← Back to House of Commons Debates
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office 2025-03-05
05 March 2025
Lead MP
Sarah Champion
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Employment
Other Contributors: 30
At a Glance
Sarah Champion raised concerns about foreign, commonwealth and development office 2025-03-05 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Government's decision to take all the defence uplift from official development assistance is wrong. It will lead to a reduction in global health and food programmes, immunisations, lives saved due to reduced support for the Global Fund, and essential food assistance through the World Food Programme. The Prime Minister must recognise that abandoning commitments will result in greater instability, more military spending, and an increase in people turning to extreme ideologies.
James Naish
Lab
Rushcliffe
Supports a commitment to the Gavi replenishment as it plays a pivotal role in ensuring millions of children worldwide receive vaccines against deadly diseases, protecting global health and preventing pandemics.
Battersea
Agrees that unless clear assurances are given, many disabled children will suffer greater loss due to the cuts. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office's work in protecting the most vulnerable is exemplary but cannot continue with reduced funding.
The debate concerns the future funding and strategic importance of international development aid, specifically focusing on cuts to foreign aid spending. The speaker advocates for a clear plan regarding budget reductions in 2027, urging an equality impact assessment before decisions are finalised. They cite historical data from 2021 showing significant reductions in funding for women and girls. Additionally, the speaker points out that reducing aid could undermine UK influence internationally, potentially allowing China and Russia to fill the gap left by reduced British aid efforts.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Mitchell supports increasing defence expenditure but argues for maintaining development funding as part of a strategy that links development with defence and diplomacy. He cites multiple benefits of development spending, including conflict reduction, improved societies, economic growth, job creation, and the role of British International Investment. Mitchell warns against China and Russia filling gaps left by UK aid cuts and criticises the government's decision-making process for prioritising short-term gains over long-term strategic interests.
Emily Thornberry
Lab
Islington South and Finsbury
Thornberry highlights Britain’s role as a global player and emphasises the importance of maintaining soft power through initiatives like the BBC World Service. She argues that cutting aid funding undermines efforts to counter misinformation from Russia and China, pointing out significant disparities in spending on state media between these nations and the UK. Thornberry also raises concerns about humanitarian priorities such as Gaza and Sudan, warning that underfunding could jeopardise stability and security.
Aphra Brandreth
Con
Chester South and Eddisbury
Brandreth supports the government's decision to increase defence spending funded by a reduction in ODA. She argues that this is necessary due to current global challenges like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Iran's destabilising influence, and China’s growing presence. Brandreth emphasises the importance of hard power as a foundation for strong foreign policy and supports the PM's decision to prioritise defence over development aid.
Uma Kumaran
Lab
Stratford and Bow
Kumaran stressed the importance of not fracturing our approach to soft power, citing the example of North Macedonia where cuts in funding led to a decade-long propaganda campaign from Russia. She argued that neglecting soft power while focusing on defence spending does not serve national interests. Kumaran urged the Government to consider the impact of disinformation when assessing BBC World Service funding and emphasised the need for assessments that take into account national security.
West Dorset
Morello highlighted the financial pressure on the FCDO due to increasing geopolitical instability. He pointed out the unsustainable model of funding maintenance through asset sales and emphasised the need for a sustainable long-term funding solution for the FCDO estate. Morello also discussed the critical importance of ODA, warning that cuts could undermine our ability to deliver commitments to vulnerable states.
David Taylor
Lab
Hemel Hempstead
Urges the government to maintain diplomatic influence by front-loading multilateral commitments in 2026. Focuses on alternative forms of ODA spending, reducing asylum costs spent domestically and using funds from Chelsea FC for humanitarian aid.
Alex Sobel
Lab/Co-op
Leeds Central and Headingley
Proposes a human security approach to utilise forces in delivering aid alongside traditional ODA methods. Supports the idea of integrating defence spending with overseas development assistance.
Brendan O'Hara
SNP
Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber
Critiques the Labour government's decision to cut essential life-saving aid, arguing it will have devastating consequences for millions of people. Calls for an honest conversation with the public about tough choices needed for European security.
Yasmin Qureshi
Lab
Bolton South and Walkden
Emphasises the importance of supporting stability, accountability, inclusion, and rule of law globally. Advocates for protecting funding for organisations like Westminster Foundation for Democracy that strengthen democracy and the rule of law.
Ellie Chowns
Green
North Herefordshire
Expresses horror at the government's decision to fund greater investment in defence through slashing the development budget, highlighting its counterproductive nature.
Abtisam Mohamed
Lab
Sheffield Central
The Member highlighted the importance of maintaining international development in light of global challenges such as wars, climate change, and rising volatility. She argued against cutting the aid budget as it undermines diplomatic soft power, adds to worldwide insecurity, and disproportionately impacts women and girls.
Maldon
The Member supported increased defence spending but expressed reservations about cutting the overseas development assistance. He emphasised the importance of preserving Britain's soft power, especially funding for the BBC World Service and British Council, and urged the Government to support media freedom internationally.
Blair McDougall
Lab
East Renfrewshire
The Member acknowledged the challenges in balancing moral preferences with strategic interests but questioned the UK's offer to the global south against those of Russia and China. He pleaded for maintaining funding for the BBC World Service and democratic infrastructure supporting dissidents around the world.
Chris Law
SNP
Dundee Central
Stood in full solidarity with Ukraine and recognised the threat posed by hostile actors such as Putin. Agreed that UK defence spending must increase but criticised the decision to raid the development budget, arguing it undermines international efforts for peace and security. He highlighted that Germany spent 0.82% of GNI on ODA while other European nations spent more than the UK, urging a reconsideration of cuts to overseas aid.
Alice Macdonald
Lab/Co-op
Norwich North
Welcomed the uplift in defence spending but criticised the cut in aid. Argued that UK aid is about 1p per pound and brings a huge return on investment, preventing disease spread and conflict. Raised concerns over the timeline of aid expenditure returning to 0.7%, called for a new commitment to target at least 20% of bilateral ODA on gender equality, and emphasised reducing spending on refugee costs in the UK.
Joani Reid
Lab
East Kilbride and Strathaven
Expressed deep concern over the proposed closure of the overseas development office in East Kilbride, arguing it would harm the town's economy and identity. Stressed that East Kilbride is Scotland’s second largest town, not a suburb of Glasgow, and urged the government to think again on centralising jobs.
Honiton and Sidmouth
Supports the Government’s increase in defence spending but criticises cutting development assistance, citing geopolitical consequences such as increased Russian influence and a shift away from Western alignment by other countries like the Central African Republic.
Cat Eccles
Lab
Stourbridge
Welcomes the announcement of increased defence spending but questions whether it is right to cut international development aid, emphasising its importance for global stability and security. Criticises the impact on vulnerable people in developing countries.
Brian Mathew
LD
Melksham and Devizes
Calls for reversing the ODA cut and getting back to 0.7% of GNI, urging urgent measures to reduce costs associated with asylum seekers to free up aid budget.
Brian Leishman
Lab
Alloa and Grangemouth
Argues that cutting overseas aid is a moral failing and weakens global stability and security. Emphasises the impact on women and girls in conflict-ridden areas, warning against abandoning them to persecution, famine, illness, and death.
Alex Ballinger
Lab
Halesowen
Ballinger, a former Royal Marine with experience in Afghanistan, underscores the importance of both defence and international development. He supports the Prime Minister's decision to increase defence spending but urges the government to avoid drastic cuts to the aid budget, particularly in conflict zones. He highlights that reducing development spending may undermine efforts to stabilise fragile states and prevent conflicts.
Aylesbury
Kyrke-Smith agrees with Ballinger's stance on the complementary nature of defence and aid spending, arguing that aid plays a crucial role in global stability and security. She supports increasing defence spending but urges caution against deep cuts to development funding.
Esher and Walton
Harding criticises the recent reduction of the international development budget, highlighting its impact on national and border security interests. She argues that cutting aid spending will make the UK less secure, pointing to China's increasing influence in global development efforts. Harding questions why no impact assessment was done before these cuts were announced.
Priti Patel
Con
Witham
Ms Patel paid tribute to colleagues from all sides for their contributions, emphasising her support for defence spending increases at a critical time. She acknowledged the complexity of decision-making regarding overseas development aid and questioned where the Government will lead on specific development programmes in conflict zones like Sudan and Yemen. Ms Patel also expressed concerns about Iran's influence and called for consistency across government departments to address threats from Russia, Iran, and China.
Emily Darlington
Lab
Milton Keynes Central
While not extensively quoted, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central raised points concerning Home Office spending of ODA on asylum issues, highlighting ongoing debates within the House regarding these matters.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Asked whether the use of development money to increase defence spending was a short-term measure that would need to be substituted with long-term measures due to the indefinite commitment in Ukraine. He emphasised the need for clarity on future funding commitments.
Anna Dixon
Lab
Shipley
Interrupted Stephen Doughty, but was not given an opportunity to speak further.
Government Response
The Minister thanked contributors and acknowledged the importance of staff contributions to foreign affairs. He expressed his inability to provide specific answers on funding for particular programmes but committed to ensuring these points are heard by the new minister in charge, underscoring the current period's need for tough choices and clear leadership.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.