Official Development Assistance Reductions

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I declare an interest in that my wife works for Save the Children. Indeed, I met her while working in the sector almost 11 years ago to this day.

I start by setting out some context around the erosion of the budget, because it has not just been reduced in absolute terms but as a proportion. That makes some of the arguments about not being able to afford official development assistance due to the lack of growth in the economy slightly disingenuous—because, of course, when the economy does not perform, the amount that we contribute goes down anyway.

There has also been a lot of salami-slicing of the budget. The merger with the FCDO was bad for the amount of aid being directed to the global south; we have also heard about the Home Office eating into the budget. With regard to the latest reason for reducing the aid budget—which is about defence—a lot of the uplift in the defence budget has been on the capital side. We are borrowing to invest in that capital. Therefore it is also slightly disingenuous to say that there is a direct transfer between the international aid budget and the money that is going into defence. That needs to be made clear.

The public misunderstand how much we commit to spending on international aid. In polls, they consistently overestimate it. I believe that if the British public truly understood that the commitment was 0.7%, they would stand by that commitment. It is like asking somebody who is down to their last £100 if they would give 70p to somebody more needy than them. I know that the British public are generous, and that they would not baulk at that figure. I think that they would maintain that commitment.

I now move to the points that were excellently put by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on how we have allowed public support to erode over time. The public’s perception of international aid is that a lot of it is wasted, that some of it is spent on woke projects, that it goes to corrupt Governments, and that the trade-off between investment in the poor overseas and the poor in the UK is a zero-sum game.

It would be easy for me to say that it is the fault of right-wing populists, the media and so on. However, I think that the sector itself has failed to communicate properly. It has failed to tell a long-term story of its success. For 30 years, we have had the same images on our screens—starving African children with flies hovering around their noses. That is the image that we consistently feed to the public, instead of telling some of the stories of progress, such as how we have halved infant mortality and lifted a billion people out of destitution. Those are the stories that we should have been telling the public all along.

I believe that the development sector was one of the most scrutinised in terms of its monitoring and evaluation. From time to time, I am sure that there have been pet projects that were useless. However, generally speaking we have achieved so much from our investment in international aid, so we need to get that message across.

The following points were made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), so I will not go into them in detail. However, we need to sell the changing purpose of aid—how it is about not dependency but creating independence, how we work in partnership because it is not mere charity, and how it is based on shared values because we all want a good future for our children. It is about telling those stories of progress.

Other Members have already made good points about how this is also in our self-interest—the raw, naked interest of Britain. If we vacate this field, it will be filled by others. When I lived in Uganda for a period, I saw how China is moving in where the UK is moving out, so this has an impact on soft power all over the world.

The points made about conflict security have been well put; whether we feel it in inflation or migration, these problems arrive back on our shores. The arguments against the aid budget are rooted in moral confusion, they demonstrate a poor analysis of the efficacy of aid, and they are strategically short-sighted. That is why we need to restore the 0.7% budget and recreate an independent Department for International Development, so that we can start marshalling that money towards the good, effective and important work that it has always done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this timely debate. I also welcome the Minister to her place on the Front Bench; I think this is the first time we have met across the Dispatch Box in Westminster Hall, and I genuinely wish her well. I also thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who, as ever, demonstrates a very deep understanding and knowledge of development issues and, importantly, the challenges that we face in today’s world.

The UK has a proud record as a global leader in international development. I am proud that that record was shaped and delivered by successive Conservative Governments. On this side of the House, we have always believed that development is not simply about charity, but about partnership, soft power, security and the projection of our national interest. Over the past decade, Conservative Governments delivered real and lasting results that have made the world healthier and safer, and unlocked economic opportunities.

Millions of people were lifted out of poverty through targeted aid programmes and economic development initiatives. We were the single largest public contributor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which has saved over 18 million lives. Our water, sanitation and hygiene programmes reached over 120 million people worldwide. That is a record that we Conservatives can be proud of.

Today, though, the world we face is very different from that of just a few years ago. We are living through an era of multiple and overlapping crises: conflict in Europe and the middle east; state fragility in the Sahel and the horn of Africa; climate and weather-driven disasters displacing millions and a growing contest of influence, where authoritarian regimes ruthlessly exploit entry points. Against that backdrop, the UK must ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money spent abroad delivers maximum impact and advances our critical national interests.

We need to focus our resources where they make the greatest difference, where they advance our economic prosperity, strengthen our national security and support global stability. Our country will always play its part internationally, but our development funding must work harder for Britain. Development assistance is a powerful tool of foreign policy: it helps us to prevent conflict before it reaches our shores, to tackle the root causes of migration, and to build the partnerships that underpin trade, investment and shared security.

Our approach should therefore be guided by one simple principle: every pound we spend abroad should strengthen Britain’s influence, advance our prosperity and help to keep our people safe. That does not mean turning our back on those in need—far from it: it means ensuring that our aid budget is targeted, effective and sustainable, not fragmented across hundreds of small programmes, but concentrated in areas that serve both moral purpose and strategic value.

To achieve that, we must also work differently. First, we need to harness the power of economic development. Development finance should not just be about grants; it should open markets, create opportunities and support British business too. When our aid helps to build capacity, digital connectivity and a resilient infrastructure, it lays the groundwork for trade and investment that benefit both sides. British International Investment is a vital vehicle for that. We should go further in aligning ODA with our export strategy and business partnerships. I ask the Minister what specific steps the Government are taking to ensure that private investment is being leveraged to its full potential. How is the FCDO supporting British International Investment and other financial instruments to deliver maximum value and measurable returns for both partner countries and the UK taxpayer?

Secondly, we must modernise our partnerships. Development should be about partnership, not paternalism. It should empower countries to build their own institutions, tackle corruption and take ownership of their future. That is how we strengthen democracy, counter malign influence and help our partners to become resilient, prosperous nations and reliable allies of the UK. We also need to be bolder in linking aid to security outcomes. Our support has helped to build resilience in countries targeted by Russian destabilisation, such as Moldova.

Those are examples of ODA directly strengthening our own national security. Will the Minister set out how the Department is embedding that security lens across its ODA portfolio, and whether new co-ordination mechanisms exist between the FCDO, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to align aid spending with defence and resilience goals, including in relation to combating disinformation from hostile actors? In doing so, we should continue to ensure that our support reaches those to whom it makes the greatest difference. Women and girls must remain at the heart of our international development approach. Targeted programmes save lives and support education, health and safety. This work is not only a moral responsibility. It is one of the most effective and value for money ways to deliver on our wider development and foreign policy goals.

[Bobby Dean]

The right hon. Lady is making an excellent case for international aid and is talking about the need for it to evolve and to be better and bigger in some ways. Why therefore is her party proposing cutting the aid budget to 0.1%?

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I was just going to come on to the point that I believe answers his question.

Our development partnerships must adapt to the changing geopolitical landscape that we face today. That is at the heart of this issue. The minilateral model, where like-minded countries pool resources for shared objectives can be a powerful force multiplier, nimbler and more accountable than large multilateral programmes. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are exploring new minilateral partnerships to deliver aid more efficiently and to help to ensure that developing nations choose genuine partnerships of openness and mutual benefit with the UK over one-sided deals with authoritarian powers that can often lead to debt traps?

Within that same vein, the Commonwealth is an immense asset, so what are the Government doing to use ODA to strengthen democratic resilience, improve internal trade and support the new Commonwealth secretary-general’s priorities on prosperity and governance?

We owe it to the British taxpayer to ensure that every pound of ODA is well spent, fully accountable and transparently reported. That means rigorous evaluation, better oversight and a clear demonstration of value for money. It also means having the courage to stop funding programmes that are no longer effective or aligned with our priorities, and to focus on what works. I ask the Minister to set out how her Department is strengthening accountability and transparency mechanisms across its ODA portfolio.

We must recognise that defence, diplomacy and development are interdependent. Strategic flexibility matters in an increasingly dangerous world, and reprioritising elements of the aid budget to strengthen our defence and security capabilities is pragmatic and responsible. We must deliver on that. Security is the foundation of development. Without stability, prosperity and progress, it cannot take root.

Finally, I return to the question raised last week at the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) regarding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Given the position expressed in recent days by the US Administration about its future role in Gaza, can the Minister confirm what discussions the UK has had with the US and other partners on that issue? What assessment has been made of the implications for UK aid, and what safeguards are in place to ensure that British taxpayers’ money is being used responsibly, effectively and in line with our values?

As we look ahead, our approach to international development must continue to reflect who we are as a nation: outward looking, confident and compassionate. My party’s approach stands for a proud record of global leadership, a focus on results and accountability and a belief that partnership, not dependency, is the path to lasting progress and security. Britain will remain a force for good in the world, not because of the size of our aid budget, but because of the clarity of our ambition, the strength of our partnerships and the integrity of our leadership.

Political Prisoners

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on bringing forward this debate on behalf of not only her constituent, but everybody who cares about freedom and democracy across the world.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned about British nationals being detained abroad without due process or fair legal justification. That is not just a matter of foreign policy, but one of principle, human rights and our duty to protect British citizens wherever they may be. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He is a courageous journalist, a businessman and a tireless advocate for democracy in Hong Kong. Since 2020, he has been unjustly imprisoned by the Chinese authorities.

Jimmy Lai is also a father, and his son has continued his good work with the same courage. I had the privilege of meeting Jimmy’s son Sebastien and hearing at first hand the story of his father’s resistance to being silenced. Sebastien spoke movingly about the family’s ordeal following his father’s imprisonment, and of his father’s unwavering commitment to the values of freedom and democracy. It was a powerful reminder that behind every political prisoner is a resilient family enduring unimaginable emotional pain.

For nearly two years, Mr Lai has endured solitary confinement, but his crime is nothing more than speaking up for the freedom and democracy we all believe in. This man has risked everything for the values we hold dear, yet the UK Government have failed to secure his release for the last five years. Can the Minister update the House on the detail and nature of the conversations he has had with his Chinese counterparts? On the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), we are worried that they may have part of “by the way” diplomacy and that the issue has not been raised in enough serious detail. The read-outs from the high-profile visits have not really told us anything, so I would appreciate it if the Minister told us more.

I also question the merits of high-profile visits when so little progress has been made on key diplomatic issues such as this one and on the transnational repression happening on our shores. Can the Minister tell us when the long-promised China audit be published, and will he intervene on the plans for a Chinese super-embassy in our capital?

Jimmy Lai deserves to be at the top of our diplomatic engagement with China, but he is not alone. We are also deeply concerned about the continued detention of Jagtar Singh Johal in India. Arrested in 2017, Mr Johal has reportedly been tortured and held without due process. A UN working group has declared his detention arbitrary and called for his immediate release, yet the UK Government have still refused to take a clear position. That must change.

In Egypt, British citizen Alaa Abd el-Fattah remains in prison for the simple act of sharing a Facebook post. He has endured hunger strikes, inhumane conditions and the heartbreak of a family fighting for justice. His mother Laila has been hospitalised in protest, and we must do more.

These are not isolated incidents, but part of a disturbing pattern in which British nationals are detained abroad without fair trial, without consular access and with the Government’s diplomatic efforts falling on deaf ears. I believe that says something about Britain’s new standing in the world. After pulling back on multiple fronts, the Government must act now to restore our global role.

The Foreign Office claims to support 20,000 to 25,000 British nationals abroad each year, including thousands who are detained, but too often that support is discretionary, inconsistent and opaque. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a legal right to consular assistance for all British nationals, including dual nationals, who are politically detained or face human rights violations abroad. We also support the appointment of a dedicated envoy for hostages and detainees, although that must not come at the expense of ministerial accountability.

Britain should never abandon its own people for the sake of tiny diplomatic gains. Nations such as China and others are not weighing up whether we have been polite about them when drawing conclusions on large economic trade deals; they are calculating the cold hard facts. It is our duty not to be silent in the face of injustice, and I believe that doing so also signals our strength. We should not rest until Jimmy Lai and all others unjustly detained are free.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The entirety of Hezbollah has been proscribed in the UK since 2019. Raising money for terrorist organisations is a criminal offence. This Government will continue to take robust action against those suspected of raising money for terrorist organisations in the middle east and around the world.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

T3. Nearly every single child is at risk of famine in Gaza as the Israeli Government use starvation as a weapon of war. We have heard from Ministers today about the action that the Government have taken so far, but there are still some actions that they have not taken, including the recognition of Palestine as a state, individual sanction and a total suspension of arms to Israel. If now is not the time to take those actions, when will that be?

UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for an excellent opening speech. It almost made me feel like putting down my own speech, because I thought there was nothing more I could contribute. I thank her so much for that introduction.

It is worth saying that the people who will be speaking in this debate are probably not fearful of technology itself. I consider myself a digital native: I grew up with MSM and Myspace, and I enjoy the connectivity that social media brings to us all. It has transformed our society in ways that are for the good, but without a doubt we do have a problem: we have a big problem with content, we have a big problem with addiction, and, as the hon. Lady articulated so clearly, we have a problem with power.

I will begin with content. There has been a huge rise in the level of hate, misogyny, violence and pornography we are seeing on our social media feeds. I am certain that I am not imagining that. I am sure that the stuff that pops up on my “For you” feed on X was not there a few years ago, prior to Musk’s ownership. The sorts of things that have been pushed towards me as a youngish man are an absolute disgrace. A few months ago, there was a knife crime incident in my community, just yards away from my office. The footage of it circulated online within minutes. Again, I am sure I am not kidding myself that a handful of years ago that piece of content would eventually have been taken down. Today, Meta-Facebook has shown no interest in taking that down. That shocking footage is still circulating around my community, and shame on them for that.

That sort of content rises to the top of algorithms because it is emotionally charged: it disgusts, it enrages and it sparks fear. That works for social media companies, because that is how they generate their profit. When we apply that kind of emotionally charged content to news, it is no longer judged by its veracity or the insight it provides, but by its ability to provoke, with the result that misinformation travels much more quickly than the truth.

On addiction, we have to understand that this form of emotional engagement is new. There are people out there who say that we have always had emotionally engaging content via TV, radio and newspapers, but the type that happens on these platforms is genuinely new because it is addictive by design. Once upon a time, the brightest minds in the world all wanted to work in law and medicine. Now many of them are working for big tech companies, trying to work out the circuitry of our brains to keep us addicted to their platforms. They do that because we do not pay for those platforms, but we do pay for them with our attention. The more we look at their platforms, the more ad revenue they generate. That is new, and we need new regulation to address it.

The second, interrelated element of addiction is the way it interacts with algorithms. We funnel people down echo chambers and reduce their exposure to the other person’s view. Ultimately, that damages critical analysis and leads to the kind of polarisation that I believe we are seeing in our politics today. With unregulated content full of misinformation being supplied to people incessantly, as we remain addicted to our devices and stuck in bubbles, we think to ourselves, “Just imagine how dangerous this could be if the technology got into the wrong hands.” But, of course, it already has.

As a liberal, I am always sceptical of concentrations of power, because we know how vulnerable it leaves society. We have somehow allowed big tech to make the argument to us and to Governments across the world that its oligopolistic power over this industry is justified—a natural order, somehow, and something we should make an exception for in our global economy. In doing so, we have allowed a handful of firms to dominate the digital world. They control huge amounts of our personal data, and now they control our discourse, too.

As has been mentioned, the vast majority of 18 to 24-year-olds use social media as their primary news source. As each generation passes, the role of TV, newspapers and radio will only continue to diminish. I was at a careers fair at a local school the other day, and a young kid came up to me—he must have been about 13 years old. Almost immediately, he started talking to me about Donald Trump in a positive way. When I asked him where he was hearing all this stuff, he of course answered, “TikTok”. His mates all giggled, because they were all doing exactly the same thing. I do not think we are treating this with the seriousness that we need to.

I will make just one more remark about the media environment. Lots of the more clickbaity outlets generate their revenue not by the quality of their content, but by how many people they manage to get on to their website. That is how they get ad revenue. Many of the more considered—and, perhaps, critical—publications are often behind a paywall. This situation is driving a lot of our public conversation at the moment, because of what media is available to people for free. If most people are getting their news from these digital platforms, we are left at the whim of those in charge of those platforms. Those people not only have control of their platforms to manipulate our discourse, but have huge amounts of personal wealth, and can, sadly, interfere with politics in a way that people have always been able to: through donations and the influence of their personal wealth. This is a double-edged sword for us.

As we have seen, this kind of wealth and influence has had real-world impacts. Most recently, we have seen Elon Musk’s role in the US elections; if we think back a bit further, there was a kind of intransigence from Facebook over the dark ads that ran during the Brexit campaign, when nobody knew who was responsible for running those campaigns for some time. As was explained earlier, the organised pile-ons and everyday disruption attempt to silence politicians in their contributions to everyday debates.

Over the past few years, it felt like we were starting to make some progress in society on this topic; we had the formulation and introduction of the Online Safety Act, and it felt like greater efforts were being made to check the power of social media giants. However, right now, it feels like we are about to go backwards again. In reaction to the election of President Trump, we saw Meta rolling back its moderation capabilities. In the UK, legislation such as the Online Safety Act and the Digital Services Act—some of the few tools we have in our toolbox to tackle these social media giants—are up for discussion as part of a wider trade negotiation with the US. We must fight hard to keep those tools in our toolbox and keep those protections, but we are kidding ourselves if we think those alone will be enough.

A free press is a fundamental pillar of a liberal democracy, and these digital platforms are threatening it. As well as protecting the legislation we already have, this House needs to start talking about what further action we can take. Without it, all our places are under threat.

Overseas Territories: Tax Transparency

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). He has been a relentless campaigner on this issue for a number of years, and I hope that now he is in this place he can make a real impact on it.

I want to make a few short points. The first, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is about fairness, and the injustice that many of our constituents feel about this issue. Those who are most able to pay are also most able to avoid paying. The hon. Member spoke about his constituent being chased by HMRC, yet on a global scale it feels like that is not being done in the same way. The sense of injustice really burns people up. This is about restoring trust in politics and our economic system more broadly. The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater talked about how global corruption gets to hide under this, too. That underlines the unfairness of this issue.

My second point is about revenue. It is clear that our public services are under strain, and we should be able to assess what tax is owed and collect it. That is a very basic principle. I know that the Government have done some good work in terms of investing in HMRC. I welcome that and hope that it can be a model for what we do on a global scale, so that we go further and faster on this issue, too.

My final point, and the one I wanted to make the most, is about Britain’s responsibility on this global issue. It is a global problem, but it is one in which Britain has a really important role to play. We have probably all seen the statistic that one third of all global tax dodging is enabled by British overseas territories. I share the frustrations of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) about British overseas territories not necessarily abiding by their constitutional demands or sharing the values we have been talking about today. It is incumbent on us to make sure that our Government act in the fullest and strongest possible way.

I hope the Minister will pledge that Britain will show leadership on this issue, that the Government will ensure that the deadlines are met quickly, and that trusts will be added to the register. I will add that Britain has shied away from participating in discussions on the UN tax convention. One way that we can play a leadership role on this issue is by choosing to be an active participant in that conversation and showing our leadership there too.

In conclusion, this is the right thing to do, it is in our interests to do it, and it is on Britain in particular to lead on it.

Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers on the Chancellor’s visit to Beijing, and I believe she has said that concerns will be raised. Concerns have been raised time and again, and it has got us nowhere, so is it not time to draw a line in the sand? Is it not the minimum we could do to raise our voices a little more loudly, demonstrate our anger a little more publicly and cancel the Chancellor’s visit to Beijing?

[Catherine West]

The hon. Member is quite right to say that it has been raised, not least by the Prime Minister when he met Xi Jinping; he is on film raising the Jimmy Lai case, which is in the courts right now. That is the nature of a dialogue—to raise it—but we will be robust in the way that we raise those cases, and we will continue to make a point. There will not be cancelling of trips, on the basis that there has to be an element of outward focus by the UK, particularly given the economic legacy and the position we find ourselves in. I will pass on the hon. Member’s concerns, and I will certainly listen to any further suggestions he has, but I believe that engagement is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Obviously, decisions in America are for the American people, but the special relationship endures, regardless of the Administration or who is in the White House, and it is deep and enduring, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well from his important former roles. We absolutely need to co-operate with our EU partners on support for Ukraine, and that is why today it is so fantastic to hear the news that we have agreed, as promised, with the G7 and with our European and indeed our American partners, the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme that will deliver new money to Ukraine now.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of the level of threat to UK democracy posed by the Chinese Communist party.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

As a matter of long-standing policy, which the hon. Gentleman will understand, the Government do not comment on the detail of national security matters, but let me be clear: any attempt by any foreign power to threaten or undermine the UK’s democracy will not be tolerated. The National Security Act 2023 brings together vital new measures to protect our national security, which we are committed to as a new Government. I regularly meet my ministerial colleagues, including the Minister for Security, to discuss those matters.

[Bobby Dean]

Thousands of Hongkongers have made my local community their home under the British national overseas visa scheme, but too many of them still face the threat of surveillance, harassment, and intimidation by the Chinese state. Will the Government confirm that they have raised the issue of transnational repression in conversations with the Chinese Government, and made clear that it is a totally unacceptable interference in British democracy?

[Stephen Doughty]

The Government will take a consistent long-term and strategic approach to our relations with China, rooted in the UK and global interests, and the Government are deeply committed to supporting all members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK. I reiterate that any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm their critics overseas are unacceptable, and regardless of nationality, freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under our domestic law.