UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

Noah Law Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

It is a delight to participate in the debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing it. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the IDC and a former development banker. I share many of my IDC colleagues’ reflections on the need for clarity and to be steadfast in our pursuit of the overarching goal of the UK’s foreign development policy, which is poverty alleviation. Our report sheds a light on the fact that there is a much greater need for clarity, transparency and measurability of the outcomes we are looking to deliver in particularly constrained circumstances.

That said, I wholeheartedly support the Government’s shift from the mindset of donor to that of investor. That is necessary not just because it is what many developing countries are asking of us, but because it is the only way we will get the scale of investment that is needed to transform the fortunes of the world’s poorest countries. Whichever way we look at it—whether it is the sustainable development goals financing gap or any other interpretation—the scale of capital need is enormous and cannot be met by the multilateral development banks, let alone our development aid budgets.

Let me move on from the hand-wringing we are all so used to in our favourite sector, towards a much more normative, positive pitch for the role the UK Government can play as we head into the G20, where we have the chance to set the tone of development globally. We can play a unique role in three areas: first, the global debt system; secondly, our influence on multilateral development banks and development finance more broadly; and thirdly, the mobilisation of private sector investment. I know the Government are incredibly invested in those three themes, which align with our shift from donor to investor, but let me be clear about what will work to deliver shifts across those three agenda items, at least in my experience.

On global debt, the UK is home to the vast majority of emerging markets’ sovereign debt. England is the jurisdiction under which it is governed, with the other key jurisdiction being New York. In my mind, it is incumbent on this jurisdiction to try to right the wrongs addressed by the private Member’s Bill introduced last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who is no longer in his place. It is incumbent on us to build not just a more sustainable debt system, but ultimately the financial capacity of these countries, and to take the agenda very seriously.

I welcome the work of the London Coalition so far, including the steps to strengthen the common framework and the term sheet, which suggests pause clauses that might prevent some of the frankly usurious debt obligations on developing countries from building up during restructurings. I also welcome the need for transparency, which is another workstream of the London Coalition. But we must ask ourselves whether this is sufficient. Are voluntary measures and the self-regulation of the City as the leading emerging markets bond market sufficient?

As a key player in the G20, can we take a stand on delivering a much greater ambition to ensure that best practices move from being voluntary to being a gold standard for the market? If there are concerns about the market impact, one has only to look back to the previous round of global debt reform under Gordon Brown, and the concerns raised by the City then. Let us be honest: not all investors are created equal. A big pension fund that just happens to have exposure to Ghanaian sovereign debt is not the same as a debt-distressed hedge fund.

Creditors will have different views about whether a real ambition from the UK to put reforms on a statutory footing will scare the markets. I encourage the Government to engage very strongly; I would be happy to provide evidence from the City and from economists working on global sovereign debt to support the fact that, rather than being all doom and gloom, this might be an opportunity to reset the sustainability of the sector and, in doing so, build financial capacity.

With that financial capacity, we could mobilise a far greater sum of investment than ever before. I know that is the ambition of the Development Minister, Baroness Chapman. If we can get the financial capacity right for these countries, it may be that the cuts to aid will pale into insignificance—to put it bluntly—compared with what investment could be mobilised if we get the macroeconomic structure right.

Multilaterals also have a role in mobilising private capital, but some, particularly larger, multilaterals, which we have fervently supported, are currently not taking on sufficient risk, and in many cases are crowding out commercial banks and are too focused on debt. They need to be more catalytic in their work. BII sets a good reference point, and it also serves a good reference point for project development, or what the International Finance Corporation would call upstream project development.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

The hon. Member mentioned multilaterals. We have seen massive cuts to aid. As many people will know, I worked for 30 years in the WASH sector, which had been cut by 85% before the recent aid cuts, and is so important in changing people’s lives. Does the hon. Member agree that, given the movement to multilateralism and multilateral support, we should see that channel used to direct much larger funds to the very poorest and to sectors such as WASH—although not to WASH exclusively—so that we can see a real improvement in people’s lives around the world?

[Noah Law]

I agree that alongside the shift to more risk capital, which will also support that goal, and more upstream project development with local partners, there needs to be a focus on the world’s very poorest, and on getting capital into markets that do not currently have the capacity to support it. We have to move on each of these fronts: on global debt reform, on engagement with the multilateral development banks and our own development finance institutions, and on the private sector. Only by getting the capacity right, and by getting the work that the MDBs and the DFIs do right, will we be able to mobilise capital at scale. In my experience, WASH in particular suffers from being uninvestable for development finance, partly because the ability of DFIs to provide support at the municipal level and for city regions is underdeveloped. I urge the Minister to work with, for example, Urban 20 colleagues to address the issue.

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend mentioned multilaterals. I wanted to put on the record my concern, shared by a number of IDC members, that it will be much harder for us to influence the multilaterals when most of our money is going there, rather than to bilateral aid. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we need to resource appropriately to achieve maximum leverage within the multilateral system?

[Noah Law]

I do share my hon. Friend’s concern. In a time of constrained resources, there is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to move everything into the multilateral space to get more bang for our buck but, as we have seen, it is not as simple as that. One does have to be wary when trying to make that money go further. I am glad that there are examples, particularly on the climate finance front, of where our Government have stepped up to ensure we maintain the agenda of the multilateral development banks.

To sum up, we need to be serious about the potential need for a statutory footing for some of the reforms to the global debt system, which the UK is uniquely well placed to address. We need to push our multilateral development banks and development finance institutions to go further, to take more risk and do that upstream development work. In doing so, we need to mobilise the private capital that at the minute is unable to get to the world’s poorest countries.

Sudan

Noah Law Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

We work internationally on atrocity prevention, on evidence gathering and working through international coalitions in Sudan, Ukraine and many other countries of conflict. That work has gone on for many, many years across various Governments, regardless of political party. We continue to call out these atrocities on the United Nations Security Council. As I have said, the Foreign Secretary has raised this matter with the UAE in the past week—we are not shying away from our responsibilities in this, and we will keep challenging. As the House knows, we do not discuss or debate sanctions on the Floor of the House, but we do keep them under review. That is the sensible, responsible approach of any Government.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

We have heard very serious allegations this week that Foreign Office officials, and allegedly even senior members of this Government, may have been swayed by ties with international partners in determining how the UK acts to de-escalate this conflict and prevent atrocities in Sudan, against the backdrop of what we have seen in El Fasher, which has been found to bear the hallmarks of genocide, and in the light of the impending tragedy in El Obeid. I appreciate that the Minister has firmly rejected some of those allegations, and we must trust his word on that. Given all that, what steps is he taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that, whatever the truth of that matter, the UK is never in a situation where it is beholden to allies who are culpable for such atrocities?

[Chris Elmore]

We work constantly on Sudan. Almost every official in the FCDO, regardless of department, has a Sudan focus on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary, who could not be more clear in how she leads this work, including with the Prime Minister, on protecting aid support in-country and providing more support across the wider region.

I must repeat that we do reject the allegations that were made yesterday. Our actions on this speak very clearly: we have been at the forefront of trying to find a peaceful resolution for this conflict across the four years—across this Government and the previous Government—whether at a multilateral level or by engaging and working with partners, and we will continue to do so. As I said earlier, I was in conversation with the Angolan Foreign Minister just yesterday, talking about evidence gathering in relation to the atrocities taking place in Sudan. This is an absolute focus of the Foreign Office and its Ministers, and Government Ministers more widely.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Noah Law Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion]

I thank the right hon. Member, my fellow Committee member, and I share his sentiment. For those who do not know, BII is our development bank. The FCDO is its sole stakeholder, and it does seem very short-sighted and out of line with other international development banks that we do not have a seat on the board, even if it is a non-voting seat. I urge the Minister to consider that report of the Committee and its recommendations. I recognise the truly excellent work that BII does, but it is a strategy—

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Sarah Champion]

I will of course give way.

[Noah Law]

I declare an interest as a former employee of BII. Might I gently share my disagreement with the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and my hon. Friend the Chair on this point? Although it is incredibly important that our development finance institutions adhere to the FCDO’s strategy, my personal experience is that politicisation of some of these state-backed financial institutions can end up with them lurching to and fro. Does my hon. Friend share some of my concerns about the potential for that kind of political influence over some of these institutions?

[Sarah Champion]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. I do not agree with him on the board point, but if we look at the countries that BII was asked to focus on under the last Government, it is clear that political interference—if we want to call it that—is alive and well. I agree that when we invest in organisations, we should trust them to do their job, but that requires scrutiny, so again, I will be very concerned if ICAI is cut. I will move away from BII now.

Today’s debate gives Members a crucial and timely opportunity to influence the Government’s approach to funding for the FCDO and overseas aid. We face a combination of a diminished budget and a change of strategic direction, all happening at a time of unprecedented global need. Parliament must insist on clarity about where cuts will fall. We must also insist on reassurance that development expertise will be protected and confidence that the United Kingdom’s aid spending remains focused on reducing poverty, supporting development, humanitarian need and contributing to global stability. This House rightly places a premium on transparency, accountability and value for money. Every pound now matters more than ever, and let us be reminded—as I frequently am—that it is the taxpayer’s pound that we are overseeing. Although our formal powers to amend the FCDO’s spending limits are limited, debates such as this allow us to exert influence and have our say at a pivotal moment in the UK’s foreign policy. I know that my colleagues in the House will use this moment wisely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

The Government are cutting our aid budget by a third, from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income, by 2027—the steepest reduction in a generation, driven by the defence spending review. Much has already been said on this matter, and I am not here simply to oppose the cuts or argue that, in the current climate, we must instantly reverse them. Perhaps it is precisely the right moment in the arc of economic history to ask how we can do more with less, what we are actually buying with this money, and how we can get to the point at which we can say, hand on heart, to our constituents that we know the impact of our spend.

The FCDO’s stated aim remains

“alleviating poverty and stabilising countries to enable them to go on that journey themselves”.

That is the right ambition, but the model we have used to deliver that has been confused for far too long. We often hear of the financing gaps—the trillions that must be filled to meet the sustainable development goals and to overcome the challenge of climate change—but the reality is that overseas development assistance cannot so much as touch the sides in all this.

Furthermore, we know that our developing country partners across the world primarily want investment, not aid, and partnership, not paternalism. To unleash that investment, we must ensure that we level the financial playing field and build capital markets, both public and private, that ultimately drive growth and prosperity in those countries. Global debt reform, an area in which the City and the English courts could play a globally leading role, is just one of many ways in which we can strengthen the macroeconomic stability and financial capacity that these countries so desperately need.

Less aid need does not mean less investment overall; it means that we can no longer afford the luxury of, at worst, waste and, at best, a misallocation of resources. When done well, investment means trusting local knowledge, building local institutions, and empowering local businesswomen and businessmen, who are ultimately responsible for delivering economic growth that sustainably lifts people out of poverty.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech, and some powerful points are being made. Does he agree that many development charities have made these points for some time, including Oxfam, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development and many others? In their experience, this is a well-known approach.

[Noah Law]

I greatly welcome the advocacy work of the charities that my hon. Friend mentions, as well as the grassroots work of charities, which are increasingly not funded directly by ODA. I welcome the work that they do; it is really important that we build a coherent view of the financing, investment and donor ecosystem that we need to work within this constrained world.

As I have suggested, I very much welcome our Government’s shift from donor to investor, but I have a question for the Minister. At a time when we effectively have an in-built bias towards capital investment over resource spending in our Government’s fiscal policy, why are we not able to go further in capitalising on some of the very institutions that we know will deliver on the development and climate goals, and in helping to mobilise the vast sums that we know are needed to develop the world’s poorest economies? That capital could return to Britain’s public coffers, so that it can be put to future use.

First and foremost, overseas development aid must be allocated to problems that investment cannot solve, be they the world’s worst humanitarian crises or investment in public goods, such as climate adaptation, which cannot easily be monetised yet can save billions of dollars-worth of damage to some of our most climate-vulnerable countries around the world in the long term.

At a time when we have been considering cutting ICAI, why are we looking to create new bodies such as the ODA delivery board and the new Soft Power Council, rather than working to embed rigorously or incorporate better the assessments of value for money—an explicit, albeit qualified, return on our goal of raising the number of people lifted out of poverty for every £1 spent—in every aspect of the FCDO’s development work, so we can say to our constituents, hand on heart, that beyond all doubt the money is well spent, and show that, despite the smaller sums, the money is going further every year?

Let us be partners, not patrons; let us invest smarter, trust deeper and step back a little further where necessary; and let us measure success not by how much we give, but by how little is eventually needed.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Noah Law Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The Father of the House will appreciate that I am probably not in a position to give him the full detail that he would like on the provision of UNCLOS 298. I am sure that this issue can be dealt with in the passage of the Bill, outside of the context of an urgent question.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Can I ask the Minister to engage in a short thought experiment? If senior members of the Labour party, at the time they were in opposition, had gone to lobby a foreign Government against the best interests of the British security services, what would have been the reaction of the right-wing media and Opposition parties who have made this their pet project?

[Mr Falconer]

It is very good question. When I was a diplomat, we usually understood that British politicians would not seek to undermine the British Government overseas—we could argue in this place but, broadly, we would try to keep our disputes on our own islands rather than going elsewhere to prosecute them—so I am surprised to see the vigour with which those on the Opposition Benches are seeking to undermine the process we have been engaged in.

Official Development Assistance Reductions

Noah Law Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

Official development assistance is changing. Just two weeks ago in Nigeria, one of the UK’s largest development partners, my colleagues and I from the International Development Committee had a glimpse of the future. Although the FCDO runs dozens of centrally managed programmes in the country, what stood out was not just the scale of the UK’s presence, but the way that we worked hand in glove with state Governments and public institutions to build the capacity that underpins long-term development. Whether that was in technical assistance to the revenue service or tax administration, support for reforming the public health system or advice on the macroeconomic reforms that Nigeria is beginning to implement, the emphasis was unmistakeable: partnership not paternalism.

That is a mature partnership that points the way to the future of international development. As painful as it is for a proponent of international development to say this, when the Government cut aid earlier this year, the writing was on the wall. The system must evolve from trade, not aid, and to transformation rather than transactions.

In that evolution, the UK possesses an extraordinary toolkit. We remain a leader in technical co-operation and capacity building, we are a pioneer in development finance and, perhaps most importantly, we sit at the centre of the global financial architecture. Nearly half of sovereign debt worldwide is governed by English law. That fact alone gives the City of London a moral and practical responsibility. If we want to see fairer, faster and more transparent debt restructuring and prevent another lost decade for low-income countries, the UK is uniquely placed to lead. Global debt reform will not happen in New York or Beijing unless it also happens in London.

In British International Investment—I declare an interest as a former employee—we have a leader among European development finance institutions, one that understands that development finance is not just about providing capital but about building markets. BII’s mission is to identify the bridges that must be built to get economic activity off the ground, create jobs and lift people out of poverty, while delivering a fair return, even when that return is concessional to the British taxpayer. That is smart, modern development policy, which will strengthen Africa’s hand.

Nowhere is the shift from aid to investment more necessary than in northern Nigeria. While parts of the south of Nigeria power on, the north is facing a humanitarian crisis, deep insecurity and environmental stress. Yes, there is an urgent need for aid to combat famine, strengthen healthcare systems and stabilise communities, but we must also confront the structural causes. A major driver of that instability is economic exclusion. Across the Sahel and the north of Nigeria, young people are being pushed off their land by drought, flooding and declining soil resilience. Many of those who end up in the orbit of Boko Haram or bandit groups are not idealogues; they are victims of climate and market failure.

Those problems are not insurmountable, but aid without investment is not the answer to that market failure. If we can give rural farmers the means to invest in sustainable crops and farming practices, agriculture can be a source of peace, dignity and security. The World Bank’s forthcoming Nigeria agricultural value chains growth project—on which I hope the Minister will comment—is now at concept stage, but it aims to do just that, and to mobilise more than $500 million to foster the kind of growth that I have described. I also commend the work that BII is doing with its investee Babban Gona in that realm.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order.

Gaza and Hamas

Noah Law Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

As the right hon. Member knows, disarmament is usually a process. It takes time and requires serious and greatly complex technical work. We want to ensure that Gaza is free of Hamas and that Hamas are disarmed. That will take time, and it is the work that we and the Americans are engaged in.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Both in Gaza, where grassroots peacebuilders will face the immense task of reconciliation, and here at home, where debate has become dangerously polarised, the peace plan and the two-state solution remain the only credible path forward, and we must all be absolutely clear in condemning Hamas, who have no place in the future governance of a free Palestine, and the atrocities that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s far-right Government continue to commit. Put simply, two wrongs do not make a right. I urge the Minister to make a statement calling for unity at this fractious time.

[Mr Falconer]

There have obviously been innumerable wrongs in the region in recent months. It is important that we now continue the work, move forward with the ceasefire into phase 2, and see the wider peace plan fully implemented.

UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

Noah Law Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Aldridge]

There is rightly a lot of conversation about children in this space, but we often forget that people generally are having huge problems. Just last weekend I was knocking on doors, and grown men were saying they did not believe anything they read online. They did not believe anything I said. There was no justification. It is a real difficulty, so I absolutely take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is important to talk about the people behind the algorithms.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

It is not only important to make the distinction between fact and fiction; does my hon. Friend accept the distinction between the real and fake people who operate in some of these spaces?

[Dan Aldridge]

Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) mentioned the difficulty of identifying or holding to account the bots and the non-people actors who are causing so many problems.

In debates such as this, I talk about the people behind the algorithms and platforms because it is far too easy to lose perspective and characterise algorithms and digital platforms as something intangible and alien to us, when we are actually in control of them. In 2020, the former Member for Uxbridge, when he was Prime Minister, claimed that a “mutant algorithm” was to blame for the 2020 exam fiasco. It was a masterclass in deflecting blame from the egregious human failure, and from the line of responsibility that tracked right back to the heart of his Government. The consequences still impact the thousands of young people, my constituents included, whose life plans and chances were upended by the hubris of a Government who were enthralled by the promise of tech as a quick fix.

Sensationalist headlines about mutant algorithms serve no one other than those avoiding the finger of blame, and it all comes at the expense of a meaningful space to discuss the issues that truly matter to our constituents, such as the cost of living, the housing crisis and the need for better public services. We must do better.

Online disinformation is a persistent and pernicious threat to our democracy. False narratives spread much faster, and they stick much harder than the truth. Populist snake-oil salesmen hawk false hope online and pervert public perception. They sell simple solutions to complex problems to desperate people. They intentionally undermine our institutions to their own ends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

The strength of our democracy lies in its people—their voices, concerns and participation. The Labour party that I know has always been a party of the grassroots, particularly in Cornwall, and of real individuals engaging with real communities. We are not the party of faceless bots, anonymous profiles or foreign interference. Yet, as we reflect on last year’s general election, we must confront the unsettling reality that the integrity of our democratic process is under threat from hostile actors and unaccountable digital platforms, such as those we have heard about today.

In my constituency I have seen the manipulation at first hand. The administrators of the local Reform UK Facebook group—supposedly representing my constituency —are not local at all. Not a single one that I can see has anything to do with my constituency. Many cannot even be identified as real individuals. This is not grassroots activism; it is astroturfing—an insidious form of political manipulation where orchestrated campaigns masquerade as spontaneous grassroots movements, misleading and deceiving the public.

That is not an isolated case. Across the UK, our election was tainted by misinformation on an unprecedented scale. These were not spontaneous expressions of a democratic electorate, but the work of malign domestic and foreign actors, deliberately interfering to distort the public discourse. The power of those platforms to spread falsehoods rapidly and without scrutiny undermines trust in our political system.

Undoubtedly, the owners of the platforms wield immense influence on our public discourse. Their decisions on content moderation, as we have heard, shape what information is disseminated and trusted. The fact that one such owner has openly endorsed figures convicted of hate crimes, such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is appalling, signalling how those with immense digital influence can amplify those voices. These are not neutral platforms but ideological battlegrounds, and right now the scales are tipped in favour of disinformation. Labour stands for a different vision of politics; a politics built on real people, engagement and communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Noah Law Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the value for money of official development assistance spending on in-donor refugee costs.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

The Government are tackling the asylum backlog at record pace so that we can work towards ending the use of hotels and ensure that more of our ODA budget is spent on our development priorities globally. Detailed decisions on how the ODA budget will be allocated are being worked through as part of the ongoing spending review.

[Noah Law]

The British public increasingly feel that development aid has sadly lost its clarity of purpose. While I accept that there are multiple objectives behind aid, and that of course lifting the world’s poorest out of poverty has long been at the heart of the FCDO’s mission, a reset in the social contract around development aid is clearly needed. What consideration has the Minister given to shaping development policy that explicitly addresses the upstream determinants of mass migration?

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said. Our development efforts, as the Foreign Secretary has said, have never just been about the aid budget. Peace and security, effective governance, access to private investment, remittance flows, efficient tax systems and access to trade opportunities are all essential foundations for development. That requires us to mobilise the full force of different resources and expertise across Government, our businesses and in universities, science and beyond.