USAID Funding Pause

09:30:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered the USAID funding pause and its impact on UK international development. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank everyone who has come this morning either to participate or to observe. Although a decision about an American Government Department’s funding may seem distant in geography, it is dangerously close in consequence. The recent cuts to the United States Agency for International Development—USAID —by President Trump on his first day in office pose a grave risk to millions of people around the world, as well as to global stability. I believe they are either a mistake and a blunder, or a cruel and cynical ploy for popularity that will result in harm and suffering for the poorest on the planet. The implications for our aid programme are threefold. First, the UK has effectively lost a key partner in aid, and one with which we have done great work in the past. Secondly, the sheer scale of the USAID cuts means that the gaps in funding cannot be filled by other donors, especially as almost all Governments, including our own, are now following the US example and reducing their aid spend to put more into their militaries. Thirdly, it could be argued that we, and indeed the world, should have seen this coming; we had become too reliant on the USA. Having said that, I find it indefensible for the UK to follow suit and cut aid in an attempt to raise funds for increasing defence spend.

My hon. Friend is making some compelling points. Does he agree that the crucial point is that if Britain retreats from our role as a leader in international development, we not only undermine our unique soft power but leave vital regions exposed, ceding ground to the increasing assertiveness of hostile powers and geopolitical rivals?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will cover many of those points. I find the cut totally indefensible and counterproductive. Apart from the soft power that our aid programme offers, it is a betrayal of principles we hold dear: reducing poverty and assuring global security. On a personal note, aid cuts hit close to home for me. For much of my career I have worked in international aid, primarily in water, sanitation and hygiene, working to give people across Africa and the developing world access to clean drinking water, safe sanitation and good hygiene. Those simple things are vital to health, survival and prosperity. According to WaterAid, the UK’s annual budget for WASH has already been cut by approximately 82%, from a high of £206 million per year down to a critical low of just £37 million a year in 2022. Further cuts are likely to this most vital of sectors. Such cuts will hardly dissuade potential refugees from coming to our shores; they may even drive those refugees towards us if life becomes increasingly intolerable as a result of climate change, war and famine. One impact of USAID cuts is growing hunger. Globally, almost 50% of all deaths among children under five are attributed to malnutrition. The USAID-funded famine early warning system—FEWS NET—the gold standard for monitoring and predicting food insecurity, went offline in January because of Trump’s cuts, leaving organisations without a key source of guidance on where and when to deploy humanitarian aid. At the same time, other USAID cuts have led to feeding programmes themselves coming to an abrupt end. For example, therapeutic feeding centres in Nigeria have been closed, as have community-run kitchens in Sudan, at a time when famine threatens millions in that country. Meanwhile, thousands in Haiti have lost access to nutritional support. We are told that USAID emergency food rations are now rotting in warehouses. The supply of HIV treatments and medication has been severely disrupted. The UNAIDS executive director has warned that if funding is not replaced, an additional 6.3 million AIDS-related deaths are expected over the next four years. We were likewise warned by a senior World Health Organisation staff member during the recent International Development Committee visit to Geneva that, with AIDS again running rampant, it is likely that drug-resistant variants of tuberculosis will now multiply and become a risk to us all, even in the developed north. When healthcare systems are hit, sexual and reproductive health is often one of the first casualties.

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I have been in contact with the International Rescue Committee, my former employer, about the impact that the USAID cuts will have on it. It is estimated that the cuts to that agency alone will mean that 280,000 people in Yemen will lose access to primary care, mental healthcare and reproductive healthcare, and 3,000 people in Lebanon will be left without education. That is devastating not just in terms of the humanitarian impact; we need to think about it in terms of our own stability and security. It means diseases left unchecked, which cross borders and become pandemics, and it means young people left without education and opportunity and at risk of further marginalisation and radicalisation. Does he agree with that analysis?

I thank the hon. Member for her comments, and I will continue with more figures that emphasise those points. During the 90-day freeze, an estimated 11.7 million women and girls have been denied modern contraceptive care. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that that will lead to 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and 8,340 women and girls dying from pregnancy and childbirth complications.

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about the impact that the cuts will have on women and girls. Does he agree that, as well as continuing to support women and girls through aid from this country, we must stand up for women’s and girls’ rights internationally? We have seen them rolled back in the past. That is why it is so important that we continue to do what we can to stand up for women, for example in Afghanistan, where their rights are being eroded every single day.

I completely agree with the hon. Member. An ActionAid project in Zambia safeguarding women from sexual exploitation was forced to close almost overnight. Oxfam says that, thanks to the cuts to USAID, 95 million people could lose access to basic healthcare, potentially leading to 3 million preventable deaths a year, and 23 million children could lose access to education. When services collapse and diseases can spread unchecked, people lose hope, and they do not stay put. Migration pressures rise, conflicts hit new boiling points and markets react. As covid taught us all too well, deadly viruses such as Marburg and Ebola could leap from remote villages to our high streets in a matter of weeks, especially when the staff to deal with them have been given stop orders and removed from frontline duty. We are already seeing other powers whose interests do not align with ours begin to fill the gaps left by USAID. China and Russia are expanding their influence in regions where western credibility is weakening. Just last week, some of us on the IDC heard from an official in the Burma/Myanmar freedom movement that USAID’s withdrawal has happened at the same time as China has made quick inroads to prop up the military and curry influence in its efforts to get hold of rare earth minerals from that troubled country. The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a force for good in the world. Our work and leadership with British aid has not only saved lives but championed the best of our British values: fairness, the rule of law, health, education and opportunity across the globe. That is soft power in its most tangible form, and it is worth its weight in gold—and, more importantly, in lives and livelihoods. Sadly, we have made our own aid cuts recently, from the 0.7% GNI commitment down to 0.5% and then 0.3%. The reality is that with so much being spent on hotels for asylum seekers, instead of allowing them to work and pay their way while their status is determined, as little as 1% of UK GNI is now being spent on genuine aid. We know what to do. We know that investing in WASH makes sense. We know that investing in girls’ education reduces child marriage, improves economic outcomes and reduces inequality. We know that investing in pandemic preparedness, vaccine infrastructure and vaccine research protects not just vulnerable people around the world, but our NHS and public health here at home. International development is therefore smart policy. It reduces the risks that we would otherwise spend billions more to contain. What should we do? We must reaffirm our commitment to restoring the 0.7% target and publicly commit not to just the rhetoric of aid, but to actually doing it—and doing it well. The withdrawal of USAID has created a moment of reckoning; the world is watching and the vulnerable are waiting. I will end by paraphrasing President John F. Kennedy in his special message to Congress on foreign aid on 22 March 1961. We are aware of our obligations to the sick, the poor and the hungry, wherever they may live. It will both befit and benefit us to take this step boldly, on which will depend substantially the kind of world in which we and our children shall live. It is time for us to stand up and be counted.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I will call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am. It looks like all Members will get to speak if they stick to six or seven minutes.

09:42:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing this debate, which is a timely one, given that we are approaching 20 years since the Gleneagles summit held in Scotland in 2005. Twenty years ago, Nelson Mandela spoke in Trafalgar Square calling on us to make poverty history. World leaders gathered in Gleneagles in 2005, and they rose to the challenge, cancelling debt for some of the world’s poorest countries and boosting aid. In 2025, aid and development are firmly in the spotlight, but for very different reasons and in a very different context. While this debate is focused on the impact of USAID funding cuts, there is no doubt that those cuts will have a seismic impact on the landscape globally, and on our own approach to development. The US is the world’s largest aid donor, providing around 20% of all aid from the 32 members of the OECD. In February, we announced the very difficult decision that UK aid would be cut to boost defence spending. While I welcome the uplift in defence spending, for people such as me and the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes who have worked in development for many years, it was a painful decision. However, it is important to emphasise the difference between the decisions made in the United States and those made in the UK. While I will not comment too much on the rationales for different Governments’ decisions, the UK Government have been clear that this was not an ideological decision but one driven by financial pressures. I believe, and I am sure that the Minister will assure us, that there is a commitment to continuing to develop aid.

On the question of whether the Government’s decision was driven by financial motivations, does the hon. Member agree that whether it is 0.7% or 0.3%, the key is that UK GDP must rise, as her own Chancellor has said? If our economy shrinks, the 0.7% figure becomes almost irrelevant because it is 0.7% of a much smaller budget. All that matters overseas is the amount of cash they get, not the percentage of our domestic product, so we must drive the economy first before we try to deliver the mechanism that I am sure most of us are in favour of.

The hon. Member is right; this is an internationally agreed percentage of gross national income, but too many countries have not met that target. As has been mentioned, some countries are stepping back, so it is important to be clear that we will keep our commitment to getting back to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow. However, in this new reality, we must ensure that our aid delivers maximum impact where it is spent, that we take actions to mitigate the effect of these cuts and that we keep the commitment to return to 0.7% in the long term. In that spirit, I will focus on five key areas where the Government should act. First, they must cut in-donor refugee costs. As many Members know, we spend a significant portion of our current aid budget in the UK on those costs, which were approximately £4 billion in 2023. That trend started under the previous Conservative Government—who also left us with huge backlogs in the asylum system—and I know that this Government are determined to tackle it. We have seen some progress in bringing down those costs, and provisional estimates suggest that they were £2.8 billion in 2024, but we need to continue that trajectory with a clear timeline and a commitment across Departments to get them down. Secondly, we must maximise the impact of our aid. It is important that we align with the “leave no one behind” principle in the 2015 sustainable development goals. I would not want to be in the shoes of the Minister for International Development in the other place, because there are difficult decisions to be made, as members of the International Development Committee recently heard. It is important that Members of Parliament, including Back Benchers, clearly see the criteria and the vision against which those decisions are being made. The “leave no one behind” principle must, as I alluded to earlier, include a focus on women and girls. It is clear that the USAID cuts will have a big impact in that area. In 2023, the US was the largest single donor in areas including population, reproductive health and family planning. Under the Conservative Government’s last round of cuts to the aid budget, we saw that women and girls were disproportionately affected, so it is important that does not happen again. I recently asked the Minister for Europe in the main Chamber whether women and girls would remain “at the heart” of our policy, and he assured me that they would. At the International Development Committee, the Minister for International Development in the other place assured us that although there would be less money for women and girls in education, it would be mainstreamed across all the priorities. Can the Minister elaborate on how we will ensure that they are prioritised and, importantly, how we will continue to support women’s rights organisations? As UN Women has shown recently, there has been a detrimental impact, with many such organisations at risk of having to close their doors altogether. When we invest in women and girls, we get better outcomes, not only for those countries but for ourselves.

The UN has warned us that more than half of frontline, women-led organisations could shut down within six months due to global aid cuts. That is not just a funding crisis; it is a humanitarian catastrophe. Does the hon. Member agree that restoring funding to those groups must be a priority if we are to prevent the complete collapse of women’s services in conflict zones?

I fully agree. We have had programmes, such as the Equality Fund, where we have been clear on the importance of women’s rights-led organisations. I have met many women’s rights defenders of all ages who are doing amazing work. We must continue to back them and listen to them, because they know what is best in the context in which they work. I am sure other Members will speak to the importance of investing in multilateral efforts, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund, which I also want to back. Those funds have a proven return on investment for the UK taxpayer. The World Bank’s International Development Association fund and the African Development Fund also have important roles to play in alleviating poverty, and we have been big backers of those in the past. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the United Nations, I would also like to underline the value of the United Nations. There is, of course, space for reform, and I am sure we are all aware of some of the flaws in the system, but it is a unique vehicle for coming together as a world to tackle some of the biggest challenges we face and to increase the value of our aid. We must also look beyond aid to leverage other forms of financing, many of which we could leverage without cost to the taxpayer. As the Independent Commission for Aid Impact pointed out, foreign direct investment, remittances and other forms dwarf the overall aid budget, so I hope the UK will continue to lead on innovative financing. That includes how we can recycle International Monetary Fund special drawing rights. In 2020, we received an allocation of £19 billion from the IMF as part of the response to covid. We could re-channel that to provide zero-interest finance to low-income countries or through multilateral development banks. We could also put idle foreign reserves into action. A small portion of the UK’s largely idle exchange equalisation account could be used to support low-income countries. The last Labour Government led on debt relief. I was proud of what we did at Gleneagles to lead those efforts. We must do so again, given that debt payments for low-income countries are at their highest for 30 years, with 32 African countries spending more on servicing their external debt than on healthcare. Given that 90% of low-income countries’ debt is governed by English law, the UK could do a lot to bring private creditors to the table to get the best possible deals. I hope the Minister can set out what we are doing in that regard, especially as we approach the conference on financing for development in Seville in just a few weeks’ time. Finally, more broadly, we need a reset on aid and development. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we want to move to an approach founded on partnership, not paternalism, which puts the countries that have traditionally been recipients of aid in the driving seat. We have seen cases in the past. Indonesia, for example, used to be a recipient of Gavi funding but is now giving money itself. We need to look at success stories and say why they matter not only for tackling poverty but for increasing prosperity and tackling inequality, including in our own country. I see our development work as insurance; it is a downpayment for the long term to tackle some of the upstream drivers of migration. I hope that we will continue to lead internationally, as we are domestically, on using science, innovation and technology to its best effect. Innovators, such as the John Innes Centre in the constituency next to mine, are doing amazing work to tackle hunger and climate change, and we must back those efforts to look at how we can support developing countries abroad. We all know that tough decisions are having to be made in the extraordinary times in which we live, but I know that this Government are internationalists. I believe that our party will continue to lead and use all the levers at our disposal to tackle poverty and inequality wherever they are found.

I remind Members to stick to the time limit as much as they can.

09:52:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for leading the debate. He and I have talked often about his previous job before he came here. I put on the record my thanks to him for what he did. His heart is in this debate, as was clear in his comments. This is a huge issue: since Trump signed the initial executive order in January, there has been a moral obligation on countries like ours to do our best to pick up what may be lost in terms of humanitarian safety, so it is great to be here to discuss that impact. The United States is the world’s largest aid donor, providing 20% of all aid. In addition, in 2023 it was the largest single donor in areas including population, reproductive health and humanitarian aid. In March 2025, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, stated that 82% of all USAID programmes would be ended. I will try to be respectful, but I have to say that if the richest country in the world cuts back on aid to that extent, it reflects badly on that country; I think there is something wrong there. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I are Christians, and we tithe our money so 10% of our income goes to charities and Christian work. We are not better than anybody else— I make that quite clear—but we do that because we feel we are morally supposed to. The reflection on the USAID programme is absolutely unbelievable and incomprehensible for a country with so much money. I was telling my hon. Friend about a conversation between two American ladies—I do not know who they were—that I overheard in my hotel in Waterloo this morning. I heard one say to the other, “Oh, by the way, I had to get my leg done and it cost $100,000.” I nearly spilt my coffee on the floor—$100,000 and there was not another word about it. The US as a country has an obligation to others across the world, and it needs to play its part. I say that with respect and in all honesty. The decisions that began in January have ultimately raised concerns about the continuity of global health and developmental support work. As my party’s health spokesman, my interest is piqued by the potential for humanitarian and health aid to be ultimately affected as a result. I understand that the Government have made some exceptions with waivers, but hundreds of thousands of people will undoubtedly be impacted because of those decisions. According to The Independent, 912,730 women per week are being denied contraception. HIV vaccine trials in South Africa have been halted. Food and shelter programmes in refugee camps have been reduced or stopped early. US withdrawal has led to an increase in influence from outside actors such as China—let us beware China using its money to fill the space and therefore get what it wants. Up to half a million children could be at risk of outbreaks of malaria and cholera, which can be prevented in normal circumstances with aid. Not only are such decisions impacting people across the globe, but closer to home the staff are ultimately out of employment as well. There is a disregard for the number of jobs that it could impact. The Minister has compassion and interest in this issue, and I do not think any of us will be disappointed in her response to our requests. In any discussions that she and the Government have with the US on this matter, the UK must work with other countries to meet development goals and ensure that those struggling across the globe are not left with nothing. The UK has a stellar reputation for supporting countries facing poverty. In Northern Ireland we have several charities, non-governmental organisations and churches— I work with them all the time in my constituency of Strangford and in Newtownards—that are pivotal in supporting people in poverty. Charities such as Challenge Ministries, Mission Africa, Self Help Africa and Children in Crossfire come out of the churches and what they do. Their continued efforts reflect our commitment to supporting the nations who need help, and we must ensure that to some extent we continue to do that in the long term.

On the NGOs and the other groups helping people at home, the House of Commons Library summary indicates that over a quarter of UK aid has been spend on refugees based in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be better deployed overseas to try to assist the economies of developing countries, because of the concern about massive immigration into the UK? If those economies were helped and assisted, it would do more to reduce the numbers of people coming to the UK and offset the problems that we occasionally see on our streets.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His comments about what we should do are incredibly wise, because there would be benefits. Sometimes the full appreciation of that is not known. I was at a Samaritan’s Purse charity event last Friday in my constituency, where I was quite critical of USAID. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, whose missionary work I am aware of, is also working with Samaritan’s Purse. Such people in my constituency and elsewhere fill the gap where the aid falls down. We owe a great debt to those NGOs, church groups, missionary organisations and the likes of Samaritan’s Purse for what they do and how they respond to emergencies, whether they are floods, earthquakes, war or whatever. To conclude, both Governments have said in the past that more needs to be done to help low-income countries raise their own funds for development and to address climate change, especially in relation to poverty reduction. We should be proud as a nation of what we have done, while also encouraging our counterparts in the US to ensure that we do what we can to support as a collective. I agree that every pound or dollar spent must not be wasted on political gesturing and must be spent well, but we must not stop spending altogether. That is my fear about USAID, because we have a moral obligation. I know that our US counterparts can work with us to find worthwhile projects, cut the political posturing and make a global difference, which is what we all need to do.

09:59:00

Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse; it is a privilege to have you in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall today. Internationalism is at the heart of the Labour movement. When it comes to solidarity with the oppressed and victims of injustice, truly there are no borders. I want to touch on some recurring themes. The first is the ongoing dominance of Washington DC in our foreign policy. There is no doubt that the US continues to heavily influence our international approach. The American President challenged European nations to increase their defence spending at the same time as he cut USAID. The British people we serve deserve better than our nation’s meek obedience to Washington DC. Human rights, upholding and following international law, and using what global influence we have for peace and security should be at the forefront of our thinking and action. The ripple effect of outside influence impacts our domestic policy as well as our foreign policy. A politician talking about “tough choices” almost always means that the poorest, the disadvantaged and the most vulnerable are at the wrong end of whatever the decisions are, whether at home or abroad. Domestically, the proposed cuts to welfare mean that disabled people are facing a life of forever poverty. With reductions in benefits and cost of living increases, on top of the added financial pressures involved in being disabled, it is accurate to say that, for many, the cuts would be lethal. A deadly fate also awaits people in some of the most dangerous, volatile and destitute countries that rely on our overseas aid just to survive. Human rights and humanitarian law are essential for global security, and those essentials are under serious threat.

On global security, the Mines Advisory Group, a leading mine NGO, has been forced to shut down its operations in Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso and Mauritania and scale back in Iraq, Senegal, South Sudan and Sri Lanka because of USAID cuts. This is not the moment to retreat. Does the hon. Member agree that the UK must ensure sustained funding for humanitarian mine action to keep civilians safe and support post-conflict recovery?

Yes, the hon. Member has my absolute agreement. In all honesty, the UK is contributing to the growing danger that I described. We continue to sell arms to human rights-abusing states and further compound that awful act by cutting overseas development aid, which prevents conflict, builds peace, increases global security and saves and transforms lives. I utterly reject the narrative that for defence spending to be increased, overseas development aid has to be cut. Pushing that type of politics is an example of dividing people, sowing discord and creating disharmony and suspicion—creating a society that is dog eat dog and to hell with your neighbour. Cutting overseas aid is not only immoral but a completely false economy, because our security at home is made stronger when the security of others is guaranteed abroad. For example, on International Women’s Day earlier this year, Liberation organised for women from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Gaza and Western Sahara to come to Westminster. Those women shared personal stories of hunger, illness, sexual exploitation and intimidation, and persecution. Our overseas aid helps to provide safety from those awful circumstances. I think we all agree that all politics is personal—with nothing more so than the stories those women shared with parliamentarians that evening. Before finishing, I want to touch again on what I said about internationalism. The fight against inequality must be tackled here and across the world. Austerity and cuts, whether at home or abroad, should be rejected. Our Foreign Office must have a coherent, joined-up approach. It is our country’s duty to respond to the world’s crises, make humanitarian aid available, and promote peace and global security. My only ask of the Minister is that she take that message back to the Secretary of State.

10:04:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I declare my interest as co-chair of both the APPG on nutrition for development and the APPG on HIV, AIDS and sexual health. This is a period of great uncertainty, not just because of what has happened in the US, but because of what is happening in the UK. Perhaps this debate is a couple of days early, because when the new Minister for International Development, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, appeared before the International Development Committee, everything was predicated on the spending review. Indeed, the Committee had to send back the Government’s response to our inquiry on hunger and sustainable development goal 2 because there was no substance in the reply, since everything was predicated on the outcome of the spending review. I hope that tomorrow we will get certainty. I do not expect the Minister to be able to advance anything specific today, but it is important that we have that certainty, because uncertainty is one of the worst features affecting our ability to plan and to combat the issues that we face globally. Obviously, the US has contributed enormously to that uncertainty. It is still not clear what is happening in the US, and that is why I welcome the fact that the International Development Committee will soon visit Washington and New York. It will be a fact-finding visit, so that we can ascertain exactly what the approach is, and whether Mr Musk’s departure means anything for how these matters will be dealt with. I do not want to dwell too much on regret about the American situation. I think that we have to move on, as others have said, to a new debate about the future model of development. The Government, through the Minister for International Development, have indicated that that is their view, but again, there have not been many clues as to exactly what that might mean. We have heard about a realignment of existing multilateral organisations; it is not clear to me what that means. What I am clear on is that the UK should continue to contribute significantly to Gavi, the Global Fund and Unitaid, because those are multilateral organisations that deliver on their own specific objectives but also provide a backbone for health services in many poorer countries. Without those interventions, there would not be a health service being offered at all, so it is vital that we continue. Cutting mid-way through programmes is always chaotic. One of the most shocking things that I heard in recent evidence to the International Development Committee was about a US cut during the overwhelming of Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We heard that the radio system, which was operated by volunteers, had to be switched off during that attack. That meant that people could not hear where the attack was coming from and where to go to be safe. I think that everybody who heard that evidence, from the guy who had to do that, understood how hard it was—and it was the direct consequence of a cut. I want to focus on nutrition and give some key facts. A billion women and girls suffer from malnutrition, which impacts their health, productivity and economic futures. Malnutrition is a leading killer, responsible for one in five maternal deaths and nearly half of child deaths under the age of five. Malnutrition costs the global economy more than $1.6 trillion annually in lost productivity and potential. US aid cuts could lead to 1 million children with severe and acute malnutrition losing access to treatment annually. But it can be—and it has been—different. We know that for every $1 invested, $23 is returned to the local economy. Investing in nutrition is not charity, and it is not even the moral thing to do; it is a strategic decision and investment, and the UK, US and other funders should continue to do it. The UK Government are being asked to invest £50 million in the child nutrition fund. The UK has historically been a leader in the funding of child nutrition interventions. In both 2022 and 2023, the UK committed £6 million to the fund, which has high-impact, cost-effective malnutrition solutions. With the funding crisis caused by US cuts, the ask is now £50 million. I hope that on the IDC’s visit to the US, we will find out more about what is happening with HIV/AIDS, because there are competing suggestions about whether the US will return to funding. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) alluded to women and girls; one of the most important messages we have to get across is that in sub-Saharan Africa, it is women and girls who are most affected by HIV, and it is important to continue funding there. I also agree with the hon. Member about the importance of science and innovation as we move forward in this new development world. I had the opportunity to visit the John Innes Centre outside Norwich, as well as Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, where a huge amount of research is going ahead. The research and scientific leadership that the UK can offer might be the replacement for the financial leadership we offered in the past.

10:11:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing the debate. The International Development Committee is due in a couple of weeks—if our visas are approved—to go to the US and have some of these discussions. It will be interesting to see what is said. I do not know whether I need to declare this as an interest, but I am the Labour party representative on the Progressive Alliance; our sister party is the Democratic party, and I campaigned for it in the 2012 election. I think it is obvious that my view is that we should not have the current US Administration, and their decision to slash the US aid budget was profound and devastating. Turning to the UK context, as someone who has spent their entire career in the charity sector, I was heartbroken by the decision to cut aid to 0.3%, but it is important for the record to lay out some of the context for that decision. We inherited a horrific economy, the majority of the aid budget—a huge amount of that money—was going on asylum spend in hotels, and we faced a world in which Ukraine had been invaded by Putin and his forces. While I regret the decision to cut aid, it was taken in that terrible context, and because of the vital need to increase defence spending to 2.5%. Why was the economy in such a state? It was because of the devastating Truss mini-Budget. Aid had already been reduced to 0.5% because of the decision that Sunak had taken, and Boris Johnson had abolished a world-leading Government Department. In addition, why did Russia invade? It was because—I should say that I do not mean this as a criticism of the last Government—the west collectively failed to stand up to Putin. We allowed him and Assad to do what they wanted in Syria; we took no action when Assad unleashed chemical weapons on his own people. Putin invaded Crimea with near impunity in 2014, and of course we had attacks on UK soil, including the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not, because I want to make a point; I find the moralising tone of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) a bit much. The reason the last Government were able to do what they did—slashing the aid budget, abolishing the Department for International Development and wrecking the economy—was that we have never had a weaker Opposition than we did when the hard left was sadly in charge of my party. Putin was emboldened, in part, by the hard left’s constant appeasement and apologism for the things he was doing, their downplaying of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and their suggestion that we send the sample from Salisbury back to Putin to test whether or not he was responsible.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No, I will not, because I find the moralising tone completely infuriating. Having put that on record, I turn to the matter at hand: the horrible situation that we are in. I note with respect that other hon. Members have mentioned causes that they deeply care about, and I care about those causes—

On geopolitics, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will.

If we put aside the internecine warfare of the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about a retreat from the world. Retreating from the world as the west, the UK or the US, opens the door to creating more problems, and then we retreat further. Would he argue that that is what we are doing—vacating the field to our opponents?

I do not believe that is the case, because I believe the Minister is going to set out the ways in which we are still taking our place on the world stage, but I hear the hon. Member’s concern. Hon. Members in this Chamber have passionately advocated for causes that they care deeply about. I respect that, especially the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes and his passionate plea for WASH. I could talk about a number of causes important to me, but what is most important is that we increase the size of the pie. For that reason, I have been working constructively with other Members of the House to put suggestions to the Government for how, given the decision to cut aid to 0.3%, we could look at other forms of development finance. In the interests of time, I will not go over the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) made about asylum seekers, remittances, special drawing rights, the exchange equalisation account and debt relief, but I will add to that list the need to release the Chelsea money as soon as possible. The Government announced recently that they are looking to take further action against Roman Abramovich. If that money is released into Ukraine, given that we have essentially said that we will protect aid spending in Ukraine, I hope that additional money can replace official development assistance going in, so that that ODA money can then support programmes in other countries. We also have an issue with British International Investment. To be clear, BII does good things, but there is no need for additional capitalisation out of the 0.3% that we have, given that investments in assets can be realised. Finally, I highlight the international finance facility for immunisation, which is a way to leverage extra funding. We are urging the Government to look at other ways to do that in other contexts. There is already an international finance facility for education, and by using such facilities we can leverage funds times 10. Given the various summits that are coming up, including the financing for development conference that my hon. Friend mentioned, I urge the Government to look at those options, and to think innovatively about the additional finance that we can leverage to help to support the poorest people in the world.

10:18:00

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew)—who cut his teeth in the continent and the country in which I was born, Malawi—for securing this important debate. We are seeing the dismantling of the world order that we created. I sincerely believe that we stand at a crossroads of not just policy, but principle. The United Kingdom has long prided itself on punching above its weight, not just militarily, but with moral leadership. Having said that, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), it was Tony Blair—the “hard left”—who said that Putin should have a seat at the table and gave him a pair of silver 10 Downing Street cufflinks. With our moral leadership, through decades of smart and targeted overseas aid, we have saved lives and shaped the world in our image—an image that is just, resilient and humane. The decision that we have made to cut overseas aid by £6 billion is lowering our commitment, such that overseas aid will be at its lowest level in 25 years. That not only betrays the world’s most vulnerable people; it betrays us. It betrays who we are and what we stand for. Let us be clear: aid is not just about generosity. We all know that. It is also about foresight. I am an optometrist, and this decision is extremely myopic. Aid is about security for us in the long term. It is about stability and recognising that the surest way to keep disease, conflict and extremism from reaching our shores is to invest in preventing them, rather than reacting in panic when they emerge. In my opinion, cutting aid while increasing defence spending is putting the cart before the horse. How can we talk about protecting our nation while we tear down the very programmes that prevent wars, contain pandemics—have we already forgotten covid?—and stabilise fragile regions? These aid cuts are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they are unprotected lives, including children who are unprotected because they are unvaccinated, whose futures will be erased. For example, over the past four years our support for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has helped to immunise 1 billion children. Now that we are reducing the funds for aid, we risk reversing decades of progress. Measles, polio, typhoid—these are not diseases of the past. They are clawing their way back and our retreat invites them in. We have seen what our aid can do. In just two years, the Reach Initiative helped to boost immunisation rates in conflict zones from 16% to 96%, reaching more than 9 million children. Are we now to abandon those children in the name of “sharpening focus”? The UK’s aid has helped to provide antiretroviral therapy to 23 million people, distributed 133 million malaria nets and, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), educated more than 1 million girls in the world’s hardest places. Are we about to cut this system to meet a political target or to mimic a short-sighted policy from across the Atlantic? Aid fosters growth over time. Since 1960, the International Development Association has helped 36 countries through loans and grants; 19 of them have seen economic development to such a degree that they are now giving money to the IDA rather than receiving it. Let us not kid ourselves. This aid cut is not about leadership; to me, it looks like retreat. While following the USA in gutting aid programmes might seem politically expedient, it is morally bankrupt and strategically reckless. This policy will stoke the very fires that we seek to extinguish—displacement, disease and extremism—and send their embers across the globe. And what of our standing on the world stage? Are we prepared to go from aid superpower to spectator, and to shrug while global poverty, education and health collapse under the weight of our absence? While we pull back, authoritarian regimes are—as we speak—filling the void with their influence, their ideologies and their terms. I believe that we should increase our investment in global health security, not scale it back. Our aid was not charity, in a world still reeling from covid and now facing new disease outbreaks; it was, in fact, an insurance policy against global collapse. Now is not a time for retreat; it is a time for us to lead, with compassion, clarity and courage. We must not allow short-term politics to cause long-term catastrophe. We must restore our commitment to giving 0.7% of GNI, reassert our leadership in education in particular, global health and crisis response, and protect not just lives overseas, but the future of our nation and the values that we claim to defend. We are not just donors; we are architects of a safer and more stable world. Let us not dismantle what we have built.

10:24:00

It is indeed an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing this important debate. Since the new US Administration took office in January, President Trump and Elon Musk have gutted USAID—the world’s foremost dispenser of humanitarian funding and expertise, through which America saved the lives of many of the world’s poorest people. Trump’s budget proposals to Congress for the coming fiscal year reduce foreign assistance spend by almost 85%, all while the need for it increases. In a deadly year, when 120 armed conflicts raging across the globe, the number of people suffering from acute food insecurity has nearly tripled in six years, from 135 million in 2019 to 340 million today. The nation that previously built development’s architecture has largely disappeared almost overnight. There is an urgent need for someone to step up and assume the convening and facilitating role that America once played. Many looked to Britain, and in that month, when we all held our breath, we were blindsided instead by this Labour Government cutting development spending to its lowest level this century. It is difficult to fully comprehend the scale of the cuts to USAID or their impact. In 2024, America spent roughly $70 billion on international development. Its contribution represented 40% of all humanitarian aid recorded that year. But it is not just the money. Every other country, international NGO and development body relies on the humanitarian architecture that America built and supported. It was America that funded much of the most valuable data collection, which determined where other countries directed their resources. NGOs I have spoken to explained how American-funded analysis often provided the early warning system for looming hunger crises. Frequently it was money from the Americans that paid the administrative costs and overheads of NGOs working on the ground. That has been dismantled. The world is already paying a heavy price for Trump’s and Musk’s decision to break American development leadership. Since the cuts, Boston University has been running a mathematical model of their likely toll. The model estimates that more than 300,000 people have died already, two thirds of them children. Every hour, the model believes, around another 100 people die. One can watch the number tick up almost in real time. A leaked memo originating with USAID estimated that the cuts would result in 200,000 children each year being paralysed by polio, that 1 million cases of severe acute malnutrition, which often results in death, would go untreated and that malaria would claim an additional 166,000 lives. There is a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding before our eyes. Millions of the world’s poorest people, including the poorest children, have lost lifesaving medical care because of those cuts. Perhaps the heaviest blow of all has fallen upon the global effort to fight HIV and AIDS. The President’s emergency plan for AIDS relief, credited with saving 26 million lives in the last two decades, received a 90-day stop work order in January. The Trump Administration have now asked Congress to claw back money, some already allocated to PEPFAR. As a result, the global HIV response has been severely disrupted. Modelling by the Burnet Institute estimates that it will result in a 25% drop in funding for the global HIV response, and as many as 2.9 million excess HIV-related deaths by 2030.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments. It is very important we emphasise that it is women and girls who will be most affected by those cuts. It is not those stereotypes sometimes presented by some in the US who are affected; it is women and girls.

The right hon. Member makes an excellent point, which I will come to later. USAID modelling suggests that the actions of Trump and Musk could result in 28,000 new cases of infectious diseases, such as Ebola, each year. When Ebola ripped through west Africa a decade ago, it had a case fatality of around 40%. It was kept from our shores thanks to a global response in which America and Britain played crucial roles. When we step back from funding and supporting global health initiatives, we put ourselves at risk. I repeat the Liberal Democrats’ call for the Government to reaffirm our commitment to the replenishment of Gavi and the Global Fund, because it is the right thing to do for British interests. There is some hope. The situation is still fluid, and I urge the Government to impress upon the US Administration the moral and strategic imperative for development. Meanwhile, the US Administration have emphasised that America will continue to provide humanitarian aid and respond to disasters, at least to a degree. That is welcome, but if the funding is to be effective it must be provided in accordance with foundational humanitarian principles: impartiality, neutrality and independence. Israel’s Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an American-backed scheme, disregards those principles. In consequence, it is dangerous, unworkable and profoundly insufficient. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to affirm Britain’s commitment to those principles and to all allies, and to urge American counterparts to do the same. The decisions taken by the US Administration to slash and gut USAID are profoundly depressing; that our Government have followed their lead is even more so. Britain is withdrawing when our voice is needed more than ever. The slashed UK aid budget cannot fulfil our commitments. We hear that Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine are ringfenced. In the absence of the US, we wonder about those other humanitarian hotspots: Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, DRC, Nigeria, Myanmar, South Sudan, Mali, Haiti and Bangladesh. We hear that our Government’s priorities are conflict, climate change and health. What about women and girls, nutrition and education? At the same time, the Government toy with rhetoric and framing borrowed from the Trump playbook, saying that Britain is no longer a charity. Let us be clear and united: development serves British interests. It is not charity or a giant cash dispenser in the sky, but a deposit account for our safety and security. That is because funding global health is better than battling a pandemic; supporting peacebuilding is cheaper than fighting a war, or dealing with the terrorism that emerges out of instability; and aid in economic development and climate mitigation are better than coping with mass displacement and channel crossings. Every crisis creates opportunities, and the American withdrawal is no different. While the USA dismantles overseas assistance—ripping out 85% of it, and the plumbing, too—Britain must use its tradition of leadership and step forward as a convening power, with bold and brave thinking and a long-term vision for aid, starting by laying out a road map for returning to 0.7% of GNI, as we are required to do by statute. That law has not changed. I worry about the Government’s failure to square that with the notoriously generous British public. The impact of the UK aid cut, alongside the US cut, has not been made clear. It will mean hundreds of thousands of lives lost worldwide. Instead of short-term decision making and chasing domestic headlines, we must invest in a long-term vision for Britain and security for our future. We have yet to see any script from the Government on what Britain is for. How we behave now will define how we are seen on the world stage. We still have a seat at the table and we may say that we still have the expertise to lead, but if money does not follow, it would be arrogant to assume that we will keep that seat. Britain is compassionate. We do not have to follow America blindly; we can use our proud and long tradition in development and aid, look outwards and lead.

10:33:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) on securing the debate. It is very timely, coming as it does one day before the Chancellor’s spending review announcement. It is more than three months since the Prime Minister announced the reduction in aid spending, yet we still await a clear picture of what that means, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) eloquently set out. I appreciate that there are challenges for the Minister but, like the international development sector and partners, I still have many unanswered questions about what this means for UK development priorities, especially in the context of changes to USAID. Decisions about the levels of US aid are, quite rightly, a matter for the US Government, but we should acknowledge that this is the new reality we are working with. It is therefore incumbent on Ministers to be across the changes and the detail, and to understand what they mean for the sector and our partners. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of the changes to USAID? Understanding where the impact will be is crucial to ensuring that our programmes are as effective as they can be, given the global and domestic context. With that in mind, has the Minister assessed the number of UK aid programmes that are likely to be impacted and which sectors will be most affected? I would also be grateful for an update on her latest discussions with her counterparts in the US, as well as counterparts in other donor countries. Is she aware of any programmes or policy areas that the US is vacating where there might be appropriate opportunities for the UK to take on the mantle and further our own national interest? Global health, as we have heard today, is an area where the UK has made a significant and positive contribution, for example to Gavi and the Global Fund. In 2020, while we hosted the global vaccine summit, it was the Conservative Government who committed £1.65 billion to Gavi. During the last two Global Fund replenishments, we pledged £1 billion in 2022 and £1.46 billion in 2020. These interventions really do matter: Gavi has saved 18.8 million lives and the Global Fund 65 million. Those are not numbers, but real lives, real people and real results. Sadly, we are yet to see a pledge from this Government. Another example of global health in action is the Tackling Deadly Diseases in Africa programme. By working with African partners and the World Health Organisation to help to detect and tackle future epidemics and drug-resistant infections, the programme was integral to stopping Africa’s worst Ebola outbreak in 20 years. It is therefore rather concerning that we read in the press that the programme is at risk. Diseases do not respect borders, and we need to understand the risk of the changes for us at home. What assessment has the Minister made, ahead of the spending review, to inform her about how the global health budget should be managed? On women and girls, the UK also has a good story to tell. In government, the Conservatives launched the women and girls strategy for 2023-30, which affirmed our commitment to the three Es: education, empowering women and girls, and ending violence. We worked with partners such as Education Cannot Wait and the Global Partnership for Education, demonstrating how the public and private sectors can work together to achieve maximum impact. Similarly, sexual and reproductive health and rights programmes are, as we have heard today, essential for saving lives and achieving gender equality, and, crucially, for empowering women. This is an area where the UK has a strong record of delivering. As we are sadly all too aware, conflict has a disproportionate impact on women and girls. Too often, they are locked out of efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts, and to build peace. The women, peace and security agenda we championed in government is about building a more representative and effective approach to tackling conflict and advocating for women’s rights in an ever more challenging world. It matters because empowered and engaged women make societies more prosperous and more secure. The Minister’s colleague, the International Development Minister, recently told the International Development Committee that education and gender are likely to be impacted by the changes to ODA. As a priority, can the Minister therefore help us understand how that will impact on the FCDO’s work in women and girls’ education, SRHR, maternal health and the broader women, peace and security agenda? There are so many other areas I would like to raise in the context of changes to USAID. As ever, I am conscious of time, but it is important that we do not lose sight of, for example, strong institutions and capacity building, and tackling corruption and illicit finance. Without that, we cannot help partner countries to become stronger and better allies—something that is increasingly important in today’s ever more challenging world. De-mining in post-conflict and active conflict zones remains crucial. In that area, funding to the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust—great examples of British NGOs—has helped not to just support the clearance of explosives, but to raise awareness of the danger of mines and, crucially, train and build capacity in countries so that they can help to clear the mines themselves. I would also like to touch on nutrition, which underpins good development. The recent Nutrition for Growth summit in March this year is yet another example of a sector left in limbo where the UK did not make a financial commitment. It has been clear throughout this debate that there are still many unanswered questions and much uncertainty in the sector. I know that I am not alone in having received answers to written questions telling me to wait for the spending review. My latest tally of such answers is 59, and the story is the same almost regardless of the policy area. Similarly, the Shafik review of international development appears to have been left gathering dust on the Foreign Secretary’s desk. There are so many unanswered questions, creating much uncertainty in an ever-changing and complex world of conflict. I have a specific and topical question to press the Minister on regarding ODA spending on Chagos. What funds from ODA will be used as part of the payments and support for Mauritius under Labour’s Chagos surrender deal? Finally, how have the changes to USAID impacted the Minister’s decisions on UK development priorities? Has her Department made a full sector-by-sector, country-by-country impact assessment ahead of tomorrow’s spending review that takes into account the new development landscape we are operating in? As we adjust to the new reality with respect to USAID, it is vital that the UK is alive to the impact on our international development programmes while ensuring effectiveness in our delivery. Like many hon. and right hon. Members, I am sure, I remain patient and will wait until the spending review tomorrow, but let me reassure the Minister and her Department that if I am left with more questions than answers after that, I will keep asking those questions.

I ask the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the lead Member to wind up.

10:42:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and to have heard such excellent speeches from the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and others who have direct experience in this important field. To repeat the words of the Minister for Development in the other place, this is a very difficult time for the development sector. The world is changing and the post-world war two consensus is under significant strain. We face increasingly complex, interconnected and politically charged global issues. As we have heard, cuts to USAID, combined with funding decisions by other donors, including the UK, will have significant implications for tackling global development challenges. We are working closely with partners to understand the impact and provide support. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned that she has asked lots of questions, which is, of course, part of her job as spokesperson. However, she might want to cast her mind back to the period between February 2020 and December 2021, when she was the Minister and got the axe out so quickly that there were in-year funding cuts, job losses and an enormous tremor across the sector. I remember many people coming to see me, as the Opposition spokesperson, and saying, “Could the Government not at least take a considered view over time, not rush to do these things and try to have some respect for the sector?”

In my comments, I was appreciative of the challenges that any Government faces in such circumstances. However, I gently remind the Minister that this is now happening on her Government’s watch and, as she rightly acknowledges, my job as the shadow development Minister is to keep asking those questions. What the sector needs is certainty, and the Government clearly have not learned that.

On the tone of the speech by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), we should also remember the 2010 to 2015 period, when cut after cut in public funding inflicted quite a deal of pain on the recipients of that public funding.

Does the Minister agree, though, that after receiving a note from the Labour Government saying there was no more money left, the coalition Government increased the aid budget to 0.7%? In fact, 0.7% of gross national income has been in the Lib Dem manifesto since 1970. When we were in government, we delivered it; when we left government, it was cut.

I think the hon. Lady may have a good debating point in this Chamber, but the result of the 2015 election says it all.

I want to add to what the Minister is saying. The point is that, yes, the coalition Government did protect the aid budget, but by cutting public services in this country to the core, they undermined public trust in Government. That meant that lots of people faced need, and it led to increasing calls of, “Charity begins at home; why are we spending this money abroad?” If we had kept the settlement that we had under the last Labour Government, whereby we invested in public services at home and abroad, we would not have ended up in this mess.

I think we are all making the important point that since the 2008 global crash, our economy has never really been the same and we have struggled to make progress, whether on wages and living conditions at home or on completely fulfilling our responsibilities abroad. As one says, we are where we are. General reductions in public spending are part of a broader set of pressures facing the international development system. Support for multilateralism has been wavering for some time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) said, amid shifting geopolitical priorities. Many of our partners feel that the current system no longer responds to their needs. The combined impact of these two factors is significant, and let me briefly expand on them. First, on the disbanding of USAID, it is inevitable that significant cuts will have lasting implications for how we tackle global development challenges. I cannot say how pleased I am that the International Development Committee will go to the USA to have face-to-face dialogue with friends about how we can save the most important elements of our programmes. Given the knowledge base of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is well known for his work on global health, HIV/AIDS, Gavi, Unitaid and the Global Fund, he will be able to make pertinent arguments with friends there. I would also ask the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), with his connections in the faith sector, to impress on all the different faith-based charities the need to continue their important work where they can and to have many people doubling their tithe.

I have suggested this in the past, because there is a real possibility of doing good things together: those organisations would be keen to work alongside Government through their NGOs, if that was possible. I think I have asked the Minister this before, but I am interested in whether she would by sympathetic to that idea.

I will certainly pass that idea back to the Minister with responsibility for development, because we always end up having good ideas in Westminster Hall debates. The US is a key partner, but this is a matter for them. It is their budget. We have a strong relationship with the US that is founded on shared interests and common approaches. Together with our G7 and G20 allies, we carry strong global influence, and we must never stand back from that. That is why we are committed to working with the US and other countries on our shared priorities. We are in regular touch with US counterparts to share advice as they shape their development plans. As in any diplomatic relationship, we will not always align with the US, and we may want to focus on other things. That is normal. We will engage in a pragmatic way to understand concerns and find a way forward. Many Members have mentioned the multilateral system. No single country can solve the global development challenges alone, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North for pointing that out as well as the importance of working with international financial institutions, which she learned through her experience before coming to this place. This is where we have to be much more innovative. We cannot just sit around the table and nod through reports; we have to put some life back into those systems so that we can enable the finance and the technical aid, which the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale also mentioned. Through technical assistance and international financial organisations, we are not powerless —we can use them. There is an opportunity to rebuild trust, rebalance power and design a more effective, inclusive, co-operative and future-proof architecture. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, mentioned the 1970s. We must not forget, at a moment like this, what the development sector has done. So many more people lived in abject poverty before, and there is now a growing middle class, and much of that is down to really bright people, employed by NGOs in those countries, who are leading movements and improving the economy. Under 10% of people are now living at the poorest level, which used to be on $1 a day. The development Minister will know the statistic, but it has reduced to 9%. This debate, as well as lots of other evidence, is going into the spending review so that decisions can be made. We know that a preponderance of those people live in sub-Saharan Africa, and that is being taken into account.

The other concentration of people living in extreme poverty is in conflict-affected states. As much as this is about providing humanitarian aid once disaster happens, we also have to invest in prevention in the first place. Would the Minister reflect on the importance of conflict prevention in our aid efforts?

Indeed. This is about not just aid, but the women, peace and security programme, which I spoke at in Manila a couple of months back, and the important work that we do in Colombia, Mindanao in the Philippines and other places to ensure that women have a voice. I am very aware that many Members in this Chamber understand the importance of empowering women to solve the difficulties relating to how communities live abroad in very poor or conflict-affected areas. The Government will continue their commitment to supporting women and girls by being a champion for them across the world—by showing up and making our voice heard. Quite a few international partners have mentioned to me at conferences that I am the first UK Minister they have seen for years. This is partly about our diplomatic presence, including at ministerial level, so that we can be confident champions of women and girls in our multilateral work, and improve the quality of mainstreaming in our growth, climate, health and humanitarian programmes.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government are still committed to ensuring that half our development budget goes to women and girls?

It would be unwise of me, the day before the spending review, to give an exact figure. However, I reassure the right hon. Member that we will give extra-special attention to working with women’s organisations, particularly local organisations in crisis and climate-affected contexts, which I know are close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North. We will mainstream gender equality to put women and girls at the heart of everything we do. We now have a champion for women, Baroness Harman. Some Members may remember her from this House, and she is not to be taken lightly. She will go over our proposals with a fine-toothed comb and support the work we do to help women political and economic leaders, like her, and activists in their home countries—those who have real legitimacy with their populations—to ensure that development and humanitarian programmes integrate women’s perspectives and needs, and address the barriers that they face. That is as relevant in conflict and peacebuilding as it is in education. I will make some further brief points on global health. We will continue to invest in multilateral funds such as Gavi and the Global Fund. I know many here are champions of that work. There was an emphasis in this debate on child nutrition, which is paramount. Moving on to the question of climate and nature, we will tackle climate change by backing investments that help countries to grow green and resilient economies. When we consider the COP meetings abroad, we see, following disasters and emergencies, that there is so much poverty and so much aid has to be spent. We must work harder through our financial institutions to bring forward prevention schemes for very climate-affected areas. Pakistan and the speech that Sherry Rehman made at COP two years ago come to mind, as do the Pacific islands—an area that my brief covers—which are literally under threat of sinking. Those are the sorts of areas where climate interventions are crucial and where climate will continue to be a very important point. Members have mentioned some of the real hotspots we are looking at at the moment, including Yemen, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Myanmar, and I will briefly emphasise the importance of our humanitarian response. Colleagues will remember that following the dreadful earthquake in Sagaing in Myanmar, through support from the UK public together with the Disasters Emergency Committee match-funding UK citizens’ contributions, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was able to provide £25 million in total, equivalent to China, to those who were suffering. The International Development Committee has heard from Dr Sasa and others from outside Myanmar who are championing proper political reform, so that less aid will eventually be required once the political system gets up and running there. Afghanistan has been mentioned as a crucial area, particularly for women and girls. I want briefly to talk up the importance of the BBC World Service and its Bitesize learning modules, through which women can listen to the radio and learn English and other basic subjects. That came out of covid, and it is an example of excellence. When a young mother with perhaps eight or nine children is washing their clothes, she can listen to English and hope one day to be able to use that to empower her and her family, and also hopefully to have an improved future. Those sorts of interventions are incredibly important. The UK remains committed to playing a leading role in international development. We will work with our partners, including the US and the global south. I thank all the Members who have spoken in this debate. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) did sound very evangelical in his speech, I liked it. I think it is important that we do have a moral heart in a lot of the work we do. We know that working with the US and the global south to reimagine a development system that meets our shared priorities, builds new partnerships, and harnesses the power of trade, AI, technology and private capital will not be quick or easy. But by working together, we can build a system that is inclusive, effective and gives voice to all who have a stake in it.

10:58:00

I thank everyone who has spoken today; I am minded of the words of Jo Cox, who said that there is more that unites us than divides us. If we look back to the formation of the original Overseas Development Administration, that was under a Labour Government, as was the Department for International Development. But it was under the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition that the 0.7% of GNI was reached, so we have much to be proud of in terms of what we have done and what we need to do. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) mentioned the “Make Poverty History” speech by Nelson Mandela in Trafalgar Square. I was there, right at the front of the crowd. It was a proud day indeed. I will end with another quote from JFK, because I think it is important to focus our minds. We choose to do the right things “not because they are easy, but because they are hard”. We need to stand up for aid and for people. Let us focus our minds on that and not just on rhetoric. The buck stops not just in Washington, but here. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).