In the past few weeks, we have finally seen the Government release their new international development strategy. Combined with this main estimate, the approach signals a new era in how the UK spends its development funding, but I am simply not convinced that this approach will help the very poorest people in the world... We need to use the right tools for the job.

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, who is making a brilliant speech. Does she agree that it is in Britain’s interests to use multilateral institutions, rather than to simply donate bilaterally, because that multiplies the impact that we can have?

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, and I strongly agree with her point about multilateralism... May I take her back to a debate she initiated in Westminster Hall on the plight of the Palestinians and the role of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—a crucial part of the multilateral system that does so much to support Palestinians in the worst conditions in Gaza, the west bank and elsewhere in the middle east?

Mitchell criticises the reduction in ODA expenditure from 0.7% to 0.5%, highlighting that this decision was made at a critical time when Britain's leadership could have had significant impact. He emphasises the importance of multilateral programmes and urges the Government to prioritise replenishment for the Global Fund. Mitchell also discusses the abolition of DFID, which he sees as a major disaster due to loss of expertise. He further argues against tying aid money to specific projects like prison reform in China and calls for full transparency on ODA spending there.

Byrne disagrees with Mitchell's stance on the IMF, suggesting that the UK could have provided more leadership by sharing a larger portion of its allocated funds to encourage other G7 nations to follow suit.

Shannon commends Mitchell for his previous work in DFID, highlighting the tangible benefits and positive impact on people's lives that international aid brings beyond just financial terms.

Moran argues that there is a direct link between reduced aid to countries of origin and the influx of migrants making dangerous journeys, suggesting investment in these countries as a solution.

Champion raises concerns about the future funding and ability of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), which scrutinises ODA spending, to continue its work effectively.

Ms Winterton criticised the lack of funding increase for mental health services, stating that despite promises made by the government, there has been no real improvement in this area. She provided statistics showing a 2% reduction in overall spend on mental healthcare since last year.

Ms Mathur supported the need for better integration of health and social care services, noting that current silos prevent effective service delivery. She proposed a cross-departmental working group to address this issue.

The speaker expresses deep sadness over the abolition of DFID and criticises the government's decision to cut aid budgets, which has resulted in significant negative consequences for girls' education, safe motherhood, access to contraception, children’s education, and funding for partner countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo. Benn argues that Britain's reputation as a reliable partner in development has been undermined due to these cuts and the government's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on aid spending. He also criticises the casual manner with which the Prime Minister dismissed DFID's work. Furthermore, he discusses the interconnected challenges facing the world today, including war, insecurity, economic development, climate change, and damage to the natural world, emphasising that these issues cannot be dealt with separately and require international cooperation. Benn calls for a strong British voice in addressing these global challenges and stresses the importance of Britain being seen as a reliable partner in the international community.

Called for an indication of whether the Leader of the House intends to make a statement about the Government’s ability to govern, citing significant resignations from the Front-Bench team and adjournment or cancellation of Bill Committees.

Responded to Conor McGinn's point of order by stating that no notification has been received regarding changes in business and directed him to the Public Bill Office for further information if needed.

Discussed concerns over the reduction of the 0.7% spending target for international aid, highlighted the importance of the International Development Committee's scrutiny, and emphasised the need to maintain funding for neglected tropical diseases and malaria control programmes.

The speaker outlines three key points: the failure to uphold commitments during a global crisis, the non-utilisation of new financial tools provided by the IMF despite a significant aid cut, and the need for innovative approaches to debt restructuring to prevent China's dominance in debt diplomacy. He calls on the Government to explain their position on special drawing rights allocation and urges them to lead efforts towards mobilising $100 billion as pledged at the G7.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham, Chair of the International Development Committee, on securing this debate and commend her for her work in international development. I regret the reduction of the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5%, but aim to focus positively on the strategy set out by the Foreign Secretary. The emphasis on girls’ education and educating every child is crucial. Soft power must be prioritised given the new era of conflict between liberal democracy and authoritarianism, especially with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I urge the Minister to ensure that soft power assets like the BBC and British Council are utilised effectively to counteract disinformation. The rebranding of the Commonwealth Development Corporation as British International Investment is praised for enhancing UK branding in international aid efforts. Clean cookstoves research and climate finance investments are highlighted, with a focus on practical interventions to lift countries out of poverty through private sector development.

The abolition of the Department for International Development was a mistake and it is important to rebuild our soft power. There are strong moral reasons for international aid but also significant national self-interest in maintaining development assistance. The UK should spend 0.7% of its national income on aid, which helps prevent conflict, reduces migration pressures, combats diseases, and enhances global trade opportunities. Additionally, the Department played a crucial role in lifting millions out of poverty through various programmes including debt relief, education, health services, and disaster relief. The merger between the Foreign Office and DFID was poorly executed and it resulted in chaos during critical moments such as the fall of Kabul.

The Government's current mishandling of the aid budget has led to severe cuts in countries that need it most, such as Ethiopia and Bangladesh. The aid budget has been slashed from £325 million in 2020-21 to £30 million in 2024-25 for Ethiopia, and halved from £200 million to £100 million for Bangladesh. This is an international disgrace affecting the most vulnerable more than ever. Additionally, the ongoing crisis in Ukraine has led to a lack of food supplies for millions worldwide due to blockades and destruction of agricultural machinery. The Government's priorities are skewed towards investment linked to trade rather than poverty alleviation. Moreover, merging the Department for International Development with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office undermines effectiveness, prioritises bilateral aid over multilateral aid, and may lead to tied aid practices like those seen in the Pergau dam scandal.

In his maiden speech, Richard Foord discusses the importance of international development funding and reflects on his constituency's history. He pays tribute to former MPs Neil Parish and Lord Palmerston, expressing concern about fairer school funding for Tiverton High School and advocating for farmers' welfare in Devon. He also critiques the current government’s integrity issues and calls for support for Ukraine based on historical assurances provided under the Budapest memorandum.

I campaigned for the move to a 0.7% development spending target and expressed disappointment at its reduction to 0.5%. Concerns were raised about the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development, and the lack of training for ambassadors in handling development funds. The effectiveness of the international strategy was questioned due to unclear aims and a perceived shift away from poverty reduction towards macroeconomic prosperity. Specific concerns were expressed regarding cuts to famine prevention budgets, women's projects, and WASH (water, sanitation, and hygiene) programmes. Emphasis was placed on the importance of preventing genocide, addressing climate change, and prioritising gender equality through investment in WASH infrastructure.

It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney and to commend her recollections of organisations she has worked with, as well as the new hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton for his maiden speech. The debate highlights the importance of proper funding for international development strategies, with a focus on restoring the foreign aid budget commitment to 0.7% of GDP by 2023-24. Jim Shannon emphasises the need for financial backing in delivering successful international development initiatives, especially concerning women and girls' rights and freedom of religion or belief (FORB). He raises concerns over humanitarian assistance reaching vulnerable groups, such as those in Afghanistan and Nigeria, and questions whether aid distribution mechanisms are effectively targeting the most at-risk populations. Shannon also critiques the government's prioritisation of climate change, suggesting it should not overshadow other human rights violations and FORB issues. Lastly, he expresses confusion about why China is receiving any aid whatsoever.

The UK Government's new international development strategy is not an aid strategy but a business and trade-focused document. The SNP argues that the strategy should prioritise poverty alleviation over economic opportunities, emphasising the need to address starvation, persecution, and other fundamental issues in developing countries. Chris Law criticises the focus on private sector engagement and trade deals, stating that it neglects immediate humanitarian needs such as food insecurity in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He points out that UK aid cuts have led to severe consequences, including potential deaths of children. The strategy lacks detailed funding commitments for health, education, food security, women's programmes, and other critical areas. Law urges a return to 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance, advocating for an international development framework focused on poverty alleviation, gender equality, and climate justice.

Held the Government accountable for cutting international aid, emphasising that reducing poverty should be a priority over trade.

Stated that cutting the aid budget at a time when British leadership was most needed was the wrong decision and agreed with the merger being a disaster. He also pointed out the differences in skillsets between DFID staff and diplomatic staff.

Critiqued the Prime Minister's decision to abolish DFID, arguing it was a mistake and questioned who Samantha Power would call for development discussions. He stressed that Britain must be seen as an honest and trusted partner.

Emphasised the role of the International Development Committee in ensuring taxpayers receive value for money from aid spending.

Made strong arguments against the cuts to international aid, highlighting their negative impact on global poverty and development.

Stated that the heart of the debate is stepping back when the world needed Britain to step up. He pointed out the incompetence across Government regarding SDRs and called for reversing aid cuts and the merger.

Made a passionate speech about the moral case against cutting international aid, emphasising that experience must be listened to in new administration. He also advocated for reversing cuts and the merger.

Spoke passionately about the impact of aid budget cuts on development and criticised the 'vandalism' of merging DFID with FCO.

Made a maiden speech in support of maintaining international aid levels, contributing to an important debate.

Campaigned for the 0.7% target for development spending, citing its cross-party support and success in promoting development efforts.

Spoke on the importance of freedom of religion or belief as a human right.

The UK has a proud record of leadership on international development, contributing to climate finance and vaccine distribution during the pandemic. The reduction from 0.7% to 0.5% ODA was a temporary measure due to the economic contraction caused by the pandemic. The Government is committed to restoring this funding when possible. The International Development Strategy recognises global challenges such as Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which has exacerbated food and fuel prices globally. Ford highlighted UK support for Ukraine, including £400 million in grants and additional World Bank lending guarantees. She also emphasised the importance of adhering to ODA rules set by OECD DAC and ensuring transparency about UK contributions. The strategy aims to deliver reliable investments through British partnerships, empower women and girls, step up humanitarian work, address climate change, and leverage financial resources for development.

Called for detailed information on international development spending rather than rhetoric. Highlighted the importance of aid to Africa, particularly in addressing issues such as podoconiosis and neglected diseases.

In his maiden speech, emphasised the significance of Russia’s breach of international agreements like the Budapest Convention regarding Ukraine's nuclear disarmament in exchange for territorial integrity guarantees. He called for continued support to Ukraine.

Asked about adherence to international laws and ODA definitions, specifically regarding military equipment and services not being reportable as ODA.

Impressed by previous contributions or interventions, encouraging further discussion.

Thanked aid workers for their efforts in challenging situations. Emphasised the importance of meeting international obligations to alleviate poverty and support low and middle-income countries. Highlighted the impact of recent global crises on extreme poverty, particularly affecting women and girls. Urged the Minister to listen to contributions made during the debate and to utilise taxpayers' money wisely to meet international commitments and work with partners globally.