I beg to move, That this House has considered UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this vital and timely debate. We are effectively about to have a change of Government, which will mean an opportunity for a reset. Usually we come to these debates avid to hear what the Minister has to say, but today we might not reflect on the past so much as look to the future. Of course, I commend the Minister for his efforts. I will not commend him too much, because that might not help him in the weeks ahead as the Government are reformed, but I acknowledge his personal commitment to these issues. As the Prime Minister moves on, the cuts in official development assistance and the way in which they have been carried out, with nothing seemingly learned from the lessons of the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, surely cannot be part of his legacy that he will wish to promote. Notably, this Government are presiding over cuts to our overseas aid budget that are deeper and faster than those being implemented in the United States under the Trump Administration. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s resource DEL budget has reduced by nearly 20%, over £1.5 billion, with bilateral programmes accounting for almost half of that and no detail yet available. Indeed, stakeholders are still waiting for the FCDO to publish its bilateral allocations for ODA, which are reportedly being held back until just before the summer recess. I do not demur from the arguments about hard choices when there are limited resources or, specifically, the need to increase defence spending, but part of that is also about acknowledging that these decisions have consequences, often for the poorest and most vulnerable communities on the planet.

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

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

The right hon. Gentleman sits with me on the International Development Committee, so he will know as I do that, to date, the Committee has found that there is still no detail on how “poverty alleviation is prioritised and tracked” under the new model going from donor to investor. Does he agree that if poverty reduction is to remain a primary focus of ODA, we need to understand better how these things will be tracked?

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him for his work on the International Development Committee. I will come on to the Committee’s report on the future of development, which highlighted that very issue. The Committee sought to help this Government take forward their stated objectives. I hope the incoming Government will grasp the report’s recommendations and move forward in the way the hon. Gentleman outlines. Although citizens across the world might have been distracted by the Democratic Republic of the Congo almost knocking England out of the world cup, sadly for that team, the situation at home still verges on the catastrophic. It is an example of where unthought-out and unstructured cuts and changes have a devastating impact. We see the spread of Ebola in parts of the DRC, particularly where US funding and structures have been withdrawn. There is no meaningful alternative government structure to provide a health service. That is an absolute example of where funding cuts have a real impact that could spread to the United Kingdom. There was a recent suspected Ebola case in Glasgow, which fortunately did not come to fruition. We need to push back on the idea that Ebola in a remote part of central Africa has nothing to do with us. We must not be starry-eyed about what happened previously. I was struck by recommendation 7 in the Committee’s report and, in a much more favourable climate for international development, by an article in The Guardian—I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) will not tell the Leader of the Opposition that I read an article in The Guardian—saying that, in the context of the previous Ebola outbreak, which was successfully tackled, the international response that Sierra Leoneans saw on the ground comprised outsiders setting up compounds, employing local people sometimes to be cooks or drivers, then driving around in white Land Cruisers and not engaging or leaving any positive legacy. My recent experience of travelling to Malawi is that, while the agencies and others had done a really good job, unfortunately the Malawian Government had not, because they are now totally reliant on those agencies to provide services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) may recall that, when I was Secretary of State for Scotland and we promoted the Scotland-Malawi partnership, I had to decline to meet the then President of Malawi in his suite at the Dorchester hotel because I felt that was a wholly inappropriate way to discuss how we could give them more aid. As I said, we cannot be starry-eyed on what happened before. There needs to be change and a focus on how we can most effectively deliver aid and support, but we must have a coherent, long-term plan that accepts budget realities and aligns with the UK’s wider interests. If the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is in search of sound advice, I would point him, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned, to the recommendations and huge body of evidence in the International Development Committee’s recent report, “UK Aid and Development Assistance in a Fracturing World”. The report called for greater clarity on the Government’s theory of change in relation to poverty alleviation, and it suggested how to prioritise programmes and schemes to achieve the Government’s stated policies. It also set out a comprehensive vision, which I hope the new Prime Minister might be willing to adopt. If he were to ask my opinion, which I do not anticipate as I do not have a vote in the Labour leadership contest, although maybe I could—in days past, I think people could pay £3 to get one, so maybe there is still time. But if he were to ask my opinion, I would suggest that investment should shift towards programmes that are undeniably value for money. That is where we can make the most profound difference for each £1 spent, doubling down on effective interventions with the greatest multiplier effect.

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

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

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

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him and others for bringing the debt issue back to the debate. Obviously, it was a focal point of debate a number of years ago. It appears to have slid down the agenda, but it remains a vital issue, as he has highlighted. Another vital issue in reference to the Child Nutrition Fund is public support. We all have to acknowledge the need to rebuild public support for development. I put my hand up to being complacent in that regard, as I think many in the sector were assuming that the support would remain. It is still there, but it is all about the questions that people are asked and the context in which they are asked. That is why, for example, the Child Nutrition Fund commands public support: because people see that an intervention by the UK can have the direct effect of saving children’s lives. What detracts from public support is where interventions are less easily explainable or there is an inability to be clear that interventions are not wasteful. It was therefore surprising that the Government were at one point proposing to get rid of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the body that reviews the effectiveness of ODA. Thanks to the cross-party effort of the International Development Committee and others in Parliament, that decision was reversed, at least in part. I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, and in the multilateral/bilateral debate—a debate we need to have—I was very supportive of additional funding for the Global Fund. The fund has done a huge job not only in tackling AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but in providing the backbone of many countries’ health systems. That backbone would not be there were the Global Fund not providing support for other issues. I welcome the Government’s £850 million contribution to the fund. That amount is a lot more than was previously touted, although it is less than the £1 billion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield provided. However, of course, there were smoke and mirrors, as the funding is back-ended and the bulk of it will come at the end of the three-year period. That will have an impact on the Global Fund’s capacity to carry out its job, which again has direct consequences. I commend Bel Trew and The Independent for highlighting the impact that cuts have already had in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

I agree with the principles that the hon. Gentleman has set out; I will come on to that topic now. We need to see UK leadership in co-ordinating a response to such issues. Because of political decisions taken in the United States, certain groups will be deprived of help and support. We need to have a role in ensuring that there is co-ordination so that the support goes in, whether through country donors, philanthropists or non-governmental organisations. LGBT communities, for example, will not get that support unless we are proactive in ensuring that co-ordination. Although I welcomed the announcement that the Foreign Office still has an LGBT budget, I do not see the issues that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned being proactively tackled at this time, and we need to be at the forefront of that. I will draw my remarks to a close, as other Members wish to contribute. I was going to touch more on British International Investment—perhaps my International Development Committee colleague, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), will do so—but I will make the point that BII has to play a much greater role in alignment with UK Government policy, whatever the policy is. That does not mean that BII should not be independent in making investments, but the position of equivalent bodies in other countries is to be aligned with Government policy. I am not convinced that BII is at the moment, and given the scale of its investment, it needs to be. I have tried to range over the issues of the moment, and I look forward to the contributions of other Members. As I said at the start, there have been one or two good things in the last couple of years, but I do not think this is a glorious part of the Prime Minister’s legacy. I hope that, going forward, we can have that reset.

I remind Members to stand in their places if they intend to contribute. I intend to call the Front-Bench speeches at 28 minutes past, so that gives you roughly seven to eight minutes each. That is a rough guide; there is no hard limit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. We meet at a moment when the global aid system is under extraordinary pressure. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this incredibly important debate. Current projections suggest that cuts to international aid could contribute to as many as 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under the age of five. That is the human cost of dismantling the world aid architecture at speed. The United Kingdom is not alone in reducing aid spending—the United States, France, Germany and Canada are all scaling back their commitments—but that does not make our choices less significant; it makes them more significant. When every major donor retreats at the same time, there is no one left to step into the gap, and yet the challenges we face today do not stop at national borders. Conflict, climate change, forced displacement, pandemics and antimicrobial resistance affect us all. Investment overseas is increasingly an investment in our own security and prosperity here at home. Global health provides perhaps the clearest example of why this matters. Viruses do not stop at passport control. The first line of defence against the next pandemic is not at Heathrow or Dover, it is in strong public health systems thousands of miles away. Our national health service and the health security of people across Britain depend on a global health system that works effectively for everyone. That is why I welcome aspects of the Government’s approach. I welcome the decision to provide protection for key multilateral health organisations, and I am proud that the UK has made ambitious commitments to the Global Fund and to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance—institutions with a proven ability to deliver vaccines at scale and to reach communities that fragmented programmes often cannot. The Government are also right to recognise that countries want autonomy, not dependency, and that our role should be to help to build resilient health systems that countries themselves can sustain and own. That is the right long-term objective.

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the most cost-effective ways of helping, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, is to allow local people to avail themselves of clean drinking water, which can transform lives?

I agree 100%. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has already talked about his role in the water, sanitation and hygiene all-party parliamentary group. Access to water is an absolutely essential health determinant. Partnership and resilience building are incredibly important, but they cannot be the whole answer. A strategy designed to strengthen systems over many years does little for a clinic that is closing next month. Communities facing the loss of essential services are not reassured by a long-term theory of change, much as we love that in the development arena. They are worried about whether medicines will be available, whether healthcare workers will be paid and whether the lights will stay on. Withdrawal is fast, capacity building is slow, and people are falling through that gap. That is why, to be honest, the decision to withdraw support from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and the Pandemic Fund is really quite disappointing. The Government’s own impact assessment warns that these choices increase the risk of disease outbreaks. We are closer than ever to eradicating polio, a disease that has blighted generations of children, and yet, potentially because of cuts to official development assistance, we are stepping back from that goal. I urge us not to. I am equally concerned about the dismantling of the Fleming Fund. Antimicrobial resistance may sound a little abstract, but it is not a distant or theoretical threat. Just ask anybody what they think will happen if their antibiotics do not work when they need them. It is one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face. The effectiveness of antibiotics underpins modern medicine and protects countless lives every day. Our NHS depends on those medicines continuing to work. Recent outbreaks of serious infectious diseases remind us just how much rests upon them. As we have just been reminded, health does not exist in isolation. Clean water, good nutrition and quality education are health interventions by another name. For example, children whose mothers have received a secondary education are far more likely to be fully vaccinated. Although I welcome the prioritisation of healthcare spending, we cannot ignore the reality that in practice many of the programmes being cut are health programmes, too. Nowhere is that more evident than in Africa. The continent bears about a quarter of the world’s disease burden while possessing only 3% of the global health workforce, yet bilateral aid to Africa is facing a 56% reduction—the steepest regional cut across the entire ODA budget. Multilateral institutions will of course continue to play an essential role, but we should not be so naive as to believe that they can absorb cuts of that scale without consequences. The consequences are already becoming clear. In Malawi, an estimated 250,000 adolescents could lose access to family planning services each year. In Somalia, fewer women, girls and boys will be able to access lifesaving healthcare because of these decisions. Behind every statistic is a human being whose opportunities, health and future are being diminished. There is also a broader question of fairness. The NHS benefits enormously from healthcare workers who trained overseas before coming here to serve patients across the United Kingdom, which we sometimes forget in our conversations about immigration. It has been estimated that the UK has saved about £14 billion by relying on health professionals educated and trained elsewhere, and many of the countries from which those workers come are themselves grappling with fragile and understaffed health systems. That is not a windfall; it creates a responsibility. We have a duty to invest back into the health systems from which we have drawn so much expertise, not to withdraw support at the very moment that those systems are under increasing strain. The lessons of Ebola, covid-19 and antimicrobial resistance are ultimately the same: we cannot isolate ourselves from global threats, and the cheapest crisis is the one that we prevent. Ministers have described these decisions as exceptional measures taken in difficult fiscal circumstances. I recognise those pressures, but we have a responsibility to keep people safe, including people here in the United Kingdom. We are weakening the protection of some of the world’s most vulnerable communities, and in doing so we are undermining our own health security here in Britain. For those reasons, I urge my Government to look again. We need a credible, serious and urgent plan to restore aid spending, not only because it is the right thing to do but because it is in our national interest.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for raising this important issue and for the passion and detail that he conveyed. I welcome the Minister to his place; I very much look forward to what he has to say. I also look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is always here in these debates. We meet at a sobering hour. The global landscape for official development assistance is contracting before our very eyes, and funding is falling right across the west. At home, our aid budget is projected to come down to 0.3% of gross national income. I understand the intense fiscal pressures facing our nation and the absolute necessity of strengthening our national defence in a dangerous world, but as the aid pot shrinks, our moral responsibility does not diminish; it intensifies. When there is less to go around, it is a matter of profound duty to ensure that every single penny that we set aside is well spent. We cannot afford waste, bloated bureaucracy and Whitehall-centric projects that fail to hit the ground.

The hon. Gentleman raises the principal point that this money will go from aid to defence. The reduction will be £4.8 billion in 2026-27, and then £6.5 billion. We obviously appreciate the need for defence investment, but that money is being transferred to the most profligate and incompetent spending Department in Government: the Ministry of Defence. Those of us who have been here for a number of years can remember Nimrod, which cost £4 billion and was scrapped. The Bowman radio system cost £2.5 billion and was scrapped. The Daring-class destroyer went £1.5 billion over projected expenditure. The Ajax armoured fighting vehicle has cost £4 billion and probably cannot be used. The sale of married quarters lost £4 billion. We are taking money that is desperately needed to save lives and giving it to a Department that has wasted money time and again.

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point well. I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to answer that, because he is not in charge of defence, but the point is none the less well made. Being wise stewards of public money also means that we must take a hard, honest look at where our money is going. Aid was never meant to be a permanent, open-ended dependency; its ultimate goal must be to help nations to stand on their own two feet. We still see today vast sums of British taxpayers’ money flowing into middle-income countries with excellent economies. For example, India has a fast-growing economy, an expanding space programme and burgeoning domestic wealth. Surely common sense must prevail. We should be deeply wary about continuing to fund countries that are now clearly on their feet and fully capable of looking after their own citizens. Our priority must shift; I have a solution that I will put to the Minister at the end of my speech. We must concentrate our precious, limited resources on the poorest of the poor—on those forgotten nations that desperately need a helping hand just to get on their feet. To achieve true value for money, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must radically change how it delivers aid. For too long, vast sums of UK aid have been swallowed up by massive international agencies and expensive consultants sitting in metropolitan hotels miles away from the suffering. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale mentioned conferences being held in hotels while people starve on the streets. This is not efficiency. If we want maximum impact for the British taxpayer and maximum relief for the world’s most vulnerable, we must empower local, on-the-ground bodies. We must trust the people who know the area, speak the language, live among the communities and truly understand the complex realities on the ground. In particular, I want to champion a group too often overlooked by modern technocrats: our Church missionaries and faith-based organisations. They have been doing their job for literally hundreds of years, carrying out physical, emotional and biblical charity. These men and women do not fly in for a three-month contract and fly out when a crisis hits. They have been in place for years, sometimes for decades and often for generations. They are there in the poorest villages of Africa, the remotest parts of Asia and the most dangerous corners of the middle east. They have built deep, unbreakable bonds of trust with local people. They know exactly who is starving, which clinics lack medicine and how to distribute resources without a single penny being siphoned off by corruption. I say respectfully to the Minister, who knows me well, that when the FCDO partners with established missionary networks, it is not funding expensive administrative overheads. My Strangford constituency has many churches and faith groups, including the Church of Ireland, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Elim Church and many others. They are funding pure, direct delivery. They are utilising infrastructure that is already built, relationships that are already formed, and a dedication that money simply cannot buy. As I have mentioned in other debates—I hope the Minister can give me a reply today—the networks are there and the people are there. In particular, the Elim missions in Zimbabwe and Swaziland are working with farmers to till the land and produce their own food. At the same time, they are involved in healthcare and education. As we reshape our aid footprint, will the Government commit to bypassing the bloated international middlemen and graduated economies? Will the FCDO actively channel our precious, reduced resources into the trusted, long-standing Church missionaries and local bodies that offer the ultimate value for money? Let us ensure that British aid is defined not by the billions we spend but by the lives we save through those who know how to save them: the Church missionaries and faith-based groups. They are happy to partner with the Government, and they should be invited to do so.

It is a delight to participate in the debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing it. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the IDC and a former development banker. I share many of my IDC colleagues’ reflections on the need for clarity and to be steadfast in our pursuit of the overarching goal of the UK’s foreign development policy, which is poverty alleviation. Our report sheds a light on the fact that there is a much greater need for clarity, transparency and measurability of the outcomes we are looking to deliver in particularly constrained circumstances. That said, I wholeheartedly support the Government’s shift from the mindset of donor to that of investor. That is necessary not just because it is what many developing countries are asking of us, but because it is the only way we will get the scale of investment that is needed to transform the fortunes of the world’s poorest countries. Whichever way we look at it—whether it is the sustainable development goals financing gap or any other interpretation—the scale of capital need is enormous and cannot be met by the multilateral development banks, let alone our development aid budgets. Let me move on from the hand-wringing we are all so used to in our favourite sector, towards a much more normative, positive pitch for the role the UK Government can play as we head into the G20, where we have the chance to set the tone of development globally. We can play a unique role in three areas: first, the global debt system; secondly, our influence on multilateral development banks and development finance more broadly; and thirdly, the mobilisation of private sector investment. I know the Government are incredibly invested in those three themes, which align with our shift from donor to investor, but let me be clear about what will work to deliver shifts across those three agenda items, at least in my experience. On global debt, the UK is home to the vast majority of emerging markets’ sovereign debt. England is the jurisdiction under which it is governed, with the other key jurisdiction being New York. In my mind, it is incumbent on this jurisdiction to try to right the wrongs addressed by the private Member’s Bill introduced last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who is no longer in his place. It is incumbent on us to build not just a more sustainable debt system, but ultimately the financial capacity of these countries, and to take the agenda very seriously. I welcome the work of the London Coalition so far, including the steps to strengthen the common framework and the term sheet, which suggests pause clauses that might prevent some of the frankly usurious debt obligations on developing countries from building up during restructurings. I also welcome the need for transparency, which is another workstream of the London Coalition. But we must ask ourselves whether this is sufficient. Are voluntary measures and the self-regulation of the City as the leading emerging markets bond market sufficient? As a key player in the G20, can we take a stand on delivering a much greater ambition to ensure that best practices move from being voluntary to being a gold standard for the market? If there are concerns about the market impact, one has only to look back to the previous round of global debt reform under Gordon Brown, and the concerns raised by the City then. Let us be honest: not all investors are created equal. A big pension fund that just happens to have exposure to Ghanaian sovereign debt is not the same as a debt-distressed hedge fund. Creditors will have different views about whether a real ambition from the UK to put reforms on a statutory footing will scare the markets. I encourage the Government to engage very strongly; I would be happy to provide evidence from the City and from economists working on global sovereign debt to support the fact that, rather than being all doom and gloom, this might be an opportunity to reset the sustainability of the sector and, in doing so, build financial capacity. With that financial capacity, we could mobilise a far greater sum of investment than ever before. I know that is the ambition of the Development Minister, Baroness Chapman. If we can get the financial capacity right for these countries, it may be that the cuts to aid will pale into insignificance—to put it bluntly—compared with what investment could be mobilised if we get the macroeconomic structure right. Multilaterals also have a role in mobilising private capital, but some, particularly larger, multilaterals, which we have fervently supported, are currently not taking on sufficient risk, and in many cases are crowding out commercial banks and are too focused on debt. They need to be more catalytic in their work. BII sets a good reference point, and it also serves a good reference point for project development, or what the International Finance Corporation would call upstream project development.

The hon. Member mentioned multilaterals. We have seen massive cuts to aid. As many people will know, I worked for 30 years in the WASH sector, which had been cut by 85% before the recent aid cuts, and is so important in changing people’s lives. Does the hon. Member agree that, given the movement to multilateralism and multilateral support, we should see that channel used to direct much larger funds to the very poorest and to sectors such as WASH—although not to WASH exclusively—so that we can see a real improvement in people’s lives around the world?

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

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

I do share my hon. Friend’s concern. In a time of constrained resources, there is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to move everything into the multilateral space to get more bang for our buck but, as we have seen, it is not as simple as that. One does have to be wary when trying to make that money go further. I am glad that there are examples, particularly on the climate finance front, of where our Government have stepped up to ensure we maintain the agenda of the multilateral development banks. To sum up, we need to be serious about the potential need for a statutory footing for some of the reforms to the global debt system, which the UK is uniquely well placed to address. We need to push our multilateral development banks and development finance institutions to go further, to take more risk and do that upstream development work. In doing so, we need to mobilise the private capital that at the minute is unable to get to the world’s poorest countries.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate and on leading a galaxy of great speeches. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper); she and I have worked together on global health partnerships, and I agree with everything that has been said. I will pick up on a couple of points that have been made. There has been focus on Britain’s G20, and I am sure that is an important opportunity for Britain to provide some leadership on this issue. As we get older, we tend to look back at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, but I acknowledge at the outset that British development policy is at its best by far when it is conducted on an all-party basis. It is not a Labour, Conservative or Liberal policy; it is a British policy. That was one of its great glories in the past. The Government did well in their recent conference, where they brought together a lot of interested parties and helped to underline an appropriate agenda. Those of us who really care about this issue must also be careful, because in Britain we are still spending an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money, and it is doing a lot of good. Although it has been greatly and savagely diminished, a lot of the spending is very good, and I want to make that clear. I am also very pleased that the Government have stuck to the 2023 White Paper, which was effectively an all-party White Paper.

I do not really agree with that because, while the hon. Gentleman cites a number of areas where Britain makes a big contribution, there is a big black hole where we have cut off our legs in respect to international development. I will say a word or two about that in a moment. The importance of turning from donor to investor is absolutely right; but if investors are investing in a poor country where there is not adequate health and education, that country’s workforce will not be able to attract suitable investment. We must be worried about that. We must always focus on the results agenda, showing that the British taxpayer is getting 100p of value for every £1 spent. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the importance of saving the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, but we have to accept that we will not get a major boost in public support unless it comes from the top. We had an era of huge support, led by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May. If there is not support at the top, public support cannot be won back and sustained—particularly if there is a Prime Minister who is foolish enough to say from the Dispatch Box that DFID is like an ATM in the sky, spewing out taxpayers’ money. Finally, the only point on which I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is in respect of BII, which of course follows the Government’s lead. The Government are the 100% shareholder in BII and are therefore able to set out very clearly what its priorities should be, but they should then leave an organisation like BII to get on with following that mandate. I argue that there have been three great losses from the Johnson and Starmer premierships. Bear in mind that in the last year of the last Conservative Government—do not tell the Treasury this—we spent nearly 0.6%, so there was huge support. However, there are three areas where we have seriously lost out. The first loss is to Britain’s reputation, as a result of the cuts. As has been pointed out, the cuts in Britain are more savage, pro rata, than the cuts in America. The damage to Britain’s reputation is acute. I argue that, since the Suez crisis, international development has been the only area of indisputable British international leadership—and we have lost that. Secondly, we have lost out on British interests, particularly in respect of the rampant nationalism now being pursued at a time when we need international co-operation to tackle the great scourges mentioned in this debate. Above all, the poorest people in the world, who were reliant on British expertise, support and cash, have lost out. Now is a chance, with a new leader. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) was part of a Government who championed international development. He knows about that. Now is a chance to make some changes. I urge Labour Members to rise up now and say that the historical interest and support of the Labour party have been for international development. People might expect the beastly Tories to cut aid and development, but they do not expect the Labour party to do that. Now is a chance to have a real reset, which should include three things. First, the reset should include an acceptance that the vaporisation of DFID and the merger was an ocean-going disaster. Everyone who has had anything to do with it knows that perfectly well. It has led to a huge loss of skill. I urge the Government to decide, if not to restore DFID, at least to set up an agency to take action on helping to restore our reputation and the huge agglomeration of expertise in London that resulted from DFID. Secondly, we should move back to 0.7%, as is the law of the land. We should do that, however, over a number of years. We cannot provide that amount of money overnight, but over five or six years we should try to move systematically back to it. Finally, we should understand what this Government do not understand: defence, diplomacy and development are linked very tightly indeed. The idea that taking development money and putting it into defence is the answer to the—admittedly absolute—requirement to spend more on defence is absurd. Development is the other side of the coin to defence. I hope that the new Administration, when they come in shortly, will take account of some of these matters.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and an honour to follow the contributions by the right hon. Members for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I thank the former for securing this very important debate. It is shocking that we are in this position—that a Labour Government, who are supposed to share the principles of concern for the vulnerable, for equality and for solidarity, are the Government who have presided over the biggest ever single cut to the UK aid budget. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, aid, our investment as a country in international development, has historically been a matter of cross-party consensus. That is crucial. This is not a party political issue; it is about our fundamental humanity as politicians and as a nation. Disappointing is not the word; it is shocking and shameful that we are in this position and that this Government have slashed aid to such an extent. It is short-sighted, because aid is an investment in building a better and a more secure world, and it is immoral, because aid does work. As the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with all her experience in public health, communicated so clearly, aid saves lives. The effect of the cuts that we have seen in the UK and globally will be millions more deaths—millions. Every single one of them is an individual human being whose life could have continued. This is utterly extraordinary. It is immoral.

Very, very briefly, as I have almost no time.

I thank the hon. Member. We know that aid works; I have seen it myself. I worked in international development for several decades before coming to this place. I have seen, in Malawi, how the provision of clean water literally saves lives. I have seen, in Burundi, how work on HIV and AIDS literally saves lives. I have seen in northern Uganda how investment in conflict resolution, conflict prevention and rehabilitation of child soldiers works to rebuild lives and livelihoods. I have seen, in the Philippines, how international aid has helped a community devastated by a tornado to rebuild lives and livelihoods. Aid works. No, it is not perfect—of course it is not. Yes, we do need to do better. Yes, we know how to do that. We know how to build longer-term programmes, how to work better with local partners, and how to channel money in ways that are focused on outcomes rather than just on bean counting. We know all that, and we have been doing it for decades—yet what has happened? The rug has been pulled out from under aid, and for what purpose? To put the money into defence spending, which, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, has itself too often been a black hole, with cancelled programme after cancelled programme costing billions. In the aid sector, we have focused on results and on outcomes. No other sector is so closely focused on results. Why was that done? Let us remember that this aid cut was put in place on 25 February 2025. That was one month after Donald Trump returned to the White House and two days before the Prime Minister went to the White House, touting this aid cut and redirection of funding into defence, as part of his strategy for sucking up to Donald Trump. Look how well that worked. It did not—it was never going to. This country has betrayed its proud record of supporting international solidarity, and for what? It is crucial that we move back towards investing in aid, because it is lifesaving, because it is the long-term investment that we need to make the world a safer and more secure place, and because international solidarity has to be part of our identity as a country. That is not just about aid; it is about engagement with the debt crisis and with our trading relationships, and it means that we need to look at new sources of funding, such as “polluter pays” taxes, to generate new streams of revenue to invest in these lifesaving and life-changing programmes. But one thing must be clear: we cannot cut aid and expect to build a more secure world. This aid cut—this shameful Labour aid cut—makes the world a less secure place for us and for the millions of people directly affected. I very much hope that the new Labour Government will reverse course.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate, because we rarely talk about this subject in the Chamber. The Government do not seem to want to talk about aid and development very much, but they must and they should, because our world is on fire, because cuts to development make it worse and because it is within the British national interest to support it. I am sure that, if my party had cut the aid budget that far, I would not want to talk about it either. The deplorable aid cuts, from a proud 0.7% to 0.3% —the biggest cuts to aid this century, amounting to a 50% cut in bilateral aid to Africa alone—are in danger of stripping the UK of much of its proud reputation on the global stage. I must note at this point that, despite continual prompting from members of the International Development Committee, of which I am one, the Government are still yet to publish their country allocations of aid, which makes it very difficult to scrutinise the damage. However, we do know, and the Government know, that these cuts will cost lives. Combined with those caused by the collapse of USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—the lives lost will likely be in their millions. That includes in countries where we have a legacy, such as Afghanistan, where 45% of the population needs humanitarian assistance and which is no longer prioritised within the UK’s aid budget. In 2022, we contributed $488 million; today, it is $32 million. We have also heard how global aid cuts have caused such damage to health systems in the DRC that the response to tackling the Ebola crisis has been made significantly harder. I know the personal commitment of many Members in this room, and of the Minister, but this is where we are: the party of DFID and Make Poverty History has become a Government of aid cuts so extreme that they outstrip the Trump Administration in their brutality. A Labour Government who followed Donald Trump in cutting aid have outdone him—a Labour Government whose legacy in development, just two years into their Administration, is already far worse than the Conservatives’. Yet once there was consensus. I agree with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) on almost everything he said but particularly on leadership. It comes to a pretty pass when a Conservative Member urges Labour Members to rise up and be radical. He said that he had the best job in the world as Development Minister. The British did the best job in the world in development. There was consensus. Building on the work of the previous Labour Government, the coalition Government delivered the commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development, which had been a Liberal Democrat manifesto promise since the 1970s. In coalition, we reached the UN aid target and NATO’s defence spending target at the same time, proving that investment in development and defence are not mutually exclusive; in fact, as we have heard, they are complementary. As I and others have said, defence, diplomacy and development support each other and strengthen any coherent foreign policy. We have heard from some of the UK’s most senior former military chiefs that reducing development capacity today stores up greater instability, greater cost and greater risk for tomorrow. That means more defence spend down the line, and look how we are scrabbling about for it now. Development brings benefits to Britain. It is strategic, and mutually beneficial because investing in peacebuilding, prosperity and stability keeps us safe here too. Take guarding against another pandemic. Covid was not so long ago, and we are told with certainty that there will be another one. Given all the pandemic’s death, its destruction of economies and its long tail of social and mental health challenges, I am sure that many hon. Friends will share my dismay at the decision by the Government to discontinue funding the Pandemic Fund. What about climate change? When harvests fail through drought or flooding, malnutrition sets in, communities fight for pasture and people migrate. In May, the Government broke their pledge on the Green Climate Fund by announcing a cut of 50%, while their new international climate finance target of over £6 billion of public money, which I note is committed over three rather than five years, also seems to be a reduction.

The hon. Member is 100% right, and I will come to that slightly later in my speech. We hear a lot from the Government about migration. Each 1% increase in food insecurity in a population compels 1.9% more people to migrate. They are escaping war, too. The largest single group of unaccompanied minors in small boats has been from Sudan, the world’s greatest humanitarian disaster, in the midst of a brutal civil war. But this is just the tip. The wider Sahel is a tinderbox. Millions are expected to fall into crisis or, worse, into hunger in this lean season, as armed violence escalates across the region. Thousands of schools are closed due to insecurity, health systems are buckling under the weight of need, and still we cut. Do the Government understand the reality of these cuts at this inflection point, when the world is on fire? Do we not need some honesty with the public on where ODA is actually spent? In 2025, £2.4 billion was spent on in-donor refugee costs, in comparison with £1.3 billion spent on humanitarian assistance. Lifesaving ODA is being spent on propping up a broken asylum system, with less and less spent on the causes that brought those people here in the first place. We can assume that the cuts came first and the strategy second, given that the cuts announced in February 2025 seemed to take everyone, including the then Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), by surprise. Since then, the approach has often seemed confused and incoherent. The IDC has asked for clarity on the Government’s theory of change to reach their shared objective of poverty alleviation. Of course, upheaval like this can create opportunity and wake us up from our stupor to make the case for aid outside of our own echo chamber, and to re-imagine our aid and development spend. But tearing down the system before the plan is in place is never a good idea. The answer for many things that have failed to be funded is that they will be “mainstreamed”, which is a euphemism for “disappeared”. British aid and development worked. Millions of children vaccinated and educated; safe births; clean water and sanitation; lives saved—all achieved by well under 1% of this country’s GNI, and it gave the UK influence and leverage on the world stage, a seat at the table in global fora and friends in trade and diplomacy. Why not celebrate that? Instead, the Minister for Development suggested: “The days of viewing the UK Government as a global charity are over”. Does the Minister before us today really believe that, or does he hope, like us, that with a change in leadership and a new Prime Minister, a focus on the long term will come back, with a realisation that doing the work now will make Britain safer and more powerful down the line? Does he not agree that framing the debate to pitch defence against development is wrong, and that, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said when she resigned as Development Minister, “it will be impossible to raise the substantial resources needed” to fully fund our defence capability “just through tactical cuts to public spending”? And so it is: there is another hole—a £4.7 billion hole—in the defence budget, despite the aid cuts that were supposedly meant to fill it. Is it not right that the new Prime Minister must lay out the urgency of the debate on funding our defence and our development spend, and the benefits that it can bring to Britain? Great damage has been done by our retreat from aid to the reputation of our country and our shrinking influence. While we retreat, others whose values may not match ours are making a play for Africa. With rapid population growth and an emerging labour force, Africa will become one of the world’s biggest markets, and the Government should place themselves in the best position to take advantage of that. The Government have a chance now, with a new leader in place, to take the long-term strategic view, repair the damage, return to the world stage and remember their moral responsibility and the strategic benefit to Britain. It is not too late, but it is nearly.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important and timely debate. As ever, he brings considerable knowledge and experience on development issues and, importantly, an understanding that the world in which we deliver development has fundamentally changed—as indeed do a number of other speakers today, not least my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I think it is fair to say that few in this place have the depth of knowledge that he brings to the debate. Today, the international landscape is defined by conflict, instability and strategic competition. Russia continues its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Sudan has become the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. Fragility stretches across the Sahel and the horn of Africa. China is using finance and infrastructure investment to expand its geopolitical influence. At the same time, donor budgets across western democracies are under increasing pressure. Against that backdrop, Britain must ask a simple question: how do we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible benefit for the British people—our national security, our prosperity and health—as well as for the recipients? That is why we Conservatives believe the debate should not simply be about the size of the aid budget; it must be about reform. Following the Government’s decision to reduce ODA from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI, the spending review allocated £8.9 billion in ’27-28 and £9.4 billion in ’28-29. We believe it is right to go further, reducing ODA to 0.1% of GNI, and delivering almost £7 billion of savings across those two years, to help fund the sustained increase in defence spending required in today’s far more dangerous world. But reductions in spending alone are not enough; they must be accompanied by genuine reform. That is where I fear the Government have failed to provide the meaningful clarity that we deserve. After two years in office, Ministers continue to speak of moving from donor to investor, yet we still do not know what that means in practical terms. I gently point out that it was almost a decade ago that the Conservative Government published a strategy for how to do economic development. Can the Minister explain what criteria are now being used to determine whether a programme represents value for money and serves Britain’s national interests? Which programmes have been cancelled? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which priorities have been strengthened? What measurable outcomes will the Government use to judge success? I believe the British taxpayer deserves answers and so do we, as parliamentarians. The Conservatives’ approach is clear. We believe Britain’s development mission should be redefined. Development assistance must be tightly focused on advancing Britain’s economic interests, national security and wider strategic influence. That means asking of each and every programme whether it strengthens Britain’s security, supports economic resilience, helps to prevent instability, counters authoritarian influence or creates stronger, long-term partnerships.

The right hon. Lady always makes incredibly important and helpful contributions. In my contribution, I suggested that there is another way of doing things, which is working alongside church groups and faith-based organisations. Does she feel that that is a possible way to spend money and have influence more wisely?

The hon. Gentleman always brings great passion to this place and is never afraid of sharing ideas. I think we are at a stage with development where we are, I think all of us, looking for more answers and ideas. It is also important that we look to partners in other donor countries, and learn from them too. Coming back to the point about longer-term partnerships and areas where programmes should be helping us, if they do not we should ask why not and why British taxpayers are funding them. That also means introducing far greater conditionality. The British taxpayer rightly expects the organisations and countries receiving our support to demonstrate accountability, transparency and good governance. That principle must apply equally to the multilateral system. Under the previous Conservative Government, Britain led international efforts to reform UN agencies, reduce duplication and introduce stronger performance-based funding. We challenged international organisations to deliver better value and greater accountability. What reforms is the Minister pressing for across the United Nations and the wider multilateral development banks? What conditions are attached to UK funding? What discussions has he had with our international partners about driving greater transparency and accountability throughout the multilateral system? What are the Government doing to promote positive reform where it takes place, such as that being rolled out by the president of the World Bank, Ajay Banga. Equally important is the role of bilateral and minilateral partnerships. Britain’s relationships, particularly across the Commonwealth, remain one of our greatest strategic strengths. Rather than relying on large multilateral institutions, how are the Government exploring more agile bilateral and minilateral partnerships that can better advance our economic and security interests? What discussions has the Minister had with key partners, particularly across the Commonwealth, about developing those new models of co-operation that deliver greater impact, stronger accountability and better value for the taxpayer? Have the Government also explored the potential for development partnerships with countries such as Japan and South Korea, as well as the Nordics and Germany? These are allies whose interests align with ours in different parts of the world, and they matter for our security and prosperity. Economic development must sit at the heart of our approach to international development. Conservative Governments demonstrated that development is not simply about grants, but creating jobs, building markets and enabling countries to stand on their own feet. As we heard today, British International Investment has become one of Britain’s genuine development success stories, mobilising private capital to support sustainable economic growth. Can the Minister tell the House whether BII will receive further support, and what level of private capital do the Government expect to leverage through development finance? If development is to support Britain’s national interest, global health must also remain central. The Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Those investments have not only saved millions of lives but strengthened Britain’s own health security. Can the Minister confirm today the Government’s future commitments to Gavi and the Global Fund, and, importantly, the sequence of that funding? I want to turn quickly to a humanitarian crisis, because Sudan cannot be ignored. It is now the world’s worst humanitarian emergency. Will the Minister tell us what additional action Britain is taking to secure humanitarian access and what discussions are taking place with regional partners? I am conscious of the time. I am coming to an end, but I first want to touch on Ukraine, which I visited earlier this year. One of the gravest humanitarian issues arising from the war is the systematic abduction and forced deportation of Ukrainian children. Can the Minister update us on the latest support the UK is providing to help locate, identify and reunite the children with their families? Conflict is increasing, donor funding is under pressure and strategic competition is intensifying. Britain’s development policy must change, too. I hope the Minister will explain not only where the Government are spending the money, but how their approach is being fundamentally reformed to meet the realities of a more dangerous and contested world. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate. I thank all Members who have contributed and will do my best to respond to the points raised. Twenty years ago, many believed that globalisation, economic growth and international co-operation would steadily drive down poverty and expand opportunity across the world. That ambition remains as important today as it was then, but the world has changed dramatically. We are living through a period of geopolitical fragmentation, increasing conflict and economic uncertainty. The assumptions around development policy no longer hold, so we must adapt. Many traditional and significant donor countries have announced or are carrying out reductions to their official development assistance budgets. Global aid fell by 23% in 2025—the largest year-on-year reduction we have ever seen. As this House is aware, the Government made the difficult decision to reduce the UK ODA budget to fund a necessary increase in defence spending. That was a tough decision that many Members have talked about today, and not all Members agreed with it. I understand that, but it was the right decision given the threats our country faces. Constrained ODA, though, is only part of the story. That is clear when we look at Africa, where the annual financing gap—the difference between the investment Africa needs each year to deliver the sustainable development goals and the funding it can currently access—is around $1.3 trillion. In contrast, aid to sub-Saharan Africa totalled $66.5 billion in 2024. That gap demonstrates that traditional ODA flows have only ever amounted to a small fraction of what is actually needed. In other words, ODA can only be part of a solution, not the whole solution. Continuing to work in the same way and expecting different results is no longer defensible. Low-income and middle-income countries have been calling for change for some time. They want long-term genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared priorities, not paternalism.

The argument that aid is only a small part of the solution to global poverty and inequality is not a controversial one, but lower-middle income countries have not been calling for the change that the hon. Member’s Government have delivered: the biggest slash in the aid budget altogether. If he believes that aid expenditure and development investment need to be done slightly differently, let us make the argument for that, but cutting it should play no part in the sorts of changes he talks about.

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have to say, it is in complete contrast to my conversations with foreign Ministers. Some of them are exhausted by the idea that we dictate the terms of aid funding, and exhausted by the fact that we put a project in and then move away five years later with limited output.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not give way. The hon. Lady posed the question and I will answer it. When I have had conversations with Ministers globally—[Interruption.]

Order.

I understand the hon. Lady has significant experience in this field. I am talking about meetings that I have had with Ministers while serving as a Minister in the FCDO. They are clear that they want a different approach in how overseas aid is funded. They want a different approach in economic growth and investment. I have had more conversations with my ministerial counterparts on investment into digital infrastructure than I have on deciding to run a project for five years and then walking away from it. The hon. Lady and I are not going to agree. The difference for me is that I am not going to shout from a sedentary position—I have too much respect for the House for that. My ministerial counterparts want long-term, genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared priorities, not paternalism. To reflect that new reality, we are modernising our approach to international development through four essential shifts. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), raised the first point, so I hope I can answer her question. First, we move from donor to investor. There has been some criticism around that term today, but there is a key point. It means partnering with countries to unlock growth, jobs and trade through innovative finance and private sector investment. That is what those countries are asking for, not the dictatorial response, “We will do this to you.” We are doing it with them, not to them. Secondly, we are moving from service delivery to support systems, and are helping countries to build their own education, health and economic systems so that they can thrive without aid. Thirdly, we are moving from grants to expertise, leveraging UK strengths such as our world-class universities, the City of London, the Met Office, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and our education, health and tech sectors. Fourthly, we are moving from international intervention to local leadership, working in partnership with local actors and organisations, rather than making interventions that are driven internationally. That is the key point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about. Having better delivery on the ground with people who understand it has to be the way forward, so hopefully I can offer him some reassurance on his question to me and the shadow Minister. Those shifts reflect how we are prioritising the ODA budget.

The Minister is talking about the importance of long-term partnership. Last week, I was proud to lead the first British parliamentary delegation to Syria since the fall of the Assad regime. I had a number of conversations with Ministers, who asked for technical support from our Government, particularly on special educational needs and disabilities. Some 27% of Syrian children are disabled, following the war. They also asked for us to reopen the embassy in Syria, for business support and a lot of other things. Does the Minister agree that now is the right time for a new development partnership with the Syrian Government, as that nation hopefully builds from the ashes?

On the wider work on Syria, I agree. The Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), is working hard to bring about more support for the new Syrian regime, and we continue to prioritise that. My hon. Friend’s wider point about expertise is right, and that is exactly what the ODA changes bring about. We are using our expertise in education, health and—dare I say it—planning. I have had a number of conversations about planning and infrastructure investment in countries. It is about listening to what those countries actually want us to help with, rather than saying, “We think we know what is best,” so I agree with her wider point. The shadow Minister and a number of other colleagues spoke about the multilateral system. I happen to be the UN Minister, and UN reform is very high on my agenda. That is not just about the Secretary-General’s discussions about UN80, but about wider reform of the international civil service and the international architecture system, which Baroness Chapman and I are leading on in the Foreign Office. The shadow Minister is right to challenge us on that, but I assure her that we have led the charge in my 10 months in office, not just as a member of the Security Council but as a leader in the UN multilateral space, to bring about more reform in the UN system.

Could the Minister give some examples of how we will maximise our impact in those multilateral organisations, given that the balance of funding has moved towards them?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter, and I will come to it later in my speech, particularly when I discuss the multilateral development bank system, which other Members have raised. We will prioritise multilateral organisations in the ODA budget, where the international system is required to deliver at scale and with legitimacy. We are backing the most efficient parts of the multilateral system to multiply our investment. For example, we are prioritising multilateral development banks, which are the largest source of development and climate finance and are able to lend to partner countries on the most affordable terms. That includes the World Bank’s International Development Association, where each £1 we invest unlocks £4 of additional finance, and where we have increased our contribution by 40%. It also includes the African Development Fund. Our £650 million contribution will allow it to leverage up to £1.6 billion in grants and concessional loans, including by issuing bonds on the London stock exchange for the first time. At the same time, we remain committed to reforming the global development system, and will strengthen its most important parts: humanitarian aid, health, climate and the global financial system. I assure the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale that that reform and our influence remain absolutely crucial to the FCDO’s wider work. I come to a point that I know the right hon. Gentleman cares deeply about: the vital support work on HIV and AIDS as a key part of development infrastructure. I pay tribute to him for his many years of work in that space. The UK remains a steadfast global leader in global HIV response. We are working with key partners such as the Global Fund, the World Health Organisation, Unitaid and UNAIDS to strengthen health systems, prevent new HIV transmissions and save lives. Our commitment is backed by action. In 2025, the UK co-hosted the eighth replenishment of the Global Fund with South Africa, helping to secure $12.64 billion for the fight against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, including a UK pledge of £850 million. We also recognise the vital role of UNAIDS. It provides world-class HIV data, co-ordinates the international response and ensures that global communities continue to be heard. As the organisation undergoes significant change, the UK will continue to support an effective and responsible transition that protects essential functions and delivers the best possible outcome for the global HIV response. Alongside that, we are investing in innovation, including by expanding access to the new long-acting HIV prevention and treatment technologies. That has the potential to transform the global response and help put the world back on track towards ending AIDS as a public health threat. As we do so, we will continue to champion an approach that is inclusive and evidence-based, focused on key populations, communities and those most at risk from HIV to ensure that hard-won gains are protected for future generations. It would be remiss of me not to respond to some of the comments on LGBT leadership in the multilateral system. I am the Minister responsible and can assure the House that we will not shy away from our responsibilities under a multilateral platform. I recently announced a £21 million fund, £3 million of which will go to Kaleidoscope for its international response in supporting LGBT communities around the world. While I remain Minister I will never shy away from my responsibilities to challenge and ensure that communities who are being suppressed and seeing their rights rolled back are not ignored. Meanwhile, we are prioritising our bilateral support for countries and communities that need it most. We are committed to £1.4 billion a year over the next three years for places with the highest humanitarian need. That includes fully protecting the budgets for Ukraine, Sudan and Palestine, and protecting funding for Lebanon during the ongoing crisis. I briefly want to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) about polio. I reassure her that we are doing our utmost by investing £1.5 billion in Gavi between 2026 and 2030. That is about shifting investment to where it works, and looking at immunisation as a way to eradicate polio. It is not about a lack of support, but about ensuring we get development right in making such decisions. In a changed world, we need to take a new approach, which is exactly what we are doing. In May, the UK hosted the Global Partnerships Conference, which brought together participants from Governments, multilateral organisations, business, tech, philanthropy and civil society. I heard at first hand from partners the importance of genuine partnership as the basis for our modern development approach. That approach combines our diplomatic network, our financial sector, our expertise and businesses for a far greater impact. It is the essence of going beyond aid and using the full range of UK capabilities to support partner countries. That is our vision for international development and how we will meet the global challenges that we face.

I thank the Minister for his response, which is a picture from the current Government. This is a moment for reset, which I hope the incoming Prime Minister will take on board along with many of the things said in this debate, as well as the International Development Committee’s recent report on the future of international development in a fracturing world. This may be an echo chamber, but we can all make a difference in making the case for international development, which we have to do outside here. We have to be bold enough to challenge some perceptions. Most people think that a huge percentage of the UK budget is spent on aid. They do not realise it is 0.3%; they think it is nearer 40%. There are many misconceptions out there, which we must lead on challenging. At this moment, Labour MPs are the ones with the opportunity to make a difference. I have been through several changes of Prime Minister, and I know now is the point at which they can be influenced. They are not influenced once they are in No. 10, when it becomes much harder—it is now, as they cross the threshold. We have heard passionate contributions from Labour MPs and I know others feel the same. My appeal is the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell): make that difference now and get international development back on the Government agenda. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends.