Development must have a seat at Cabinet
4 min read
For the first time in almost three decades, a Labour Prime Minister is chairing Cabinet without a dedicated minister – or secretary of state – for international development sitting at the table. The significance of this is not administrative; it is political.
If Britain is serious about global leadership, its institutions must be fit for that role. A smaller development budget makes strategic prioritisation more important, not less. Development should not sit at the margins of foreign policy but at the heart of decision-making, ensuring resources are directed where they can have the greatest impact.
Cabinet-level representation gives a minister the authority to shape decisions across government and the standing to represent Britain internationally. The question is whether development expertise carries sufficient weight when decisions are made on security, diplomacy and Britain's engagement with the world.
That question matters now more than ever. Andy Burnham has inherited an exceptionally challenging international environment. The war in Ukraine rages on, conflict persists across the Middle East, geopolitical competition is intensifying, climate pressures are accelerating, and humanitarian needs are reaching unprecedented levels. Britain must respond with confidence and purpose, using every tool available to advance its interests and values.
As Foreign Secretary, Ed Miliband has set out an ambitious vision for Britain's role in the world: defending democracy and the rule of law, standing with Ukraine, strengthening alliances, deepening engagement with the Global South, tackling the climate crisis and reforming international institutions so they work more effectively. These are the right priorities for a more unstable era. But delivering them will require every tool of statecraft.
His decision to take on the role of UK Governor to the World Bank reinforces that message. As he has argued, international development is “not an add-on to British foreign policy; it is central to it”. Today’s challenges are increasingly interconnected: climate change, conflict, economic instability, health crises and humanitarian emergencies demand an approach that brings development expertise together with diplomacy and defence. That, in turn, requires development to have the political authority to shape decisions at the centre of government.
Labour has long argued that international development is not simply an act of charity but a strategic investment in Britain's security, prosperity and global standing. Burnham captured that principle in 2010 when he argued that international development was "not all about charity; this is good for Britain,” adding that “Labour should proudly defend our record on international development". As Prime Minister, he now has the opportunity to put that principle into practice by giving development a voice at the decision-making table.
If international development is truly central to Britain's role in the world, it must also be central to the way Britain governs itself
That authority matters particularly when difficult choices are being made. Among the decisions inherited by the new government are the latest Official Development Assistance (ODA) allocations, which raise serious questions about Britain's ability to sustain long-term partnerships and respond effectively to global challenges.
The scale of those choices is stark: by 2028/29, ten of the 17 African countries receiving direct UK ODA support will have little or no budget remaining. These reductions will not only affect some of the world's poorest communities, but also diminish Britain's influence at a time when other countries are increasingly willing to fill the space we leave behind. That is precisely why development requires a strong voice at the centre of decision-making.
Britain has demonstrated the value of that approach before. During the Ebola crisis in Sierra Leone in 2014, the UK recognised the outbreak not simply as a humanitarian emergency but as a matter of national interest. At the time, Britain was meeting the 0.7 per cent gross national income aid commitment, DFID was a standalone, globally admired department, and the Secretary of State for International Development sat at the Cabinet table. That institutional strength enabled Britain to respond early, helping contain the outbreak before it reached our shores.
The lesson remains just as relevant today. The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo shows that global crises cannot be managed through emergency response alone. They require investment in resilient health systems, effective governance and long-term partnerships alongside diplomatic and security engagement. Yet Britain now approaches these challenges with a development budget reduced to 0.3 per cent of GN, no standalone department and no dedicated Cabinet-level minister.
The choice facing the government is clear. Britain's influence has never rested solely on diplomacy or military strength. It has also been built through enduring partnerships, stronger institutions and the trust earned by standing with allies through periods of uncertainty.
Restoring a Cabinet-level Development Minister would recognise that reality. It would ensure that development expertise is represented where Britain's most important foreign policy decisions are made. If international development is truly central to Britain's role in the world, it must also be central to the way Britain governs itself.
Libby Smith is Vice Chair of Labour Campaign for International Development and Director of Advocacy at Coalition for Global Prosperity
