We are starting a special session of the International Development Committee. With us, we have the Foreign Secretary and his permanent under-secretary, Nick Dyer. Foreign Secretary, we are really grateful to you for coming before us. A lot has happened in the year that you have been in post, and we want to dig down into some of that, but first of all, yesterday we had a session on global health, and we were really shocked to hear from people who are pandemic watching, for want of a better word—trying to gather data on risks—that they feel they are going in blind because the cuts to resources on the ground around the world and to ODA are making their job ever more difficult, which of course makes us ever less safe and the world ever more unstable. I am not sure whether you noticed, but yesterday, or this week, ICAI, the independent scrutiny body, said that, in reality, for 2027-28 you will actually have 0.24% of GNI. Given the increased risk that we and people around the world face, do you really think that you will be able to deliver your vision with 0.24% of GNI?

I have to step back and say that we are absolutely committed to development. I am absolutely committed to development. I sit here as someone who has sat on the board of ActionAid—in the distant past; I have now been in politics for 25 years—and as someone who has family in the global south, in Guyana, which, until relatively recently, was the second poorest country in the western hemisphere. Over the course of my 25 years in politics, I have visited many countries that find themselves needing development aid. Indeed, in the last year, I have visited the continent of Africa on many occasions—more than any other Foreign Secretary in their first year in the job. I have been to Nigeria, South Africa, Tunisia, Egypt, Rwanda and the DRC. The decisions that we made is a decision to increase defence spending. I have said in the past, and I stand by it, that it would be wrong to assume that increases in defence spending do not also assist people, particularly those facing conflict. The war in Ukraine has cost the continent of Africa £7 billion. It is also right to say that, if you look at this country’s contribution to the development story, going back to the period after the second world war, Government spend in this area is like an accordion. It goes between development, soft power and diplomacy at one end, and hard power and defence spending at the other. Cold war defence spending was at 7%, and spending on development was down to about 0.3%. That is what we have gone back to. On ICAI, I do not recognise the 0.24% figure. It is 0.3%; that is what we are attempting to go down to. What I am not going to back up is a 0.24% presumption that I do not recognise.

My point is that you came in to a reduced budget of 0.5%, and you set out a very powerful vision. In particular, I thought that your Kew Gardens speech about climate was inspiring, and I was excited by that. But then, suddenly, you are down to 0.3%, so can you deliver your vision or has your vision changed with that quite dramatic cut? We understand the reasons for it, and we are not disputing the Government’s right to do that.

I think that we are setting out a powerful vision and are absolutely not shrinking or diminishing our ambition for assistance. But it was always going to be the case that development needed reform. That is not just reform here in the United Kingdom, but reform across the family of nations that we largely describe as the west—effectively, European powers that play an important role in the G7. That required reform, and clearly the UN system requires reform. I do not think that anyone in this Committee thinks that we are going to hit the SDGs, in so many ways. We are certainly not going to meet “zero hunger”. They are predicated on the five Ps, of which peace is one; we do not have peace. The planet is another; actually, climate has got worse. So, on any analysis, we are in a reform place. Clearly, changes to the United States’ posture on aid have forced that reform; clearly, when you see Germany cutting humanitarian aid by 53%, Belgium cutting aid by 25% over five years, France cutting aid by 36% and Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland all cutting aid, the system requires reform. I wish we had been in Government three or four years ago and leading that reform, but we were not. We find ourselves in the place that we are, and we have to be responsive to what countries are saying to us. In the trips that I have made to the continent of Africa, in the new Africa approach and the consultation that we have made, we have to hear the voice of African leaders. I was with President Ruto just two weeks ago. He is not raising development with me. In fact, when they do raise development, they say, “We are sick of the ping-pong in western democracies: one Government comes in and takes one approach; another Government comes in and takes a different one.” They say, “We want trade, investment, jobs—the same things you want in your poorest constituencies.” That is what they say to us.

How have you reformed your vision in the last year?

We are reforming our vision. I have watched Baroness Chapman in front of you. You are aware that we are consulting at the moment. We do not want cliff edges, as happened under the last Government. We are absolutely clear about that.

So your vision remains the same?

We are doing a line-by-line. We launched the Africa approach, to which we will respond. On development, we have been absolutely clear about our commitments to Sudan, to Ukraine and to the occupied territories, and our commitments to climate and to global health—those are the ones I would want to pull out.

We will come on to all of those in this session, but we will start with women and girls. That is one of the areas that is definitely facing quite severe cuts, and I know that it is an area that Alice Macdonald has been passionate about for a very long time.

Thank you, Foreign Secretary. Women’s rights face what was recently described as a “full-on assault” due to UN and aid funding cuts, not just from the UK but more broadly. You mentioned the cliff edges that we had before; women and girls were disproportionately affected by the cuts under the last Conservative Government, and UN Women has already warned that 90% of women’s rights organisations in conflict-affected countries have been affected by cuts. As you know, women and girls were not one of the priorities listed by Minister Chapman. She said that there would be less money for gender equality and education, and that instead the approach would be mainstreaming. Is that the approach we are taking? Are women and girls still a priority for your Department?

Women and girls are a fundamental priority. Last week, I was in Syria, with poor women who are agricultural workers. Our aid is supporting them in their microbusinesses, and that work must continue. If you are in the business of development, and you are in the business of supporting the vulnerable, you have to be in the business of supporting women and girls, wherever they are. In Chad, the conflict affecting Sudan is affecting women and girls. In Egypt, when I sat with community groups there, the refugees were largely women and girls. Time and again, we come back to women and girls. That is why I appointed the most senior parliamentarian of our generation to help the Department to lead on women and girls. I am very pleased that Harriet Harman accepted that job and has taken up that opportunity to work with us. We will continue to centre women and girls. However, the question behind your question is a fundamental point that I have to acknowledge, and I raised it previously. African leaders say to me, “I’m sorry, but we cannot exist as a consequence of a ping-pong in the west.” This Committee knows that very sadly—and I do find it sad, because it is not my political position—equality issues are contested at this time in our own democracies. At this time, there will be people in our House of Commons, the US Chamber, the Netherlands or other places who do not like—and would describe as “woke”—some of the decisions on rights—

Foreign Secretary, I have never heard a woman politician say that. Are you saying that women politicians are saying, “Don’t prioritise women and girls.”?

No—

So what are you saying?

Can I urge you, Chair, to let me finish the point? Let’s step back; I think the Chair recognises that, on the whole, the Republican party, when in office, stepped back from commitments to reproductive health rights. Would you accept that?

100%.

I think you would also accept that we have elected parties in this country who have a position on rights issues, which they would describe as “identity politics”, where they would withdraw from areas around girls and race, and they do not accept that way of looking at it. The point is that leaders in the global south see that and say, “We do not want to be at the mercy of politically motivated decisions in the west. We want sustainable funding for girls that survives your political debates.” That is what they said to me.

So what do you say to that smallholder woman farmer in Syria when you say, “We are not ringfencing money for you.”?

I say it is for us to mainstream and integrate that work, so that it is not at the mercy of whoever happens to win an election in the global north—that is what I say.

So why is the UK not ringfencing money for women and girls? Why is it mainstreaming it? For example, with mainstreaming education, if a girl has been sold as a child bride, or if she has suffered FGM so she cannot attend school, why are we not prioritising girls’ rights so that they can go to that school? If you just say, “Well, we’ve built a school. Turn up”, that is not going to happen in a lot of places.

Can I just push back on that point? The appointment of Baroness Harman and of Lord Collins to represent the UK at the UN Commission on the Status of Women underlines our commitment to this agenda, and it is not rolling back on women and girls. In January, I visited the Chad border and put £20 million of additional funding into supporting the refugees, 88% of whom are women and girls, which is not us rolling back on this agenda. UK funds supporting work in Gaza is not rolling back on this agenda. We had a special representative on preventing sexual violence at a conference, which Lord Collins led, just a few weeks ago—that is not rolling back on this agenda. We continue to support this work, but we have to find ways to integrate the work across all that we do to make it central, and to ensure that we are working with partners. It is not just the UK’s funding; one of the things that I also want to see is better co-ordination right across the G7 and across Europe to make sure that women and girls are centred. I hope that is an adequate response.

Thank you for that. I suppose a few of us had concerns about the mainstreaming. How will we measure it and see the impact? You will probably be aware that a lot of organisations are saying that programmes such as What Works 2, which is focused on tackling violence against women and girls—a priority here—are at risk. The WISH funding, which we brought up with Baroness Chapman yesterday, is still being looked at on reproductive health. Yes, mainstreaming is a good thing, but there is a concern about the stand-alone funds. How will we know in four years’ time that we have actually delivered for women and girls? How will we measure how the mainstreaming is doing that?

There are a couple of things. We are committed to an equality impact assessment. Of course, in making the determinations that we have to make over the coming months, we will be looking both in the immediacy—that is 2025-26—to ensure that women and girls are not unduly affected, and then over the longer-term allocation, to make that assessment. Baroness Chapman will lead on that. That is the first thing. The second thing is to work with partners to do our very best to support women and girls. We cannot step in in relation to the amount of money that has come out of the system with US funding in particular, but I must be clear: I believe it is wrong for the poorest people in the world to be at the mercy of political decisions made in Chambers in the west. That is what African leaders say to me. While I recognise that your concern is really women’s rights and not losing pots of funding, in the current climate we also have to use our diplomatic efforts and all of our soft power to ensure that women and girls are centred. Harriet Harman is pretty articulate about how we work with women in elected positions in the countries in situ to help to support other women.

One final specific question. I cannot talk about women’s rights without asking about Afghanistan and what is happening to women and girls there. There is a movement to push for gender apartheid to be recognised as a crime against humanity in the treaty that is being negotiated in the UN. What is the UK doing diplomatically to stand up for women and girls in Afghanistan, and is that movement something that the UK is looking at supporting?

I spoke to Harriet Harman about this a few weeks ago, and one of the things that we are doing is working with elected representatives who are women, particularly in Gulf countries, to influence some of the decision making in situ in Afghanistan and support those women. I was very pleased to go to Afghanistan when I was Opposition spokesman for foreign affairs. I still expect us to deliver a lot of support multilaterally; because we are not present, it will largely be through the multilaterals. I will do everything I can to centre those girls and women that I met, who were in the most desperate of positions. I will look at the—

Gender apartheid.

The gender apartheid—I am not familiar with that, but I will look at it.

Foreign Secretary, may I ask you a couple of specifics? You can write to us if you do not have the data. The previous Government set a target that 80% of FCDO programmes would include a focus on gender equality by 2030. Are you keeping to that commitment?

I will have to write to you on that, but I suspect that, because we are doing a whole line-by-line review, I cannot commit to decisions made by the last Government. It is for us to look at this afresh.

You are going to give me the same answer to this question, so perhaps you could write to me at the same time: how much ODA will be allocated for specific programmes for women and girls?

That will be in the line-by-line allocation that we are going through.

We have always found it very hard to pull that out.

The Committee will go through that in detail. I know Baroness Chapman has been through that with you on a number of occasions. Across a whole range of areas, this Committee will want to scrutinise the detail of the decisions we make. Women and girls is one, but I know that the Committee will have other areas as well.

A big win for this Committee a couple of years ago was getting the number of lines published up to five from four. We were very proud of that. The detail we get is not that detailed, and we have always been unable to see specifically what money has been targeted at women and girls. If there is a way that you could be more transparent in future, we would be very grateful for that, Foreign Secretary. You were talking a lot about African leaders and elected women, and I know that—what is Harriet Harman’s title?

She is the envoy.

The envoy for women and girls; thank you very much. She is very focused on elected women. Can you give us a commitment that the voices of civil society and actual girls will be involved in decision making, rather than those who are able to get into elected positions?

Of course. The whole thrust of our response is to work locally, in-country, and by definition that is working with the most vulnerable. But I think that, if Harriet were here, she would defend her desire to work with elected women locally, in situ, and not entirely to be governed by the views in a Parliament like ours, or indeed in a Government like ours. I think both are right; it is not an either/or.

Good. Thank you very much.

Foreign Secretary, you say you are absolutely committed to development, and that the poorest people in the world should not be at the mercy of political decisions, yet your Government have cut the aid budget by 40%—much further than any other Government—to the lowest level for 50 years. Can you see how those two things do not add up?

First, what I said was that leaders that I have met in the global south are saying that they do not want to be at the whim of political decisions in places like Westminster that can turn development on and off and make political decisions about pots of funding, and the example was women and girls—that is what I said. I did not say it was my view; I said it is what I am hearing back. The second thing I said was that if you look, since the development story began, which is really a post-war, end-of-empire story, aid spending has often been relative to defence spending. I do not accept the premise that defence does not keep people safe, because it does. We do have to invest in defence at this time, and I do not think anybody in the Committee is going to disagree with that. We are not shrinking our ambition in the UK. We do want to get back to higher spend, but we will still be the sixth biggest global spender. I made an announcement just three weeks ago of our commitment to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. We are the biggest single donor to Gavi. That is not shrinking from ambition; that is stepping up when others are stepping back. But it is the case that we have to look across the whole arsenal of what Government can do, and for that reason, we do have to reduce spending. Overall, I would defend moving to a model where we are reliant on our technical skills. How can we harness the City of London in areas such as climate finance? It is still the case that many of the countries to which the Committee have gone do not have sufficient health systems. How can we help people with the technical capacities to have their own health systems? I do not think the Committee is in a place where it will be saying that Britain should be engaged, in the 21st century, in massive service delivery in-country. We should be helping countries to service that. Reform is necessary, and I stand by the decision to reform, but yes, of course, it is sad that we were not able, as the west, to do that collectively a few years ago.

Foreign Secretary, of course I do not need to remind you that Sudan is suffering the worst humanitarian crisis since aid began, and there are war crimes being committed, it seems, on almost a daily basis. There has been one statement from you on Sudan in seven months; are the Government treating it as a priority?

In that statement in the House of Commons, I called out the fact that, right across the western world, there has been too little attention on Sudan. It was me who went to the UN, put down a resolution and almost got that resolution, despite the Russian veto on Sudan. It was me who led a statement on Sudan. It was me who went to the Chad border on Sudan. It was me who called a London conference and brought colleagues together on Sudan. As a Foreign Minister in a western democracy, I think I have stepped up on Sudan, notwithstanding the fact that we have a war in Ukraine and a terrible conflict with Israel-Gaza. We have had Israel-Iran, India-Pakistan, and we have DRC-Rwanda. There are other conflicts, but I have lamented how little attention has been paid to conflict in Africa, of which Sudan is the worst humanitarian catastrophe on the planet. That is why, when I went, I committed more money. It is also why, at the London conference that I called, I was pleased to get the global community to commit what I think was a further £800 million in financing to that terrible conflict. We continue to keep on it, because we need it to come to an end.

Thank you for your efforts, Foreign Secretary. What momentum has there been since the London conference? Its results were disappointing.

I do not think you can describe the pledges that we got on the humanitarian side as disappointing, in the face of the hardship and in relation to the previous question on women and girls. I do not think there is any other conflict that affects quite as many women and girls. I have met women who have been raped, women who have been burned and women who have been terribly, terribly violated as a consequence of the conflict. We continue to work with partners to try to ease the suffering. Questions remain about aid and the UN presence in Sudan, and of course real issues remain about the range of partners involved in the conflict and how we work with them to reduce, in particular, the number of weapons finding their way to the various sides and groups that are fighting.

At last week’s Business and Trade Sub-Committee meeting I had an exchange with the Minister for Trade Policy about export licences and arms licences, particularly with regard to the UAE. Since Sudan’s war broke out in 2023, The New York Times has repeatedly reported on the UAE arming the RSF, including by funnelling arms through field hospitals. The UN panel of experts on Sudan reported to the Security Council on the allegations and found them to be credible. Given that the FCDO is the DBT’s key partner in reviewing arms licences, what do you make of those allegations?

We continue to work across a range of partners. In London, we had countries that neighbour Sudan and other countries in the Gulf that also had some relationship with the conflict. We continue to emphasise the importance of refraining from actions that prolong the conflict—of course we do that. A range of countries are able to use their levers to attempt to bring the parties to the negotiation table. I continue to press them to do that.

Do the reports trouble you? At the moment, the Government are negotiating a trade agreement—

Every aspect of the conflict in Sudan troubles me greatly.

Do you believe that the trade agreement with the GCC should have a human rights chapter attached to it? If so, where is the human rights chapter in trade agreements driven from? Is that from the Department for Business and Trade or the FCDO?

The United Kingdom is in a unique position to be able to deal with a range of partners, and I want to protect that position. That is how we were almost able to get a UN resolution. I would like to be able to work with other partners to get that UN resolution that protects people. I am therefore not going to be in the position of name-calling any particular country; I will work with all countries to minimise the violence that is taking place.

The humanitarian efforts and the emergency response rooms in Sudan have been very effective. Can you talk me through how the FCDO works to support them at the same time as multilateral agencies that are working in the field?

The effort in Sudan is largely being led by multilaterals, because of the difficulty of working in the country, so it is a multilateral effort. I spoke to Tom Fletcher five days ago, I think. We obviously discussed Israel-Gaza, but we also discussed our concerns about Sudan. He has been leaning in very heavily on Sudan to make sure that the aid is getting to the places where it needs to get to. It would be good if we got safe zones, but we have not achieved that at this point in time. But it is a multilateral effort; it is not a bilateral one. That would be impossible in this situation.

Finally, Foreign Secretary, can you tell me about the conversations you have been having with other regional actors, since the conference, on driving the diplomacy forwards so that we can see an end to the war?

Yes. I spoke to the President of Angola. I spoke to President Ruto and the Kenyan Foreign Secretary. We believe it is important that we embolden the AU at this time, which is why I brought them to the conference. I have also spoken to a range of Gulf partners about the conflict in Sudan. That has all happened since the conference, and there will be more, particularly as we head to the UNGA in September.

Have you been able to speak to the UAE, Egypt and the Saudis on this particular issue?

Yes, I have.

Since the conference?

I have spoken to all three of those countries since the conference.

On Sudan specifically, to reach a lasting resolution, civil society has to be empowered. I was a big fan of the conflict, stability and security fund—now the integrated security fund—which was instrumental in empowering civil society to hold their leaders to account. I am concerned that that fund is being reduced and limited. Can you tell us anything about how you will work—hopefully post conflict—with the international community to empower civil society?

It is obviously important that we do everything we can to shore up civil society. Given the challenges around aid and around aid workers working in Sudan, we should remember that there are civil society organisations on the ground that we have to support, and they are carrying much of the load at this time. I am reflecting on the integrated fund at the moment, so I cannot give you an update, but I will seek, either through the Development Minister or myself, to come back to you that.

I would appreciate that. Part of a lasting peace is holding perpetrators to account. Do you think that, as it currently stands or in the near future, Sudan has the judicial capability to hold to account those committing attacks on aid workers specifically?

I know that some UK funding is also supporting accountability and transparency in-country. It is a big country and there are atrocities happening all over, and of course we have not talked about the issues in South Sudan, but I do know that we are contributing to that effort.

Speaking to you as a lawyer as well as the Foreign Secretary—

I have not been a lawyer for 27 years.

As a lawyer, a politician, a writer and a Foreign Secretary—bringing all of those together—do you see that the UK could have some role in drawing together the international community to make sure that the international courts have the power, influence and resources to hold to account breaches of international humanitarian law and civil breaches when it comes to conflict?

At this stage, my focus has been on convening: first, to support the humanitarian effort, and secondly, to try to broker a better political situation than we have at present. That is what the London conference was about. I have indicated that there is more to do. You are right to press on the most egregious atrocities being committed at this time and on accountability for those atrocities, and you are absolutely right to press on the lack of the resources that you would expect, which Sudan does not have. I will take that away and look at it more closely. Of course, there are partners in Europe—such as the Netherlands and the Norwegians—that have traditionally been very present in that area and that we may be able to work more with.

Thank you; I appreciate that.

Hi, Foreign Secretary. To move on to Gaza, with another 20 civilians killed today, how are you working with international partners to improve aid access in Gaza and to end the violence at the distribution centres?

Is this a good point to refer you to the slides?

Do you really want to go down that road?

I hesitate, because I am not sure the Chair wants me to. This is a moving situation. It is abominable, frankly—let us be clear—so I thought, “Let’s look at the up-to-date picture.”

Foreign Secretary, I banned PowerPoint, and you are heading into that territory, so tread lightly.

I tread lightly, but you will see in slide 1—this is pertinent to the Committee’s work—that Palestinian civilians have been pushed into less than 15%, currently, of the territory in the Gaza strip. The white areas on the map demonstrate that. At this point in time, almost 2.1 million people have now been displaced multiple times. Effectively, the new aid system has four distribution points, when we think there should be 400 distribution points. Horrendously, and unbelievably, we have children queuing for food at those distribution points and being killed. It is hard to describe that as anything other than unconscionable. At the same time, we have trucks waiting at borders. Some World Food Programme trucks were able to get in a few days ago. I know that Kaja Kallas and the European Union have brokered a deal for more trucks to go in, but the advice I received as of yesterday was that no extra trucks have gone in. What we have been able to do is get our medical aid in, and you know that we have given a lot to UK-Med in particular to support people on the ground. But the situation is dire. It continues to be dire. That is why we continue to press for a ceasefire, and we continue to press for unfettered aid to get in.

How certain are you that no UK bombs and bullets are injuring aid workers and civilians while they are queuing for aid?

I am very certain, because we took the decision—I took the decision—to suspend arms sales to Gaza back in September. That is a decision that is reviewed by me every two months. The instruction then goes to the Business and Trade Secretary. We are not sending arms to Israel.

What is your response to the Israeli Defence Minister’s recent proposal for a humanitarian city in Rafah, and to the language that was used around that?

I condemn them. I note that Yair Lapid and Israel’s former leader Olmert also condemn them in the strongest of terms. It is my understanding that Prime Minister Netanyahu also dissociated himself from them on returning from Washington a few days ago, but no Defence Minister should be talking about effectively holding people—who are unable to leave, presumably—in the manner in which he described. I condemn them in the strongest terms.

Gaza is a slightly bigger version of what he is proposing. People cannot get out. Water is being withheld.

That was why I thought that this map would be helpful. You are effectively holding people in 15% of the territory; they have been displaced many times; there is the sewage, sanitation and medical situation; and starvation and malnutrition are rampant. I think that that is unconscionable. I think that the global community are looking at Israel and saying to the Government, “How could you possibly allow this to happen?” I support members of our own public who are calling this out. We continue to call this out. That is why the Prime Minister led a leaders’ statement, and I led a Foreign Ministers’ statement a few weeks ago. We had 27 countries that supported it to get the aid back in. All of us were hoping for a ceasefire at this point, and I think are hugely disappointed that we have not achieved it. Aid remains an issue, and the duration of the ceasefire remains an issue. The relocation of Israeli forces during the ceasefire is also an issue between the Israeli Government and Hamas at this time, and that has not led us to a place where we have that ceasefire.

Foreign Secretary, as you have said, you have been a politician for 26 years. Politically, you are one of the most powerful people in this country, and your international reputation is strong, so internationally you are a very powerful person. I sit here, chairing this Committee and hearing the evidence at first hand. The Committee has been as close as we can get to take first-hand testimony. I feel utterly useless when it comes to this, and I just wonder how you feel. Is there anything else within your power that you wish you could do that you are not doing right now? How do we get to a point where this slaughter stops?

I have been in government a year. There has not been a day in which I have not in some shape or form referred to this most horrendous of conflicts. Of course, as the country’s chief diplomat, I wish that we had a ceasefire, and I have been calling for ceasefire for well over a year. All I can stand by is my record and the Prime Minister’s record on this most horrendous of conflicts. When we came into office, there was no funding going to UNRWA. We restored that funding. When we came into office, there was no suspension of arms. When we came into office—sadly this still continues to this day—there was horrendous settler violence beyond Gaza. We have sanctioned that. There have been horrendous statements in relation to that by Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. We have sanctioned them. We have increased aid to the occupied territories at this time, and I have visited on numerous occasions. We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority. Prime Minister Mustafa was in my office, discussing these issues, and he sat with the Prime Minister in No. 10 to look at these issues. We continue to support the Palestinian Authority on their reform agenda. Probably our most senior individual on delivery of the last 25 years, Michael Barber, is working hand in hand with them. But have we brought this conflict to an end? It saddens me greatly that we have not, as an international community, been able to bring this conflict to an end. I am getting emotional talking to you. As the father of three children, looking at the images that all of us see on our social media of children maimed and killed, of course it affects me—I am a human being. In the end, I have to be part of the diplomatic work to try to bring this conflict to an end. Can the UK do that unilaterally? No, we cannot. Do we have to do it with partners? Yes; we continue to lead and work with partners, as you saw a few weeks ago. But is it desperately frustrating? Of course it is. Is it unconscionable? Yes, it is. Is it an abomination? Of course it is. The ceasefire needs to happen, the aid needs to get in, and the hostages need to get out. We have been saying that time after time. Some of the language we are seeing from senior politicians in Israel, such as Minister Katz, is reprehensible.

Foreign Secretary, you made the point that I was going to make: the public are watching, and they want the British Government to do something. I appreciate what has been done already, but they want you to do more. There are things you could do. You have sanctioned Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. You could sanction Katz; he has advocated for the aid blockade and the 20 new settlements in the OPT. It is not true to say that UK weapons are not going into Israel; components of F-35s are. At what point do we stop that? When will you recognise a Palestinian state? There is more that can be done.

On your first point, you know that I cannot comment on sanctions that are under consideration, but you have heard my statements about what Minister Katz has said. You will have also heard my previous statements about Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, and the subsequent decision that I took. That is the first issue. The issue of recognition is important. In this country we believe—I think it is a cross-party position—in standing up for two states. The Palestinian cause is a just cause. It is important that we recognise that the questions are, “When?” and “How?” Of course, I recognise that that is a subject of debate and discussion. We are working with our French and Saudi Arabian partners. They were going to have a conference, but it did not take place because of the 12-day war with Iran. That conference, I understand, is to be reconvened on 28 July, but it is not yet at the leaders’ level, and they are indicating that it will be delayed to September—but of course we continue to work with them. Ms Harding, I suspect that you stand by the work that our country has to do in relation to conflict in other theatres in the world. I suspect you would not want us to send direct parts for F-35s to Israel, and we are not doing that, but I also think that you would not want us to not participate in the supply pool to the whole F-35 programme across the world. There are partners, particularly in Europe, that we would not want to undermine, and it is for that reason that we made the decision, and I am pleased that that was upheld by the courts just a few weeks ago.

Foreign Secretary, you mentioned the children of Gaza a moment ago. Recently, along with some other MPs, I met a British plastic surgeon who just returned from there. He showed us video footage and images, which I am afraid I will never forget, of the suffering of Gaza’s children. As you know, tens of thousands are orphans and many are dying because they are not able to receive medical treatment. To date, just two children have entered the UK for medical treatment. I understand that there are complexities around this, but I know that I would be happy to take a Palestinian into my home, and to help to fund their treatment. But we are not able to do that without the power of the state behind it. Is there not more that we can do for the children of Gaza?

We have supported the Hope charity initiative to bring children to the UK. I am happy to do more if those requests come in. The UK is obviously doing a tremendous amount in situ with UK-Med. There have been 500,000 consultations delivered as a result of British taxpayers in situ since January 2024. You will remember there was the most horrendous outbreak of polio, and we sponsored the polio vaccination scheme, again, in-country. We have helped just under half a million people to receive essential healthcare in-country. I do not want to suggest that, with hospitals bombed and a lot of aid not able to get in, people are not experiencing real medical emergencies, second by second, minute by minute, in Gaza. But we are doing a lot in the medical space, particularly, and we will continue to. If there are more children we can work with Hope and others to bring in, of course we will do that.

Reflecting on some of what you have said, Foreign Secretary—and I do not think any of us would doubt your passion to resolve these issues—we went up to Scotland on the day that the foreign aid changes were announced and met a Palestinian aid worker employed by Oxfam. She told us that, when it comes to FCDO diplomacy, there are lots of warm words and many hard-working people, but she felt that the FCDO has lost its confidence and clout in the light of Afghanistan and the legacy of Iraq and Brexit. Is that a view you would recognise?

I think that, over the last year, I have been in the business of reform. We now have a workforce programme to 2030 designed to give us the best capabilities. I have listed the steps we have taken in relation to Israel and Gaza. We have had a successful EU summit. Tomorrow, we have further good news with our partnership with Germany; last week, we had good news with our partnership with France. Our partnership with Ireland has also been renewed. By the way, we want to do more with Ireland on development—they are a great development nation, and we can partner with them in areas where we can support work together. We have launched the Africa approach. So yes, after the botched merger between DFID and the old Foreign Office, and after Brexit and Afghanistan, it is a matter of record that morale in the Foreign Office was low. But it is my job to get the Foreign Office, and development, back to a good place. I think we have had a good year. If you look back at where we were, we have delivered a lot. I said to judge me by the deals and partnerships we could strike with other nations, and I think that is what I have set about doing.

I was disappointed when 300, I think, civil servants wrote to you about their concerns that not enough was being done in Gaza and the west bank by the FCDO, and that, rather than being seen as whistleblowers, they were seen as disloyal. Why did that happen?

First, it goes back to the question that was raised by Ms Harding on what more the UK could do. The truth is, we have done a lot, and we stand by that—

No one is disputing that.

That is the first thing. My record in office on this file is considerable—I have just gone through that list. The second thing to say is that the reply was, appropriately, not from me, because the custodianship of staff is ultimately a matter for the permanent secretary. It may be that our second perm sec wants to come in on this point, but Olly Robbins was clear: of course staff must be able to express opinions and make their views known, but in the end, when you become a civil servant, your job is to be neutral. That is your job. If I am not happy about collective responsibility, my option is to resign . That is also a decision that civil servants can make. It cannot be about campaigning letters if you are a member of His Majesty’s Government; that is not the principal job of our civil servants. Their job is to give us honest advice. It is then for politicians to assess and make decisions on the basis of that advice. I stand by the decisions I have made on this file. There has been little challenge to that, frankly, because I think the Committee recognises the part that the UK is playing. We have not brought the conflict to an end. Writing a campaigning letter is not usually the disposition of civil servants. Of course they are frustrated. Many of our constituents are frustrated—you write to your MP. I stand by the decision that was made by the perm sec and the reply that he gave, which I thought was a very thorough and good one.

I want to press you a little bit further. We hear a lot from aid workers, civilians, groups from Gaza and the occupied territories and Israeli and Palestinian groups and NGOs about the recognition of a Palestinian state, the lack of leadership from the UK and how that void could be filled by pushing ahead with recognition. I heard what you said to Monica, but can you give us a bit more detail about when will be the right time? We are all very concerned, as are you and our constituents, about there being no Gaza left by the time we come to recognise the Palestinian state—we see that from the map and the evidence that you have given us. When will those conditions be right?

What the Labour party said in our manifesto was that we believe that recognition is important, and we would like to recognise as part of a process—

That makes it sound conditional.

It is the manifesto that you ran on at the last election.

At one point we had shifted to it being as part of a peace process, and that has been dropped. What my colleague is trying to find out is: what are the conditions?

Let me finish the point. That was the manifesto that all Labour politicians ran on just a year ago. The debate is this: do you just recognise, per se, because you say that the time to recognise has come and the symbolic act of recognising is where we are at? I suspect from what you have said, Ms Gilbert, that that is where you are at. I also suspect that that is where Ms Harding and the Chair are at: you recognise symbolically and accept that, even though there are countries in the last year that did that, it has not changed the situation on the ground. Or do you recognise as part of a process? The French have been talking about a process, or trying to get some kind of process. If we get a ceasefire, you are into a process, but we do not have a process at the moment. That is the debate that is going on. You will appreciate that when talking about the UK, we are talking about a permanent member of the UN Security Council. That is why we are in close dialogue with our partners in France. Of course, we would like to have a process because we would like to change the situation on the ground and tip it further towards two states. I recognise that there are some who believe, beyond the process, that the time has come. But recognition, per se, is not two states. I actually want to see two states. For me it is not a symbolic thing; it is about getting to two states and living by 1967 and the Oslo accords and achieving that. That is the debate. It is a legitimate debate and there are people on either side of it.

For the record, for me it is not about symbolism; it is about hope for the Palestinian people and what they told us when I was on a visit to Israel and Palestine. It is also about leadership from the UK. For me, it is not about symbolism. I absolutely accept the point that you make, and for decades prior to being in this place I also campaigned for a two-state solution, but there is more that the UK could do. I hear your point about what diplomacy looks like, but if we cannot get to a point at which the Israeli Government are willing to have a discussion and a ceasefire, how do we push that process forward, from a UK perspective?

Let me clear: no country has a veto on our decisions. When and how to recognise is our decision. I am simply making the point that the act of recognition does not get you two states; it is a symbolic act. Of course, I recognise that it gives Palestinian people hope amid the terrible, terrible hardship that they are experiencing, both in the west bank and in Gaza. I am sharing with you the diplomatic discussion that we rightly have with partners such as France and countries such as Saudi Arabia, the Jordanians and others, including the Palestinian Authority, in relation to when and how, principally because we have wanted to effect change on the ground and tip the balance towards two states. Do not forget that this conference was a Saudi-French initiative. It is not, at this stage, a leaders’ conference. That moment has not happened, because they too are calculating when best to tip this towards actually getting two states.

You say that it is symbolic as though that is a negative thing, Foreign Secretary. I would say that the UK recognising Palestine as a state would have a big implication internationally for other countries’ determination of how they define, see, recognise and put legal weight around Palestine. On a separate point, can I ask you to be mindful that we are scrutinising you as a Committee, not as individual MPs, and definitely not according to our political backgrounds? We also have collective responsibility as a Committee, so singling out politicians for their manifestos is not that helpful for our duty.

I recognise that you are a Committee, but I also recognise that you are a group of politicians. I have been in this House for 25 years. You run on a manifesto, and it is legitimate for me to remind you of the manifesto that you ran on and why that was the position. You may not like it, but that is the envelope, I am sorry.

I have no issue with you saying, “Labour politicians have run on a manifesto.” It is when you are singling out individual Members and making comments on them that, as Chair, I have an issue. Could you be respectful that we have collective responsibility?

Chair, I have served on Committees. I am being respectful. I am simply referring to Committee members by their name. Your names are all around you. I am being polite. I am sorry you do not like it, but that is how I have chosen to—

I have no issue whatsoever with you using our names, but on our name plates it does not say our political parties. If you could direct your remarks to the Committee, or answer their questions, that would be great, thank you.

Well, you have made the point, and I have given my reply.

Thank you.

The Committee recently published its report on international humanitarian law, “Protection not permission”. I appreciate that you are very busy, Foreign Secretary, but have you found time to look at that report?

I have not found time to look at that report.

The report notes that, when it comes to international humanitarian law, there appears to be a trend whereby there are levels of trade-off. You will have one country or one party that justifies breaking international humanitarian law by saying that a previous party has broken it—in other words, it is becoming a bit of a race to the bottom. Foreign Secretary, do you recognise that description? What is the UK doing to ensure international humanitarian law is held to the highest of standards?

There is a race to the bottom. When aid workers are being killed in the numbers we are seeing, there is a race to the bottom. When children are being killed holding out their hand for food, there is a race to the bottom. I took a sober decision about our export licensing regime because I believed that there was a clear risk that international humanitarian law was being broken in the context of the conflict in Israel/Gaza. We have not talked so far about the conflict in Ukraine, but of course it is the case that, if big countries decide they are entitled to march into smaller countries, that is a gross breach of international humanitarian law. It also sends a signal to other countries that they might do that—for example, Venezuela deciding to march into Guyana and take over the Essequibo. I recognise and totally agree with the sentiments of the Committee in relation to international humanitarian law. In Geneva and New York, with our ambassadors there and the work that we are doing across the multilateral system, we are doing everything we can to stand by that international humanitarian law architecture and stand up for the rules-based order, but I recognise that we are doing that in a very challenging environment and there are other UN Security Council members who take a different view.

Three British people were killed in the airstrike on the World Central Kitchen aid convoy in April 2024. What progress do you think has been made within the region through diplomatic efforts when it comes to protection of humanitarian aid workers?

Not sufficient. I met those families. I have called on the Israelis to investigate properly. I have called on the advocate general to do the job that I think he should now do in relation to that terrible, terrible act that killed three British nationals. Further aid workers have been killed since then, some of them within the last few weeks, so the situation is horrendous.

Do you feel that we are making progress diplomatically at all?

Clearly, if more aid workers have died, we are not making the progress, collectively, as an international community, that I would like us to be making in relation to those gross breaches.

The International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion in July 2024—12 months ago now. I think a lot of people are wondering why the Government are taking so long to respond to that advisory opinion. Are you able to elaborate on that, 12 months on?

It is an 83-page opinion, so it is right that the lawyers within Government assist and do the work that you would expect them to do. What I would say about that opinion is that we agree that settlements are illegal. We agree that Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activity. I have condemned time and again both the violence and the massive expansion that we have seen in the last year. We fund and support organisations on the ground, by the way, in relation to transparently helping us to understand the nature of that expansion. We agree that we must distinguish in everything we do between Israel within the 1967 borders and illegal settlements in what is now the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We agree that Israel should bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as rapidly as possible, and we agree that, when it is happening in the west bank, it is completely unacceptable.

Foreign Secretary, can I push you a little more on that? You agree that all those things are unacceptable, but the Geneva convention requires states to “respect and to ensure respect” for IHL. However, contrary to the view of the ICRC, the Government argue that this does not require the UK to ensure respect for IHL by other states, which would seem to go against what the Geneva convention says. Do you know, or could you write to us about, why and what the legal basis is for that position?

I can certainly take advice and write to you.

That would be very helpful. Following on from that, where there is a serious risk of genocide, the UK is required to “employ all means” and do all in its power to prevent it as far as possible. Do you think that the Government is doing everything in its power to prevent genocide in Gaza?

Genocide is the most egregious of war crimes, so of course I believe that we are doing all in our power to prevent any act of genocide anywhere in the world—absolutely.

Foreign Secretary, you talked about core funding going to organisations on the ground that are trying to help with the upholding of international humanitarian law. The UK gives money to the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, which Poland asked to look at the attacks on World Central Kitchen, but Britain did not. I am interested in why we did not, because Poland did so as a way to restore an attitude of respect to IHL. That is a very specific question. I have a broader question on our commitment to the principles of IHL and the humanitarian principles, particularly in the distribution of aid, of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. Those are obviously not being upheld with the GHF. For the Government to claim a commitment to those principles, there has to be consequential action if they are violated. What consequential action can we take for violations of humanitarian law, in whichever country—Sudan or Israel—

What consequential actions—

Can I just finish? I just have one last point. This comes back to your point about recognition of a Palestinian state. You talked about other countries doing so and nothing happening. Britain is not other countries. As you know—as you have been proud of and said in the past—we have a key role on the world stage in our upholding of international humanitarian law and our commitment to democracy and democratic principles. Surely we can do more.

What more would you like?

I have already laid out what we could do in Israel, but my question is to you, Foreign Secretary. What do you think we should do? Otherwise, as you said, it is a race to the bottom.

I do think the Foreign Secretary has answered that, but if you want to come back with more, Foreign Secretary—

Well, that is the point. I listed all the things that we have done. The implication of your question is that it is not sufficient and that you would like us to recognise. We had a lengthy debate about recognition. There are clearly views around the table. You have expressed yours; Ms Gilbert has expressed hers. I have explained the balance that we are weighing. I sense some frustration from some Members, including the Chair, in relation to that. That is why I put it back to you: what more, other than that, would you like us to do? I am certainly satisfied that we have met our obligations under international humanitarian law. I am not satisfied, and I have said so in the strongest terms, with the behaviour of the Israeli Government in relation to aid, in relation to the treatment of prisoners and in relation to expansion and violence on the west bank particularly. I have also conveyed that and taken action in relation to that.

I want to ask specifically about the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, linking the previous two questions. There have been reports that hundreds of people have been killed trying to access aid, including, recently, aid workers. You have said at other Committees that you, of course, do not support the Foundation’s approach, but can you tell us more about how we have been raising those concerns with both the Americans and the Israeli Government? Are you concerned that it will set a precedent for how aid is delivered in other contexts, for example in Sudan, if it becomes semi-militarised? Those are two questions, on the specifics and on the wider implications of what that model might mean for the future.

In a way, this relates to slide 2, which is in front of you. That infographic shows that there are 443,000 pallets of aid at the borders—shelter, medicine, water and sanitation items. Over 136,000 pallets are still in Egypt. More than 130,000 pallets are in Jordan. There are in excess of 120,000 pallets in Ashdod, and a further 5,500 pallets in the west bank. Nearly 3,000 trucks are waiting for dispatch. We are in disagreement with the Israeli Government about why those trucks are still waiting at borders. We believe that those trucks should have gone in. We believe in the last ceasefire we saw the sorts of volumes that are required in relation to aid and distribution. We disagree with the new system, which is why we continue to support the UN system, and why I spoke to Tom Fletcher once again this week to give him my support. We as the UK have medical aid getting in, but the issue around malnourishment and starvation is reprehensible, as I have said, and we are in disagreement. I raised this issue with the Israeli Foreign Minister again just a few days ago.

Are you worried that it might set a precedent for the future in terms of aid distribution?

It must not set a precedent. This is outwith global norms and rules that we all signed up to after the second world war. That is why this is so egregious and so unconscionable.

It is a staggering situation that we are in, Foreign Secretary. Are you in negotiations with the Trade Secretary about potential further trade sanctions that we could do? I don’t know what is going to stop these Israeli actions. Are trade sanctions on the table?

We said in the statement that we co-authored—the leaders’ statement, and the statement around aid with Foreign Ministers—that we would continue to look at further actions, so yes, I continue to look at further actions in this area, to do everything we can to press towards better aid distribution, less violence and no expansion in the west bank, and I will do all that I can continue to do. I had hoped, I have to say, that by now we would have a ceasefire. We do not have a ceasefire. I am very conscious that parliamentarians are going into recess in lots of western democracies, so this is a time for acute vigilance as to what is happening.

Hear, hear.

Turning to Syria now, the news there is a bit better, in the sense that we have seen the fall of a brutal dictator, and much joy among people in this country, including our vibrant Syrian community. But of course there are very many challenges, as you know—not least the ongoing worries around sectarian violence flaring up in different places, and the fact that 90% of the country are in poverty. I wondered whether you could talk us through some of the steps that you have been taking, including the visit that you made recently, how you are pushing for an inclusive Government going forward, the work you have been doing around sanction reform and the humanitarian aid or development aid situation there, in terms of UK ODA, in a context where of course the priority is Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine. What more can we be doing to support the Syrian people?

Thank you for the question. I was very privileged to visit Damascus on 5 July, and to be the first Foreign Secretary to visit the country after 14 years. The poverty, and the fact that 90% of Syrians are living below the poverty line, did strike me, and the desperate state of the Syrian economy was also very striking. I spent time with civil society and NGOs when I was in Syria, not just meeting al-Sharaa and the Syrian Government. I do believe that it is hugely important—I pressed al-Sharaa on this—that there has to be an inclusive political transition; there has to be accountability and a path to justice for victims of the Assad regime. I must make it clear that civil society did put to me concerns about that inclusive nature, and about the nature of that accountability, which I have put to al-Sharaa. We are of course wanting to support the Syrian economy and the Syrian people at this time, and wanting to encourage the Government towards greater inclusivity, so I was very pleased to be there. But episodes of brutal violence involving Alawite and Druze communities are very, very concerning, and we will be redoubling our efforts, working alongside other partners—I spoke to the United States about this very recently. Supporting Syria in its counter-terrorism efforts at this time is also very important, because safety is something I left concerned about.

Can I ask a follow-up on that? There is a concern that some Syrians in the UK wanted me to raise—it is ultimately more a matter for the Home Office, but I wondered whether you had a view. The news that we are going to stop pausing asylum claims is very welcome. Germany has offered people whose status is not yet settled the opportunity to go back to Syria, to visit family and help with efforts to rebuild the country, without removing their right to return to Germany if they feel that they cannot build themselves a future. Is that something that the UK could potentially look at? Even though the pause has been lifted, a number of Syrians in the UK will still be waiting many months to get a final decision. In that period, could they be offered the opportunity to go back to Syria, to visit loved ones and help to rebuild, but not have their right to return to the UK removed? Is that something the Government could look at?

What I saw from the meeting with the present Foreign Minister and his team is a desire for peace and a desire for stability. He made the commitment to me to continue to be inclusive, so I stand by the decisions that have been made by the Home Secretary in relation to those claiming asylum from Syria. I think that is the right thing to do. I am not familiar with the German decision, but that may be in relation to those who are not in the asylum system but have actually got German citizenship, which is slightly different. I think the right assessment has been made at this time by the Home Office, but of course we have to keep it under review because the situation is very fragile.

In what sense?

We will still be the sixth biggest spender in development. That is the first thing; the second thing is that I have said that an equality impact assessment will be done. That is what will tell me who might be affected, and of course I can act on the back of that.

We are committed to the multilateral system, so there will be decisions made bilaterally where we will be withdrawing; but I do think it is important, when we think about development, to recognise that what we can do at this time is also grow the amount of technical skills that we are supporting countries with. We want to play a big role on the multinationals where we are on the board, and we can do a lot around finance in particular, so there are lots of ways in which we can continue to play a role. We have got to be better co-ordinated across the western family, at a time when the countries I listed are also making changes to their development aid. We have got to work together with others, so that we are each playing a part, but we will still be the sixth biggest spender, so we will have a significant role to play.

Foreign Secretary, I was with representatives from the British Virgin Islands yesterday; this Committee did a report on small island developing states, and we maintain a keen interest in them and our overseas territories as a whole. One of their frustrations is that, while they know the answers to the problems they are facing, they do not have a platform like the UK does in the big multilateral organisations—the World Bank, for example. Are there discussions ongoing about the UK, while not giving up our seat, maybe giving more of a platform to some of these countries? Canada does that very well. I wonder whether that is a way we could use our influence, without cost, to share the power that we have the privilege of having with some of the countries we look to support.

We obviously do a lot with small island developing states. They are the lion’s share of the Commonwealth, and we have sought to be alongside them, particularly on their big concerns about climate finance. It was why I met with my good friend Mia Mottley, and she has also been here in London. I also recall work in this area when I went to CHOGM in Samoa. That is a very interesting suggestion, and I will look at it.

Thank you. We should continue advocating, but actually giving over the platform on some occasions is a very powerful statement.

I want to pick up on Noah’s question. Foreign Secretary, I also stood on a manifesto that did not commit to cutting aid, by the way. One of the things the British taxpayer probably wants to know is, what is the human impact of these cuts—how many minefields will not be cleared? How will it affect the spread of infectious disease? How many girls will not go to school? How many livelihood programmes for women-headed households will be cut? I wonder whether we could do more to explain to people what the impact of UK cuts will be. I respect all the efforts you are making to mitigate that impact. Would you be willing to commit to giving people a better impact assessment, so that we can properly understand the impact of these cuts?

As I said, an impact assessment will be done, so the Committee will be able to scrutinise those areas in the months ahead, but I do want to push back slightly. It is economic growth that lifts people out of poverty. That is what has lifted just under a million people out of poverty in China. It is what has lifted people out of poverty in India. Surely the journey is for countries to transition out of development aid. That is the first thing.

It is also preventing people from getting into poverty in the first place.

But it is economic growth that delivers that. It is jobs that deliver that. That is what African leaders say they want—they want jobs for their community. We are still very committed to humanitarian aid. We will still be a big humanitarian aid partner. We will still play a massive role in the multilateral system. I announced the decision on Gavi. We are hosting the Global Fund with South Africa. But I do want to say that it is economic growth that delivers for people. We have not talked about the work of BII and private investment, which also delivers opportunities for people and will continue to do so over the months ahead. I also stand by the fact that keeping people safe, defensively, and hard power deliver for people and keep people alive. There will be an equality impact assessment. Of course I accept that we have stepped down, or we will be spending less money over the years ahead, but we have made a commitment to get back to higher spending, and we will still be the sixth biggest global spender. We do need to reform the system. I have set out how I think we should do that, and Baroness Chapman has been before you and set that out on a couple of occasions.

On the cuts to the FCDO budget, the Foreign Affairs Committee was told that you expect to reduce headcount by 15% to 25% in the next four years. How much do you forecast these redundancies costing, and will they come from the FCDO budget?

We have a transformation fund of £216 million to help us to change the Department, and we have a zero-based allocation in the spending review. That is, in the end, about ensuring that we have the right capabilities over this next period, and I want capabilities in tech and better economic capability. We lost quite a lot of development capability, which is why we advertised for 200 development experts to come into the Department. We need to have the right capabilities. I took the view that the Department was quite top-heavy; we have a lot of directors general and directors in the Department, and I was concerned that there were good, middle-ranking civil servants who are subject to a promotion freeze at the moment. Sometimes you have to free up people at the top of the organisation, who are a paid a little bit more, so that those in the middle can move up and be paid more, alongside the decisions that we are hoping to make about capability in particular. That is what we are trying to achieve in the 2030 programme, and I am confident that we will achieve it. It is also informed by the reviews that I asked to have undertaken when I came into the job to inform the sorts of capabilities that we need over this next period.

Talking about capabilities, what do you think the impact will specifically be on development expertise within the FCDO, which has already taken a hit in the merger?

I said that we are increasing development expertise. We have just advertised 200 jobs to get in experts, and they are coming into the Department as we speak. We are increasing development expertise that was lost under the last Government by replacing it and bringing it into the Department.

Thank you for being with us today, Foreign Secretary. You had 14 years in opposition, and you have been in post for a year now. What we have seen throughout the year is that you reduced ODA spend from 0.5% to 0.3%, but I am still not hearing any cohesive vision for where you want to go. You said that you will do line-by-line scrutiny, and it will be coming out in the next couple of months, but I am still not hearing it. What has been happening for the last year? To follow on from that, what we do know is that a significant chunk of the money left will be going to the Home Office to be spent on asylum hotels. What view do you have of that being a cast-iron commitment? We have obviously heard the announcement from the Government that it will be ending by the end of this Parliament. What process and what equity will you have with the Home Office to make sure that the practice stops?

I have to refute your first question about what we have been doing over the last year. Around 15 million children have been immunised this year, and we have just pledged £1.25 billion to Gavi. On women and girls, and on women’s rights, we have been channelling £56 million to over 100 countries.

We have been over all those figures. I have also spoken to the Minister responsible, and there is no cohesive vision.

But behind those figures are people. You gave the impression that nothing was happening this year in your question.

I am not saying that; I am saying there is no vision.

I have set out the vision.

We have not heard it, and I did not hear it from the previous Minister either.

Well, I listened to Baroness Chapman, and I think she gave a strong vision. She said that we are moving from donor to investor. We will be investing in the technical skills that countries say they want from us. For example, when I was with President Ruto a few weeks ago, he thanked us for the work we have done to encourage better trade between countries in Africa, and he thinks there is more that we can do. We are not departing from our obligations on health, and we are clearly a leader on health. That is a vision.

Foreign Secretary, can you understand how difficult that is to communicate to the UK public about how their taxpayer money is being spent?

You will appreciate that sadly, when you look at public attitude to development, it has not been in a brilliant place—that is not under this Government, but the last Government.

The point I am making, Foreign Secretary, is that you have had a year to come up with a vision, and you had 14 years in opposition to come up with this vision. All we have seen is reduction. Going to my question about asylum hotels, a large chunk of what is left is going to the Home Office.

You know that we inherited a situation that we did not support, where a lion’s share of development spend was being spent in-country. Since we have come into office, less money is being spent in-country. My colleagues in the Home Office, led by Yvette Cooper, have been able to reduce that from, I think, 83% to 77%. Am I right? Nick Dyer indicated assent.

You have said that it is going to go down to zero per cent by 2029, so what is that process?

Can I finish the point please, Mr Reed?

Of course.

We have reduced, in a year, the numbers being spent on hotels that we inherited from the Tories. We have reduced the numbers, and we have got from the Treasury a deal that means that we now have stability in the development budget and we will not be affected by decisions made in relation to hotels, going forward. That is what has been achieved under this Government, because the last Government did not pull it off.

So how is it going to happen? How will you, as FCDO Secretary, monitor that with the Home Office?

The thing I am principally concerned with is that my budget is stable and is not affected by paying hotel bills in this country. I have pulled that off. It is also the case that the Home Secretary is absolutely committed to reducing the number of asylum seekers in hotels. She has brought down those numbers in the last year. She has more to do, and as she does that, do you expect the Foreign Secretary to go back to the Treasury and ask for increased funds? Of course you do; and yes, I will be knocking on the door, if that is the implication of your question.

To follow on from that, this will be split equity, across the FCDO and the Home Office. Where will people who do come here illegally go?

Sorry?

At the moment, if people come here illegally, they are put in hotels, and that is paid for through the ODA budget; it goes to the Home Office. If you are saying, and the Government are saying, that that will be reduced to zero by the end of this Parliament—2029—where do you envision that people who come here illegally will go?

That gets us into a much lengthier discussion that you should properly have with the Home Secretary, not me.

But it is split equity, across the FCDO—

It is not split equity. I have just said that we have now got stability.

I would disagree heavily with—

That was the deal that I got in the spending review, because the last Government did not strike that deal. I got that deal, to give ODA spending stability and for us not to be at the mercy of asylum spend. I got that deal. But yes, it is the case that the Home Secretary now has to reduce the numbers. That is a big job, but she has done a great job in the last year.

But the people who come here illegally are coming from international countries, so how does the FCDO not have equity in that process?

Well, if you are asking about wider FCDO equities on migration, of course we play a big role on returns, and we are attempting to increase returns to countries such as Pakistan. Returns have gone up in the last year. I announced earlier this year migration sanctions; we will be coming forward with that very shortly. There is work that we do upstream that has come up briefly. I have seen great work in Egypt and Tunisia. I talk about economic development and the work we can do so that people are prepared to stay in-country; that is an important role that our diplomats and development experts play in my Department. So there is a lot that we contribute to this agenda to bring down the numbers, yes.

Final question on that. The number will go down to zero per cent in asylum hotels; the approach that you have just laid out will make sure that no one comes here illegally any more, and that no one will be housed here. Are those your points—purely return deals and working upstream? Is that going to be enough?

If I may say so, Mr Reed, I think the implication of your question is a soundbite—

I don’t think it is. This is a very serious issue.

I don’t think the Government are saying that there will be zero people in hotels. That is not what I am saying.

So where will the people go?

You know as well as I do that we have brought the numbers down in the last year. You know that the last Government left a bloated bill that was rising. You know our commitments to deal with irregular migration. You know the responsibilities that my Department has in relation to returns and work upstream. I announced migration sanctions and I have brought stability to the Department. I think I have done a good job in the last year. There is more to do, and that will be led from the Home Office. I am sorry that you are feeling a bit raw about the last Government’s record—I would be as well, if I were you.

Let me reconfirm that our role is to scrutinise ODA; I think we are drifting sightly from that.

It is a big ODA spend, so I think it is very fair to ask these questions.

And it is fair for me to be robust in reply.

For clarification, I think we all recognise that we were left with a pretty terrible legacy of the hotel backlog. I recognise that the costs are coming down. One thing that I have not been clear on, now that the FCDO has moved to the spender of last resort, is this: if the numbers come down and the spend on asylum comes down faster than expected, does that money definitely come back to the ODA budget? What is the agreement with the Home Office on that?

It does not automatically come back to us. The price of stability is that I accepted that it would not automatically come back to us, but I have made it clear to the Committee that I will be making the case for increased spend, particularly in relation to development. You have that as my commitment. I hope that, for any future Foreign Secretary, that will be their undertaking and they will seek to do that. You heard from the Prime Minister when we made the change, following increased defence spending; we were absolutely clear that we were not departing from our commitments to development spend. We do want to see it rise as the fiscal circumstances allow, so of course, I will be making that case in future spending and fiscal occasions.

Foreign Secretary, further to what you just said, ICAI has pointed out that the commitment by the British Government to ODA spent overseas in ’27-28, is 0.24%, not 0.3%. That is the projection.

I saw this yesterday and I just do not recognise those numbers. I think ICAI is having to make a call on how it sees refugee numbers rising or falling. What I am going on is that the Home Secretary has brought those numbers down in the last year. I recognise that there is more to do, but I am standing by my colleague and her commitment to reduce the amount of asylum seekers in hotels.

Back to development, if I may; tackling climate change has been named as one of the three priorities for UK ODA spending going forward. What will that mean in practice?

I remain committed to the vision that I set out in my Kew lecture last year. It was why I appointed two special representatives, Rachel Kyte for climate and Ruth Davis for nature—the first time that that has been done. It is why we signed a guarantee to the Innovative Finance Facility for Climate in Asia and the Pacific, to unlock £1.2 billion. It is why the PM announced a very ambitious NDC for 2035—an 81% reduction in emissions—because we do want to encourage other countries to do the same. We are excited about COP. I had a fantastic breakfast with the Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Steve Reed and Ed Miliband and our finance leaders, because there is more that we need to do on climate finance. We have also set up the clean power alliance for partnership with countries across the world as they race to clean power. All that remains ambitious. We are not diminishing our ambition on climate and nature.

On a related matter, a letter from your predecessor to the IDC back in April 2023 stated that UK funding for WASH had dropped by 56% from a high of £206.5 million in 2018. Before the recent announcement of the reduction of aid spend to 0.3%, WASH funding was said to be down by 85%. WASH is perhaps one of the most cross-cutting aid interventions, affecting not just health but women and girls, education, food security, climate change amelioration and so much more. Where does the Foreign Secretary see UK aid support for WASH going in the future?

I cannot comment on specific allocations because they are not yet determined. We are making the determinations for the next year very shortly, and that detail will be with the Committee, I think, before we rise, or around the time we rise next week. I recognise the concerns, but I do not want to stray so far as to start giving specific undertakings. Other schemes have been mentioned, such as WISH. I understand why the Committee is scrutinising, but I cannot give that update at this point.

The last Government made some bold and welcome commitments around climate finance—I think it was for £11.6 billion. At the time, I did not understand where that money was coming from but, at your breakfast, were you able to persuade the Chancellor that using money to try to mitigate climate risks and empower countries to build their own resilience was a good investment?

The ICF is hugely important. The £11.6 billion was an important commitment, and I want us to do all we can to continue with that funding. We are obviously coming to the end of that cycle, but I am satisfied that we will continue to be an important leader on climate, and particularly on climate finance. That is why I was very pleased to be with the Chancellor on this issue. As we get to October and Washington DC, I hope that I can play a bigger role, alongside the Chancellor, in absolutely playing our part on climate finance. Everybody is saying that, with the changes they are seeing in the United States, the City of London is the place for climate finance. We recognise that, and therefore there is more that we can do.

You spoke earlier about BII. Are you in discussion with BII to encourage it to take an active role in blue bonds, green bonds and different forms of climate finance?

It is something under consideration.

I am a big fan of BII, even though it might not think that, but I could not understand why it got quite a considerable uplift when other areas were getting reductions or being cut. You talked about the shift from being a donor to being an investor, and about economic growth as the only way out of poverty. I assume that is why BII got the uplift, but it tends to invest in middle-income countries, and it tends to be the more stable countries that are able to take that sort of investment. Is it still a priority, in your mind, that we support the poorest of the poor to get close to being in a position to take economic investment?

Actually, 60% of the BII’s portfolio is in Africa. I announced a £50 million Africa resilience investment facility specifically for low-income countries at the G20 in South Africa, back in February. Two statistics stood out to me, and really affected me. Despite all that has been spent on development by the global west, 50% of Africans still do not have access to electricity. You have to ask: as a western community, could we have done more in the past in relation to finance and energy to alleviate that? I think that the answer is yes. Certainly, we should be doing more in the future to bring that figure down. It is still the case that only 3% of climate finance is available to African economies. The Committee has pressed on this this morning—as it is your right to do, and as I would if I was sitting on the Committee—but let’s be clear: if 50% of Africans do not have access even to electricity, despite all that we are attempting to do in education, and all that we are attempting to do for women and girls, how does that affect women and girls? Profoundly. There is more to do. That is why, when African leaders say, “No, what we want from you is economic growth, please. What we want is for you to support us with jobs. Thank you for what you are doing on trade in Africa, but could you do more?”, I get it. I absolutely get it, because the answer must be that we could do more. That is the new model that we are moving to. Mr Reed asked about vision, and that is the vision: technical skills, better support on energy, and better support on climate and climate finance. That is what the continent say they want: economic growth, the same that we want for our own constituents.

You will be very keen to read our forthcoming report on community energy. We have been really impressed with some of the microbusinesses that have benefited from having their own sources of energy, but one of the comments that we keep getting is that the scale of investment from BII and other development institutes is such that it rules out a lot of those little start-up businesses. That is in areas where, really, we are talking about a tiny financial investment to enable someone to get their egg business off the ground, for example. I therefore urge you to also look at the poorest of the poor and the initiatives that we can be doing, whether bilaterally or by encouraging the multilaterals to do more. It seems that, while it is difficult to find the investments for BII that are ready and that meet their terms, there are many tiny ones that are not even getting a look-in on that stage. I would therefore be hugely grateful for anything you could do, Foreign Secretary.

That is why this new African resilience investment facility is so important. It is a £50 million fund, so it is specifically for those microbusinesses that it has been established. That is doing great work in South Africa. But I do recognise, and the Committee will recognise, that we should be very concerned. Despite countries travelling out of ODA-recipient status and becoming middle-income countries, or less-developed countries, there is a group of countries, particularly in the horn of Africa and the Sahel, such as Chad, Sudan or Niger, that are subject to the worst of the climate catastrophe, and the worst of conflict and malign agents, with Wagner forces and others playing a role, hence really affecting governance. There is a group of countries that are incredibly fragile, which will require a good co-ordinated response. Some of that must come from multilaterals, and I have been pressing multilaterals to do more, particularly in conflict zones, but some of it will have to come from bilateral aid, with partners working together. I do recognise that, in this period, when countries are reducing development spend, we have to be vigilant, particularly for that group of countries in the horn of Africa.

I would ask you to put that focus on groups of individuals. I am thinking about geographically hard-to-reach areas, and—again, you know I am going to say this—women and girls, but also people in marginalised groups and people with disabilities. It is my concern, and I believe this Committee’s concern, that, whenever mainstreaming happens, 95% might get access, but it is that 5% who do not have a voice who really need our support, and your attention, Foreign Secretary.

Talking about Africa and financing, obviously we just had the financing for development conference in Seville, and debt was high on the agenda. One of the biggest things holding back particularly African countries is how much they have to spend servicing their debt instead of investing in healthcare. We spoke earlier this week about the role the City of London could play in particular; UK law governs 90% of the debt within the common framework, I believe. Could you talk a bit about what we are doing to champion debt relief and debt restructuring for the countries that need it most?

Obviously, the debt issue is more complex than it was when the global community came together on debt relief when I was last in Government, in part because a lot of debt is now owed to China. However, you are right that it is still the case that debt remains an issue. It is an issue that African leaders raise with us; the servicing costs are particularly high. There is work that we need to do with the rating agencies, and that comes up time and time again. UK leadership is required there. As you said, a fortnight ago in Seville we welcomed the package of reforms on debt, specifically strong action to improve the voice of the debtors particularly, on debt transparency, on disaster pause clauses, and on pioneering innovations, such as the one we have made around insurance, which can play a role. We did that for Caribbean countries; we saw that after Hurricane Beryl in Grenada particularly. We discussed how we put debtor countries across the global financial system; the chair had a suggestion for SIDS particularly. So that is activity. This is a work in progress; we are not there yet, and there are differences across nations, particularly global north nations, on how to approach the debt issue.

I am hearing that it is on your radar, Foreign Secretary.

I am conscious of time. Foreign Secretary, I think you spoke to the equivalent Committee in the Lords in May. You referenced hosting or potentially hosting a global conference on foreign aid and the future approach to that.

Absolutely.

Can you confirm that we are committed to doing that?

Yes.

Fantastic. Are you clear at the moment about the objectives of that conference?

I want to convene on the issue of co-ordination with other countries, obviously with parts of the global south, and obviously with some of the NGO community. It is really a future of development conference, in what has been a very turbulent year for development. We do need some innovation; we should be co-ordinated in our approach. We also need to hear this voice that we have heard through our Africa approach, but not all other nations have undertaken that sort of exercise, so we have got to bring that voice to the table. In a way, I would have liked the conference to be tomorrow, but in truth I am conscious that we have UNGA and COP. It is a busy autumn period, so it may be that this conference is towards the end of the year, or the beginning of next year, to allow the space for it, but also to give colleagues the time really to think through the innovations that they want to see, and to recognise that—with the closure of USAID particularly, and with the UN reform programme and the work that Tom Fletcher is doing on the humanitarian aid piece—there is a lot of work that is happening, but we should let that work complete, come together, and really refresh our global development offer. That is why I want that conference, and it should be held here in London, because we have always led on these issues.

Foreign Secretary, we are excited to hear that, and the Committee is keen to help in any way that we can. We have a few final questions from Monica, and we are turning across the pond.

Foreign Secretary, what has concerned you most about the very significant cut in US development spending?

I raised this with Marco Rubio. He was at pains to emphasise to me that they would be looking at these issues through US national interests. He was also at pains to emphasise to me most recently the work that they have done with Rwanda and DRC, for example. Yesterday, I spoke to colleagues in the US about my concerns about extremism in parts of the horn of Africa. This has been very disruptive to the global aid community—that is a concern. But I am pleased that the United States is examining how it can continue to play a role, particularly on the continent of Africa.

The cuts were huge and, as you say, they will disrupt the provision of aid. Given that you are at pains to point out that your position on the cuts to UK aid is not ideological, are you doing anything to persuade the US to change course on, for example, the end of funding for WHO and Gavi? The US has rejected the sustainable development goals and has reinstated the Mexico City policy. What conversations have you had about that?

My emphasis has been on co-ordinating with partners to meet the need that we see. We will not be able, even as partners, to meet all of the need that we see. I have also, of course, made representations about my concerns that other autocracies or countries that are keen to break up the rules-based order might move into some of the gaps. I have made those representations. But I am confident, when you see the US in areas like Somalia, the DRC and Rwanda playing a role, that we will see funds coming back into the system, but they will be coming back in a different way.

You just said that other actors may move into the space, and you referenced that in you Locarno speech. Are you worried about the impact of USAID and UK aid cuts, with the threat of Russia and China moving into the spaces that we vacate?

To be fair, China’s belt and road initiative started a long time before decisions were made on USAID. That has been a journey that has been happening for most of my political career. There is always going to be a role for superpowers in relation to supporting the poorest, wherever they are. But there was a consensus after the second world war that countries that are large and make up the G7, and European partners, had an important role to play. This was a self-interested role, because these problems often find their way to our own countries. There is self-interest here. The Americans have said that they are acting in their national interest, so they, too, can see that there must be some self-interest. For example, the outbreak of a pandemic affects us all. Climate affects us all. Conflict often comes back to the doors of countries that have heavily invested in defence. All of this requires action.

Foreign Secretary, you have been in post a little over a year. It has been a remarkable year on the global stage. I am incredibly grateful that you have steered it to the best of your ability. The Committee also recognises that the team you have around you are remarkable. We have always received fantastic and welcome evidence and information from them. I am grateful that you have allowed that to happen. Thank you for your time today. You have also been incredibly generous with your time, experience, views and opinions. Even if we might disagree on some of them, we are grateful that you made the time to have that scrutiny.