UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this vital and timely debate. We are effectively about to have a change of Government, which will mean an opportunity for a reset. Usually we come to these debates avid to hear what the Minister has to say, but today we might not reflect on the past so much as look to the future. Of course, I commend the Minister for his efforts. I will not commend him too much, because that might not help him in the weeks ahead as the Government are reformed, but I acknowledge his personal commitment to these issues.

As the Prime Minister moves on, the cuts in official development assistance and the way in which they have been carried out, with nothing seemingly learned from the lessons of the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, surely cannot be part of his legacy that he will wish to promote. Notably, this Government are presiding over cuts to our overseas aid budget that are deeper and faster than those being implemented in the United States under the Trump Administration. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s resource DEL budget has reduced by nearly 20%, over £1.5 billion, with bilateral programmes accounting for almost half of that and no detail yet available. Indeed, stakeholders are still waiting for the FCDO to publish its bilateral allocations for ODA, which are reportedly being held back until just before the summer recess.

I do not demur from the arguments about hard choices when there are limited resources or, specifically, the need to increase defence spending, but part of that is also about acknowledging that these decisions have consequences, often for the poorest and most vulnerable communities on the planet.

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

I absolutely do. I will come on to the most effective way in which limited resources can be used, and that is clearly one of them.

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

The right hon. Gentleman sits with me on the International Development Committee, so he will know as I do that, to date, the Committee has found that there is still no detail on how

“poverty alleviation is prioritised and tracked”

under the new model going from donor to investor. Does he agree that if poverty reduction is to remain a primary focus of ODA, we need to understand better how these things will be tracked?

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him for his work on the International Development Committee. I will come on to the Committee’s report on the future of development, which highlighted that very issue. The Committee sought to help this Government take forward their stated objectives. I hope the incoming Government will grasp the report’s recommendations and move forward in the way the hon. Gentleman outlines.

Although citizens across the world might have been distracted by the Democratic Republic of the Congo almost knocking England out of the world cup, sadly for that team, the situation at home still verges on the catastrophic. It is an example of where unthought-out and unstructured cuts and changes have a devastating impact. We see the spread of Ebola in parts of the DRC, particularly where US funding and structures have been withdrawn. There is no meaningful alternative government structure to provide a health service. That is an absolute example of where funding cuts have a real impact that could spread to the United Kingdom. There was a recent suspected Ebola case in Glasgow, which fortunately did not come to fruition. We need to push back on the idea that Ebola in a remote part of central Africa has nothing to do with us.

We must not be starry-eyed about what happened previously. I was struck by recommendation 7 in the Committee’s report and, in a much more favourable climate for international development, by an article in The Guardian—I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) will not tell the Leader of the Opposition that I read an article in The Guardian—saying that, in the context of the previous Ebola outbreak, which was successfully tackled, the international response that Sierra Leoneans saw on the ground comprised outsiders setting up compounds, employing local people sometimes to be cooks or drivers, then driving around in white Land Cruisers and not engaging or leaving any positive legacy.

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

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

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

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him and others for bringing the debt issue back to the debate. Obviously, it was a focal point of debate a number of years ago. It appears to have slid down the agenda, but it remains a vital issue, as he has highlighted.

Another vital issue in reference to the Child Nutrition Fund is public support. We all have to acknowledge the need to rebuild public support for development. I put my hand up to being complacent in that regard, as I think many in the sector were assuming that the support would remain. It is still there, but it is all about the questions that people are asked and the context in which they are asked. That is why, for example, the Child Nutrition Fund commands public support: because people see that an intervention by the UK can have the direct effect of saving children’s lives. What detracts from public support is where interventions are less easily explainable or there is an inability to be clear that interventions are not wasteful. It was therefore surprising that the Government were at one point proposing to get rid of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the body that reviews the effectiveness of ODA. Thanks to the cross-party effort of the International Development Committee and others in Parliament, that decision was reversed, at least in part.

I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, and in the multilateral/bilateral debate—a debate we need to have—I was very supportive of additional funding for the Global Fund. The fund has done a huge job not only in tackling AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but in providing the backbone of many countries’ health systems. That backbone would not be there were the Global Fund not providing support for other issues. I welcome the Government’s £850 million contribution to the fund. That amount is a lot more than was previously touted, although it is less than the £1 billion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield provided. However, of course, there were smoke and mirrors, as the funding is back-ended and the bulk of it will come at the end of the three-year period. That will have an impact on the Global Fund’s capacity to carry out its job, which again has direct consequences.

It feels to me that there is scope for the UK and European Union countries to work together more closely to tackle the rising global anti-rights movement. Given the progress in Hungary, it feels like there is an opportunity to start to push back on the age of impunity. Does the right hon. Member agree that we should put human rights—especially sexual and reproductive rights and health—on the agenda of the upcoming European Political Community meeting, which will be held in Dublin in October?

I agree with the principles that the hon. Gentleman has set out; I will come on to that topic now. We need to see UK leadership in co-ordinating a response to such issues. Because of political decisions taken in the United States, certain groups will be deprived of help and support. We need to have a role in ensuring that there is co-ordination so that the support goes in, whether through country donors, philanthropists or non-governmental organisations. LGBT communities, for example, will not get that support unless we are proactive in ensuring that co-ordination. Although I welcomed the announcement that the Foreign Office still has an LGBT budget, I do not see the issues that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned being proactively tackled at this time, and we need to be at the forefront of that.

I will draw my remarks to a close, as other Members wish to contribute. I was going to touch more on British International Investment—perhaps my International Development Committee colleague, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), will do so—but I will make the point that BII has to play a much greater role in alignment with UK Government policy, whatever the policy is. That does not mean that BII should not be independent in making investments, but the position of equivalent bodies in other countries is to be aligned with Government policy. I am not convinced that BII is at the moment, and given the scale of its investment, it needs to be.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. We meet at a moment when the global aid system is under extraordinary pressure. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this incredibly important debate.

Current projections suggest that cuts to international aid could contribute to as many as 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under the age of five. That is the human cost of dismantling the world aid architecture at speed.

The United Kingdom is not alone in reducing aid spending—the United States, France, Germany and Canada are all scaling back their commitments—but that does not make our choices less significant; it makes them more significant. When every major donor retreats at the same time, there is no one left to step into the gap, and yet the challenges we face today do not stop at national borders. Conflict, climate change, forced displacement, pandemics and antimicrobial resistance affect us all. Investment overseas is increasingly an investment in our own security and prosperity here at home.

Global health provides perhaps the clearest example of why this matters. Viruses do not stop at passport control. The first line of defence against the next pandemic is not at Heathrow or Dover, it is in strong public health systems thousands of miles away. Our national health service and the health security of people across Britain depend on a global health system that works effectively for everyone.

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

I agree 100%. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has already talked about his role in the water, sanitation and hygiene all-party parliamentary group. Access to water is an absolutely essential health determinant.

Partnership and resilience building are incredibly important, but they cannot be the whole answer. A strategy designed to strengthen systems over many years does little for a clinic that is closing next month. Communities facing the loss of essential services are not reassured by a long-term theory of change, much as we love that in the development arena. They are worried about whether medicines will be available, whether healthcare workers will be paid and whether the lights will stay on. Withdrawal is fast, capacity building is slow, and people are falling through that gap.

That is why, to be honest, the decision to withdraw support from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and the Pandemic Fund is really quite disappointing. The Government’s own impact assessment warns that these choices increase the risk of disease outbreaks. We are closer than ever to eradicating polio, a disease that has blighted generations of children, and yet, potentially because of cuts to official development assistance, we are stepping back from that goal. I urge us not to.

I am equally concerned about the dismantling of the Fleming Fund. Antimicrobial resistance may sound a little abstract, but it is not a distant or theoretical threat. Just ask anybody what they think will happen if their antibiotics do not work when they need them. It is one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face. The effectiveness of antibiotics underpins modern medicine and protects countless lives every day. Our NHS depends on those medicines continuing to work. Recent outbreaks of serious infectious diseases remind us just how much rests upon them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for raising this important issue and for the passion and detail that he conveyed. I welcome the Minister to his place; I very much look forward to what he has to say. I also look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is always here in these debates.

We meet at a sobering hour. The global landscape for official development assistance is contracting before our very eyes, and funding is falling right across the west. At home, our aid budget is projected to come down to 0.3% of gross national income. I understand the intense fiscal pressures facing our nation and the absolute necessity of strengthening our national defence in a dangerous world, but as the aid pot shrinks, our moral responsibility does not diminish; it intensifies. When there is less to go around, it is a matter of profound duty to ensure that every single penny that we set aside is well spent. We cannot afford waste, bloated bureaucracy and Whitehall-centric projects that fail to hit the ground.