The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
Alongside the written ministerial statement published this morning, I want to update the House on the Government’s revised approach to international development and official development assistance allocations. National security is the first duty of Government, and this country faces the most serious security situation for a generation. For too long under previous Governments our defence investment was cut back, so last year this Government took the necessary decision to deliver the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war—the importance of that a decision has been demonstrated again in recent weeks as UK jets fly defensive operations in the middle east while our carrier strike group has been preparing to head to the High North.
In order to fund the additional defence spending, we had to take the hugely difficult decision to reduce our development budget over the next few years, moving to the equivalent of 0.3% of gross national income by 2027. That was set out by the Treasury in the spending review last year. Allies such as Germany, France and Sweden have made similar choices. This, for us, is not an ideological step; it is a difficult choice in the face of international threats. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have confirmed that it is our intention to return to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow.
Our country has a strong, long history of leading on international development across the world. Let me be clear that our commitment to international development remains a central part of our foreign policy and a reflection of both our values and our national interest. It is a fundamental part of our moral purpose to stand up against global disease and hunger and to support those trapped in crises caused by conflict or climate change.
We know that preventing conflict, instability and crisis, displacement and migration, as well as supporting security, economic development, growth and trade, and building global partnerships are all the right things to do. They are also directly in the UK national interest, because as we have seen all too clearly in recent years, instability and crises across the world have a direct impact on us here at home. We have looked hard at what we prioritise and how we work, using the challenge of a reduced budget to find solutions that increase impact, focusing on what secures best value for money for taxpayers while reflecting UK values and the UK national interest, and what will seize new opportunities to bring real change to people’s lives.
First, we will prioritise support for countries and communities facing the worst humanitarian need—those affected by wars and crises. We are committing £1.4 billion a year to tackle human suffering in some of the worst humanitarian crises. Seventy per cent of all geographic support will be allocated to the most fragile and conflict-affected states. That includes fully protecting funds for Ukraine, where people were left in freezing conditions this winter; for Palestine, where civilians continue to suffer immensely in Gaza; and for Sudan, where we see the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century. In the light of the current crisis in the middle east, this week I have taken the decision to add Lebanon to the countries whose funding will be fully protected next year.
That does mean that direct bilateral aid funding for other countries will be reduced. We have taken the decision to withdraw from traditional bilateral funding for G20 countries. Countries such as Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan will remain humanitarian priorities. They will see direct grant reductions, although we will continue to support multilateral programmes that operate in those countries. Countries such as Pakistan and Mozambique will remain development priorities, but their direct grant funding will be significantly reduced. Instead, we will run partnerships for investment that include growth funding through British International Investment and investment to tackle climate change, or lever in direct UK expertise to help them improve capabilities and raise funds directly themselves.
Secondly, we will focus on areas that maximise impact, transform lives and build stability—creating jobs and economic opportunities is the path out of poverty—as well as saving lives and improving health through backing proven global partnerships with which the UK has strong engagement and expertise. For example, we have our partnership with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, where we will be investing over £1.2 billion, which will save the lives of millions of children around the world. We are investing £800 million in the Global Fund, which is expected to save up to 1.3 million lives and avert up to 22 million new cases of HIV, TB and malaria. We are investing in climate action that protects people and prevents future crises. Over the next three years, the UK will aim to spend around £6 billion of ODA as international climate finance, covering mitigation, adaptation and a focus on nature. Using different instruments and levers, we will aim to deliver an additional £6.7 billion of UK-backed climate and nature investments and to mobilise billions more in private finance. That includes measures to help countries to recover when disasters hit. For example, risk insurance in Jamaica enabled rapid payouts following Hurricane Melissa.
Thirdly, we will support women and girls, and we will invest in line with our values, even where other countries have changed their development approach. I have taken the decision to make support for women and girls not just a priority for development, but a central theme across the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That means work to prevent violence, to champion women’s political and economic participation and to keep children learning even during conflict. We will continue support for things such as help for the survivors of horrific rape and sexual abuse and the kind of dedicated funding I announced recently in Sudan for women who have endured the most appalling and traumatic experiences. At least 90% of our bilateral ODA programmes will have a focus on women and girls by 2030. In an age of disinformation, we will also increase our funding to the BBC World Service by £11 million extra a year.
Fourthly, we will support and help reform international institutions to unlock greater finance for development and the innovation that can go far beyond UK aid and traditional grants. That means backing the most efficient and effective bits of the multilateral system to multiply our investment, because multilateral development banks are the largest source of development and climate finance and can lend to partner countries on the most affordable terms. That includes the World Bank’s International Development Association, where each pound that we invest unlocks £4 of additional finance, and to which we have increased our contribution by 40%. We are also working to double the amount of money that multilateral development banks can provide, listening to partners and backing Africa’s institutions to raise far more money at scale.
Our £650 million contribution to the African Development Fund will allow it to leverage up to £1.6 billion in grants and concessional loans, including issuing bonds on the London stock exchange for the first time. We will use our shareholder role and our seat at the table to press for innovation and reform, increasing the voice and representation of low-income and vulnerable countries and pursuing debt relief too, because the global financial system needs to deliver a fairer deal for developing countries and their citizens. The UN must continue to play its indispensable role, but also be more efficient, effective and coherent, so we will refocus on core priorities in line with the UN80 reform initiative.
Fifthly, we are transforming how we work, responding to the clear need for partnership, not paternalism. My noble Friend Baroness Chapman, the International Development Minister, has set out a series of shifts in how we work. We will be an investor, not just a donor. Our partners want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid. Through British International Investment, our finance institution, we are driving growth and innovation and unlocking private capital. That is why I signed a joint agreement in Ethiopia earlier this year for energy transmission projects worth £300 million, enabled by a British International Investment company that delivers UK investment across Africa. That is the kind of partnership that also helps Ethiopians find work at home, rather than considering dangerous international migration overseas.
We are also making reforms to strengthen systems rather than providing services, so that countries can thrive better without aid. For example, our partners want to educate their children themselves, rather than having us try to do it for them, so we are helping to support teacher training and curriculum design. We are moving from providing grants to providing expertise, drawing on the best of British know-how and mobilising UK strengths from inside and outside Government, whether that is from world-class universities, specialists in the tech sector, the City of London, the Met Office or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. For example, tax expertise helped Ghana generate an additional £100 million in revenue to invest in education, health and priorities. Finally, we are backing local solutions rather than remote international approaches, because organisations locally know their populations best and are closer to those in need.
Allocating a reduced budget inevitably leads to hard choices and unavoidable trade-offs, so we are focusing aid on the people and places that need it most, and we will still be a major player. We expect to be the fifth-biggest funder in the world. We will still use international leadership, such as our 2027 G20 presidency, to shape the global agenda for development. We will continue to use other policies and levers so that lower income countries benefit from trade and growth. We will tackle flows of illicit finance and dirty money, which harm developing countries most and fuel crime on everyone’s streets.
This modernised approach to international development and our allocation of ODA reflect our values and our interests, because our driving force has been and continues to be working for a world free from extreme poverty on a liveable planet. We are clear that prosperity and stability in lower-income countries matters for outcomes here at home, whether that is the cost of living, the security of our borders, the resilience of our economy and upholding our UK values across the world. We are also clear that the UK’s sustained commitment to international development is about delivering both at home and abroad. I commend this statement to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement, but I have listened carefully, and what we have heard today will do little to reassure this House, the development sector or the British taxpayer. After more than a year of uncertainty and delay, 12 days before the start of the new financial year, we still know little about how Labour will reform development. A reduction in funding has to be accompanied by genuine reform, and I remind her that it was the Conservative party that pushed the Government to reallocate funding from development to defence. It was Labour that conceded.
We hear warm words about a fundamental change in approach and about moving from donor to investor, but the Foreign Secretary has not told us what that means in practice. What programmes have been cancelled this year as a result of these reductions? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which commitments made by this country will no longer be honoured? We on the Opposition Benches are clear that development spending must be rooted firmly in Britain’s national interest, economic security, national security and health security. That is the anchor; that is the test.
The Foreign Secretary talks about moving from donor to investor, yet almost a decade ago, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), set out the UK’s first economic development strategy. These subjects featured in the 2023 international development White Paper. What exactly will be new in the Government’s approach? How will the investor model operate? What metrics will be used to measure return, not just financially, but in terms of stability, resilience and alignment with UK interests? What will the Foreign Secretary do to make the private sector much more of an engine in development?
The Foreign Secretary has announced that bilateral aid to G20 countries will end, with the exception of Turkey. What specific programmes will the UK fund in Turkey? How much will be allocated and what assessment has been made of the direct benefit to the UK?
I want to press the Foreign Secretary on oversight and accountability. Spending is being reduced and reprioritised, and there have been briefings about the future of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. That body was established to ensure that every pound delivers value for money. Will it continue in its current form, with full independence and authority? If not, what will replace it? Weakening scrutiny at the very moment of greatest change risks undermining public confidence entirely. She says it remains the Government’s intention to return to 0.7% of GNI on development. What are the fiscal circumstances that would allow that and what is her expected timescale?
Turning to priorities, the Foreign Secretary has spoken about climate finance, but at a time when the country faces serious fiscal constraints—driven by this Government’s own economic choices—can she explain why this remains a central pillar? Should our first priorities not be economic resilience and national security, including global health security? On the latter, the Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund. What will she do to ensure that the UK remains a strong contributor in an era when the ODA envelope is smaller?
The multilateral development system needs a complete overhaul. Given Labour’s plans to reduce bilateral aid funding, does the Foreign Secretary have a serious plan to drive reform of the multilateral development banks? Will she push for much more robust accountability, transparency and conditionality? How will she ensure better outcomes and a stronger focus on delivery? Crucially, is she working in concert with our key allies, including the US, to drive that reform? The World Bank under its current president is undergoing a significant reform programme, which could be much more widely rolled out across the MDB ecosystem. Is she discussing how Britain could support that?
Will the right hon. Lady update the House on support for British international investment? This is a genuine success story, mobilising private capital, supporting growth and advancing British interests. Does she have any plans to strengthen it and to ensure that it continues to generate strong returns? What of Britain’s soft-power institutions that support our influence around the world? What is her vision for the future of the British Council in this new landscape? Is it being supported or quietly squeezed?
The Foreign Secretary omitted to mention the Commonwealth at all in her statement. How will she work with the Commonwealth Secretariat and our partners to ensure Britain’s partnership offers are much more attractive, so that our friends do not turn to China, which seeks only exploitation and closed trade? More broadly, is she exploring the potential for minilateral partnerships with close security partners?
There are pressing geopolitical questions, not least how the Government is supporting countries vulnerable to Russian interference, including Moldova. What role will organisations like the Westminster Foundation for Democracy play going forward? Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine. This week, we welcomed President Zelensky to this House. It is important that we reaffirm our commitment to the humanitarian response to Putin’s illegal invasion.
This House is entitled to answers, the sector is entitled to certainty and the British people are entitled to know how their money is being spent and why. For decades, UK development policy has delivered transformative results around the world. It works at its best not when we are a charity, but when we are ruthlessly focused on driving genuine outcomes with genuine objectives, have rigorous criteria for selecting projects and take a clear view on how to play to our strengths.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Lady obviously has a set of questions, but it would have been better if she had also taken some responsibility for the situation we are in, because it was the Conservatives who hollowed out the investment in defence with a £12 billion cut after 2010, who failed to respond to the end of the post-cold war dividend, and who left our overall public finances in, frankly, a perilous state by the time we reached the 2024 election. That situation left us with difficult decisions and choices to make. We are having to reverse some of the cuts they made in defence and to keep increasing defence spending, and we are having to make difficult decisions to fund that.
The right hon. Lady asked a series of questions on particular areas, but I gently point out that she said nothing to explain what her approach would be under the Conservative party’s policy to reduce development spending to 0.1% of GNI—a two-thirds reduction in the funding we are setting out. There was no explanation of whether that funding would be cut from Sudan, vaccines or global health support.
I say to the House that we are honouring our commitments, such as those to the World Bank’s International Development Association programme. The ICAI will continue, and we are increasing funding for the British Council, but that will come from outside ODA funding. That will come from additional funding, because we recognise the hugely important role that the British Council plays across the world.
The new approach we are taking to support investment and to shift from donor to investor was encapsulated in the “new Approach to Africa”, published by my noble Friend Baroness Chapman before Christmas. That set out the equal partnership and respect that underpin the new framework for our approach to Africa, which has been strongly welcomed by African countries.
On Turkey, we are continuing to provide support for refugees, just as we are providing support that helps refugees in places like Chad, because we know that providing that support in region also prevents people from making dangerous journeys and the kind of migration that is exploited by criminal smuggler gangs. There are areas where we are reducing direct aid, and that obviously leads to difficult decisions, but we are working to increase investment in those areas through things like the World Bank and other programmes. That is the right thing to do to ensure that we can both support the defence investment we need and continue to champion international development.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that my voice will last—the Foreign Secretary might get off lightly.
This was meant to be a statement about the 40% cuts that the Government are bringing forward. Instead, the Foreign Secretary spoke at length about the policy and direction shifts that she is making, which I think are the right ones to make, but we have not discussed the policy announcements around the cuts. I have had an embargoed copy of the equality impact assessment, for which I am grateful. When that is in the public domain, we will have the information that would allow us to have an informed debate.
I fear that the Government’s decisions have been based on a false dichotomy. Defence has been pitched against international development, but ask any military person and they will say that the best line of prevention and first defence is our development money, because it keeps people safe and secure in their homes, keeps them prosperous and holds Governments to account. In the world we find ourselves in, I am fearful that taking away that first line of defence will have massive consequences.
I will give a couple of stats to illustrate where we are. There are 61 ongoing conflicts. Less than 12% of the global population lives under a liberal democracy—the lowest in 50 years—with 5.8 billion people living under autocratic rule. Over the next 15 years, 1.2 billion people will reach working age with only a projected 400 million jobs.
Development spend keeps people fed, safe and prosperous. Our aid cuts will reduce that. Girls in South Sudan will no longer have education, polio will surge, civil society is being abandoned and the poorest will not be fed. Rather than providing solutions, we will see the consequences of the UK stepping away from the international stage for our reputation and influence, and, as the former Home Secretary well knows, we will see people come to our shores to seek sanctuary and opportunity.
Can we also spare a thought for the staff in the FCDO who face 25% cuts right now, and specifically the country directors who are having to go to people they have spent years building relationships with to say that we are no longer standing by them financially?
I do not really have a question because I have not been given the information, but I say to the Foreign Secretary that these cuts do not aid our defence—they make the whole world more vulnerable. Can I please ask that as we go forward, she listens to the ICAI report about transparency, where we are prioritising money and its impact, rather than just chasing the bottom line?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for the points she has made and for being such a strong champion for international development and its wider purposes. I also thank her for the extensive work and scrutiny that her Committee does in this area.
My hon. Friend mentioned the interaction between development work and security across the world, and I agree with her that those issues are strongly linked. We have decided to prioritise some fragile and conflict-affected countries exactly because those development and security issues are so strongly interlinked. Our purpose is to better link the direct aid we provide with conflict and atrocity prevention.
We are linking those policy approaches in, for example, Sudan. We are fully protecting the funding for Sudan because of the scale of the humanitarian crisis, but we are linking that to much stronger policy interventions, including for the women and girls facing such crises, and the work to support a ceasefire. The honest truth is that, if we could achieve a ceasefire in Sudan, that would have more impact than any humanitarian aid funding we can provide because, frankly, the humanitarian funding too often cannot get in because of the conflict. We need to join up strongly those policies with aid support.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the equalities impact assessment, which is being published today. Our intention had been to publish it by this point, but I understand it is being uploaded at the moment. I will be giving evidence to her Committee, but I can tell her that we looked at earlier assessments and adapted our decision making on the basis of that analysis to ensure that we are, for example, doing more to support women and girls and taking account of equalities issues.
I agree with my hon. Friend that these issues are interlinked, which is why they must continue to be linked as part of our foreign policy. We have to both defend our security and support international development, because those things are fundamentally linked: this is about both our values and our national interest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
May I start by asking the Foreign Secretary why this extremely important statement on Britain’s commitments overseas is being announced on a Thursday, when most MPs are not here? Is it perhaps because the Government are ashamed of these cuts and want them to slip out unnoticed?
Something has gone badly wrong when a Labour Government cut the foreign aid Budget more deeply than Donald Trump or the last Conservative Government. This shameful moment is not only a moral catastrophe, but strategically illiterate. The cuts to the bilateral aid budget will be a direct and severe hit to Britain’s long-term interests, to our influence and our ability to shape events in regions critical to our national interest, and to growth in new markets, leaving a vacuum for Russia and China to fill.
The Foreign Secretary makes great play of defence, but when the world is on fire we need more work on prevention of conflict, not less. By cutting aid and development, she weakens our security and will therefore need more defence spend down the line. If she does not believe me, she may like to believe the defence chiefs who have said so, including Lord Richard Dannatt. We Liberal Democrats oppose these appalling cuts and have set out credible alternatives to fund higher defence spend, including defence bonds and a higher digital services tax.
Does the Foreign Secretary not see the contradiction between her desire for a world free from extreme poverty on a liveable planet and these savage cuts? Where is the bravery and leadership that previous Labour Governments and the coalition Government showed to the poorest in the world? Where has the Government’s full commitment to address climate change gone? Where are the Labour party’s values, where did it mislay its moral compass and where is its strategic logic? When and how will she return to the 0.7% of GNI target enshrined in law by the coalition Government?
Yvette Cooper
Again, I gently remind the Front-Bench spokesperson that the Liberal Democrats were part of the coalition that cut the UK’s defence budget by £12 billion. She wants a more independent defence policy, but she has no serious plans to pay for it and she has never confronted the difficult choices that responsible Governments must take. On the Thursday issue, it is a working day in Parliament and she ought to take it seriously.
As a result of all these changes, we expect to be the fifth largest funder of international development, which is a sign of how seriously we take it. Many of the reforms that we are leading are driving greater impact of decisions and policies for other areas and countries to follow. Through more partnerships, with a greater focus on investment, we are increasing capabilities in and strengthening countries across the world. We are increasing our work on conflict prevention at a time when conflict and atrocities have escalated across the world. We are making a substantial, multibillion-pound investment in climate and nature, along with international investment. Prioritising reforms such as those to the World Bank will allow it to substantially increase its investment in some of the lowest-income countries in the world by multiple billions of pounds, which will help improve development, jobs and opportunities. We are also working in partnerships with countries.
There are difficult choices to be made, but a responsible Government cannot shy away from those difficult choices, and that is why we are supporting and championing international development alongside increasing investment in defence.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As a former shadow International Development Minister, I know that one issue our nation has not grappled with is that 90% of the usurious levels of debt repayments for the poorest nations across our planet are governed by English law through the City of London. We could raise millions out of poverty without spending a penny, by introducing a debt justice law as called for by the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development and other agencies. Has the Foreign Secretary given that any consideration?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that the UK—certainly under previous Labour Governments—has a strong history of looking at debt relief, which was championed by Gordon Brown as Chancellor and Prime Minister. I recognise the strong work that my hon. Friend has done in this area and in championing these arguments. We are pursuing further reforms to debt relief, which is an important issue because countries should not be held back economically by unacceptable debt repayments that make them more fragile and end up in a vicious cycle. We are looking at further reforms in that area.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision that the UK will once again co-chair the global Media Freedom Coalition, but will she match that with financial support for independent media organisations and journalists in the growing number of countries where media freedom is under attack and US support has largely been withdrawn?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and we do champion media freedom worldwide. That is why we have become a co-chair of that organisation, and the partnerships in different countries can look at these issues. It is also why we are increasing the funding for the BBC World Service. In Iran, for example, the BBC Persian service has been crucial to providing information for communities across the country. It has also proved vital in other areas as an independent voice that can counter misinformation and maintain the open debate and freedoms he mentions.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is aware of the impact of humanitarian aid and how it saves lives in the midst of the most horrific situations that humans experience on this earth. She will also be aware of the vital role that UN agencies, including the World Food Programme, play in co-ordinating humanitarian actors in the midst of these crises. Will she set out the impact of these changes on humanitarian aid and on UN agencies? May I also say that her recognition of and focus on women and girls really matters, and many of us strongly support that?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the work my hon. Friend has done over many years, and continues to do, on development and support for those in conflict and crisis who face the greatest poverty and suffering. She is right to highlight the importance of the UN and, more broadly, multilateral aid institutions. There are institutions that need to be reformed to be made more focused and efficient, but we also need to continue to support those multilateral institutions, because that is what allows us to multiply the effect of any investment we put in. That international architecture can go far further than any one country alone, which is why we have been working to protect funding for some international and UN agencies. There are reductions in many different areas, but we have still sought to keep that focus on international institutions, where other countries have chosen not to and have pulled out.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I support prioritising hard power over soft power to protect our national security. In her statement, the Secretary of State drew a direct link between additional defence spending and reducing the development budget, but that was the exact opposite of the position put forward by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. In Hansard, on 13 July 2021, when the previous Government were reducing aid from 0.7%, he made the exact opposite case, saying that reducing overseas aid made us less secure and that we needed to continue with 0.7% to keep us safe. Does she accept that this is yet another example of the Government saying one thing in opposition and doing the exact opposite in office, ignoring the concerns raised by the Chair of the International Development Committee and others about the trade-offs that are quite normal to make in government?
Yvette Cooper
Again, I would gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Government have had to deal with a defence investment programme that was hollowed out by his party in government. We have had to deal with that, as well as the difficult fiscal circumstances they left us with. It is right to increase defence investment. We have had to take difficult decisions to do so, but those decisions were set out by the Prime Minister over a year ago and then confirmed in the spending review. We are reforming how we do development so that we can maximise and increase the impact of every pound we spend. We are choosing not to do what the right hon. Gentleman’s party is proposing, which is to reduce international development to 0.1%. That would damage important programmes that we need for the future.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I welcome this development reset. I support the Government’s decision to invest in our country’s security now and our ambition to support development more in future. On Yemen, given the conflict and the overall fragility in the region, how do the Government ensure that UK aid spent there does not fall into the wrong hands?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for raising Yemen. This is a complex situation. We know there is immense humanitarian need, but there are also malign actors and huge risks around security, as well as that humanitarian crisis. That is why we have been working to ensure there are sufficient safeguards, but also working closely with international organisations and agencies in Yemen. It is important that we ensure that the investment we put in gets to those who need it most.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Yesterday, I and my colleagues on the International Development Committee met staff from Action Against Hunger, who had just returned from Lebanon, to hear about the horrors they have seen on the ground there. I am grateful for the added support that has been talked about, but when we and the people of our country see, in real time on our phones and our TV sets, a world on fire in Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Palestine, and across the Gulf and elsewhere, it is surely madness to cut our aid budget—our soft power of hope and help—at this time of conflict and climate change. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we would gain respect by doing the right thing and restoring the 0.7% now, which would be worth its weight in gold not just for the people of those troubled places but for ourselves in the months, years and decades ahead?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member rightly mentions Lebanon, where as we speak there is a huge humanitarian crisis. That is why in the past two weeks we announced an additional £15 million this year, particularly for Lebanon but also for some of the nearby areas, to provide urgent additional humanitarian and crisis support this year. It is why we have added Lebanon to the list of countries—alongside Sudan and Palestine, which he also raised—where we are protecting the funding next year as well, because this is so important. He talked about the scale of conflict. It is also why it is right that we target the aid we spend—the grant funding—on those areas that are in the greatest crisis and conflict, but also for other countries where they have Governments that we can work with. For example, we can help them to raise more taxes of their own, as we are doing in Ghana, or work with British International Investment, where we can put investment in growing their economy, which also helps them to raise revenue. We take different approaches for different countries in different circumstances. The aim is still the same: to provide support for people and their lives and the long-term economic development they need, but it does have to be done in different ways in different countries.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
Over 220 million children worldwide are not in education. The UN sustainable development goal 4 is unlikely to be met by 2030. What investment is the UK making to support global efforts to help those children?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend raising the issue of education. There is a particular issue with girls not being in education. It is also an issue in conflict areas, such as Sudan or Ukraine, where children’s education has been held back. That is why we are continuing the funding for Education Cannot Wait, because it provides the crucial funding in conflict zones and crises, particularly for refugee families in need of support. In other areas, we think the crucial need is to work with those Governments. In some countries we need to work in partnership with the Government concerned, because there are schools, there is provision and there are services, but for different local policy reasons too many people, particularly girls, are excluded. We want to work both internationally and bilaterally to support education.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Many of our constituents will want to react to this announcement today by increasing the amount of money they give. Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office continue to offer an aid match option? Given that 0.7% is still technically on the statute book, will the Foreign Secretary bring forward a named vote in this Parliament to make the changes she is announcing today?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Lady’s point about aid match and how we can ensure that we help to use UK Government funding to lever in additional donations and support from huge numbers of people across the country, including through philanthropy. There is a strong commitment to that support. We will continue to have aid match agreements and arrangements in different areas, just as we did on Palestine over the Christmas period. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have confirmed our intention to return to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I recognise how difficult today’s statement is—it is not a position that any Labour Government would ever want to be in. I welcome the commitment from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to return to 0.7% as quickly as possible. I particularly welcome the protection and focus on women and girls, and on LGBT activity where other countries are withdrawing. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for aid match, will she continue to work with me to look at areas of expansion and ensure that generous people across the country have an opportunity to support and double UK efforts, particularly in fragile and conflict states, and on women and girls, and LGBT issues, where we are continuing the funding?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s considerable work on the aid match programmes and on how we mobilise that support from communities across the country. She is right to highlight that there are particular issues, including in some of the most serious conflicts and humanitarian crises. That includes areas affected by the climate crisis. After Hurricane Melissa, for example, there was huge backing from communities across the country wanting to support aid for Jamaica. I am keen to work with my hon. Friend and others who want to support aid match programmes, including those for women and girls.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The UK was once regarded as a world leader in international development, yet today UK aid cuts are the steepest, deepest and most brutal of any G7 country—astonishingly, they are going further and faster in withdrawing support from the world’s most vulnerable people than even Donald Trump’s US Administration. It is utterly shameful. We are not hearing today how deep and where specifically those cuts are, but we know that they will deny children education and prevent access to lifesaving medicine, while also hitting those who live in extreme poverty hardest. In short, they are death-sentence cuts. With no separate Department now, or even an elected international development Minister for us to scrutinise and ask these detailed questions, how can the Secretary of State expect anyone to seriously believe that this Government remain committed to international development in an era of acute global instability?
Yvette Cooper
I have set out very strongly the priority that we are giving to the countries affected the worst by conflict. In fact, the most extreme poverty is now in those countries affected by conflict. For example, there is substantial risk of famine in some areas of Sudan as a result of the ongoing conflict and crisis there. We have to combine providing and maintaining the investment to support Sudan with working to deliver humanitarian corridors to enable UN organisations to get into the country and pursue a desperately needed humanitarian truce. Those things are all linked.
There are important but difficult decisions that have to be made. I know that some people want to walk away from development altogether—and some people want to walk away from defence altogether. This Government are clear that we need to champion international development and increase support for defence together.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and particularly welcome the increase in funding for the BBC World Service, which is so crucial in delivering accurate and trusted journalism in this age of misinformation and disinformation. I also welcome the prioritisation of countries affected by war and crisis, particularly Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine. Will she confirm that the support for Ukraine will cover the tracing, rescue, return and rehabilitation of the 19,951 Ukrainian children who have been forcibly deported by Russia?
Yvette Cooper
I can confirm that we are increasing the investment for the BBC World Service by £11 million. That comes on top of the increase that we have already made this year to support the World Service because we recognise the vital role it plays. I can confirm that in Ukraine we will continue to back efforts to support the lost and kidnapped children, and their families, who have been through horrendous experiences, and some of whom I have met when visiting Kyiv. I also pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend, because I know that she has been championing this issue relentlessly, year after year, and has been recognised not just by this Government but by the Government of Ukraine. I thank her.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the continued commitment to combating terrible diseases such as HIV, malaria and tuberculosis, but the Foreign Secretary has not mentioned polio. After many years of investment, we have almost got to the point of eradicating the disease. If that programme ceases, the risk is that polio will come back in a big way. In areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan the disease still seems to be rampant, and they are involved in a conflict, as she will know. Will she confirm that funding for the programme will continue, so that we can eradicate polio once and for all?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for global health and the impact of the commitment. However, we are not continuing the direct funding around polio. That is a difficult decision. What we are doing is insisting that polio is covered as part of the Gavi funding. We are funding more than £1.2 billion in investment in Gavi and the vaccines programme, and their work is now expanding into polio. Given the multiplicity of different programmes in some of those areas, we think the important thing is not to have overlapping programmes but to focus, particularly through Gavi and the Global Fund, on vaccines and on eradicating those diseases.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Beyond aid, our party has a proud history in this area, from debt relief to immunisation finance and leveraging capital investment in programmes such as the World Bank’s International Development Association fund. Will the Secretary of State give us an idea of how much of a priority that will be for the UK’s G20 presidency? Given that Ukraine now represents one of our biggest humanitarian budgets, what message does she have for my former constituent, Roman Abramovich, who has missed the 90-day deadline to pay the more than £2.5 billion he owes from the sale of Chelsea football club, which could be used for humanitarian needs right now in Ukraine and could alleviate some of those budgetary pressures?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s focus on debt relief and the World Bank’s IDA programme, which we are increasing by 40% because it is such an important programme. I can confirm that those issues will be an important part of our G20 approach and plans for next year. I also strongly welcome what he said about Roman Abramovich and the need to get that money from the sale of Chelsea. It should be going to support families and for humanitarian support across Ukraine. That is where that money should be, not held up by someone’s refusal to follow the obligations that he committed to.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Secretary of State referred to the link between overseas aid and our security. Preventing conflicts, promoting stability and reducing migration is a classic example of when prevention is not only better, but cheaper, than a cure. Does she accept that cutting aid undermines our national security? What assessment has she made of the longer-term consequences for this country of these short-sighted cuts?
Yvette Cooper
We have to both increase our defence spending and champion international development in order to maintain our security here at home. That means focusing in particular on the areas where conflict is greatest. I worry that continued instability in Sudan, for example, allows extremist groups to flourish, which creates regional instability and increases migration. That is why we are continuing to support refugees in the region and in places like Turkey. Again, that is to prevent migration and instability. We are focusing our development funding and our policy measures on a lot of that prevention work. It is also important that we see this as investment and policy measures going hand in hand, and that we do not look at them in isolation.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Later today I am meeting Inclusion International, which supports people with learning disabilities throughout the world. The focus on women and girls that my right hon. Friend referred to is welcome and important, but there is great concern among disability organisations over the impact of widespread cuts to international aid for millions of people—millions of disabled people—affected by conflict. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she and her colleagues in Government will work with international aid organisations so that initiatives providing lifeline support to disabled people, often facing poverty, can continue?
Yvette Cooper
We will continue to work with international organisations on this; in fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), is due to have meetings on disability issues later today. We looked at this issue to ensure that there would not be a disproportionate impact, particularly with regard to equality impact assessments. We recognise that there is a difficult impact from reductions in aid budgets. That is why this has been such a difficult decision to make.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Pitching defence against development is utterly short-sighted—it is a totally misjudged binary. These aid cuts make us all less secure. The Foreign Secretary has talked about this as a difficult choice; in fact, it is the wrong choice. Let us be clear: under this Labour Government, we are seeing deeper aid cuts in the UK than in any other G7 country, which will take us down to the lowest level of overseas aid—0.24% of gross national income—since 1970, which will have hugely damaging effects globally. I have three specific questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, when will she publish the country allocations so that we can see exactly where the axe is falling? Secondly, how will she ensure that poverty alleviation remains the focus of overseas development assistance in this context? Thirdly, how does she square this with the comments of her own Prime Minister, who has previously acknowledged that cutting aid makes the world less secure?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Please answer just one question, Foreign Secretary.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady’s party wants to walk away from NATO, which would actually make our defence more expensive and more difficult, rather than ensuring that we can support both defence and international aid. This Government will still be the fifth largest investor in international development as a result of these changes. It is challenging, but it is also about being able to support both our values and the national interest.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Holy Scripture tells us that we should never walk by on the other side, and I am reassured by the Secretary of State’s statement that she agrees, even if she used other words. She is right to talk about value for money for taxpayers and the values that we hold close as Brits. I particularly welcome the commitment to Gavi. With that in mind, and as we work to make “Global Britain” mean something, will she update the House on the work of the Soft Power Council in recent months? I also urge her to use the Commonwealth to advance the values that she set out in her statement today. Will she meet me to discuss my thoughts on how we can do just that?
Yvette Cooper
The soft power strategy is being worked on with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as we speak. Both the BBC World Service and the British Council—both areas where we are increasing investment, not simply through overseas development but through other budgets—are important parts of soft power.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I am proud to have been part of the 2010-15 Government, when Michael Moore and others took us to 0.7% spending for aid. I think my Labour-voting constituents will be utterly stunned to hear the contents of the Foreign Secretary’s statement today. I do not understand the disconnect between this Government and the Blair and Brown Governments, whose aim it was to make poverty history. Could the Foreign Secretary say when she believes her Government will return to 0.7%, as she mentioned earlier?
Yvette Cooper
I would point out to the hon. Lady that the 2010-15 coalition Government cut our defence budget by £12 billion, which is what has placed us in the difficult situation we are in now—at a time when we face huge security threats. We will be the fifth largest funder of international development, exactly because we are continuing to champion it. Having been part of the previous Labour Government—which made priorities of debt relief and tackling global poverty, hunger and hardship—is exactly why I am so clear that we need to continue to champion international development, especially in relation to women’s and girls’ issues, and we will continue to do so.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have alternative plans for funding defence, because the plans being laid out today put Britain and the world at risk. The World Bank says that climate change could drive 200 million people from their homes and the World Health Organisation has said that climate change is the biggest threat to human health. The Government’s own national security assessment on global ecosystems, which they tried to suppress, could not be clearer:
“Ecosystem collapse is highly likely to drive national security risk.”
Why are the Government choosing to ignore the evidence and their own security experts by slashing international climate and nature funding, which protects people at home and abroad?
Yvette Cooper
The investment that I set out in the statement includes £6 billion of climate finance for climate change and nature, and a further £6 billion in UK-backed investment, including more support to bring in private sector investment and extremely innovative approaches to climate finance. We will be able to tackle these issues globally only if we work in partnership and have a strong voice on the international stage. This is about policy and funding operating together.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has been given a challenging statement today about issues that we all consider. I very much welcome the prioritisation of women and girls in conflict zones; that is essential. Does the Secretary of State agree that we also need to ensure funding to stop the radicalisation of young men? Training young men to work and find a fulfilling role is worth the investment to halt the breeding grounds of anger and despair, and to bring hope. Does the Secretary of State agree that we all have a responsibility in this regard? What will she do to help those young men by stopping them being radicalised and turning to violence and, instead, giving them hope?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I have discussed with Foreign Ministers across the world the importance of combining opportunities for young people with strong security measures to prevent radicalisation and extremism. That is about security in different regions, but it is also about our security at home.