Official Development Assistance Reductions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100% with the hon. Member. The more we work with our partners, the more we can deliver. We are living in an interconnected society; there is no way we can do this alone. We must work with others, and we must show leadership in that space.

If aid spending remained at 0.5%, it would have reached £15.4 billion by 2027. Instead, it will stand at £9.2 billion, the lowest in real terms since 2012. When we retreat, Russia and China advance; when we stay silent, violence speaks for us. There can be no security without stability, and no stability without development. Development is not an add-on to security and foreign policy, but what that policy is built on.

I therefore urge the Government to reconsider the planned reductions ahead of the Budget, and to bring forward sustainable, long-term plans for funding both our defence and our diplomacy, rather than setting them in competition. I urge them to recognise that global leadership cannot be built on cuts and withdrawals, but on conviction and compassion. The world we are shaping today, through the choices we make on aid, diplomacy and climate will determine whether future generations—our children and grandchildren—inherit a planet of opportunity for all.

We must stand up for liberal values, for compassion and for the rules-based international order. Britain has always stood tall on the world stage. Our leadership has mattered. It must matter again.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I call Sarah Champion. I suggest five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. I suggest four minutes from now on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. I am imposing a formal four-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

Official development assistance is changing. Just two weeks ago in Nigeria, one of the UK’s largest development partners, my colleagues and I from the International Development Committee had a glimpse of the future. Although the FCDO runs dozens of centrally managed programmes in the country, what stood out was not just the scale of the UK’s presence, but the way that we worked hand in glove with state Governments and public institutions to build the capacity that underpins long-term development. Whether that was in technical assistance to the revenue service or tax administration, support for reforming the public health system or advice on the macroeconomic reforms that Nigeria is beginning to implement, the emphasis was unmistakeable: partnership not paternalism.

That is a mature partnership that points the way to the future of international development. As painful as it is for a proponent of international development to say this, when the Government cut aid earlier this year, the writing was on the wall. The system must evolve from trade, not aid, and to transformation rather than transactions.

In that evolution, the UK possesses an extraordinary toolkit. We remain a leader in technical co-operation and capacity building, we are a pioneer in development finance and, perhaps most importantly, we sit at the centre of the global financial architecture. Nearly half of sovereign debt worldwide is governed by English law. That fact alone gives the City of London a moral and practical responsibility. If we want to see fairer, faster and more transparent debt restructuring and prevent another lost decade for low-income countries, the UK is uniquely placed to lead. Global debt reform will not happen in New York or Beijing unless it also happens in London.

In British International Investment—I declare an interest as a former employee—we have a leader among European development finance institutions, one that understands that development finance is not just about providing capital but about building markets. BII’s mission is to identify the bridges that must be built to get economic activity off the ground, create jobs and lift people out of poverty, while delivering a fair return, even when that return is concessional to the British taxpayer. That is smart, modern development policy, which will strengthen Africa’s hand.

Nowhere is the shift from aid to investment more necessary than in northern Nigeria. While parts of the south of Nigeria power on, the north is facing a humanitarian crisis, deep insecurity and environmental stress. Yes, there is an urgent need for aid to combat famine, strengthen healthcare systems and stabilise communities, but we must also confront the structural causes. A major driver of that instability is economic exclusion. Across the Sahel and the north of Nigeria, young people are being pushed off their land by drought, flooding and declining soil resilience. Many of those who end up in the orbit of Boko Haram or bandit groups are not idealogues; they are victims of climate and market failure.

Those problems are not insurmountable, but aid without investment is not the answer to that market failure. If we can give rural farmers the means to invest in sustainable crops and farming practices, agriculture can be a source of peace, dignity and security. The World Bank’s forthcoming Nigeria agricultural value chains growth project—on which I hope the Minister will comment—is now at concept stage, but it aims to do just that, and to mobilise more than $500 million to foster the kind of growth that I have described. I also commend the work that BII is doing with its investee Babban Gona in that realm.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I am sorry, but due to time I will be wrapping up. At the weekend, the Foreign Secretary announced a further £5 million of support to the crisis in el-Fasher. While we have seen cuts, we have avoided disproportionate negative impacts on women and girls and people living with disabilities in this year’s ODA allocations, as confirmed by the equalities impact assessment that we published. We will continue to strengthen actions to help mitigate some of the negative impacts on equalities, including by putting women and girls at the heart of everything we do.

I will make a final point in relation to the ODA budget for supporting refugees in the UK. The Government are focused on reducing asylum costs and ending the use of migrant hotels by the end of the Parliament, and we have already made progress on that. The UK remains committed to international development. We are working with our partners to shape the next stage of global development, and at the same time, we are strengthening the UK’s safety, security and prosperity—and global safety, security and prosperity—which is essential for delivering all the missions of this Government.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Edward Morello, you have less than a minute.

Ambassador to the United States

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I was just trying to give the hon. Gentleman some helpful advice, but there we are.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I have some advice for the hon. Member for Rugby: those that lick the feet of the unworthy gain for themselves nothing but a dirty tongue. [Laughter.]

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Joking apart, this is a very serious moment for our country and for Parliament. Whether you like him or not, President Trump is of incredible importance to our country. He is just about to arrive here and he must think that we in this country are complete plonkers, frankly, for the way that we have handled all this. First of all, he had a very good relationship with the previous ambassador, but she was just swept aside. Then a man was appointed who had traduced him in the past. All right, that man is a skilled operator and has built up a relationship. President Trump himself is probably rather embarrassed about his relationship with Epstein, and then he finds this being dragged up all over the media a day before one of his most important visits, which is of great importance to his country and to ours. He knows that there are going to be difficult questions at the press conference. The President of the United States must be absolutely furious about what is going on, so this is a very serious moment for us and we have to take it extremely seriously. I hope—I am sure—that the Government do so.

I will repeat what I said in the urgent question on Thursday. I have seen so many of these scandals, and it is usually not the original scandal or alleged scandal that is the problem; it is the cover up. I shall try to be helpful to the Government. We have already heard from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and it is an absurd part of our processes that if there is a monumental scandal, we have a public inquiry—where officials, Ministers, everybody must be dragged in and every document produced—but Governments can just brush aside a Select Committee. I am genuinely trying to be helpful now. Obviously a bad mistake was made, but an even worse mistake is being made if the Government are not honest with Parliament and they do not release every single document.

There are so many questions that need to be asked and that could be answered if the Government—the Foreign Office—were honest in response. Why was Mandelson chosen, given his known past associations with Epstein and his previous sackings? Were the risks merely misjudged, or did the existing vetting process fail to assess them properly? The Prime Minister claimed he did not know the full extent of the emails. We have no reason not to take him at his word. Obviously he tells the truth, but this raises serious questions about what assurances or information he received, from whom, and whether that constituted adequate due diligence. What exact checks were carried out at the appointment stage?

What was known by whom and when? If some of the unsavoury aspects of the former ambassador’s friendship with Mr Epstein were known but deemed “worth the risk”, what criteria were used to make that decision? Was the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team sufficiently rigorous? Was any personal, institutional or political bias exhibited in how risks were weighed?

The Government have stated commitments on transparency, integrity and protecting the victims of abuse or sexual violence. Having a senior representative such as an ambassador whose past communications appear to mitigate, defend or minimise a convicted child sex offender must run counter to those values. Was that considered at that stage of the vetting process? How do the Government reconcile this incident with their stated positions? Why was the appointment made knowing that there were links, but without understanding their full extent? Why was the Prime Minister publicly defending Lord Mandelson up until the revelations emerged, only to sack him in less than a day when the media pressure rose? Was he sacked for the content of what was revealed, or merely because the situation became embarrassing?

Lord Mandelson was appointed to arguably the most important diplomatic role in His Majesty’s diplomatic service. This is a time of intense international pressure, and President Trump is operating the levers of power in a way that we have rarely seen in the post-war world. What assessment have the Government made of the damage done to Britain’s diplomatic standing by having such an important ambassador removed abruptly under scandal? Light is the best disinfectant, and the public—and this House, through the Select Committee—have a right to be informed. Ministers must assure us that the full record of Lord Mandelson’s communications with Epstein will be disclosed, and soon.

We must also be told whether any of the information the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or any other Minister provided to the public has turned out to be inaccurate, whether intentionally or in good faith. The ambassador has been sacked, but this incident is far from over. Too many questions remain unanswered. It is the obligation and the responsibility of Government to ensure that Parliament and the public are given a full and frank exposition of this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I am going to conclude, and I do want to get back to the fundamental question.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that Lord Mandelson should not and would not have been appointed as ambassador in the light of the shocking information that came to light in the past week. The argument that we have heard from Opposition Members today is that the information was clear all along. But if the full depth and extent of this relationship had been so obvious, I hardly think that Lord Mandelson would have been one of the leading candidates to become chancellor of Oxford University—but he was. I highly doubt that he would have been offered a job as a presenter on Times Radio—but he was. He also appeared on BBC “Newsnight”, a programme that has done important work investigating the crimes of—

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Is it really a point of order?

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

It is. Am I mistaken in my belief that there is a convention in the House that when the Leader of the Opposition puts their hand on the Dispatch Box and seeks to intervene, the Minister gives way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister if he wishes to give way or not.

Middle East

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I want to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on her recent wedding. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] She is absolutely right because there seem to be those in the Israeli Government who either want to see one state, in which case it is incumbent on them to be clear about how everyone in that one state has equality before the law, or want to see no state perpetuated forever. We must stand against that because it is not in the interests of Israel being safe and secure, and it is fundamentally against the interests of the Palestinian people, because the desire for two states is a just cause and one that we must stand behind.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

What action will His Majesty’s Government take if the Government of Israel proceed with their plan to build in the E1 corridor?

[Mr Lammy]

I am not going to get ahead of my skis. We continue to work with partners internationally on making those assessments. I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister and was very clear that we stand against that. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when these plans surfaced the previous Government stood against the E1 development. At that time, I think the Government’s position was that they would recognise if they went ahead. We will continue to make that assessment, but I hope we can see the plans put to one side.

China Audit

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For an example of a quick question, I call Sir Desmond Swayne.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

It was proper and lawful to send HMS Spey through the Taiwan strait in pursuit of vital international freedom of navigation in the South China sea, was it not, and can we see more like it?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, and yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

No one should risk death or injury to feed their family. As I said in this House on 4 June, Israel’s aid delivery measures are inhumane. We will not support any mechanism that endangers civilians. We have continually called on Israel, including most recently on Sunday, immediately to allow the UN and aid partners to safely deliver all types of aid at scale.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On three occasions in answering this question the Minister has said that “Israel must”. What will he do if Israel does not?

[Mr Falconer]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this Government have taken a series of actions in response to developments in Gaza. We will continue to take such actions until the situation changes.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I can confirm that we do not need any permission to make policy decisions. I think that if we did, the Israeli Government would have a rather different attitude towards Britain’s Minister for the Middle East.

The position in relation to recognition is that we wish to provide a state in which Palestinians can live safe and secure, side by side with the Israelis. That looks distant at the moment, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. Those reasons need to be addressed. We want to see progress, and we will consider our own position as part of the best possible way in which we can make a contribution.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Sanctions are no remedy when it comes to the imperilled two-state solution. Is the Minister going to the conference with a plan?

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman always asks succinct and clear questions. As he will recall, I was a diplomat for a long time. Sanctions are no remedy; they are an expression of a failure in the international system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) said, we have heard week after week about the agonies. We do go to the conference with a plan, but it is a conference called by our friends and allies, and we are discussing our approach closely with them.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

On Sunday I was clear that Hamas should engage in ceasefire talks, should return to the table and should release all hostages. A ceasefire is desperately needed and is the only route forward.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Studied ambiguity of what and when has had no impact on Israeli policy. We want to know, and Israel needs to know, precisely what the Government mean by “further steps”.

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Member will appreciate that in our private discussions with Israel we have been clear about the depth of feeling across the whole country, and indeed in this House, and we have been clear about the nature of further steps coming.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be deeply concerned about what is happening. We had hoped, and I know Vice-President Vance had hoped, that we would get a breakthrough in the ceasefire that was being brokered by the United States, Qatar and Egypt. She will have seen that the United States has been able to strike direct deals—it got its hostage out last week by going direct to Hamas—and that the breakthrough we had hoped for towards the end of last week has not come through. I do not foresee a ceasefire deal at this stage. That is why the only way forward is through more diplomacy, not less. It is not through military means. We have to be crystal clear that we disagree with the course that the Netanyahu Government are now taking.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The House wants to know, and Israel needs to know, exactly what the Foreign Secretary means by “further action”.

[Mr Lammy]

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Oxford English Dictionary and look at the two words.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I refer my hon. Friend to my previous comments that the Bill and these clauses and schedules have been drafted with the highest level of legal expertise. It is not something I anticipate being a problem.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The Bill does allow applicants to shop around for doctors, and it strikes me that there is a danger that some doctors, who might have an ideological view of the Bill, will specialise in the provision of that service, which would give it rather greater scope than the hon. Lady intends.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I reject the assertion that patients will shop around. Bearing in mind that we are talking about dying people, they are not in a position to start shopping around for services, but I also agree that the Bill is strict in that regard. There are very strict protocols that doctors will have to follow.

Middle East Update

Desmond Swayne Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. Clearly the rhetoric of some Israeli Government Ministers has crossed a threshold after which we would all condemn them—the Foreign Secretary has condemned a series of statements. I was not familiar with that statement, but it looks as if it would fall very much in the same category. As she would expect, I will not comment on further sanctions. As I have made clear, we have taken action and we will keep further action under review.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The Minister has made the Government’s position crystal clear that the Israeli plan is unacceptable. How will British Government policy towards Israel change as that plan is implemented?

[Mr Falconer]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we hope to avoid having to deal with that hypothetical, and we will seek to persuade the Israeli Government not to embark on a path so damaging, for all the reasons I have set out this afternoon. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be asking me that question in the House should we fail.