It is almost a year since the Prime Minister announced the sweeping cuts to Official Development Assistance. A decision that prompted the resignation of the Minister for International Development, who could not in good conscience support the dismantling of Britain’s global leadership in aid, to fund increased defence spending.
That decision marked a turning point. It signalled that Britain, once a world leader in development and compassion, was willing to trade its soft power for short-term savings. Instead of taking strong and bold decisions such as increasing taxes on tech giants or a bespoke customs union with the EU as the Liberal Democrats have urged.
It was a decision that left the UK’s proud record as a global leader in aid shredded. The previous Conservative Government reduced the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of our gross national income. This Labour Government now plans to cut it further, to just 0.3% by 2027, the lowest level this century.
Amazingly nearly one thirds of what remains of the UK Aid budget is being spent, not on tackling global poverty, preventing instability and migration, but on UK-based asylum accommodation. The very budget designed to prevent displacement is being used to pay for the effects of it. At far great cost to society we are left treating the symptoms, not the cause.
These cuts come even as global need is rise. Over 123 million people are displaced by conflict. The World Food Programme warns that reduced funding for aid could push another 13.7 million people into severe hunger.
The Liberal Democrats have always helped lead on international development. We proudly enshrined the 0.7% target into law, because it was an investment in peace and prosperity, but also long-term security. Aid is not charity. It builds peace, prevents conflict, and addresses the root causes of instability and migration.
As a member of both the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I have seen first-hand how aid and development are integral to our security. In recent weeks we have seen the malign influences of China and Russia on our domestic politics. These malevolent threats are already prevalent in the countries we support. We must not give them space to grow, because when we retreat the vacuum is filled by those countries that do not share our values.
Russia and China’s strategic investments are already exploiting the space. China would have no difficulty stepping in to replace UK influence, especially in the Global South where its Belt and Road investments already run deep. Its model of aid is transactional, not transformational.
We should not be surprised when those nations fill the void, with motives far removed from our own liberal and democratic values. As members of this House, we should never forget that the world watches what Britain does. When we lead, others follow. Where we stand firm, others will shrink back.
The Government has argued that the reduction is necessary to fund a rise in defence spending, to reach 2.6% of GDP by 2027. Yes we must invest in defence, but we cannot defend Britain by turning away from the world. We cannot keep our citizens safe by cutting the very programmes that prevent conflict and suffering at their source. Migration and global instability do not begin at our borders. They begin when climate change destroys livelihoods, when wars displace families, and when hunger drives desperation. Compassion and prevention are not opposites of security, they are its foundations.
Development and defence are not opposites. They are two sides of the same coin. Soft power and hard must work hand in hand. Soft power, the influence we exert through compassion, diplomacy, and culture, is what gives our Country the moral legitimacy that has underpinned our diplomacy since the post-war era. It is what makes Britain leader on the World Stage. When we cut aid, we cut influence. When we weaken our global reach, and we make ourselves less safe.
The UK has always been at its best when we have led with both principle and pragmatism. We led on eradicating smallpox, on fighting HIV/AIDS, on girls’ education, tackling modern slavery and of course the creation of the United Nations. Today, we must show the same moral courage. The cuts to the ODA budget are not only a betrayal of those values, they are a strategic mistake. Every pound we invest in aid saves us far more in the long term; by preventing wars, stopping pandemics, and reducing the need for emergency interventions.
After all, we live in a deeply globalised society. Our economies, our supply chains, and our security are interconnected. Disease, conflict, and climate crises spread across borders with ease. To imagine that Britain can isolate itself from these realities is naive. If we fail to act abroad, we will pay the price at home.
The cuts to the ODA budget are not only a betrayal of our values, they are a strategic mistake
