International Development Committee

The Committee scrutinised accelerating settler violence, forced displacement, demolition and movement restrictions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, with witnesses arguing these are state-enabled and legally attributable to Israel. They described the E1 settlement plan, the loss of protection mechanisms after UNRWA restrictions, and the shrinking space for humanitarian organisations through deregistration, visa delays and legal pressure. Witnesses urged stronger UK and international action: sanctions are not enough on their own, the UK should support restitution and compensation mechanisms, uphold the ICJ advisory opinions, and provide political support for UNRWA and other humanitarian actors.

The Committee scrutinised how UK international climate finance reaches indigenous peoples, smallholder farmers and women in Latin America, and how climate shocks are worsening land, food, transport and health insecurity. Witnesses argued for direct and flexible funding, community decision-making, and recognition of land rights as a cost-effective adaptation tool. The second panel examined whether UK climate policy should rely more on private finance and multilateral funds; witnesses supported an enabling role for government, but warned that private capital alone will not fill the gap, that nature finance is underweighted, and that cutting the UK’s Green Climate Fund contribution or nature commitments would damage trust and frontline impact.

Parliamentary scrutiny of the UK’s development partnership with Nigeria focused on British International Investment (BII) strategy, the UK’s strategic partnership with Nigeria, and the role of DFID/FCDO in shaping aid, diplomacy and trade. Witness Chris Chijiutomi outlined BII’s five-year strategy prioritising energy access, digital connectivity, food security, financial inclusion, climate finance and a climate-resilient, market-led approach, including 25% of capital to frontier/least-developed markets and a gender lens. Ministers and Nigeria desk officials argued for a strategic, biannual partnership across development, diplomacy, defence and trade, with localisation, private-sector development, and civil-society engagement as core principles. They addressed humanitarian needs, displacement, nutrition, WASH, conflict prevention, and governance, and signalled timelines for country allocations (by 2026-07-01) and ongoing reform via ‘communities of expertise’. The session also covered portfolio risk debates around fossil-fuel investments, illicit finance, and the challenge of sustaining international focus in the Sahel.

The session comprises two panels examining the Democratic Republic of Congo's current crisis: a severe humanitarian emergency in eastern DRC and the governance/flows of key minerals. Witnesses from CAFOD, Women for Women International, and Action Against Hunger UK describe extreme displacement (over 5.3 million people displaced), widespread poverty, SGBV risks, and severely constrained access to aid due to competing authorities; they highlight local women-led coping strategies and call for enhanced humanitarian diplomacy, sustained funding, and area-based, locally led coordination. The second panel focuses on illicit mineral flows (gold and tantalum) linked to conflict, with witnesses from HIVE and Ebuteli detailing routes through Rwanda/Uganda to Dubai and beyond, the role of London/UK financial-and-trade infrastructure in promoting responsible sourcing, and the need for cross-ministerial coordination and public–private partnerships to reform supply chains. Sanctions effectiveness is debated, emphasising enforcement challenges and the need to target enablers rather than individuals alone. Across panels, there is client pressure to preserve civil-society space, ensure governance reform, and coordinate UK policy across development, foreign, security, and trade portfolios to address both humanitarian needs and the drivers of conflict in the Great Lakes region.

The International Development Committee scrutinised the FCDO on the planned reductions to ODA, the shift to a network of expertise, staffing reform, and the UK’s approach to multilateral funding. Key government positions included: reform of aid delivery focused on fragile/conflict states, partnership-based engagement with recipient countries, and safeguarding critical areas such as women and girls’ programmes, violence against women and girls funding, and soft-power instruments (e.g., British Council, World Service). The government defended three-year funding commitments, highlighted a strategy to leverage multilateral funding (IDA, Global Fund, Gavi, WHO), and outlined a plan to reduce duplication by coordinating across Whitehall through Communities of Expertise. It also acknowledged challenges around staffing cuts, the ISF portfolio realignment (including Africa), and the Global Fund funding profile, while emphasising continued support for Ukraine and ongoing engagement with multilateral reform. The committee pressed for greater transparency on multilateral spend, and for a clearer public-facing explanation of the strategy and its long-term impact on global development, health, and humanitarian outcomes.

The session scrutinised the UK’s approach to stabilising and rebuilding Syria post-Assad, including humanitarian relief, longer‑term recovery, and development, with a focus on funding choices, sanctions, governance, and regional security. Key government commitments include rapid additional funding to the north‑east, scaling funding toward early recovery and development, and efforts to re‑establish a permanent UK presence. Witnesses and partners highlighted Syria’s ongoing humanitarian needs (millions displaced, large caseloads), the need for direct funding to the Syrian Government and localisation of aid, and the critical role of local NGOs and mine-action partners (MAG, HALO) in enabling safe returns. There were also calls for stronger security-sector reform, a renewed GMAP funding pathway, and better engagement with the UN and international donors to align priorities and reduce bureaucratic bottlenecks. The discussion underscored tensions between humanitarian relief and development, the political sensitivities around sanctions, and the importance of accountability, justice, and inclusive governance for a stable, peaceful Syria.