USAID Funding Pause

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about the impact that the cuts will have on women and girls. Does he agree that, as well as continuing to support women and girls through aid from this country, we must stand up for women’s and girls’ rights internationally? We have seen them rolled back in the past. That is why it is so important that we continue to do what we can to stand up for women, for example in Afghanistan, where their rights are being eroded every single day.

[Brian Mathew]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. An ActionAid project in Zambia safeguarding women from sexual exploitation was forced to close almost overnight.

Oxfam says that, thanks to the cuts to USAID, 95 million people could lose access to basic healthcare, potentially leading to 3 million preventable deaths a year, and 23 million children could lose access to education. When services collapse and diseases can spread unchecked, people lose hope, and they do not stay put. Migration pressures rise, conflicts hit new boiling points and markets react. As covid taught us all too well, deadly viruses such as Marburg and Ebola could leap from remote villages to our high streets in a matter of weeks, especially when the staff to deal with them have been given stop orders and removed from frontline duty.

We are already seeing other powers whose interests do not align with ours begin to fill the gaps left by USAID. China and Russia are expanding their influence in regions where western credibility is weakening. Just last week, some of us on the IDC heard from an official in the Burma/Myanmar freedom movement that USAID’s withdrawal has happened at the same time as China has made quick inroads to prop up the military and curry influence in its efforts to get hold of rare earth minerals from that troubled country.

The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a force for good in the world. Our work and leadership with British aid has not only saved lives but championed the best of our British values: fairness, the rule of law, health, education and opportunity across the globe. That is soft power in its most tangible form, and it is worth its weight in gold—and, more importantly, in lives and livelihoods. Sadly, we have made our own aid cuts recently, from the 0.7% GNI commitment down to 0.5% and then 0.3%. The reality is that with so much being spent on hotels for asylum seekers, instead of allowing them to work and pay their way while their status is determined, as little as 1% of UK GNI is now being spent on genuine aid.

We know what to do. We know that investing in WASH makes sense. We know that investing in girls’ education reduces child marriage, improves economic outcomes and reduces inequality. We know that investing in pandemic preparedness, vaccine infrastructure and vaccine research protects not just vulnerable people around the world, but our NHS and public health here at home. International development is therefore smart policy. It reduces the risks that we would otherwise spend billions more to contain. What should we do? We must reaffirm our commitment to restoring the 0.7% target and publicly commit not to just the rhetoric of aid, but to actually doing it—and doing it well.

The withdrawal of USAID has created a moment of reckoning; the world is watching and the vulnerable are waiting. I will end by paraphrasing President John F. Kennedy in his special message to Congress on foreign aid on 22 March 1961. We are aware of our obligations to the sick, the poor and the hungry, wherever they may live. It will both befit and benefit us to take this step boldly, on which will depend substantially the kind of world in which we and our children shall live. It is time for us to stand up and be counted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing this debate, which is a timely one, given that we are approaching 20 years since the Gleneagles summit held in Scotland in 2005. Twenty years ago, Nelson Mandela spoke in Trafalgar Square calling on us to make poverty history. World leaders gathered in Gleneagles in 2005, and they rose to the challenge, cancelling debt for some of the world’s poorest countries and boosting aid.

In 2025, aid and development are firmly in the spotlight, but for very different reasons and in a very different context. While this debate is focused on the impact of USAID funding cuts, there is no doubt that those cuts will have a seismic impact on the landscape globally, and on our own approach to development. The US is the world’s largest aid donor, providing around 20% of all aid from the 32 members of the OECD. In February, we announced the very difficult decision that UK aid would be cut to boost defence spending.

While I welcome the uplift in defence spending, for people such as me and the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes who have worked in development for many years, it was a painful decision. However, it is important to emphasise the difference between the decisions made in the United States and those made in the UK. While I will not comment too much on the rationales for different Governments’ decisions, the UK Government have been clear that this was not an ideological decision but one driven by financial pressures. I believe, and I am sure that the Minister will assure us, that there is a commitment to continuing to develop aid.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On the question of whether the Government’s decision was driven by financial motivations, does the hon. Member agree that whether it is 0.7% or 0.3%, the key is that UK GDP must rise, as her own Chancellor has said? If our economy shrinks, the 0.7% figure becomes almost irrelevant because it is 0.7% of a much smaller budget. All that matters overseas is the amount of cash they get, not the percentage of our domestic product, so we must drive the economy first before we try to deliver the mechanism that I am sure most of us are in favour of.

[Alice Macdonald]

The hon. Member is right; this is an internationally agreed percentage of gross national income, but too many countries have not met that target. As has been mentioned, some countries are stepping back, so it is important to be clear that we will keep our commitment to getting back to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow. However, in this new reality, we must ensure that our aid delivers maximum impact where it is spent, that we take actions to mitigate the effect of these cuts and that we keep the commitment to return to 0.7% in the long term.

In that spirit, I will focus on five key areas where the Government should act. First, they must cut in-donor refugee costs. As many Members know, we spend a significant portion of our current aid budget in the UK on those costs, which were approximately £4 billion in 2023. That trend started under the previous Conservative Government—who also left us with huge backlogs in the asylum system—and I know that this Government are determined to tackle it. We have seen some progress in bringing down those costs, and provisional estimates suggest that they were £2.8 billion in 2024, but we need to continue that trajectory with a clear timeline and a commitment across Departments to get them down.

Secondly, we must maximise the impact of our aid. It is important that we align with the “leave no one behind” principle in the 2015 sustainable development goals. I would not want to be in the shoes of the Minister for International Development in the other place, because there are difficult decisions to be made, as members of the International Development Committee recently heard. It is important that Members of Parliament, including Back Benchers, clearly see the criteria and the vision against which those decisions are being made.

The “leave no one behind” principle must, as I alluded to earlier, include a focus on women and girls. It is clear that the USAID cuts will have a big impact in that area. In 2023, the US was the largest single donor in areas including population, reproductive health and family planning. Under the Conservative Government’s last round of cuts to the aid budget, we saw that women and girls were disproportionately affected, so it is important that does not happen again. I recently asked the Minister for Europe in the main Chamber whether women and girls would remain “at the heart” of our policy, and he assured me that they would.

At the International Development Committee, the Minister for International Development in the other place assured us that although there would be less money for women and girls in education, it would be mainstreamed across all the priorities. Can the Minister elaborate on how we will ensure that they are prioritised and, importantly, how we will continue to support women’s rights organisations? As UN Women has shown recently, there has been a detrimental impact, with many such organisations at risk of having to close their doors altogether. When we invest in women and girls, we get better outcomes, not only for those countries but for ourselves.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The UN has warned us that more than half of frontline, women-led organisations could shut down within six months due to global aid cuts. That is not just a funding crisis; it is a humanitarian catastrophe. Does the hon. Member agree that restoring funding to those groups must be a priority if we are to prevent the complete collapse of women’s services in conflict zones?

[Alice Macdonald]

I fully agree. We have had programmes, such as the Equality Fund, where we have been clear on the importance of women’s rights-led organisations. I have met many women’s rights defenders of all ages who are doing amazing work. We must continue to back them and listen to them, because they know what is best in the context in which they work.

I am sure other Members will speak to the importance of investing in multilateral efforts, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund, which I also want to back. Those funds have a proven return on investment for the UK taxpayer. The World Bank’s International Development Association fund and the African Development Fund also have important roles to play in alleviating poverty, and we have been big backers of those in the past.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the United Nations, I would also like to underline the value of the United Nations. There is, of course, space for reform, and I am sure we are all aware of some of the flaws in the system, but it is a unique vehicle for coming together as a world to tackle some of the biggest challenges we face and to increase the value of our aid.

We must also look beyond aid to leverage other forms of financing, many of which we could leverage without cost to the taxpayer. As the Independent Commission for Aid Impact pointed out, foreign direct investment, remittances and other forms dwarf the overall aid budget, so I hope the UK will continue to lead on innovative financing. That includes how we can recycle International Monetary Fund special drawing rights. In 2020, we received an allocation of £19 billion from the IMF as part of the response to covid. We could re-channel that to provide zero-interest finance to low-income countries or through multilateral development banks. We could also put idle foreign reserves into action. A small portion of the UK’s largely idle exchange equalisation account could be used to support low-income countries.

The last Labour Government led on debt relief. I was proud of what we did at Gleneagles to lead those efforts. We must do so again, given that debt payments for low-income countries are at their highest for 30 years, with 32 African countries spending more on servicing their external debt than on healthcare. Given that 90% of low-income countries’ debt is governed by English law, the UK could do a lot to bring private creditors to the table to get the best possible deals. I hope the Minister can set out what we are doing in that regard, especially as we approach the conference on financing for development in Seville in just a few weeks’ time.

Finally, more broadly, we need a reset on aid and development. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we want to move to an approach founded on partnership, not paternalism, which puts the countries that have traditionally been recipients of aid in the driving seat. We have seen cases in the past. Indonesia, for example, used to be a recipient of Gavi funding but is now giving money itself. We need to look at success stories and say why they matter not only for tackling poverty but for increasing prosperity and tackling inequality, including in our own country. I see our development work as insurance; it is a downpayment for the long term to tackle some of the upstream drivers of migration.

I hope that we will continue to lead internationally, as we are domestically, on using science, innovation and technology to its best effect. Innovators, such as the John Innes Centre in the constituency next to mine, are doing amazing work to tackle hunger and climate change, and we must back those efforts to look at how we can support developing countries abroad.

We all know that tough decisions are having to be made in the extraordinary times in which we live, but I know that this Government are internationalists. I believe that our party will continue to lead and use all the levers at our disposal to tackle poverty and inequality wherever they are found.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to stick to the time limit as much as they can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

I will certainly pass that idea back to the Minister with responsibility for development, because we always end up having good ideas in Westminster Hall debates.

The US is a key partner, but this is a matter for them. It is their budget. We have a strong relationship with the US that is founded on shared interests and common approaches. Together with our G7 and G20 allies, we carry strong global influence, and we must never stand back from that. That is why we are committed to working with the US and other countries on our shared priorities. We are in regular touch with US counterparts to share advice as they shape their development plans. As in any diplomatic relationship, we will not always align with the US, and we may want to focus on other things. That is normal. We will engage in a pragmatic way to understand concerns and find a way forward.

Many Members have mentioned the multilateral system. No single country can solve the global development challenges alone, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North for pointing that out as well as the importance of working with international financial institutions, which she learned through her experience before coming to this place. This is where we have to be much more innovative. We cannot just sit around the table and nod through reports; we have to put some life back into those systems so that we can enable the finance and the technical aid, which the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale also mentioned. Through technical assistance and international financial organisations, we are not powerless —we can use them. There is an opportunity to rebuild trust, rebalance power and design a more effective, inclusive, co-operative and future-proof architecture.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, mentioned the 1970s. We must not forget, at a moment like this, what the development sector has done. So many more people lived in abject poverty before, and there is now a growing middle class, and much of that is down to really bright people, employed by NGOs in those countries, who are leading movements and improving the economy. Under 10% of people are now living at the poorest level, which used to be on $1 a day. The development Minister will know the statistic, but it has reduced to 9%. This debate, as well as lots of other evidence, is going into the spending review so that decisions can be made. We know that a preponderance of those people live in sub-Saharan Africa, and that is being taken into account.

[Alice Macdonald]

The other concentration of people living in extreme poverty is in conflict-affected states. As much as this is about providing humanitarian aid once disaster happens, we also have to invest in prevention in the first place. Would the Minister reflect on the importance of conflict prevention in our aid efforts?

[Catherine West]

Indeed. This is about not just aid, but the women, peace and security programme, which I spoke at in Manila a couple of months back, and the important work that we do in Colombia, Mindanao in the Philippines and other places to ensure that women have a voice. I am very aware that many Members in this Chamber understand the importance of empowering women to solve the difficulties relating to how communities live abroad in very poor or conflict-affected areas. The Government will continue their commitment to supporting women and girls by being a champion for them across the world—by showing up and making our voice heard. Quite a few international partners have mentioned to me at conferences that I am the first UK Minister they have seen for years. This is partly about our diplomatic presence, including at ministerial level, so that we can be confident champions of women and girls in our multilateral work, and improve the quality of mainstreaming in our growth, climate, health and humanitarian programmes.

Gavi and the Global Fund

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing this debate.

Let us be honest: most of the public do not know what Gavi or the Global Fund are, but they do know the lifesaving power of vaccinations because they, like all of us, will have benefited from them when they were children, as will their children. But we know that for too many children around the world, those lifesaving vaccinations are not available. In these debates we must remember that people’s lives are at the heart of the issue. I worked for Save the Children for many years, and I saw at first hand the impact of immunisations and the progress that has been made. Some of that is at risk in the light of what is happening around the world, so this is a really important debate.

We have covered many of the areas that I want to talk about, but 1.5 million children continue to die from vaccine-preventable diseases. That is more than the population of Cyprus—an entire island of children dying every year. Vaccination and ending AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria are not only the right thing to do but, as we have heard, in our national interest and the smart thing to do.

Vaccinations stop disease reaching our shores. They help to support healthy and prosperous nations, and they help to prevent future pandemics. They are also vital in the context of climate change, as many of the world’s deadliest diseases are susceptible to climate change, which increases the risk of them spreading. Tackling those diseases is best done—with best value for the British taxpayer—through Gavi and the Global Fund. We know we have to maximise our aid budget at this difficult time and invest it in the right things that will deliver the best value for the British taxpayer. Investing in Gavi and the Global Fund is therefore simply a no-brainer.

I asked the Minister earlier this week if investing in women and girls remained a priority for this Government, and I was reassured by his answer. I then raised that with the Minister for International Development at the International Development Committee, and we heard that the approach is more about mainstreaming gender equality—women and girls were not listed as one of our three top priorities. Although I accept that we can mainstream gender, I hope that the Minister will reply on how we will ensure that women and girls remain at the heart of programmes such as Gavi and the Global Fund.

Every week, 4,000 adolescent girls and young women between 15 and 24 become infected with HIV globally, and 3,100 of those infections are in sub-Saharan Africa. As we look at our aid budget, we know it has to be focused on tackling extreme poverty, and Africa is one of the areas that we need to focus on.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The hon. Member talks about vaccine inequality in women and girls, but would she agree that the global Gavi programme helps to address the inequalities that people face? During the covid pandemic, it was clearly reported that richer and more affluent countries had priority for vaccines when compared with low and middle-income countries. Gavi is essential to help to perpetuate equality.

[Alice Macdonald]

I totally agree with the hon. Member. In fact, what we have seen with Gavi is that countries that were primarily recipients before have now becomes donors, such as Indonesia. Gavi is a clear pathway for countries to transition into different roles in the global economy as well.

Other Members have mentioned brilliant examples of science and innovation in their constituencies. I want to mention the John Innes Centre at the Norwich Research Park, which is not technically in my constituency, but is in Norwich. It is doing pioneering work, particularly around malaria. As we have heard, that work is helping to save lives internationally, as well as creating jobs at home and generating economic growth.

We need a new architecture for international development. We have to accept the world that we are in, but we also have to challenge ourselves as to why some of the public support for aid has been lost—although, some of the polling shows there is a lot of support for lifesaving interventions such as vaccines. Both Gavi and the Global Fund show us what that new architecture could look like: working together globally through multi- lateral institutions and pooling our resources to maximise our impact.

This is not the time to take our foot off the accelerator. We have made huge progress in this area, both in tackling disease and protecting our own health security. I am sure that the Minister will reaffirm our commitment to improving the health of some of the poorest communities in the world and to delivering a safer and more prosperous future for us all.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Member raises a very important point, and we of course continue to engage closely with our partners at the World Bank and other multilateral development institutions. Multilateral co-operation allows a global scale of investment and delivery that outstrips what countries can achieve alone. We are also looking at other ways, including through the important work of British International Investment and other bodies, so we are going to look across the board and multilaterally to increase our impact.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 says the Government must have due regard to spending aid in a way that contributes to gender equality. Following on from the earlier question, will the Minister confirm that supporting women and girls is a ministerial priority and that we will continue funding vital programmes that support women and girls in many areas?

[Stephen Doughty]

It certainly is, and women and girls will remain at the heart of our programming. I can assure my hon. Friend that equality impact assessments are an essential part of how we make decisions on ODA allocations. Indeed, Minister Chapman will be appearing before the International Development Committee later today, and I think she will be setting out our approach to the equality impact assessment and other processes.

London Sudan Conference

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The shadow Foreign Secretary also raised those questions. I am happy to write to the House with further details about aid delivery, both in relation to the £120 million in further funding and the concerning reports over recent days about restrictions in aid access, particularly in Darfur. Once the situation becomes clearer, I am happy to provide a full update to all parties on the practical questions about aid delivery.

The hon. Lady asks about the practical successes of the conference and what is next on the diplomatic front. The statement from the co-chairs, which include not just the UK, but the African Union, the EU and others, attempted to capture what was an important and frank set of discussions over the course of the day, and set out five principles. It went further than any other recent statement, calling for a ceasefire, rejecting external interference, opposing parallel governance and supporting a transition to civilian-led Governments. My Foreign Office officials have been talking to all parties with an interest in Sudan, including the two belligerents, to make it clear that the statement is the strong view of the international community and that we expect to see it put in place.

It is true, as the two most recent questions have set out, that we were not able to secure a contact group at the conference. I would not want the House to think that, as frank and behind closed doors as it was, the conference was therefore a failure. The fact that this is difficult is all the more reason why it was important for the UK to show leadership and to bring the African Union and others to the table to discuss these issues.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

What is happening in Sudan should shock us all. UNICEF has warned that children as young as one are being raped. More than 220 cases of child rape have been reported since 2024, so we need outrage and, more importantly, action. Can the Minister confirm how much of our aid, if any, is being spent on supporting survivors of sexual abuse and violence, and also how we are using our role as penholder on Sudan at the UN to push for action specifically on sexual violence?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend has worked extensively on these issues, and I know her commitment to them. I will write to her with a full breakdown on which part of our aid programmes are working with survivors. As I set out in answer to an earlier question, the Minister for Africa has led efforts at the Security Council on ensuring that the whole international community is focused on the atrocities that she has just described. We are also leading efforts at the Human Rights Council to establish and renew the mandate for the UN fact-finding mission, which will be crucial to supporting future accountability efforts in Sudan.

Conflict in Gaza

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

When we are talking about Israel, we should remember that we stand alongside the Israeli people at this time, and we think of the many hostages who are underground and in desperate conditions in Gaza. Israel is a democracy, which is why we see people taking to the streets and making their voices heard. We see a heated debate in Israel as the best way forward.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday, the International Development Committee returned from Geneva following our inquiry into international humanitarian law. The message was very clear: the IHL framework is robust, but we are failing on adherence and compliance. Under IHL, aid workers should be protected. I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said so far, but the death toll continues to rise in Gaza, and most of the aid workers are locals. Can the Foreign Secretary expand on what we will do to protect aid workers, including through the ministerial group for the protection of humanitarian personnel? We met representatives of that group yesterday.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Chair of my Select Committee for securing the debate. Twenty years ago, the words of Nelson Mandela rang out just down the road in Trafalgar Square. He called on the world to “make poverty history”, stating that

“as long as poverty, injustice and gross inequality persist…none of us can truly rest.”

I hope we remember those words as we continue this conversation.

I do of course welcome the uplift in defence spending, but to someone like me who has campaigned and worked in international development for years, the decision to cut aid is, as the Prime Minister himself acknowledged, very painful. When I think of why our aid matters, I think of the women I met in Dadaab refugee camp, who had finally secured some safety after years of uncertainty. I think of the children being vaccinated against life-threatening diseases. I think of the response to the Ebola crisis, which not only saved lives in the countries affected but protected us all. I think of our development work as not only lifesaving, but a form of international insurance for us all.

UK aid constitutes about 1p in every pound of public spending, and, as we have heard before, it brings a huge return on investment. It is a down payment to prevent the spread of disease and conflict, to tackle the upstream drivers of migration, and to increase prosperity. I say that because many of my constituents wrote to me urging me to speak today, but I think we receive far fewer emails about aid than about other matters. As we continue this conversation about the very difficult choices that have to be made and other forms of financing, we must continue to make the case for aid, both in its own right and in our own interests.

I do not want to repeat all the points that have been made, but I think we need to focus on a few key issues. As the Chair of the Select Committee emphasised, the timeline is key, and I hope that the Minister will respond on that. Can we expect aid expenditure to remain at 0.5% next year and the year after, before we get to 0.7%? That could save billions of pounds and millions of lives. I would not like to be in the Minister’s shoes, because these are difficult if not impossible decisions, but will the House be updated on the spending criteria that will be used? Will it be a decision between bilateral and multilateral, between one country and another, and between this or that programme? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) pointed out, there is expertise, and we hope to work with the Government constructively on this.

UK legislation already sets out what we need to consider. Ministers must be satisfied that our aid

“is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty”,

and is provided in a way that contributes to reducing gender inequality, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed). That focus on women and girls is vital. I back the call from many non-governmental organisations, including CARE and UNICEF, for a new commitment to target at least 20% of bilateral official development assistance on gender equality, and I hope that the Minister will respond directly to that call.

I echo what has been said about the need to reduce the amount of money spent in this country on refugee costs. According to the most recent figures, it was 28% of the aid budget. I know that our Government are committed to bringing down that spending and tackling the backlog, but the sooner we can do that, with a clear commitment that the money will go back to the aid budget, the better. I hope that the Minister can update us on the conversations with the Home Office about that. There should be a whole-Government approach taken, involving the Treasury, the Home Office and development.

We must leverage other forms of financing. I am short of time, so I will just mention debt. We have done a great deal on that before as a Labour Government, and I hope we will do so again, because 32 African countries are spending more on their external debts than they can spend on healthcare and education, which is a scandal. I hope we can also do more on remittances. We know how much is sent overseas from diaspora communities here; the cost of doing so is still far too high, and reducing it would not be a cost for this Government.

These are indeed challenging times, and I appreciate that these are tough choices, but we must retain a clear commitment to returning to 0.7% as soon as circumstances allow. We are an internationalist party that believes in the power of aid, and we will fight to ensure that remains the case.

Sudan and Eastern DRC

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have spoken to north African countries about this issue. I was in Chad, obviously, but I also raised these issues in Egypt, where I met Sudanese refugees. I talked about the Quint and the G7; we are using all those multilateral mechanisms to raise this issue and galvanise further support. It was deeply worrying that when the UN called for donors last year, it got just 50% of the money that is required.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Gender-based violence increased by 300% in the DRC in recent years, with two thirds of it in the three eastern provinces. In Sudan, we have heard of the epidemic of sexual violence in conflict. This year marks 25 years since the agreement of the landmark UN resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, yet across the world we are letting women down. Please can the Foreign Secretary outline, on the broader agenda, how we will make this the year we actually protect women’s rights in conflict and ensure that their voices are heard?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful that that is the subject of the last question. One reason why the world is not paying attention to these crises is that they are in the continent of Africa. The second reason, I fear, is gendered: it is women who are suffering. It is men who are doing the fighting and women who are being left behind. We cannot go backwards. For all those reasons, I urge parliamentarians to secure debates and raise these issues with the colleagues they meet from other parliamentary democracies, so we get attention back on these women and children in both conflicts and across so many others, who are suffering horrendously.

Middle East

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend asks a very good question. The World Bank has been doing a lot of thinking about that, with a rapid needs assessment of the materials that are now necessary.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Foreign Secretary has said, this is a glimmer of light for the hostages, their families and civilians in Gaza—many of them children living in hell—and all our thoughts are with them. We have spoken a lot about the importance of access for humanitarian aid, but can I ask the Foreign Secretary about volumes? Can he update us on the funding for the UN humanitarian appeals, whether we are considering an uplift in our aid, and what pressure we are putting on other UN member states to make sure they play their role in not only providing that aid, but pushing for access?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put on record the issue of volume. At the moment, the agreement is for 600 or so trucks. That is ambitious, and the situation on the ground will need to change quite a lot if that is to be achieved. The need is absolutely there. The UN must play its part, but I think some of the decisions that may come on UNRWA would fundamentally undermine that. I think commercial trucks have to come back in, and the security has to be there. Clearly, what we want to see—and it is here in the deal—is Israel being able to draw back, which raises further issues about security. That is why I say that this deal is fragile and that negotiation continues and there is much still to do. She is absolutely right that we have to see the volumes, or I think the people of Gaza will say that there have been lots of fine words, but things have not actually changed very much on the ground.

Northern Gaza

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

Hamas are terrorists and they should release the hostages immediately.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

There are an estimated 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza, with more than 180 births taking place every day. None of us can imagine the hell of Gaza, let alone being pregnant in it. Ultimately, we need a ceasefire, but the health system is on its knees. Will the Minister expand on whether he has specifically raised the issue of women and girls and how our aid is being targeted to support access to sexual and reproductive health services?

[Mr Falconer]

We have raised those issues specifically, but I want to be straightforward with the House: we are clear that insufficient aid of all kinds is getting into Gaza. On almost any question that the House might put to me, there is insufficient aid, insufficient equipment and insufficient provisions for people to be existing in Gaza under those conditions, and we will continue to raise that with force with the Israelis for as long as that situation remains.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for the leadership that he has shown on this issue, along with others across the House. The UK is determined to see successful replenishments for all the health-related funds, and we have announced with the WHO just this week that we are definitely going to do that.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Innovation plays a key role in tackling hunger. Can the Minister expand on what efforts we are taking to tackle hunger and how we are supporting innovators such as Alora, based at Norwich Research Park, which is using revolutionary technology to create the world’s first ocean agriculture system?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this. We have incredible facilities in Norwich working on agricultural innovation, and they are important not only for global food production but for UK farmers. The research is used intensively by our local farmers as well as by others globally.