THOSE who’ve followed my relatively short life in politics will know I’ve never been one for internal party politicking.

That’s why, to be drafted onto a delegation to Washington DC the week before last, as part of the Select Committee – of which I am a member, was something of a relief, given events back in Westminster. Out of the frying pan and into the fire, some might say.

The International Development Committee is responsible for scrutinising the government’s now significantly diminished Overseas Development Assistance or “aid” as we might call it – as well as the investments Britain makes in key developmental infrastructure and industry overseas via institutions such as British International Investment – my employer prior to entering Parliament.

I choose to spend a few hours out of my generally 80-hour long working week (which mostly revolve around Cornish issues) to continue that work and apply experience and insights from my professional life to one of Parliament’s crucial functions.

In a packed schedule, the Committee and I met key institutions in the UN, World Bank system, and in public health, which keep the world’s poorest and, ultimately, ourselves, safe from infectious diseases. So crucial is their role, that even the Trump Administration, after the initial slashing of the aid budget to zero, has committed to funding many key programmes.

In an area like International Development, it is critical to consider all viewpoints – including those we might find uncomfortable – to enable mature and effective conversations and solutions.

So we also, at my suggestion, met those running the newly reconstructed Foreign Assistance programmes in the State Department, with USAID having been dismantled. The approach was truly eye-opening but crystal clear: If it doesn’t help the US develop its foreign policy “assets” – they’re not providing the assistance.

There are many, of course, who believe aid is a virtue in its own right – an altruistic endeavour – even though most would also agree there should be strings attached when it comes to working with challenging countries.

But this “hyper-realist” approach is anathema to even many Republicans, particularly those from a Christian tradition of charity and international support. Their deprioritisation of support for women and girls leaves enormous cause for concern, not least because we know this focus is one of the best ways to bring about development in the world’s poorest nations. And climate projects, now struck from the list, would hardly be a worry if the US (the world’s second largest polluter) weren’t rowing back on its efforts at home. We were, nonetheless, grateful for the State Department’s candour and straightforwardness.

There will be many areas where we have to agree to disagree with the new Administration in the US but it’s clear that, where our interests are well-aligned, there is still much scope for cooperation. Perhaps there is even something to learn from a hard negotiating stance in encouraging local capacity-building or “teaching people to fish”.

I know US-UK relations is an area of great interest to many constituents, so I look forward to continuing the conversation now I am back home.