UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[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 We see the spread of Ebola in parts of the DRC, particularly where US funding and structures have been withdrawn.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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law]

I agree that alongside the shift to more risk capital, which will also support that goal, and more upstream project development with local partners, there needs to be a focus on the world’s very poorest, and on getting capital into markets that do not currently have the capacity to support it. We have to move on each of these fronts: on global debt reform, on engagement with the multilateral development banks and our own development finance institutions, and on the private sector. Only by getting the capacity right, and by getting the work that the MDBs and the DFIs do right, will we be able to mobilise capital at scale. In my experience, WASH in particular suffers from being uninvestable for development finance, partly because the ability of DFIs to provide support at the municipal level and for city regions is underdeveloped. I urge the Minister to work with, for example, Urban 20 colleagues to address the issue.

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend mentioned multilaterals. I wanted to put on the record my concern, shared by a number of IDC members, that it will be much harder for us to influence the multilaterals when most of our money is going there, rather than to bilateral aid. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we need to resource appropriately to achieve maximum leverage within the multilateral system?

[Noah Law]

I do share my hon. Friend’s concern. In a time of constrained resources, there is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to move everything into the multilateral space to get more bang for our buck but, as we have seen, it is not as simple as that. One does have to be wary when trying to make that money go further. I am glad that there are examples, particularly on the climate finance front, of where our Government have stepped up to ensure we maintain the agenda of the multilateral development banks.

To sum up, we need to be serious about the potential need for a statutory footing for some of the reforms to the global debt system, which the UK is uniquely well placed to address. We need to push our multilateral development banks and development finance institutions to go further, to take more risk and do that upstream development work. In doing so, we need to mobilise the private capital that at the minute is unable to get to the world’s poorest countries.