UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

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

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point well. I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to answer that, because he is not in charge of defence, but the point is none the less well made.

Being wise stewards of public money also means that we must take a hard, honest look at where our money is going. Aid was never meant to be a permanent, open-ended dependency; its ultimate goal must be to help nations to stand on their own two feet. We still see today vast sums of British taxpayers’ money flowing into middle-income countries with excellent economies. For example, India has a fast-growing economy, an expanding space programme and burgeoning domestic wealth. Surely common sense must prevail. We should be deeply wary about continuing to fund countries that are now clearly on their feet and fully capable of looking after their own citizens. Our priority must shift; I have a solution that I will put to the Minister at the end of my speech. We must concentrate our precious, limited resources on the poorest of the poor—on those forgotten nations that desperately need a helping hand just to get on their feet.

To achieve true value for money, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must radically change how it delivers aid. For too long, vast sums of UK aid have been swallowed up by massive international agencies and expensive consultants sitting in metropolitan hotels miles away from the suffering. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale mentioned conferences being held in hotels while people starve on the streets. This is not efficiency. If we want maximum impact for the British taxpayer and maximum relief for the world’s most vulnerable, we must empower local, on-the-ground bodies. We must trust the people who know the area, speak the language, live among the communities and truly understand the complex realities on the ground.

In particular, I want to champion a group too often overlooked by modern technocrats: our Church missionaries and faith-based organisations. They have been doing their job for literally hundreds of years, carrying out physical, emotional and biblical charity. These men and women do not fly in for a three-month contract and fly out when a crisis hits. They have been in place for years, sometimes for decades and often for generations. They are there in the poorest villages of Africa, the remotest parts of Asia and the most dangerous corners of the middle east. They have built deep, unbreakable bonds of trust with local people. They know exactly who is starving, which clinics lack medicine and how to distribute resources without a single penny being siphoned off by corruption.

I say respectfully to the Minister, who knows me well, that when the FCDO partners with established missionary networks, it is not funding expensive administrative overheads. My Strangford constituency has many churches and faith groups, including the Church of Ireland, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Elim Church and many others. They are funding pure, direct delivery. They are utilising infrastructure that is already built, relationships that are already formed, and a dedication that money simply cannot buy.

As I have mentioned in other debates—I hope the Minister can give me a reply today—the networks are there and the people are there. In particular, the Elim missions in Zimbabwe and Swaziland are working with farmers to till the land and produce their own food. At the same time, they are involved in healthcare and education. As we reshape our aid footprint, will the Government commit to bypassing the bloated international middlemen and graduated economies? Will the FCDO actively channel our precious, reduced resources into the trusted, long-standing Church missionaries and local bodies that offer the ultimate value for money?

Let us ensure that British aid is defined not by the billions we spend but by the lives we save through those who know how to save them: the Church missionaries and faith-based groups. They are happy to partner with the Government, and they should be invited to do so.

Israel: E1 Zone Expansion

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, for his question, and for the opportunity to comment on antisemitism. Before I do, I just want to say that this is a delicate period in Israeli politics. I hope the result of the Israeli election will be a set of Israeli policies that are much closer to the wishes of this House. He is, of course, right to say that my ability to influence developments on the ground is finite—if it were not, we would not be in this situation—but we will continue to use all our leverage to try to ensure change. During this period, we can perhaps hope that the Israeli political process will deliver results more akin to a policy that this House would like to see.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I echo the frustration that we all have, and I want to live long enough to see Netanyahu before a criminal court. When we raise individual cases, it is frustrating to not know whether it will have any effect, but sometimes it can have the effect of letting people know that they are not forgotten. Part of the annexation of the west bank has been about the arrests of individuals, and one of them is Dr Mazen al-Rantisi, known as the doctor of the poor. Can I ask the Minister to raise his case with the Israelis? Could he also raise another case that we mentioned some time ago—that of Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, who has been in isolation for 500 days? If we could raise those cases, at least their families would know that they are not forgotten.

[Mr Falconer]

We have, and we will.

Cuba: Humanitarian Situation

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

The hon. Member will know, as a former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that we do not discuss sanctions on the Floor of the House, but I am more than happy to meet her to go through some of the wider challenges, particularly regarding the conditions in Venezuela and their impact on the wider region.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will just say that it is not for the US to determine the future of the Cuban people—that is for the Cuban people themselves—or to use such methods to try to influence the regime. The UN Secretary-General has made clear his view that Cuba is on the brink, and children are already dying as a result of what is happening in the hospitals. Some of the sanctions have affected the ability of the Cuban Administration and Cuban companies to access banking and, more recently, payment facilities. What discussions have the Government had about assisting the Cuban Administration to overcome these US Government activities, which are endangering the whole Cuban economy?

[Chris Elmore]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I hope he heard me say that decisions about the future of Cuba are for the Cuban people, not for any foreign country, including the United Kingdom. On additional assistance, as I have said in previous answers, conversations are ongoing about what more we can do in the multilateral system.

I can confirm to the House that we are doing a piece of work on the particular challenge of fuel shortages, which several Members have mentioned. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is now providing a fuel management specialist to the World Food Programme, which is unblocking some of the wider fuel challenges, and that will be critical for the effective delivery of aid. We are trying to work through this in a very practical sense, as I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree. On the wider point about banking, as I have said to him, we are working with multilateral partners to see what additional support we can provide and where we can work in a joined-up way to bring about a better future for the Cuban people.

Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

Strong views are held right across the House on questions around the middle east, but I pay tribute to those on the Opposition Benches who have shifted their position in recent years. The British Government, while I have been the Middle East Minister, have made very significant policy decisions. There are existing sanctions, and I know the hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not go further on the question of sanctions, and I am the first British Minister to announce from this Dispatch Box sanctions on Israeli Ministers. I recognise what a Rubicon that was to cross, and I also recognise that I have been supported in doing so by voices on the Opposition Benches and, of course, those of my many hon. Friends behind me. I recognise the gravity of what is happening in the middle east, and we will continue to take the steps we have taken in responding with the urgency required. I hope the House will permit me to say that, when I announced the recognition of the state of Palestine, I felt I was speaking for the whole House, not just the Government.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take 30 seconds to associate myself with the Speaker’s remarks about Sir Alan Haselhurst? He was in the Chair when I seized the Mace, and he expelled me from the Chamber, but he did it with such good grace that we became firm friends and have been ever since. I send my condolences to his wife.

As the Minister knows, I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. We are now experiencing in Lebanon exactly what we saw in Gaza, with the targeting and murder of journalists. When he was there in April, Amal Khalil, the famous woman journalist, was hit by an Israeli strike, and the Red Cross ambulance that went to assist her was hit as well. The Lebanese Prime Minister has made it quite clear that these are war crimes. Could I ask that the Government join others in collecting the evidence, so that we can take action against the Israeli Ministers who have perpetrated these war crimes against the Lebanese people, just as they did against the Palestinians?

[Mr Falconer]

I am familiar with the incident my right hon. Friend describes, and I pay tribute to his work on these issues right across the world. It is appalling that journalists in Lebanon who are reporting on developments in the south have been struck in this way. We made interventions in the United Nations following some of those assaults on journalists both in Lebanon and in Israel, and we will continue to press these points.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner]

I was about to say that my hon. Friend is a good man—he used to be my boss in the shadow Transport team, Mr Speaker, and he always tries to help me. I do not want to get into the stuff about Mandelson, as my hon. Friend hopes I will. But while I am speaking about the appointment of Mandelson, I will say this: I think that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson in the national interest. I think he thought Mandelson would go to Washington, do a job in the national interest and deliver for the country. I think that is why he made the appointment.

When it became clear, following the Bloomberg emails, that the appointment was politically difficult for the Government, the Prime Minister again did the right thing by dismissing Mandelson, very properly. Where I think the Prime Minister went wrong was in the shenanigans between those two points: looking around for an excuse for why it had gone wrong. “Just take it on the chin—deal with it!” That is the advice I would have given him, and that is why I am particularly disappointed.

Colleagues who came in at the last general election might be disappointed in me for having the audacity to stand up and say what I happen to believe is the truth. I am sorry if they are not happy with me, but I am here to represent not my interests but the interests of those who elected me. That is what I will always do; whether it is against the policy of a Tory Government or my own Government, I will do what I think is in the interests of my electorate.

Let me warn colleagues about what will happen if we are seen to go through the Lobby to defeat this process. It is a reasonable process; this is not the shenanigans that the Government have suggested in relation to jury trials. This does not involve a single judge, but a jury of peers—impartial, and made up of more Labour MPs than Tory MPs. The Prime Minister has nothing to fear. He ought to do the right thing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has suggested, he should have referred himself. That would have saved us all this messing around—debating the point and trying to justify why the referral is a bad idea or having two Committees running alongside each other. Utter nonsense! Get on with it, let it be dealt with and let us move on.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned my recommendation that the Prime Minister should refer himself. I did that because when someone is under attack like this, they should not run away from the attack; they should face it with confidence. They should argue that if people want to criticise the individual concerned, they should produce the evidence. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the Privileges Committee would deal with this matter fairly, and I believe that the Labour party would come out stronger as a result.

[Karl Turner]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I think I said on Twitter that he rarely gets things wrong—I was accused of being wrong for agreeing with what he said. In the time I have known him, my right hon. Friend has rarely, in my opinion, got it wrong. I think he is absolutely spot on.

I am confident and convinced. I know the Prime Minister and know that he is not a liar. I know for a fact that he would not deliberately mislead. I think he would be exonerated. The trouble we now face is accusations from the electorate that we stopped the inquiry from happening in the first place and that the Prime Minister is guilty through the fact that we avoided it. Once we are in that position, we have a big problem, because you cannot prove something that never happened.

Strait of Hormuz

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree that we need further diplomatic action, and that is exactly what the Foreign Secretary and others, including the Minister for the middle east—my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and me, have been engaged in during recent days and weeks. The hon. Gentleman raised the importance of different drone capabilities; when it comes to the wider situation and the threat that we face from drones, we work with partners, such as those I saw in Latvia just a few weeks ago, to develop the very best in capability and to learn the important lessons of Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

As has been said, Trump and Netanyahu launched this war without consultation. They did it unilaterally, and recklessly and irresponsibly, and it was absolutely predictable that the strait would be threatened in this way. Yet some shipping is moving, is it not? Some shipping is going to our ally, India, because it is not engaged in the war, because it is at peace with Iran. Does that not teach us the lesson that we need to bring about peace, that that should be our main and prime purpose in negotiating a peaceful settlement, and that the first step towards that is de-escalation?

[Stephen Doughty]

Let me first make it absolutely clear that Iran’s regime has been appalling, and that what it has done to its own citizens has been reckless. It cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Its reckless attacks, not only on shipping but on civilians, and on our allies and partners across the Gulf, and indeed across the wider region, are absolutely appalling. It could stop this right now. However, the Prime Minister has been very clear about the fact that our decisions—the decisions of the United Kingdom—will be based on a calm and level-headed assessment of the British national interest at every stage.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The reason we are here is that there is a profound responsibility on us, as Members of Parliament in particular, to ensure that our Government act in accordance with international humanitarian law. There are two questions that we need to pose time and again. First, what evidence would it take to convince the Government that there is a risk of genocide? That means evidence not that there is genocide, but that there is a risk of genocide. Secondly, what process should the Government use to determine that?

On the first question, I am absolutely perplexed as to why the evidential methods that we have used in the past, when we have determined that there have been genocides, are not simply being accepted by the Government at the moment, given the loss of life—the 70,000, as has been said—and the way in which the genocide has been perpetrated. There are the attacks on health workers and doctors, with 1,700 killed that we know about, and at least 100 who have been imprisoned, tortured, denied access to medical facilities, and even to their own families.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John McDonnell]

No, I cannot accept any interventions.

There is also the number of journalists killed—more than 300—because part of this genocide is to prevent the reporting of the genocide. And, yes, there is the forced movement of people, with 9,000 prisoners in Israeli prisons, 100 of whom have died in the past two years. That is the evidence we present time and again. It is the same kind of evidence we have used in the past to determine genocide, so why is it not acceptable now?

The second question is about the process. I will just say to the Minister that time and again we have had these debates. People have lost confidence in the process that the Government are using to arrive at their determination of whether there is a risk of genocide. I am afraid that not only have Members of this House and the wider public lost confidence in the internal processes, but that is what is forcing people out on to the streets and into forms of direct action, because they have lost confidence in the Government’s own objective assessment.

I therefore suggest this to the Minister: why not establish an independent commission? Use people such as Philippe Sands and others, and let the House determine who sits on that commission, so that they can report back to the Minister on the evidence available. I think that the Government, once they see the evidence, will have to accept that there is at least a risk of genocide, and that will have to determine their actions. Some of those have been set out today: the end of trade, the end of the arms sales, and the prevention role that we have to play in securing peace and justice for the Palestinian people—and yes, for the Israeli people—for the long term.

Middle East and North Africa

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the spirit in which he asked his questions. I put so many developments into the statement because there were so many developments that I wished to update the House on at the earliest opportunity, and I wanted to provide Members with an opportunity to ask questions on any element of the statement.

We will continue to voice our position on the vital importance of the right to assembly in Iran, and indeed the right to communication as well. We will continue to do that alongside our partners, as well as in our own voice. I am confident and can assure the House that the strikes on Iran were consistent with and compliant with international law. As I said to the shadow Foreign Secretary, we continue to raise with the Syrian Government the importance of accountability in relation to violence in Syria.

On developments in Yemen, particularly relating to aid, there is, I am afraid, a very significant divergence between the ability of the UK to deliver aid in the areas controlled by the Houthis and the areas not controlled by the Houthis. The Houthis have continued to seize aid workers and aid premises. It is simply not possible under those circumstances to have an aid operation that operates at the scale of the needs of the Yemeni people. I again call on the Houthis, as I have done repeatedly, to release all those whom they have detained, leave those offices, and abide by humanitarian principles. If they do not, it is simply not possible for the UK, or indeed any other humanitarian actor, to ensure that the Yemenis get the support that they require.

On arms sales, as I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson is aware, we have the most robust arrangements in the world. I am confident that they have been followed in this case, but of course, as ever, we keep these matters under close review.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I was one of those MPs who campaigned hard for the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, so it is important, when we consider the overall process, that there is an accurate narrative. The narrative is partly this: yes, there were vile social media interventions by this person, which we all condemn, but which he apologised for. More than that, he became a campaigner in his country of Egypt—he is a joint citizen—for civil rights, civil liberties and religious freedom, and against antisemitism. For that, he served 10 years in prison. Not many in this Chamber have gone anywhere near that record of campaigning for civil liberties, so maybe that narrative could be taken into account when this individual is considered.

Venezuela

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Venezuela is in a stronger position without Maduro leading it, especially given the horrendous human rights abuses and the huge damage to its economy, but as the right hon. Member implied at the beginning of his question, what happens next is really important. The UK is determined to do everything we can to ensure that there is a transition to democracy and stability, because Venezuela will not have stability without a proper democratic transition.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that the role of the Government has been to uphold international law. Part of upholding international law is to call out crimes when they are witnessed. Article 2.4 of the United Nations charter is explicit about the illegality of entering into a foreign state with armed force. That is why I found it shameful, I have to say, that the Prime Minister and Ministers in the news rounds have refused to condemn this action. I think that Trump will interpret our not condemning this action as the green light to go in wherever to steal the national assets of those countries. As a result, we are all in a more dangerous place.

[Yvette Cooper]

Promoting international law in the most effective way also means promoting the rules-based order and the rules-based alliances that we have. It means being able to raise issues around international law both publicly and privately in a way that has the greatest results to defend the rules-based order. That is what we will continue to do, and that, frankly, is what is in the UK’s interest.

Jimmy Lai Conviction

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I will certainly do so. I will follow that up, and get back to the right hon. Member. I agree with him that it is immensely important that we speak with one powerful voice, with all of us calling for the release of Jimmy Lai.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the condolences to the Jewish community in Australia that were eloquently expressed by both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary.

In the representations on Jimmy Lai, can I ask again that the case of Lee Cheuk-yan be raised? Lee, who is a trade union colleague of mine, was the general secretary of the Confederation of Trade Unions in Hong Kong. He has been in prison since April 2021. His trial was postponed twice this year, and we have now been given the date of 22 January. We are fearful that the trial may be delayed again, but also that he will receive a long sentence. All he did was to participate in the campaign for democracy in Hong Kong and for trade union rights. The whole campaign would be grateful for any representations that can be made.

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that many other people are facing prosecution or have already been charged and been through a process under the national security law. We are very clear that the national security law should be repealed. It directly contradicts the declaration and the legal obligations on the Chinese authorities under that declaration. I will follow up the case he raises.