Contribution
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?