UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this vital and timely debate. We are effectively about to have a change of Government, which will mean an opportunity for a reset. Usually we come to these debates avid to hear what the Minister has to say, but today we might not reflect on the past so much as look to the future. Of course, I commend the Minister for his efforts. I will not commend him too much, because that might not help him in the weeks ahead as the Government are reformed, but I acknowledge his personal commitment to these issues.

As the Prime Minister moves on, the cuts in official development assistance and the way in which they have been carried out, with nothing seemingly learned from the lessons of the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, surely cannot be part of his legacy that he will wish to promote. Notably, this Government are presiding over cuts to our overseas aid budget that are deeper and faster than those being implemented in the United States under the Trump Administration. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s resource DEL budget has reduced by nearly 20%, over £1.5 billion, with bilateral programmes accounting for almost half of that and no detail yet available. Indeed, stakeholders are still waiting for the FCDO to publish its bilateral allocations for ODA, which are reportedly being held back until just before the summer recess.

I do not demur from the arguments about hard choices when there are limited resources or, specifically, the need to increase defence spending, but part of that is also about acknowledging that these decisions have consequences, often for the poorest and most vulnerable communities on the planet.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I am the chair of the water, sanitation and hygiene all-party parliamentary group and a big champion of WaterAid’s “Time to Deliver” campaign. One million mums and babies lose their lives each year because of a lack of access to water during childbirth. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in looking at humanitarian and global aid, we should make sure that remains a basic provision and a priority?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely do. I will come on to the most effective way in which limited resources can be used, and that is clearly one of them.

We need to have honesty in this debate and acknowledge that reductions and changes in funding have consequences. We must have that honest dialogue and move away from the sort of speak that has become commonplace, such as “mainstreaming”. Everything now is to be mainstreamed. In my view that means no resources will actually be devoted to it; it will simply be part of some wider general budget. That has specifically been the case in relation to women and girls, which is something we must push back against.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman sits with me on the International Development Committee, so he will know as I do that, to date, the Committee has found that there is still no detail on how

“poverty alleviation is prioritised and tracked”

under the new model going from donor to investor. Does he agree that if poverty reduction is to remain a primary focus of ODA, we need to understand better how these things will be tracked?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him for his work on the International Development Committee. I will come on to the Committee’s report on the future of development, which highlighted that very issue. The Committee sought to help this Government take forward their stated objectives. I hope the incoming Government will grasp the report’s recommendations and move forward in the way the hon. Gentleman outlines.

Although citizens across the world might have been distracted by the Democratic Republic of the Congo almost knocking England out of the world cup, sadly for that team, the situation at home still verges on the catastrophic. It is an example of where unthought-out and unstructured cuts and changes have a devastating impact. We see the spread of Ebola in parts of the DRC, particularly where US funding and structures have been withdrawn. There is no meaningful alternative government structure to provide a health service. That is an absolute example of where funding cuts have a real impact that could spread to the United Kingdom. There was a recent suspected Ebola case in Glasgow, which fortunately did not come to fruition. We need to push back on the idea that Ebola in a remote part of central Africa has nothing to do with us.

We must not be starry-eyed about what happened previously. I was struck by recommendation 7 in the Committee’s report and, in a much more favourable climate for international development, by an article in The Guardian—I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) will not tell the Leader of the Opposition that I read an article in The Guardian—saying that, in the context of the previous Ebola outbreak, which was successfully tackled, the international response that Sierra Leoneans saw on the ground comprised outsiders setting up compounds, employing local people sometimes to be cooks or drivers, then driving around in white Land Cruisers and not engaging or leaving any positive legacy.

My recent experience of travelling to Malawi is that, while the agencies and others had done a really good job, unfortunately the Malawian Government had not, because they are now totally reliant on those agencies to provide services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) may recall that, when I was Secretary of State for Scotland and we promoted the Scotland-Malawi partnership, I had to decline to meet the then President of Malawi in his suite at the Dorchester hotel because I felt that was a wholly inappropriate way to discuss how we could give them more aid.

As I said, we cannot be starry-eyed on what happened before. There needs to be change and a focus on how we can most effectively deliver aid and support, but we must have a coherent, long-term plan that accepts budget realities and aligns with the UK’s wider interests. If the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is in search of sound advice, I would point him, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned, to the recommendations and huge body of evidence in the International Development Committee’s recent report, “UK Aid and Development Assistance in a Fracturing World”.

The report called for greater clarity on the Government’s theory of change in relation to poverty alleviation, and it suggested how to prioritise programmes and schemes to achieve the Government’s stated policies. It also set out a comprehensive vision, which I hope the new Prime Minister might be willing to adopt. If he were to ask my opinion, which I do not anticipate as I do not have a vote in the Labour leadership contest, although maybe I could—in days past, I think people could pay £3 to get one, so maybe there is still time. But if he were to ask my opinion, I would suggest that investment should shift towards programmes that are undeniably value for money. That is where we can make the most profound difference for each £1 spent, doubling down on effective interventions with the greatest multiplier effect.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, nutrition is foundational for development, and the UK has been a trusted global partner on nutrition for many years. In the context of the recent reduction in aid spending, does he agree that supporting and developing innovative new mechanisms such as the Child Nutrition Fund is vital to reversing the trend of hunger, malnutrition and starvation while working in partnership with affected nations?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I can think of no better example than the Child Nutrition Fund to achieve what he has set out and our wider development objectives. Malnutrition is entirely preventable and treatable, yet it remains the underlying cause of nearly half of all deaths among children under five. It stifles economic growth, weakens immune systems, and disproportionately impacts women and children, so the Child Nutrition Fund is a perfect example of what the public expect from ODA funding: it puts food in the stomachs of those in need. With a relatively modest investment from the UK Government, the fund has a unique capacity to leverage philanthropic and private capital while mobilising domestic resources. If we want value for money in a stretched budget, nutrition is where we must double down.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has talked about stretched budgets. Does he agree that we also need to address debt, because private debt is a big factor in preventing some low-income countries from investing in their health and education systems? It should form part of the Government’s strategy to leverage more money into debt-distressed, low-income countries.

[David Mundell]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him and others for bringing the debt issue back to the debate. Obviously, it was a focal point of debate a number of years ago. It appears to have slid down the agenda, but it remains a vital issue, as he has highlighted.

Another vital issue in reference to the Child Nutrition Fund is public support. We all have to acknowledge the need to rebuild public support for development. I put my hand up to being complacent in that regard, as I think many in the sector were assuming that the support would remain. It is still there, but it is all about the questions that people are asked and the context in which they are asked. That is why, for example, the Child Nutrition Fund commands public support: because people see that an intervention by the UK can have the direct effect of saving children’s lives. What detracts from public support is where interventions are less easily explainable or there is an inability to be clear that interventions are not wasteful. It was therefore surprising that the Government were at one point proposing to get rid of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the body that reviews the effectiveness of ODA. Thanks to the cross-party effort of the International Development Committee and others in Parliament, that decision was reversed, at least in part.

I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, and in the multilateral/bilateral debate—a debate we need to have—I was very supportive of additional funding for the Global Fund. The fund has done a huge job not only in tackling AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but in providing the backbone of many countries’ health systems. That backbone would not be there were the Global Fund not providing support for other issues. I welcome the Government’s £850 million contribution to the fund. That amount is a lot more than was previously touted, although it is less than the £1 billion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield provided. However, of course, there were smoke and mirrors, as the funding is back-ended and the bulk of it will come at the end of the three-year period. That will have an impact on the Global Fund’s capacity to carry out its job, which again has direct consequences.

I commend Bel Trew and The Independent for highlighting the impact that cuts have already had in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It feels to me that there is scope for the UK and European Union countries to work together more closely to tackle the rising global anti-rights movement. Given the progress in Hungary, it feels like there is an opportunity to start to push back on the age of impunity. Does the right hon. Member agree that we should put human rights—especially sexual and reproductive rights and health—on the agenda of the upcoming European Political Community meeting, which will be held in Dublin in October?

[David Mundell]

I agree with the principles that the hon. Gentleman has set out; I will come on to that topic now. We need to see UK leadership in co-ordinating a response to such issues. Because of political decisions taken in the United States, certain groups will be deprived of help and support. We need to have a role in ensuring that there is co-ordination so that the support goes in, whether through country donors, philanthropists or non-governmental organisations. LGBT communities, for example, will not get that support unless we are proactive in ensuring that co-ordination. Although I welcomed the announcement that the Foreign Office still has an LGBT budget, I do not see the issues that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned being proactively tackled at this time, and we need to be at the forefront of that.

I will draw my remarks to a close, as other Members wish to contribute. I was going to touch more on British International Investment—perhaps my International Development Committee colleague, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), will do so—but I will make the point that BII has to play a much greater role in alignment with UK Government policy, whatever the policy is. That does not mean that BII should not be independent in making investments, but the position of equivalent bodies in other countries is to be aligned with Government policy. I am not convinced that BII is at the moment, and given the scale of its investment, it needs to be.

I have tried to range over the issues of the moment, and I look forward to the contributions of other Members. As I said at the start, there have been one or two good things in the last couple of years, but I do not think this is a glorious part of the Prime Minister’s legacy. I hope that, going forward, we can have that reset.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[David Mundell]

I thank the Minister for his response, which is a picture from the current Government. This is a moment for reset, which I hope the incoming Prime Minister will take on board along with many of the things said in this debate, as well as the International Development Committee’s recent report on the future of international development in a fracturing world. This may be an echo chamber, but we can all make a difference in making the case for international development, which we have to do outside here. We have to be bold enough to challenge some perceptions. Most people think that a huge percentage of the UK budget is spent on aid. They do not realise it is 0.3%; they think it is nearer 40%. There are many misconceptions out there, which we must lead on challenging.

At this moment, Labour MPs are the ones with the opportunity to make a difference. I have been through several changes of Prime Minister, and I know now is the point at which they can be influenced. They are not influenced once they are in No. 10, when it becomes much harder—it is now, as they cross the threshold. We have heard passionate contributions from Labour MPs and I know others feel the same. My appeal is the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell): make that difference now and get international development back on the Government agenda.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends.