASH is one of the most cost-effective ways for the UK to deliver on its international aid priorities. WASH is not peripheral to these priorities; it is foundational. It underpins progress right across the sustainable development goals, including those on health, education, gender equality and climate action. Without clean water and sanitation, children miss school; women and girls spend hours each day collecting water, limiting their education and economic opportunity; and healthcare systems cannot function, while two in five healthcare facilities globally lack basic hygiene services.
Investment in WASH is investment in global health security. It reduces the spread of disease, strengthens economic productivity, builds resilience to climate shocks and delivers long-term sustainable impact. The UK has historically been a global leader in international development, but continuing this legacy requires consistency and vision. Safe water and sanitation are not luxuries; they are the foundation on which health, prosperity and stability are built. I urge the Government to restore all aid funding, especially for WASH, and to embed it firmly within all our priorities. In doing so, we will not only save lives, but uphold the values and the global leadership that this country has historically championed—in three words, our soft power.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for securing this timely debate. I also thank the Clerks of the Committee, on which I serve.
It goes without saying that we live in unprecedented times. Internal conflicts are driving insecurity worldwide, and the effects of the climate crisis and other global conflicts overshadow us. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has as complex a job today as it has at any time in the past century. In this debate, I wish to focus primarily on official development assistance spend for women, peace and security, and in the latter part of my speech on Sudan.
Last year marked the 25th anniversary of the women, peace and security agenda, which the Government recognised by refreshing their approach to WPS. This is welcome, but it is concerning that an FCDO equality impact assessment published last September confirmed a 25% reduction in WPS projects. There is continued support in full for Ukraine, Sudan and Syria, but that means women outside those conflict zones will be at risk. As Lord Ahmad told the International Development Committee, this will have “devastating consequences” for programmes under the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. Sexual violence in conflict or war is disturbing and, indeed, abhorrent, and everything must be done to prevent these types of perverse and evil acts of war.
The UK’s financial support for WPS is about preventing sexual violence, but it goes further. The UK has a programme that assists women’s peacebuilding organisations, enabling them to participate in negotiations and other diplomatic activities, which allows women’s voices to be included. However, it is estimated that up to 50 women’s groups will be disadvantaged because of ODA cuts. In 2023, UN statistics show that just 9.6% of negotiators, 13.7% of mediators and 26.6% of signatories to peace and ceasefire agreements were women. Some delegations in conflicts, such as those of Libya and Yemen, contain no women at all. The UK has an important role to play in supporting women into these vital roles, allowing women affected by conflict to speak for themselves rather than depend on the voices of men or external powers.
Before I move on to Sudan, I want to talk about the girls’ education for South Sudan programme. South Sudan has faced an influx of 2 million Sudanese refugees, putting pressure on schools; many have more than 100 children in a classroom. The UK’s participation in the girls’ education for South Sudan programme has helped many girls to get into school, but the project is facing a 90% cut. That is a worrying concern for Sudanese families and Government leaders.
As the Foreign Secretary said last month, Sudan represents
“the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century.”
In January, the conflict between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces passed 1,000 days, and 30 million people need lifesaving assistance. Although Britain is making cuts to ODA spending, it is welcome that Sudan remains a focus of British spending. In December, the Foreign Secretary announced an additional £21 million for food, shelter, health and services, on top of the £146 million already committed. According to the FCDO, that will support over 800,000 people.
On the effects of the conflict on children, according to an IPC—Integrated Food Security Phase Classification —alert published last month, 30% of children aged six to 59 months are suffering from acute malnutrition. That means that the funding is but a drop in the ocean, covering barely 2.5% of the people who need assistance. With ODA cuts across the world, the risk of vulnerable people losing access to lifesaving assistance is increasing. The Government must do all they can to work towards reinstating ODA spend to 0.7%, and to work for international grassroots organisations as well as Governments internationally.
Finally, it goes without saying that negotiations are needed to end conflict and that that must remain a top objective. As conflict erupts in the middle east, we must not forget the devastation beyond our comprehension that Gaza has faced, particularly in the last three years, and a Palestinian state must of course be rebuilt without the influence of Hamas.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I am sure I am not alone in having been contacted by constituents trapped in the middle east or by those further afield who were hoping to transfer in the middle east on their way home. I am extremely grateful to all the FCDO staff around the world who are helping them out. It has brought into stark relief the fact that, in an unstable world, diplomacy and our diplomatic footprint has never been more important. The people, embassies, development expertise, aid, investment and political relationships we maintain across the globe are so important for our national security, our economy, the future of our planet and what Britain represents.
The latest funding settlement for the FCDO moves us in the wrong direction. Day-to-day spending is being reduced by £457 million—a 5.3% cut; the second highest cut for any Department, behind only the Home Office. Capital investment is down by £228 million—a 66.6% reduction; again, the second highest cut for any Department, apart from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Demand-led spending is dropping by a further £139 million, or 25.7%. These are sweeping cuts across the board, aimed disproportionately at the FCDO. They are why the FCDO has been forced into a restructuring process that may lead to the loss of nearly 2,000 jobs. These are significant reductions that come at a time when the world is becoming more and more volatile. If we continue in this way, our diplomatic presence will shrink not because of strategy, but because of budget constraints and Treasury spreadsheets.
We are no longer operating in a stable rules-based system dominated by one predictable power. We are moving towards a more fragmented, multipolar world. Middle powers are increasingly working together issue by issue on defence, trade and climate, rather than relying on a single hegemon to set the direction. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said in his powerful speech at Davos, middle powers must act together or risk being “on the menu”. For countries like the United Kingdom, the shift is important and it requires huge amounts of diplomacy and the use of our soft power on the world stage. Great powers can act alone. They have the market size and economic leverage to do so. Middle powers cannot. We rely on relationships; we rely on credibility; we rely on co-ordination with those who share our values; and we rely on diplomacy. That is precisely why FCDO funding is so important.
We invested heavily, both politically and financially, in our relationship with the United States, but we should be honest about the returns on our investment when the President does not share our values. When tariffs are imposed on British businesses and working families during a cost of living crisis, when trade decisions affect our farmers and our food standards, when strategic choices are made without our meaningful input, and when economic clout is used as leverage, it is reasonable to ask whether our limited diplomatic resources are being used in the most effective way now that the weakness and fragility of our relationship have been exposed.
Emily Thornberry
The hon. Gentleman is making a really good speech and until a moment ago I agreed with everything he said. Does he not agree that our relationship with the United States goes far beyond any leadership? It goes very deep. During the visits the Foreign Affairs Committee has made, we have met people from many different aspects of the United States. They are good friends of ours and we need to ensure that we keep those relationships close.
Edward Morello
I thank the right hon. Member—I have the huge privilege of serving under her chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I do not disagree that the British relationship with the United States goes far beyond the current occupant of the Oval Office. I am extremely grateful for the depth of our relationship, especially on intelligence matters. However, in a situation where funding is constrained, we should focus more clearly on reliable partners, European allies and other middle powers who share our goals on defence, trade, climate and the rule of law.
We are increasing defence spending. It is not as quick or by as much as the Liberal Democrats would like, but there is an increase. It is necessary, but it should not come at the expense of the FCDO. Defence and diplomacy are not alternatives; they are two sides of the same coin. Hard power without strong diplomatic engagement limits our ability to prevent crises before they escalate. The Prime Minister himself said just this week, in his statement on Iran, that we must
“eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation from spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy”
because that is
“the best way to protect British interests and British lives.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 585.]
If diplomacy is the best way to protect British lives, why are we cutting the funding to the very Department charged with delivering it?
We are living in a world where over one weekend global markets and alliances can shift, and energy bills and food prices can skyrocket, all because of the decisions of one person or one social media post. That is why we must stand up for international institutions and co-operation, not cut funding for the Department that facilitates it. In my time on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have been consistently struck by the quality of the people who represent us overseas. They are capable, committed and brave, and are often operating in extremely difficult environments. But that capability requires resourcing. If posts are thinned out, if programming is cut back, if estate maintenance is delayed, our ability to influence outcomes diminishes. If we want to secure trade deals that support growth at home, we need negotiators with time and presence to build trust abroad. If we want deeper co-operation with European partners, we need sustained diplomatic engagement. If we want to prevent conflict, we need early intervention, development support and political dialogue through the FCDO.
Our current funding direction risks narrowing our options at precisely the wrong time. If we want Britain to remain a serious influential power, we must fund the diplomatic tools that make that possible.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am honoured to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for securing the debate. I worked in international development for many years, specifically on water sanitation and hygiene, so I also appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew). I echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury about our strong support for the BBC. I would like to thank all the FCDO staff currently working very, very hard on behalf of my constituents who are in the middle east. The very quick response we have been able to put up, with flights coming in straight away, is commendable. It just shows the strengths and abilities of our embassies across the world, and how important they are.
I am delighted that after years of weakness, isolation and decline in our international standing under the Tories, Britain is firmly back on the international stage, leading on the international response to Ukraine, making the forgotten war in Sudan a priority, and transforming our relationship with Europe—worth mentioning on the day that the FAC released our report on the UK-EU reset.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady remember who led on the international response on Ukraine?
Fleur Anderson
This is not a party political issue. We have led on Ukraine for many years and we still are doing so. I am very proud of the role we have played, under both Governments. The Labour Government are now moving forward far further and far faster. I am also proud that we recently signed the global ocean treaty.
This debate is on the spending in the Department. I am concerned about the continuing cuts in aid, and that they are undermining our strong, and growing, international position and undermining our security. I am concerned about the false division that has been put up between defence and development. It is not defence or development. Defence and development are important for our strategic interests and security. Development spending is not charity; it is strategic investment. Our development budget is one of the most effective tools we have for sustaining British influence. Defence and development should not be seen as competing priorities, but I fear that they are seen as such. Defence responds to crises; development works to prevent them. Development underpins our conflict prevention around the world. A defence posture without sustained development investment risks becoming permanently reactive to events. Good development is good defence.
I am very concerned that the FCDO’s workforce faces reductions of up to 25%. The FAC has repeatedly asked where those cuts will be made. Which staff? Which programmes? Do the cuts match the priorities given by Ministers? I am concerned that they do not. We are not given the answers that we need to scrutinise this very big change in our country’s priorities, and at a crucial time in international relations that are so important for our security. It is important for my constituents to know what our foreign affairs priorities are and whether they are being matched in terms of staffing and budgets.
This is called an estimates debate for a different reason, but estimating is all we can do as a Committee—if MPs cannot see that the priorities given by Ministers are being backed up by spending and action, we cannot properly scrutinise their work. It is also a real concern for development agencies and local organisations on the ground in the countries where we are working, which are not able to plan their work as they do not know what the spending will be.
In the past year, £500 million has been cut from the ODA budget. Aid to Africa, at the time of the Africa strategy being released, has fallen by £184 million. Support to Sudan has been reduced by roughly 18%, at the very moment it faces the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, despite it being a stated priority.
Global health is also a priority for this Government, and rightly so. As I said, I previously worked in water and sanitation. I went to work for WaterAid before I was an MP because, when I had worked with other aid agencies, I had seen the impact that conflict and water have on a community. With action on both those things, a community can have peace—if a community has the water needed for crops and its health, it frees up girls and women from having to go off to get water; instead, they can go to school. It leads to development and resilience against insecurity, which stops conflict. That is what we should be seeing. However, £550 million has been cut from global health programmes. Let us not forget the lessons from covid.
Some £206 million has been cut from education, gender and equality programmes. There is a 25% reduction in women, peace and security funding, despite a feminist foreign policy being a stated priority. I am glad that the proposed cuts to the BBC World Service have been highlighted as well. We have a huge benefit in our BBC World Service. Trust in this service has built up over decades, and any reduction in that gives space to China and Russia. Cuts to development leave room for the Chinese Government to step in, as I have seen in countries across Africa. Cuts in poverty reduction fuel instability and conflict. Cuts in conflict prevention programmes that have been built up for years, which are locally led and are working, are dangerous.
The 0.7% target was not a vague aspiration, but a manifesto commitment that this party stood on. It remains important for our security. I know that these are difficult times for development spending, but we need to keep talking about that as an aspiration. I am concerned that the official policy of His Majesty’s Opposition is now to reduce spending to 0.1% of GDP. I do not know where that will leave our country.
Will the Minister confirm that this Government are committed to the soft power superpower we have in the BBC, to conflict reduction, to the education of girls, to water, sanitation and hygiene, and to global health? Will he confirm that we are committed to working with the poorest countries, not using the move towards investment as a move towards working only with middle-income countries? Lastly, will he confirm that all these commitments will be backed up with funding and our fantastic staff in our embassies on the ground?
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Since the last estimates day, the world has grown even more volatile: war continues in Europe, and the middle east is once again descending into crisis. Recent events have underscored that although hard power is indispensable, soft power remains vital to a serious and effective foreign policy, protecting British citizens at home and abroad while sustaining our global influence. It is therefore concerning that we have now seen Britain fall below the US, China and Japan in the global soft power index.
We have heard from my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee today about the importance of the BBC World Service and the British Council to our soft power. In the brief time I have today, I want to focus my remarks on education, which is the essence of soft power; it is about supporting today’s young people and shaping the future. That is why I want to focus briefly on Foreign Office support for education in the middle east. Funding education abroad can help to create a more stable world and a more favourable environment for British interests and values. It is a long-term investment, but a vital one, because extremism taught in Palestinian schools run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency undoubtedly fuelled the hatred and terrorism seen on 7 October.
In 2025, the Government pledged £101 million to the Palestinian Authority under a new memorandum of understanding, including £7 million to support its education reform agenda—and reform is necessary, because there are repeated examples of textbooks that promote violence and indoctrination. Students are shown examples of dead children and told that Israel had deliberately assassinated them; they are told that they will become martyrs at the hands of Israel through turning their bodies into fire to burn a Zionist tank. They are taught physics problems illustrated with slingshots, history framed around the rejection of peace, and literature portraying Israel solely as an aggressor.
If British taxpayers are contributing millions of pounds to this reform, they will rightly expect to know that that money is driving genuine improvements. The Minister may say that changes to the curriculum are being introduced to different grades over time, but even grades 1 to 4 and grade 12, which both the Palestinian Authority and the European Union said were fully aligned with UNESCO standards of peace and tolerance, and from which antisemitic and violent material was supposed to have been removed last September, have been shown to remain virtually unchanged in classrooms today.
The Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has said that it is for the Palestinian Authority to say which firm they have hired to audit the curriculum, but with Foreign Office funding being spent on this, surely the Government should know —and, in the interests of transparency, share—who is carrying out that review. Will the Minister therefore publish the methodology and scope of the audit? Will it examine all previously identified grades and materials, both new and existing? Crucially, what benchmark will be used to determine whether the content meets acceptable standards?
If we want moderation to prevail over extremism and co-existence to prevail over perpetual grievance, education must be part of the answer. However, we must rightly ask whether British taxpayers’ money is being spent wisely and going towards genuine education reform.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I chair the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, an organisation partially funded by the FCDO that works in more than 50 countries to strengthen democracy, Parliaments, political parties and civil society. This year marks its 34th anniversary.
If I could speak to any of my predecessors as chair, from any party, I think they would agree on one point: the challenges facing democracy around the world have rarely been greater. Across many countries, accountability, the rule of law and political inclusion are under increasing pressure. The risk is not simply democratic decline in individual states, but the gradual erosion of the international system that has underpinned stability and co-operation for decades. We see aggressive challenges to democratic values from authoritarian powers and polarisation and disinformation amplified through social media, and we are witnessing co-ordinated attacks on the rights of women and girls.
This matters to us directly at home. As the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service warned in December, the “frontline is everywhere”. Hostile states are using cyber-tools, online manipulation and financial influence to distort debate and undermine trust in democratic institutions. The response to that threat cannot rest with security agencies alone; it must include strengthening democratic resilience.
For decades, the United States was the largest funder of democracy support worldwide. Much of that funding has now been withdrawn, with civil society and democracy programmes described as being against the US national interest.
This is not an abstract debate; this is about hardheaded UK security and prosperity. Democracy builds what military budgets cannot buy. Our long-term security and prosperity depend on accountable institutions, trusted Governments, transparency and inclusion. We need partners around the world who share our commitment to rights and the rule of law. Those are the countries in which we can invest with confidence. They are the partners on whom we rely to reduce conflict, tackle climate change and manage the pressures of energy costs and economic instability. If we do not step forward in this space, others will, and they will do so on their terms, not ours.
The Westminster Foundation for Democracy is part of that effort. With an FCDO grant of just £8.5 million, we work with partners in more than 50 countries. Through these programmes, we support more than 1,600 parliamentarians, 2,400 parliamentary staff and 1,750 political party officials. Half of all our participants in work are women. Through the WFD, I have seen at first hand how the UK’s credibility, experience and pragmatism can make a real difference to democratic reformers across the world. Crucially, this work is not about lecturing others; it is about partnership. Often we have as much to learn from others as they do from us.
Today’s challenges are serious, but they are also an opportunity. The UK’s democratic traditions, our commitment to accountability and our global reputation for pragmatic politics remain powerful assets. Defending democracy at home must include investing in democracy abroad. I hope the Government will continue to recognise the value of this work and ensure that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy has the support it needs to continue strengthening democratic institutions around the world.
Before I finish, I wish to place on record my sincere thanks to all our diplomatic staff across the world. Having been an MP for the past 16 years, a member of the NATO Assembly and the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for Egypt, North Africa and Algeria, I have seen how brilliant our diplomatic staff are across the world. It is very important that they should remain in their post and that there should not be any cuts in the staffing budget of the Foreign Office.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because, like many here, I have extensive experience in this field.
I feel somewhat in an invidious position, if I am honest, because I completely support the defence spending on which these aid cuts will be used. I also completely support and constantly ask the Government for more investment in my constituency of Bishop Auckland. I also accept some of the arguments that we have heard in this debate about doing more with less. I am talking about the importance of trade, British international investments, diplomacy, debt relief and encouraging other states that do not do enough to step up.
I am also aware that DFID started in 1997 with a budget of just £2.1 billion, which represented only 0.26% of our GDP at the time. That rose to 0.36% after 10 years of a Labour Government. That was a decade of unprecedented progress in which Britain led the world on aid. I also accept that the Government have popular support for diverting aid money towards defence at this time. I acknowledge as well that two of the Opposition parties would implement even deeper cuts to aid and that the others have not presented a credible plan for how to fund an increase. All of that said, like many who have spoken in this debate, I feel deeply uncomfortable. We have heard some fantastic contributions, including from the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), who predictably spoke about the importance of water, sanitation and hygiene and why it should get special treatment.
Sam Rushworth
I knew that my hon. Friend could be relied on to talk about WASH. I also knew that I could rely on her to speak passionately about women and girls. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) even spoke, I knew that she, too, would speak passionately about that topic. I knew that I could rely on both the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) to speak about global health, and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) to talk about British International Investment.
My background is in children and youth in conflict zones, so I shall address my remarks to that. We all think that these areas are important. Everyone is bringing things to the table and saying, “But what about this? Surely this is too important to lose.” My ask of Government is for them to draw up a proper, evidence-based impact assessment of what the cuts will mean and to publish it widely, so that the British public can understand what political choices are being made and what those choices will mean. There is far too much myth in a lot of the debate around international aid. What will the impact be, for example, of the laying off in large numbers of people involved in de-mining operations? What is the impact on communities that cannot return to their homes? What is the impact of leaving unexploded ordnance lying around? When conflict prevention education is being cut, what will be the impact in civil war and civil conflict? How will that impact refugee flows into our country? What will be the impact on the prevention of killer diseases of investing less in public health? My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East has talked passionately about the 90% cuts in South Sudan to programmes that have seen an unprecedented increase in girls going to school. What will be the impact of that?
The International Development Committee recently visited Nigeria and we saw a UK aid-funded maternal health centre. I was shocked at how poor that was, and that was the upgrade. I just could not imagine the scene of six or seven women all in labour at once, occupying a very small space in a hot environment without any air conditioning. What is the impact on all the things that we are doing? Has the FCDO made any analysis of this? If not, why not? If it has, will it publish it and make it more widely known?
I raise this matter for two reasons. First, as a social democrat and a Christian, I am unashamed of saying that I do believe in a global brotherhood of man. I care about a child in Ethiopia as much as I care about a child in my own community. As others have alluded to, this is super important for our national interest. People have spoken really well in this debate about the British Council and the BBC World Service. I wish to talk about staffing. We are led to understand that the quite severe cuts in staffing at the FCDO is because it is considered to be top heavy—it is considered to have too many people in head office. But does that mean that we can expect to see an increase in field staff? In many countries in Africa, I have found that whenever we visit a Ministry, we come across British people who are embedded there, sharing their expertise. That is really important for our soft power, as well as for leveraging our aid spending to do more.
That expertise at DFID and the FCDO is known around the world. It includes expertise in value for money, sustainability, anti-corruption, and gender mainstreaming. What will we lose in those areas, and what will be the impact of that?
I have one final and crucial point that I want to make about the UK national interest. We must not be blind to what is happening right now across the global south with regards to China and Russia. We seem to make different decisions about China from one election cycle to the other. China, on the other hand, has a 100-year plan for global dominance. It is enslaving the developing world in debt. It is using Chinese companies to build the infrastructure, and it is also building a polity of loyal people. That is why the BBC World Service, our education work and technical assistance are all so important—[Interruption.] I can see that Madam Deputy Speaker wants me to come to an end.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I want to express my thanks to the FCDO and officials for their hard work helping British nationals overseas during the conflict in Iran and the middle east, including helping my own constituents get home.
This debate comes at a moment of extraordinary global crisis. More than 130 conflicts are active, 120 million people have been forcibly displaced, and over 300 million face acute hunger. There is war in Europe, and the middle east now stands on the precipice of full-scale regional war. It is against this backdrop of a world on fire that the Government are pushing through with the deepest cuts to British aid and development in a generation, bringing aid to its lowest level this century—from 0.7% when the Liberal Democrats were in government to 0.5% under the Conservatives, and now to just 0.3% under the Labour Government. This is a far cry from the Labour Government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who made it their aim to make poverty history.
This Labour Government’s cuts will contribute to more than 600,000 additional deaths by 2030. Let me pre-empt the Minister telling me that times have changed, and remind him that the legally enshrined 0.7% was designed to slide up and down with GNI and was made after the 2007 financial shock. This Government’s cut was made two days before the Prime Minister went on his first visit to Donald Trump, taking with him a cut that mirrored the one that the President had made to his own foreign assistance budget the previous month, at the start of his Administration. Congress has pushed back on that now and partially reversed the cuts, and now the cuts to ODA by this UK Labour Government run deeper than those of the United States. When today’s USA shows more restraint than this Government, something has gone badly wrong.
Development is no longer treated as a pillar of British foreign policy; it has been quietly demoted to an inconvenience. Let us be clear about what that framing of the cut gets wrong. The decision to slash aid budgets to shore up defence spending is a false economy—and a strategically illiterate one at that. Defence, diplomacy and development are mutually reinforcing pillars of a coherent foreign policy. One cannot be hollowed out without the other two being weakened.
Getting defence spending to 3% of GDP as soon as possible is vital, and the Liberal Democrats have laid out ways to get to that figure with the defence budget as it is now. I can point the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) to the debates in which those ways are laid out, and I would be very happy to go through them with him. He may not agree with the ways that we are going to get to that figure, but they do exist.
Leading voices in defence, including former chiefs of staff and two former heads of MI5, have criticised the decision to slash development in order to increase defence spending, warning that it risks making us weaker and making it harder to prevent conflicts in the first place. Prevention is cheaper than war. Aid stabilises fragile regions before crises require military intervention. It addresses grievances before they become insurgencies and builds good will, which supports diplomacy and trade. It sustains UK influence.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way on that point. Would she like to give us a couple of examples where overseas development aid has prevented crises in the way that she describes?
Monica Harding
I would love to, and I will come back to the hon. Member with those at another point, but I am up against the clock at the moment. As I go through my speech, there may be some examples.
Aid is not charity, as the Minister for International Development suggested to the International Development Committee. It is a strategic tool that makes Britain safer and secure. It reduces the drivers of migration to these shores and strengthens health systems before pandemics cross borders. While we retreat, China and Russia expand their influence across Africa, the middle east and south Asia, filling the vacuum that we leave. UK aid to Africa has already been reduced by £184 million.
Countries such as Ethiopia, Syria, South Sudan, Somalia and fragile Sahel states—tinderboxes—have seen significant bilateral cuts, alongside a very thin Africa strategy released quietly before the Christmas recess. Africa has the world’s youngest and fastest-growing population and a projected $30 trillion economy by 2050. It represents a huge future trading opportunity, but our cuts risk weakening those relationships—relationships on which our country’s growth relies.
Even international climate finance, which has been rhetorically protected, could fall by nearly £3 billion, we are told by The Guardian. Programmes such as the biodiverse landscapes fund, the blue planet fund and the climate and ocean adaptation and sustainable transition programme are under threat, and support for Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility, which we co-designed, has yet to materialise. Intelligence chiefs have warned that the collapse of ecosystems like the Amazon and coral reefs will not just risk our climate obligations but trigger food shortages and unrest and lead to war reaching our shores.
In reality, the cuts are even worse than they look. Around 20% of the aid budget is projected to be spent on in-donor asylum costs by 2027-28, meaning that the amount reaching people overseas could fall to just 0.24% of national income. Is the British taxpayer aware that the money earmarked for the poorest in the world is being spent on asylum hotels in this country?
What is most striking about these supplementary estimates is not only their scale but the absence of a coherent strategy underpinning them. There has been no clear argument made, no case put forward and no honest reckoning with what is being lost and what the impact will be. There is no published road map explaining which capabilities we are prepared to lose and whether we intend to rebuild them later. There has been no serious articulation of why slashing bilateral aid strengthens Britain’s long-term interests. There is just a quiet hope that the cuts will land without anyone looking too closely.
In fact, the future of the very organisation tasked with scrutinising the UK’s aid and development spend—the Independent Commission for Aid Impact—is in doubt. One of its inquiries is on the impact of the Government’s ODA cuts. The very oversight mechanisms that hold the Government to account are being dismantled.
I will briefly turn to our soft power institutions. I will not dwell on them because other Members already have. The BBC World Service and the British Council—two of Britain’s most powerful instruments of influence, funded at a tiny cost to the taxpayer—are having their budgets eroded, the latter burdened by a Government loan with interest payments of up to £15 million a year.
Then there is the vital question of capacity and expertise. The FCDO is planning staff reductions of up to 25%, and the Department for Business and Trade, which works in-country to promote trade relations, is facing a 20% staffing cut, yet the Government have failed to produce a workforce plan before the cuts. It is cuts for cuts’ sake. All of this represents a hollowing-out of capability. Rebuilding that expertise later is neither quick to do nor cheap, and it is very difficult to bring back once it has been torn down.
The question is unavoidable: what is the plan? The Government must change course and set out a clear, binding timetable to return to 0.7%. I look forward to the Minister updating us on how he will do that. The Liberal Democrats will take a different approach to funding the defence uplift, and we have laid it out in this House. In the meantime, the Government must act to limit the damage that these cuts will cause. That means backing meaningful debt relief for low-income countries, redirecting the share of the aid budget spent on in-donor asylum costs back to aid, and safeguarding vital accountability mechanisms such as the ICAI.
In an era of intensifying geopolitical competition, rising instability and growing humanitarian need, Britain faces a choice: we can be an engaged, outward-looking power, shaping events, building partnerships and investing in prevention; or we can shrink our presence, reduce our expertise and hope that the consequences do not rebound on us—a decision to retreat, a decision for the short term, not the long term. The Government’s cuts show that we are drifting towards the latter. Once expertise is lost, once trust is eroded, and once influence is surrendered, it is far harder to recover than it is to protect.
Britain still stands tall in the world, but these cuts threaten to diminish that. Britain does not lead by retreating. We lead by showing up, keeping our word and standing with our partners when it matters most. I urge the Government to reclaim our moral authority, rebuild our global influence and lead once again on the world stage.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
We have had a wide-ranging debate. I will not touch on all the areas mentioned, but I will add a few others. While the debate focuses on budgets and all the other issues around the FCDO’s work, its people and the reforms, it is overshadowed by ongoing events in the middle east. With British nationals in the region sheltering, fearful for their safety while Iran is indiscriminately firing missiles and drones, perhaps this is an opportunity for the Minister to say a few words about the steps being taken to support British nationals in the region. As we know, our bases are being fired on by the Iranians, and British nationals are in fear for their lives.
I know that everyone in the FCDO is working hard to protect Britain’s interests in the region and the safety and security of our bases against the Iranian threat. In the light of the fact that our nationals and bases are under threat, when will the Foreign Secretary call in the Iranian terrorist regime’s spokesperson in London? Frankly, this is a very difficult and worrying time.
As the debate covers FCDO resources, the Prime Minister said on Sunday that our allies in the Gulf had asked the British Government to do more to defend them. Is that happening now to the extent that it genuinely can? Is there an issue with resources and deployments? Perhaps the Minister might be able to update the House on whether the Government have taking any action at all to support and protect international shipping, particularly during this difficult time when we have significant defence expertise in the region. We all pay a big tribute to our armed forces, who are doing so much for our service personnel and their families in the region. At times like these, the expertise of officials and diplomats is essential, and we pay tribute to and thank them.
We know that the FCDO has undertaken a programme of efficiency savings—that has been touched on—and that there is some upheaval in the Department. The Conservative party is supportive of the principle of finding efficiencies and streamlining in government—there is no question of that—but it is important that that is done in the right way and that we do not lose expertise and capabilities. We cannot lose them in the diplomatic service—I use that phrase deliberately—because they are a vital asset to our country and to our national interests. We have invested in their training, skills and capability, and they are literally on the frontline around the world battling for our national interests. I would welcome the Minister giving an update on the impacts of some of the upcoming changes.
One area where the FCDO has been spending money, and on which Opposition Members, including me, have been asking questions—written questions and letters to the Department—is with regards to the disgraced former ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, and his payouts and expenses. I have received some non-answers to written parliamentary questions. In the light of the investigations taking place, I appreciate that some of what my questions asked about may be sensitive, but hard-pressed taxpayers deserve the right to know the financial cost of the Prime Minister’s terrible judgment in making that appointment. There is not only that appalling financial cost, but the impact on our incredible team in Washington. Given the outstanding team in our mission there, working so hard with regards to our special relationship, to appoint the Prime Minister’s crony to that role is unforgivable.
One of the biggest costs to British taxpayers could be the result of another foreign policy failure: Labour’s Chagos surrender deal. The Prime Minister told a press conference last year that the costs were just £3.4 billion, claiming that was
“how the OBR counts the cost”.
However, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed in a letter to me that it
“does not hold any information on the costs or financial impacts of the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago”
and that it has not
“undertaken any modelling of these costs.”
We should not be surprised by that misinformation.
The Prime Minister has said a lot about the deal—he also stated that China, Russia and Iran oppose the deal, when in fact they back Mauritius—but the fact is that the Opposition had to drag out the information about the forecast costs, which will be £35 billion. That is taxpayers’ money, so Ministers should provide full clarity. If the Minister cannot do that today, the House is owed a written explanation in the light of what the OBR said. We want Ministers to be transparent—it is public money, at the end of the day—including under which budget lines in the FCDO budget the costs of the Chagos surrender will come.
The Attorney General of Mauritius is complaining that Mauritius has not yet received any of the money it was expecting from the British Government—some 10 billion Mauritian rupees, or 4% of its revenues. Clearly this money has to be accounted for from the FCDO’s or the Government’s budgets, so can the Minister tell us what further sums of money are being paid to Mauritius under the strategic partnership signed alongside the treaty last year, and other schemes?
The Mauritian Government are also expecting a further 86 million Mauritian rupees in support from the UK Government in their current financial year. That is in their country’s budget, so can the Minister disclose when this is being accounted for? British taxpayers deserve to know what is happening to this money. Can the Minister also give details of what the £135,000 of funding referenced on page 99 of the supplementary estimates is for? It is in section K. I do not need to go into the full details; I am sure the Minister’s officials will get that information for him.
Of course, one way to deal with all of this, and to save British taxpayers a lot of money, is to tear up this terrible surrender treaty. That money could go to many of the areas that hon. Friends and colleagues have discussed this afternoon. Could the Minister also provide some clarity as to when the Bill is coming back? I noticed that the Minister for the Middle East got himself into a bit of difficulty last week, and I think clarity would be welcome.
The whole House should also be concerned about the actions of the Chinese Communist party. The FCDO plays a key role in this relationship. In the last few weeks the Prime Minister has visited China and the Foreign Secretary has met Wang Yi in Munich, yet there is very little to show for this relationship so far. We must bear in mind what the CCP is doing and the harm it is causing by jailing Jimmy Lai for 20 years, which is political persecution, by putting bounties of the heads of Hongkongers living in our country, and by spying on our own country and democratic institutions.
We heard only moments ago the Security Minister’s statement that three people were arrested today under counter-terrorism legislation. I introduced the National Security Bill in Parliament back in 2022, and I think it is fair to say that every single Member in this House is deeply concerned about what is going on. This does not stand our country in good stead. It damages our reputation in the world. I am going to say it again: it is time that the FCDO and the Government played an important role by placing China on the enhanced tier of FIRS. We must be robust in defending our national interests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) spoke earlier about education and the Palestinian Authority. While the situation in Israel, Gaza and the west bank continues to cause a great deal of concern, the 20-point peace plan is now out there and in my view the UK needs to use its influence to support it. We need to see progress on the dismantling of Hamas, and we need to see aid getting to where it needs to get to. The FCDO plays an important role in that.
We also need to see progress on reforming the Palestinian Authority, as has been pointed out today. When it comes to questions around education, we have heard some very robust comments today. The Minister for the Middle East referred to an audit taking place on “pay to slay” and reviews of the education curriculum, which is deeply worrying. We need assurances from the Government immediately that they are being robust around the £101 million of British taxpayers’ money that was given to the Palestinian Authority last year and that that money is not going into supporting those appalling practices. The one-year anniversary of the memorandum of understanding is coming up next month. There should be some transparency on this, and I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury.
Many hon. Members have referenced aid, ODA and the budget this afternoon. It is right that the funding has been repurposed to support our defence and security, given the threats that we face. Our contributions make a difference, and it is vital that the Government continue to explain the projects they are prioritising, to make sure that the money is followed, tracked and traced and that all outcomes are working for our national interests. We must ensure that every single penny counts and that there is transparency and removal of waste in spending.
There has not been enough discussion about the role of private sector finance and the multilateral development banks, about where the FCDO sits on that and about what is happening to our money in those institutions. That matter is absolutely vital, but there is very little scrutiny in this House. The Minister who holds this portfolio fully may be in the other House, but these issues should be scrutinised here. At the end of the day, this is public money.
While there are many areas of conflict in the world, the UK continues to make a difference, and the whole House should recognise that. We have heard colleagues speak about the brutality of the war in Sudan—it is absolutely appalling, and much has been said in the House on that. In Afghanistan, basic human rights are being denied. Women’s basic freedoms are being suppressed, and those rights have to be restored.
On Syria, perhaps the Minister could add something about where our resources are going with regard to the transitional Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces. What are we putting in, and what is happening on stability and bringing peace there? There is still a lack of accountability around the destruction of chemical weapons, the state’s ability to deal with ISIS, which we deal with in this country through the Ministry of Defence, and the strikes that are essential to reduce ISIS. On reports that Syria has been deploying troops on its border with Lebanon in recent days, does the Minister agree that Hezbollah must not be able to draw on arms smuggled across the border? On the Government’s decision to lift a wave of Syria sanctions, has any work been undertaken to measure the impact to ensure that bad actors are not facilitated and do not profit? All those issues affect us and the FCDO in many of its roles and responsibilities.
I want to quickly make a couple of other points. We have all marked the fourth anniversary of Putin’s awful full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The House is united on Ukraine, but the Minister’s Department has an important role to play with the MOD in ensuring that resources get into Ukraine and that we support Ukraine. Also, when it comes to going after Russia and its financial flows—this is about both sanctions and the shadow fleet—we need to ensure that oil finances in particular are being tackled. Sanction busting must stop, and Britain has a role to play there.
Finally, it is absolutely right that Britain stands tall in the world, and the FCDO is pivotal in that. Whether it is soft power or hard power or our diplomats around the world, how we project our country’s power and influence is vital to securing our interests both at home and abroad, and protecting British nationals overseas and keeping our country safe from threats is what the Foreign Office leads on and does well in. There is still much more to do, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I start by paying tribute, as all Members of the House have, to our deeply dedicated and professional civil servants in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Speaking as a Minister just about to enter his sixth month in the job, I have met nothing but thoroughly professional, decent and hard-working civil servants. In fact, they are a tribute to some of the best parts of UK plc and the civil service. More broadly, I pay tribute, as again every Member has, to the work of teams on the ground across the middle east and their work in response to the Iranian attacks.
I turn first to the shadow Foreign Secretary’ speech and what I will call her list of questions. She tempts me into a wider debate on foreign policy, which, frankly, is her job, and I have enormous respect for her in doing that, but I will bring us back to one particular point on Iran. I can confirm to the House that the Minister for the Middle East has just finished summoning the Iranian ambassador, and I know that will obviously be of interest to her and the whole House. That has taken place in the last 30 minutes.
I will give a brief update on consular assistance—something that is of concern to many Members across the House, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. As of 7 am today, 136,582 individuals have registered their presence. The breakdown covers Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Palestine, Qatar and the UAE. This is the largest ever response to this service that we have ever had across multiple countries, and it is testament to the significant pressure that the service is experiencing. Diplomats are undertaking this work across the middle east. We have received nearly 4,000 inquiries since the start of the crisis, and on 3 March, almost 1,000 calls were handled just on that one day. With the civil service, we are doing our very best across the middle east to offer as much support as possible, including—for one of the first times in the history of the Foreign Office—external-facing communications to people who register in place. That is an important part of our response.
Chris Elmore
I will make a bit of progress, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will give way later.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a pedant for procedure in this House, but I have forgotten something: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), for securing the debate. I am sorry that I did not thank them at the beginning of my remarks, but the shadow Foreign Secretary tempted me, and I felt the need to bite. I am equally grateful to all other Members for their contributions. One thing I have learned is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has done a bit of gin-drinking and linen-wearing while travelling with the Foreign Affairs Committee. I need to up my game!
Let me set out and respond to some of the many points raised in the debate. Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, mentioned by many Members, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, has fundamentally reshaped Europe’s security landscape. Like many of our allies, we recognise the need to reduce overall reliance on the United States for our defence. Strengthening the UK’s sovereign defence capabilities is essential in this new era. It is in that strategic context that the Government have taken difficult but necessary decisions, although I appreciate that that view is not shared across the House. The Government have taken those decisions in that strategic context, while ensuring that the UK still plays a full part in European security and remains able to protect our people, our interests and our values.
I am known for many courtesies in this House, but I found it slightly disingenuous of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), to skip over the fact that a Labour Government introduced ODA funding to begin with, and then gently suggest that the Lib Dems reached the 0.7% target after the 2010 general election. It is not my style to be combative in this House, but I thought that was slightly disingenuous—and I will leave it there.
The Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, mentioned the ICAI. I can confirm that no decision has been taken. I appreciate that that will not please her, but we remain totally committed to meeting our statutory obligation, as the independent evaluation of ODA spending is extremely vital for the Government’s work.
The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—I hope I have got the name of his constituency right—asked about Abercrombie House in Scotland. We are committed to maintaining Abercrombie House. In fact, we are considering how other Government Departments could be based on that. I give him that assurance on the record, and I am more than happy to take the conversation away from the Chamber if doing so would be helpful to him.
There have been many questions about a plan, a way forward and the transformation agenda. I do not underestimate the challenges that come with FCDO 2030. Just a few moments ago, I made very clear my support for the civil service in the FCDO—whether on King Charles Street, in Abercrombie House or across the globe—but I have also heard civil servants themselves talk about the need for change in order for the service to be more agile in responding to the global events that many Members have mentioned. There is no hiding from the work that we need to do.
The FCDO needs be equipped to meet challenges today and in the years ahead. The permanent under-secretary of state is leading the transformation programme, to build an organisation that is agile, innovative and equipped to seize the opportunities of the day. They build on deep expertise, which I know is a concern for colleagues, and on the professionalism and commitment that the civil service brings to Britain’s diplomacy and development work every single day. Our workforce reforms are designed to strengthen that foundation, with officials developing a clear sequenced strategy supported by a Department-wide assessment of our skills, capabilities and requirements. I want to stress that point, because Members from across the House have raised the skillset, the institutional memory, and the scale of the knowledge that we bring, across the world, through our diplomatic service. We want to improve those things, not lessen them, and that can be done, among other things, through the skills audit.
As part of that audit, we of course remain committed to maintaining our development capability, but reduced ODA means deploying it with greater precision and impact. It will also mean closing and transitioning programmes in a planned way, drawing on lessons from previous budget adjustments. This includes strengthening the skills we need most for the future, expanding opportunities for specialist development, and ensuring that colleagues can gain the depth of knowledge and experience, both in the UK and overseas, that underpins a world-class diplomatic service. In short, our aim is to build a workforce with the right mix of expertise, regional insight and professional capability to deliver consistently for the UK in a rapidly changing world.
Let me focus on the specific challenge put to me this afternoon: that of development. The Government remain committed to returning to 0.7% when fiscal circumstances allow. We should be proud of the progress made in international development this century, but the world has changed and so must we. The British people and our partners around the world want a new approach to international development—that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law)—and the phrase “partners not patrons” is testament to where ODA needs to move to. We must listen to the countries that we support through ODA, not dictate the terms of what we think they need. That is important and I know the International Development Committee will agree with it, as will Members across the House.
The days of viewing aid as charity are frankly over. This modernisation is not simply the product of tighter budgets. It reflects what our partners have told us directly: they want support that is more responsive to their priorities, with partnerships focused on better health and education, and on ensuring that their people have opportunities at home. We have listened to that—I have listened, as have the Minister for Development and the Foreign Secretary—and our new approach is designed to match what our partners say they need, not what outsiders think they should have.
The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale spoke about a plan. The new approach is based on four fundamental shifts: it moves us from donor to investor; it moves us away from delivering services ourselves and towards supporting the capacity of our partners to improve their own service delivery; it moves us away from providing grants to offering our expertise; and it moves us from imposing change from overseas to championing local leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) raised the latter point with respect to co-operatives, and I was pleased that at the development conference at the beginning of November, I was able to include the crucial work done by the co-operative movement. I reassure him that while I remain in the job, co-operatives will be an extremely important part of how I see development moving forward.
As we progress through the aid budget work, and to announcements on decisions, I confirm that we plan to publish indicative ODA allocations for the next three years shortly. Those three-year budgets will provide the predictability that our teams need—the need for long-term funding allocations has been raised, and I can assure the House that the announcement will come soon. Effectively managing the reduction in aid spending will demonstrate how we intend to put our modern approach into practice. Our development work has never been solely about our aid budget, and access to private investment—the shadow Foreign Secretary raised that—remittance flows, efficient tax systems and trade opportunities are essential foundations for countries to achieve self-reliance. With less money to spend, we must make choices and focus on greater impact, as has been said by many Members. Every pound must deliver for the UK taxpayer and the people we support. The UK remains committed to meeting our statutory obligation on the independent scrutiny of our ODA spending—I am saying that again for emphasis, and to reassure the International Development Committee and its Chair of that work.
Let me come to points raised the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) about water, sanitation and hygiene. We have increased humanitarian funding that includes WASH support in both Gaza and Sudan, working with the World Bank and the UN. The shadow Foreign Secretary may see things differently, but I reassure the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes that that part of our ODA change is about being a player in this space—as an advocate in the room, ensuring that we campaign and lobby for investment within the multilateral space. I also speak as the Minister responsible for multilateral issues, and the change can be a crucial part of such work. We are also supporting several fragile and conflict-affected states to strengthen WASH services, and we have supported more than 700,000 people in Sudan with access to water. I assure the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that we understand the importance of access to water, and how that can lead to security in the spaces where people are living and on which they are reliant.
The UK will also remain at the forefront of the world in relation to responses to humanitarian crises, particularly in supporting people affected by violent conflict, whether in Ukraine, Gaza or Sudan, and helping displaced people in or near their counties of origin. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) raised the right of women and girls to live in a world free from violence, which I know is an issue that she champions. We recognise that human rights, good governance and our work through the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative are key enablers of our wider FCDO priorities. I cannot stress enough to the House how important this is to both me and the Foreign Secretary. It is vital that we find solutions to the fact that the rape of women, girls and boys is used as a tool of war. I am sure that there would be no dividing line for anybody in the House over the part that the UK Government will play in reducing and, we would all like to hope, ending that practice. We will champion the rights of women.
We will accelerate the global clean energy transition, promoting green and resilient growth and seizing the opportunities for Britain. We will also continue to support countries to build resilient and sustainable health systems, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale—I seem to be highlighting him today, but I promise I will get to other Members —including through major investments, such as our £1.25 billon pledge to Gavi and our £850 million commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a clearer reassurance than that. This will help to protect millions of children from disease and save well over 1 million lives in the years ahead. All this is underpinned by our commitment to sustainable, inclusive long-term economic development, and it is built on the foundation of our strong relationships with countries around the world and our standing on the global stage.
Let me turn to questions raised by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Chair of the International Development Committee, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and others, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, about soft power. I know, understand and support utterly and totally the UK’s role in making sure that soft power is relevant and crucial to our wider work within foreign affairs and diplomacy.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
The Minister may be aware that the Public Accounts Committee held a session on 8 January on the BBC World Service. At that session, we pushed for the BBC to be given a budget for the World Service, but here we are, two months on, and I understand that we have still not had notification of that budget, although we are nearly at the beginning of the next financial year. Will the Minister tell us when that budget will be forthcoming?
Chris Elmore
I thank the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee for his question. As I set out at the beginning of my speech, the announcements will be made shortly.
I want to expand on some of the points that have been raised by the right hon. Member for Maldon, among others. We are developing a soft power strategy to try to reverse the decline on the UK’s role in soft power. There have been four meetings of the Soft Power Council since January 2025, so I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are still working on developing a new strategy on soft power and ensuring that every part of the United Kingdom is supported by the work of the Soft Power Council.
Our offer to the world remains utterly unique. As hon. Members have said in different ways during the debate, and I completely agree with them, the UK’s democracy, rule of law and world-class institutions give us real global influence. That is why soft power is at the heart of our diplomacy, but we cannot take this soft power for granted. If we are to make progress on the challenges we face and create a world that is safer and more prosperous, we must engage the sectors, institutions and networks that together contribute to our success and project it to the world.
We are building our partnerships with all those institutions and businesses that contribute to our soft power, specifically to give us the edge when it comes to both geopolitics and growth. We are drawing on advice from bodies such as the Soft Power Council, alongside wider Government expertise, to enhance our attractiveness. In response to another point that was raised, our leadership of two major global alliances—the Open Government Partnership and the Media Freedom Coalition—reinforces our values internationally and shows that we practise what we preach on transparency and accountability. I can reassure the right hon. Member for Maldon and the House that just this morning I had a meeting with leading experts in the media freedom space, and I will be speaking at the Media Freedom Coalition’s conference in London tomorrow—[Interruption.]—as will the right hon. Gentleman, I am glad to hear.
What I want to see, through us retaking the chair of the Media Freedom Coalition, is a move back to the original pillars of this work to ensure that we have meaningful outcomes. One of the things I was challenged on today is leadership in this space, and I can reassure the right hon. Member for Maldon and the House that I care deeply about the freedom of journalists and their investigative work. They are often at the forefront of how we understand what is happening in conflicts across the world. I hope that gives him some reassurance.
I also happen to be the Minister with responsibility for the World Service and the British Council, and Members have rightly raised the work of both those distinguished organisations. The BBC World Service’s role has been especially clear in recent days—BBC Arabic and BBC Persia services are crucial in providing impartial and accurate reporting on events to audiences across the world, as was referenced by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury.
That is why we have boosted the World Service’s grant by £32.6 million this financial year to a total of £137 million—a 31% increase in a tight fiscal situation. I reassure colleagues across the House that we are doing our best to work with the BBC World Service. Just last week I met Ministers in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the World Service remains a cornerstone of the charter review.
Similarly, the Government highly value the work of the British Council in promoting the English language, arts and culture, and education. We are providing the Council with grant in aid funding of £163.1 million in this financial year alone, and we are working with its leadership and trustees to ensure its financial stability. I stress to the House that senior officials and I have had frequent, often and regular—however we wish to express it—meetings with the chair, vice-chair, chief executive and deputy chief executive. I have also provided briefings to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, and its ranking member, the right hon. Member for Maldon.
I am determined to find a way through for the British Council to make it sustainable. We have talked about the losses that it has experienced, and I can assure the House that we are working through a plan—I will do my very best to ensure that Members are updated in due course. I want a sustainable future for the Council that allows it to grow and become a part of soft power for decades to come, and I give that commitment to the House.
I need to conclude—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have gone on far too long. That was another pet hate of mine when I was Comptroller of the Household, but nevertheless I will stretch your good will towards me slightly longer. I can even see the Deputy Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Sir Mark Tami)—I should know better. May I quickly canter through some of the other questions that have been asked?
I particularly want to respond to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). Yesterday, in FCDO questions, the Minister for the Middle East offered to have a conversation with one of her colleagues—forgive me, I forget who it was. Can I make the same offer to the hon. Lady, if she wishes to meet the Minister to ensure that we work together in this space? I cannot be clearer that there is no space for antisemitism in the United Kingdom, or for us to be, in any way, supporting or funding anything that leads to hate towards Jews—either here or across the world. If the hon. Lady would like to take me up on that offer, I am happy to speak to the Minister for the Middle East.
To conclude—I am sure to the delight of the Government Whips Office—this Government have a modernised approach to development. We have the right combination of hard power and soft power tools to achieve our objectives. We have a plan for what we want to deliver, and we know that we have the best people and institutions working throughout the world to deliver it. I applaud all those members of staff for the work that they continue to do, and I commend the estimate to the House.
Sarah Champion
May I thank all the Members who have spoken with such passion about the projects, schemes and—most importantly—individuals in our diplomatic and development service at the FCDO? I know that I have a really short time, but I have to say that the Government have given us the four pillars on which they will make their future decisions, which were put in place by a former Foreign Secretary and a former Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
My concern now is that, while I believe the funding decisions have already been made and will come into the public domain shortly, we as a House can still influence what is going on with staffing. Our staff in the FCDO are under huge pressure. They are our superpower, as this weekend is showing. They are under a huge level of trauma right now because of the restructure that is going on. Added to that is the confusion over their pensions, and there is no workforce plan. I say to the Minister with absolute respect that I do not believe the resources will be there in our time of need, unless assurances are put in place that we have the necessary skills and expertise that all of us in this Chamber have spoken about with pride. I ask all Members please to draw attention to this, so that decisions are not made that we live to regret.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).