Speeches by Harding.

“I want to push you a little bit further on the engagement with the UK Government. Their policy is of “limited and pragmatic” engagement. Can you just spell out what you think that should mean?”

“I want to return to country relationships. What is your assessment of the US Administration’s approach towards Afghanistan? A question to both of you, briefly.”

“I read something about the BBC World Service going further in Sudan at the moment, but using WhatsApp. I don’t know whether that is transferable to Afghanistan, but it seemed to me to be an innovative way of doing what you are doing. Are you doing that in Afghanistan as well?”

“My understanding is that there was some tolerance of female micro-businesses in some areas in Afghanistan, but it very much depended on who the civic leader in the area was and whether they would turn a blind eye to it. Is that also your assessment?”

“Well, here we are again. The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Government’s historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine, which we have long called for. We have welcomed more recent statements of intent, including just 10 days ago in this House, but such statements are utterly hollow without action, especial…”

“Some people would say it is actually preventing the conflict in the first place because climate change is a creator of conflict.”

“With a smaller aid budget, the Government want to be, apparently, more strategic and to be an investor rather than a donor, and yet this is an investor model, which is still not being funded.”

“It is a loan facility—just to be clear. Also, Norway, France, Germany, Brazil, Luxembourg and Indonesia thought it was good enough to invest in, and yet, even though we were the architects—”

“I wanted to come back to accounting and your answer to Tracy. The Centre for Global Development believes that “The UK should be clearer in its statistics which ICF projects create assets for the UK and which are pure expenditure.” Sorry if I seem slightly obsessed with the TFFF, but this comes back to that again becaus…”

“It is recoupable, so it therefore could be an asset. Saying that is very different from saying, “There’s a cash transfer of a billion pounds going over here to this fund”. This is a loan that we will recoup so it therefore could be seen as an asset. TFFF aside, that seems a much better way of measuring and accounting f…”

“I have one final question. Was that a joined-up decision across Departments?”

“Anouschka, in your report, you found that climate-related ODA can meet the public’s tests more easily than traditional aid, so what specifically makes climate finance more compelling to the public than other forms of overseas spending?”

“Thank you for being frank. The ICF is in the Government’s national security assessment in January 2026—well, it does not say that there should be a sub-pledge, but it is in the security assessment—but then, as you suggest, to gamble on it does not fill me with confidence.”

“If you need to recalibrate, does that mean you may have a sub-pledge on ICF4?”

“May I ask you about the TFFF? Why was the decision made not to fund it?”

“With a smaller aid budget, the Government want to be, apparently, more strategic and to be an investor rather than a donor, and yet this is an investor model, which is still not being funded.”

“Hello. The written evidence that we received—particularly that from the NGO sector—is clear that the shrinking ODA budget will require trade-offs around climate intervention and other humanitarian interventions. How will you navigate those trade-offs? What do they look like?”

“What is the timeline for assessing whether it is working?”

“Sorry—you say that you are not in a position now, but Minister, you say that you think it is ready to be.”

“You gave very good examples of self-sufficiency and effectiveness. What are some examples from your studies of what reciprocity looks like to the British public?”