UK Development Partnership Assistance Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger

Main Page: Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative - Life peer)

UK Development Partnership Assistance

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Excerpts
Thursday 29th January 2026

(1 day, 11 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security, a member of the steering board of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and chair of the Afghan Women’s Support Forum. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on introducing this timely debate today in such an excellent fashion. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, on their excellent maiden speeches, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I am so sorry to hear that he is retiring. I pay tribute to the huge contribution that he has made to political life and to his service to this country over many years.

The UK has enjoyed a high reputation for diplomacy and, although it is no longer a great military power, it had a leading reputation for soft power and development aid. We rank as the world’s sixth-largest economy. Therefore, we have a duty to help the poorest across the world. Since President Trump’s return to office in January 2025, we have seen the US cancel much of its aid. To its shame, the UK appears to have followed suit, slashing our aid budget to 0.3%. The Government argue that the reason for this is that we need more money for defence, and few would argue against increasing defence spending at this dangerous time. However, what we need is security for the UK, and security will not be achieved by defence alone but needs a combination of diplomacy, development and defence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, said in her wonderful introduction. The defence uplift does not have to be financed at the cost of international development. This is a political choice the Government are making. While we spent around £15.37 billion in 2023 on development, this will be reduced to around £9 billion in 2027-28, with 16% spent last year in the UK on asylum seekers, and all this at a time when UK cuts have left people destitute across the world.

I am concerned about this Government’s stated approach to development through partnership, particularly in Africa, where, according to the Government, countries now do not want to see us as donors. Many African countries are very rich in natural resources, but the benefit from those resources too often ends up in the pockets of the few. What are the Government doing to address the endemic corruption in many of those countries? I am concerned that a choice seems to have been made mostly to finance multilaterals. Of course, Gavi and the Global Fund are worthy, but why are we choosing to be at the leading edge of donors to them? Often, those organisations also take a slice of development money too. To make a real difference, funding needs to be to the grassroots, so please let us cut back some of the multilateral funding and spend the money where it can make most impact; for example, on locally led women’s organisations and projects such as demining work by Halo and MAG.

There remains enormous gender inequality in many of those African countries, and the fact is that the predominantly male leaders turn a blind eye to issues such as FGM, child marriage and violence against women. We need to continue putting women and girls at the heart of development, both to stop violence against them and because we all recognise that empowering women at a community level is good for all, including a country’s economy.

There is no doubt that poverty creates conflict and conflict creates poverty. Focus, therefore, needs to be on conflict prevention and resolution. Studies show that for every £1 invested in prevention, as much as £100 can be saved, as well as preventing the misery caused by conflict. The Red Cross reports that there are more than 130 active conflicts in the world today, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has already said—more than double the number 15 years ago—with civilians bearing the brunt of attacks.

The ground-breaking UN Security Council resolution recognised the disproportionate effect on women and girls. It also advocated including women in peace processes. Empirical evidence shows that this makes peace more durable, legitimate and effective, and 35% more likely to last at least 15 years—and yet, look at the situation today. On Donald Trump’s peace board, none of the executive members are women, and of the 19 members at the Davos launch, there was only one woman.

There are so many negotiations centred around the Middle East, yet the International Centre for Sustainability states:

“Across the Middle East, women are being systematically pushed out of public life through law, custom, and state power”.


In Syria, Gaza, Israel, Russia and Ukraine you only see the men. The sidelining of the UN is contributing to this. We need the UN more than ever, but it needs to be made more effective through the reform, and I hope that the UK will play a leading part.

International development aid is an essential tool of soft power. Why are this Government not supporting the Women, Peace and Security agenda, which would help women in conflict countries, thus contributing to stability? We should not forget that overseas development is not charity. It is an investment in a safer, healthier and more peaceful world.