International Development Outcomes for Women and Girls

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests: I co-chair and run the APPG on Women, Peace and Security, I am on the steering board of the PSVI, I run the Afghan Women’s Support Forum and I am an honorary colonel in CIMIC. I too thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for introducing this important debate today.

As we have heard, in the poorest countries women are always the poorest of the poor. The Red Cross reports over 130 active conflicts in the world today, with women disproportionately affected. Estimates by the WHO indicate that one in three women globally have been subjected to physical or sexual violence.

The international development budget is being cut to less than half of the pre-Covid amount—a political choice—causing much of Britain’s soft power to be abandoned by pitching defence against development. France, Germany and the USA, who, together with the UK, presented two-thirds of global aid spending, are also slashing development spend. Who will fill the gap? Perhaps it will be nations which do not share our idea of democracy.

The UN now estimates that 239 million people will need humanitarian support in 2026. Women and girls in conflict zones, refugee camps and disaster-hit regions are, as ever, among the most exposed when the safety net thins. The FCDO’s own equalities impact assessment found that reductions in bilateral aid will have a negative impact on equalities—in short, the Government already admit that the cuts will hurt women and girls.

The Foreign Secretary’s decision to

“make support for women and girls … a priority for development”

is most welcome, along with the commitment that at least 90% of FCDO bilateral aid programmes will contribute to gender by 2030. However, bilateral aid has been more heavily cut, with multilateral spend being prioritised. This means the UK cannot guarantee how the money will be spent.

This all feels like a broken promise; for years we have called ourselves a global leader on gender equality. Ensuring more women in the workplace helps lift countries out of poverty. Educating girls lowers infant mortality rates and reduces early marriages, but the UK is abandoning the funding of education. It is estimated that globally, 130 million girls are out of school, four times more than boys.

The UK has also reduced its contributions to UNFPA by 85%, risking additional maternal and child deaths and stopping the ability to prevent approximately 14.6 million unintended pregnancies. With education, gender and equality programming spending having fallen by about 42%, Bond, the umbrella organisation for UK development organisations, has said that women and girls will pay the highest price for this Government’s spending choices. As Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, put it when the Government confirmed their multi-year allocations,

“there will be no winners from unrelenting aid cuts, just different degrees of losers”.

Melinda Gates famously stated that supporting women and girls in international development is essential because they are highly effective catalysts for global change. Britain built its reputation as a global leader on this work over decades. It is being undone in a few budget cycles. The choice of whether that happens is still, in part, ours to make.