Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate and on leading a galaxy of great speeches. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper); she and I have worked together on global health partnerships, and I agree with everything that has been said.
I will pick up on a couple of points that have been made. There has been focus on Britain’s G20, and I am sure that is an important opportunity for Britain to provide some leadership on this issue. As we get older, we tend to look back at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, but I acknowledge at the outset that British development policy is at its best by far when it is conducted on an all-party basis. It is not a Labour, Conservative or Liberal policy; it is a British policy. That was one of its great glories in the past.
The Government did well in their recent conference, where they brought together a lot of interested parties and helped to underline an appropriate agenda. Those of us who really care about this issue must also be careful, because in Britain we are still spending an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money, and it is doing a lot of good. Although it has been greatly and savagely diminished, a lot of the spending is very good, and I want to make that clear. I am also very pleased that the Government have stuck to the 2023 White Paper, which was effectively an all-party White Paper.
Tom Hayes
The right hon. Gentleman makes a critical point. Obviously, we have seen public support wane in recent years, but protecting and preserving that narrative of the good that we do in the world is important. As a country, we often tend to look at the floor rather than looking up at the sky. As a country, we have a monarch of high standing, we are a permanent member of the Security Council, a NATO partner, a founding member of the United Nations and a global financial hub, and we have world-leading universities and research institutions.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the things that can come out of this and other debates that we have around the topic is not hand-wringing, as we have heard repeatedly in this Chamber, but an opportunity to think about how we build on our successes and celebrate the good that we have done?
Sir Andrew Mitchell
I do not really agree with that because, while the hon. Gentleman cites a number of areas where Britain makes a big contribution, there is a big black hole where we have cut off our legs in respect to international development. I will say a word or two about that in a moment.
The importance of turning from donor to investor is absolutely right; but if investors are investing in a poor country where there is not adequate health and education, that country’s workforce will not be able to attract suitable investment. We must be worried about that. We must always focus on the results agenda, showing that the British taxpayer is getting 100p of value for every £1 spent.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the importance of saving the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, but we have to accept that we will not get a major boost in public support unless it comes from the top. We had an era of huge support, led by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May. If there is not support at the top, public support cannot be won back and sustained—particularly if there is a Prime Minister who is foolish enough to say from the Dispatch Box that DFID is like an ATM in the sky, spewing out taxpayers’ money.
Finally, the only point on which I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is in respect of BII, which of course follows the Government’s lead. The Government are the 100% shareholder in BII and are therefore able to set out very clearly what its priorities should be, but they should then leave an organisation like BII to get on with following that mandate.
I argue that there have been three great losses from the Johnson and Starmer premierships. Bear in mind that in the last year of the last Conservative Government—do not tell the Treasury this—we spent nearly 0.6%, so there was huge support. However, there are three areas where we have seriously lost out. The first loss is to Britain’s reputation, as a result of the cuts. As has been pointed out, the cuts in Britain are more savage, pro rata, than the cuts in America. The damage to Britain’s reputation is acute. I argue that, since the Suez crisis, international development has been the only area of indisputable British international leadership—and we have lost that.
Secondly, we have lost out on British interests, particularly in respect of the rampant nationalism now being pursued at a time when we need international co-operation to tackle the great scourges mentioned in this debate. Above all, the poorest people in the world, who were reliant on British expertise, support and cash, have lost out.
Now is a chance, with a new leader. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) was part of a Government who championed international development. He knows about that. Now is a chance to make some changes. I urge Labour Members to rise up now and say that the historical interest and support of the Labour party have been for international development. People might expect the beastly Tories to cut aid and development, but they do not expect the Labour party to do that. Now is a chance to have a real reset, which should include three things.
First, the reset should include an acceptance that the vaporisation of DFID and the merger was an ocean-going disaster. Everyone who has had anything to do with it knows that perfectly well. It has led to a huge loss of skill. I urge the Government to decide, if not to restore DFID, at least to set up an agency to take action on helping to restore our reputation and the huge agglomeration of expertise in London that resulted from DFID.
Secondly, we should move back to 0.7%, as is the law of the land. We should do that, however, over a number of years. We cannot provide that amount of money overnight, but over five or six years we should try to move systematically back to it.
Finally, we should understand what this Government do not understand: defence, diplomacy and development are linked very tightly indeed. The idea that taking development money and putting it into defence is the answer to the—admittedly absolute—requirement to spend more on defence is absurd. Development is the other side of the coin to defence. I hope that the new Administration, when they come in shortly, will take account of some of these matters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate. I thank all Members who have contributed and will do my best to respond to the points raised.
Twenty years ago, many believed that globalisation, economic growth and international co-operation would steadily drive down poverty and expand opportunity across the world. That ambition remains as important today as it was then, but the world has changed dramatically. We are living through a period of geopolitical fragmentation, increasing conflict and economic uncertainty. The assumptions around development policy no longer hold, so we must adapt. Many traditional and significant donor countries have announced or are carrying out reductions to their official development assistance budgets. Global aid fell by 23% in 2025—the largest year-on-year reduction we have ever seen.
As this House is aware, the Government made the difficult decision to reduce the UK ODA budget to fund a necessary increase in defence spending. That was a tough decision that many Members have talked about today, and not all Members agreed with it. I understand that, but it was the right decision given the threats our country faces. Constrained ODA, though, is only part of the story. That is clear when we look at Africa, where the annual financing gap—the difference between the investment Africa needs each year to deliver the sustainable development goals and the funding it can currently access—is around $1.3 trillion. In contrast, aid to sub-Saharan Africa totalled $66.5 billion in 2024. That gap demonstrates that traditional ODA flows have only ever amounted to a small fraction of what is actually needed. In other words, ODA can only be part of a solution, not the whole solution. Continuing to work in the same way and expecting different results is no longer defensible.
Low-income and middle-income countries have been calling for change for some time. They want long-term genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared priorities, not paternalism.
Dr Chowns
The argument that aid is only a small part of the solution to global poverty and inequality is not a controversial one, but lower-middle income countries have not been calling for the change that the hon. Member’s Government have delivered: the biggest slash in the aid budget altogether. If he believes that aid expenditure and development investment need to be done slightly differently, let us make the argument for that, but cutting it should play no part in the sorts of changes he talks about.
Chris Elmore
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have to say, it is in complete contrast to my conversations with foreign Ministers. Some of them are exhausted by the idea that we dictate the terms of aid funding, and exhausted by the fact that we put a project in and then move away five years later with limited output.
Chris Elmore
I will not give way. The hon. Lady posed the question and I will answer it. When I have had conversations with Ministers globally—[Interruption.]
Chris Elmore
I understand the hon. Lady has significant experience in this field. I am talking about meetings that I have had with Ministers while serving as a Minister in the FCDO. They are clear that they want a different approach in how overseas aid is funded. They want a different approach in economic growth and investment. I have had more conversations with my ministerial counterparts on investment into digital infrastructure than I have on deciding to run a project for five years and then walking away from it. The hon. Lady and I are not going to agree. The difference for me is that I am not going to shout from a sedentary position—I have too much respect for the House for that.
My ministerial counterparts want long-term, genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared priorities, not paternalism. To reflect that new reality, we are modernising our approach to international development through four essential shifts. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), raised the first point, so I hope I can answer her question. First, we move from donor to investor. There has been some criticism around that term today, but there is a key point. It means partnering with countries to unlock growth, jobs and trade through innovative finance and private sector investment. That is what those countries are asking for, not the dictatorial response, “We will do this to you.” We are doing it with them, not to them.
Secondly, we are moving from service delivery to support systems, and are helping countries to build their own education, health and economic systems so that they can thrive without aid. Thirdly, we are moving from grants to expertise, leveraging UK strengths such as our world-class universities, the City of London, the Met Office, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and our education, health and tech sectors.
Fourthly, we are moving from international intervention to local leadership, working in partnership with local actors and organisations, rather than making interventions that are driven internationally. That is the key point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about. Having better delivery on the ground with people who understand it has to be the way forward, so hopefully I can offer him some reassurance on his question to me and the shadow Minister.
Those shifts reflect how we are prioritising the ODA budget.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Minister is talking about the importance of long-term partnership. Last week, I was proud to lead the first British parliamentary delegation to Syria since the fall of the Assad regime. I had a number of conversations with Ministers, who asked for technical support from our Government, particularly on special educational needs and disabilities. Some 27% of Syrian children are disabled, following the war. They also asked for us to reopen the embassy in Syria, for business support and a lot of other things. Does the Minister agree that now is the right time for a new development partnership with the Syrian Government, as that nation hopefully builds from the ashes?
Chris Elmore
On the wider work on Syria, I agree. The Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), is working hard to bring about more support for the new Syrian regime, and we continue to prioritise that. My hon. Friend’s wider point about expertise is right, and that is exactly what the ODA changes bring about. We are using our expertise in education, health and—dare I say it—planning. I have had a number of conversations about planning and infrastructure investment in countries. It is about listening to what those countries actually want us to help with, rather than saying, “We think we know what is best,” so I agree with her wider point.
The shadow Minister and a number of other colleagues spoke about the multilateral system. I happen to be the UN Minister, and UN reform is very high on my agenda. That is not just about the Secretary-General’s discussions about UN80, but about wider reform of the international civil service and the international architecture system, which Baroness Chapman and I are leading on in the Foreign Office. The shadow Minister is right to challenge us on that, but I assure her that we have led the charge in my 10 months in office, not just as a member of the Security Council but as a leader in the UN multilateral space, to bring about more reform in the UN system.
David Mundell
Could the Minister give some examples of how we will maximise our impact in those multilateral organisations, given that the balance of funding has moved towards them?
Chris Elmore
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter, and I will come to it later in my speech, particularly when I discuss the multilateral development bank system, which other Members have raised.
We will prioritise multilateral organisations in the ODA budget, where the international system is required to deliver at scale and with legitimacy. We are backing the most efficient parts of the multilateral system to multiply our investment. For example, we are prioritising multilateral development banks, which are the largest source of development and climate finance and are able to lend to partner countries on the most affordable terms. That includes the World Bank’s International Development Association, where each £1 we invest unlocks £4 of additional finance, and where we have increased our contribution by 40%. It also includes the African Development Fund. Our £650 million contribution will allow it to leverage up to £1.6 billion in grants and concessional loans, including by issuing bonds on the London stock exchange for the first time.
At the same time, we remain committed to reforming the global development system, and will strengthen its most important parts: humanitarian aid, health, climate and the global financial system. I assure the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale that that reform and our influence remain absolutely crucial to the FCDO’s wider work.
I come to a point that I know the right hon. Gentleman cares deeply about: the vital support work on HIV and AIDS as a key part of development infrastructure. I pay tribute to him for his many years of work in that space. The UK remains a steadfast global leader in global HIV response. We are working with key partners such as the Global Fund, the World Health Organisation, Unitaid and UNAIDS to strengthen health systems, prevent new HIV transmissions and save lives. Our commitment is backed by action. In 2025, the UK co-hosted the eighth replenishment of the Global Fund with South Africa, helping to secure $12.64 billion for the fight against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, including a UK pledge of £850 million.
We also recognise the vital role of UNAIDS. It provides world-class HIV data, co-ordinates the international response and ensures that global communities continue to be heard. As the organisation undergoes significant change, the UK will continue to support an effective and responsible transition that protects essential functions and delivers the best possible outcome for the global HIV response.
Alongside that, we are investing in innovation, including by expanding access to the new long-acting HIV prevention and treatment technologies. That has the potential to transform the global response and help put the world back on track towards ending AIDS as a public health threat. As we do so, we will continue to champion an approach that is inclusive and evidence-based, focused on key populations, communities and those most at risk from HIV to ensure that hard-won gains are protected for future generations.
It would be remiss of me not to respond to some of the comments on LGBT leadership in the multilateral system. I am the Minister responsible and can assure the House that we will not shy away from our responsibilities under a multilateral platform. I recently announced a £21 million fund, £3 million of which will go to Kaleidoscope for its international response in supporting LGBT communities around the world. While I remain Minister I will never shy away from my responsibilities to challenge and ensure that communities who are being suppressed and seeing their rights rolled back are not ignored. Meanwhile, we are prioritising our bilateral support for countries and communities that need it most. We are committed to £1.4 billion a year over the next three years for places with the highest humanitarian need. That includes fully protecting the budgets for Ukraine, Sudan and Palestine, and protecting funding for Lebanon during the ongoing crisis.
I briefly want to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) about polio. I reassure her that we are doing our utmost by investing £1.5 billion in Gavi between 2026 and 2030. That is about shifting investment to where it works, and looking at immunisation as a way to eradicate polio. It is not about a lack of support, but about ensuring we get development right in making such decisions.
In a changed world, we need to take a new approach, which is exactly what we are doing. In May, the UK hosted the Global Partnerships Conference, which brought together participants from Governments, multilateral organisations, business, tech, philanthropy and civil society. I heard at first hand from partners the importance of genuine partnership as the basis for our modern development approach. That approach combines our diplomatic network, our financial sector, our expertise and businesses for a far greater impact. It is the essence of going beyond aid and using the full range of UK capabilities to support partner countries. That is our vision for international development and how we will meet the global challenges that we face.