Foreign Affairs
67mentions · last 12 months↓
View full analysis →Scrutinising UK international development policy and the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the International Development Committee holds the government to account on aid spending, multilateral partnerships, and humanitarian response. Operating as a House of Commons select committee, it takes oral evidence from ministers, officials, and external witnesses to examine how the UK deploys development resources across regions and thematic priorities. Recent inquiries reflect the committee's dual focus on climate finance and crisis response: it has investigated the UK's international climate finance commitments ahead of the 2026 spending review, examined locally led adaptation approaches, and scrutinised development partnerships in Nigeria and Jamaica. The committee has also conducted urgent inquiries into humanitarian crises in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, including questions around aid delivery amid mineral extraction concerns, and explored development priorities in post-Assad Syria. In March 2026 it received evidence on FCDO aid reform and multilateral strategy, establishing how departmental restructuring affects the delivery of UK development objectives. These sessions indicate the committee's emphasis on linking climate action, bilateral partnerships, and emergency response within a coherent development framework.
25 sessions published in the last 12 months
Click any cell in the heatmap to see the sessions held that day and the insights extracted from them.
335 insights
14 Jul 2026
The Committee scrutinised the scale of Yemen’s humanitarian crisis, with WFP, MSF and a GBV specialist describing acute food insecurity, malnutrition, displacement, maternal mortality and the collapse of protection services, especially in Houthi-controlled areas. Witnesses repeatedly highlighted access restrictions, detention of aid workers, and the impact of UK and wider donor cuts on food, health and women’s services. The second panel argued that the peace process is stagnant and constrained by an outdated UN Security Council framework, while urging the UK to use its penholder role more flexibly, recognise governance realities on the ground, and back long-term development priorities such as water and education.
07 Jul 2026
The committee scrutinised the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, with a strong focus on the Taliban’s escalating restrictions on women and girls, the collapse of education and health access, and the implications for humanitarian delivery, civil society and international accountability. Witnesses said UK aid largely reaches Afghanistan through UN and other large agencies, but argued for stronger support to underground civil society, women-led organisations and accountability for the Taliban. BBC World Service described its Afghanistan education programme “Dars” as a vital lifeline for girls barred from school. Humanitarian agencies then highlighted severe food insecurity, the funding cliff in health and nutrition, the need to keep female staff in the field, and the importance of UK-backed, principled engagement with the de facto authorities. Multiple witnesses urged the UK to sustain funding for nutrition, primary healthcare, Gavi, polio eradication, border health screening and local delivery partners, while warning that withdrawal would drive preventable deaths and wider disease spread.
30 Jun 2026
The Committee scrutinised the Government’s new international climate finance package, the move from five-year to three-year planning, and how far the UK is shifting from donor to investor. Ministers said the new ICF4 approach is £6 billion over three years plus £6.7 billion of non-ODA finance to mobilise, with climate, humanitarian and health as ODA priorities. They defended no separate nature/forest sub-pledge, arguing for portfolio-based delivery and September review points. Evidence also covered the refusal to fund the Tropical Forests Forever Facility at COP in Belém, the case for multilateral financing and private capital mobilisation, transparency over climate-finance accounting, and concerns that cutting aid and counting humanitarian spend can damage UK credibility.
23 Jun 2026
The Committee examined whether the FCDO and Integrated Security Fund are equipped to prevent atrocities and respond early to crises, especially Sudan and Myanmar. Witnesses argued that atrocity prevention needs distinct protocols, stronger legal and ministerial accountability, more seniority and clout inside the FCDO, and clearer escalation routes. The Minister said the department is restructuring to integrate early warning and conflict/atrocity analysis, has trained 250 staff in atrocity prevention in the last year, and is building a community of expertise with £10-15 million a year of programme funding. The sharpest disagreement concerned Sudan: witnesses Nathaniel Raymond and Dr Kate Ferguson said the UK had prioritised its relationship with the UAE over calling out imminent mass atrocities in El Fasher, while Baroness Chapman rejected that as too simple and defended the use of diplomatic leverage and private warnings. The Minister also undertook to follow up on why the UK has not made an article 14 ICC referral on Myanmar and said she saw no in-principle objection to considering an atrocity-prevention law for the UK.
09 Jun 2026
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.
02 Jun 2026
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.
07 Jul 2026
07 Jul 2026