On Friday the House agreed to pass a bill to enshrine the government's commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid to a second reading. I had planned to speak in the debate but sadly wasn't called, my planned speech is below: To turn a phrase from Monty Python, Mr Speaker, ‘What has international aid ever done for anyone?’ Well, as we have heard from other honourable members, the answer is quite a lot actually. Halving global child mortality since 1990… Providing 120 million women access to contraception, saving 3 million young women’s lives in the process… Virtually eradicating polio… And helping 10.2 million children to go to school, are to name just a few. And as I witnessed this summer, it is not just long term initiatives. We are there in times of crisis too. I can assure this house that the UK Aid sent to Iraq has been a lifeline for those who have been forced to flee. I saw first-hand the relief that we provide on the ground. You only have to ask the Yazidis, Christians or Syrians what they feel about international aid. As ever, the British public have been unfailingly generous. However, I do recognize the unease that many feel about our international aid spending – after the biggest shock to hit our economy since the Second World War we all know times have been tough. And our constituents fairly ask why we are sending money overseas when we are facing budget constraints at home? The short answer is British aid saves lives. And it is in our national interest. As one of the world’s richest countries now is not the time to turn our backs on the world’s poorest. It is thanks to aid spending from around the world that we have seen massive breakthroughs in reducing global poverty. Something we should be rightly proud of. But aid isn’t just morally right, it is also critical to our own national interests. Poverty plays a key role in heightening conflict, and allows extremism of all kinds to take hold in failed states. It is far more cost-effective to invest aid in conflict prevention than it is to pay the cost of responding to violent conflict and civil war. Aid is also a vital catalyst in bringing about the changes that can kick start growth in low-income countries, helping build a decent foundation for a strong and sustainable future. Not just establishing healthcare systems, education, and skills training. But helping governments to establish the rule of law, tackle corruption, put in place vital tax collection systems, build democratic institutions, and create political stability. And of course this in turn will benefit the UK. By helping other countries develop their economies we create new trading opportunities, building new markets and in turn generating more growth opportunities for our own economy. I believe the Government deserves real credit for sticking to the 0.7% commitment despite the tough times at home. We were the first G8 country to realise this historic promise, and this leadership on international development undoubtedly gives Britain the moral authority, influence and leverage in our relations with other developed, and developing countries. The soft power benefits we gain are huge - at the beginning of the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, Dfid embedded a departmental expert in the KRG’s Ministry of Interior. Given the overwhelming refugee population, I can assure the house that the Kurds see this kind of help as equal, if not more critical, to the hardware we are supplying. What is interesting Mr Speaker, is that many of the members in this house who oppose this target are the same ones who are calling for 2% of military spending to be enshrined in law - surely the same reasons apply - and surely they must recognise that both play a key role. And I say this as a huge supporter of the 2% target; we must make sure that alongside aid, our defence, intelligence and diplomatic services should all get the funding they need - they are all strands in pursuit of the same goal. But, as the member for Penrith and the Boarder, and the member for North East Bedfordshire both so eloquently put it on Wednesday, somewhere we have got the balance wrong. (The entire budget for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is less than we spend on the Winter Fuel Allowance.) Perhaps it is finally time to reassess the weight we give to our foreign policy. I am sure some of my more sceptical colleagues can reel of examples of where our aid spending has seemed a little, shall we say, circumspect. My honourable friend, the member for North East Cambridgeshire, pointed one out on Wednesday - an Ethiopian Spice Girls, I believe – I listened very carefully to my honourable friend and his contributions are always worth listening to. His point is clearly valid that aid spending has to give value for money, but that does not mean reducing it. He raised an important point. We must insist that the Dfid budget is spent effectively. And that international aid should be targeted in the smartest way. Critics of this Bill often argue that committing to a percentage wrongly prioritizes an amount over effectiveness. But this is a false choice. The Government can and should do both. At a time when across the developed world public finances are under pressure, we must ensure our aid investments are cost-effective. Our aid must boost the global economy rather than encourage dependency. For example, only 0.37 percent of global aid is spent directly on child malnutrition, yet research clearly shows that tackling this problem could add $125 billion to the global economy each year by 2030. Such smart aid increases the capacity of people to support themselves and of countries to increase their productivity. I know that the Secretary of State has worked extremely hard to identify the countries and programme where aid will have the most impact; importantly, strengthening financial controls, programme management and internal audits by the Department. I must say, with her accounting and financial background, she has brought real rigor to the department Mr Speaker, it is these kinds of debates we should be having – what are the most cost-effective, results-driven partnerships we need to see more of? Not debate about whether we should stick to the 0.7% commitment. If aid is to be its most effective, we need to move beyond the quantity debate to the quality one. And this bill will help us do just that. Equally, Mr Speaker, by enshrining the commitment in legislation, over simple policy commitments, we give the NGOs that deliver aid increased predictability of funding. They will able to plan, make smart long-term investments, and ultimately increase the effectiveness of every pound spent. Aid is not a cure all, but its benefits can be transformative, and I very much hope that one day we will have progressed so far as to make this target irrelevant. But while it still is, let’s make it a firm commitment.