Baroness Featherstone
Main Page: Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Baroness Featherstone
That this House takes note of the role of UK development partnership assistance in diplomacy, conflict resolution and the exercise of soft power.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I very much look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Chittlehampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde of Bemerton, as I am sure we all are.
I was a Minister in the Department for International Development for two years during the coalition Government. It seems a bit of a golden era now, because the world is changing, and not for the better. As we witness with horror and disbelief the dismantling of the world order—the “rupture”, as Mark Carney’s excellent speech so ably described it—we need to act.
We are now operating in a far more unstable and competitive international environment, marked by weak governance, state competition and hybrid threats, with over 120 active conflicts, and countries such as Russia and China increasingly pushing for greater global influence through fair means or foul. I must not leave out our now unstable and unreliable special relationship.
This, compounded and combined with the reduction in influence of the international rule of law, the reducing strength of international institutions and the dramatic reduction in development assistance from democratic countries, is moving us to an unsafe world, where might is right and our enemies rush to fill the voids we have left. We need to move decisively to defend and promote democratic values. This is the fight of our lives; it is a moral fight.
Our three pillars of foreign policy—defence, diplomacy and development—must operate together to be effective. Defence provides deterrence and protection when conflict arises, and we have even been found wanting in this theatre, but it is diplomacy and development that reduce the likelihood of conflict in the first place. Development assistance remains one of the UK’s most effective tools for diplomacy, conflict prevention and the exercise of soft power. It allows us to shape environments before crises erupt, to stabilise societies emerging from violence and to project influence through partnership rather than coercion.
Our development partnerships have always extended diplomatic reach far beyond formal state-to-state relations by embedding long-term engagement in the countries we partner with. Those development partnerships are not acts of charity; they are instruments of statecraft. But development partnerships have been under attack. The UK reduced its ODA target from the historic 0.7%—which, I have to say, was a Liberal Democrat piece of legislation during the coalition—to 0.5% of national income in 2021 and abolished the Department for International Development by merging it with the Foreign Office, thus changing the very nature of its interaction. It was then further reduced to 0.5%, following fiscal pressures, and is now planned to reduce further to 0.3% by 2027. I refer noble Lords to the excellent recent Question for Short Debate from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on the humanitarian impact of these reductions.
Through long-term engagement, UK development assistance has created political access where traditional diplomacy alone could not. It has embedded trust with Governments, local institutions, civil society, and particularly in fragile and conflict-affected states, where credibility has to be earned over time.
Crucially, development partnerships address the root causes of conflict—poverty, exclusion, weak governance and injustice—by strengthening institutions, supporting inclusive growth, and investing in education and health. UK assistance reduces the grievances on which instability and extremism thrive. It projects our values—fairness, the rule of law, accountability and respect for human dignity—builds relationships with future leaders, reinforces our standing in multilateral institutions and enhances our ability to persuade rather than compel on the global stage. It gives us agenda-setting power, enables us to shape discussions on governance reform, human rights, climate resilience and economic stability, and strengthens bilateral relationships by signalling commitment, reliability and shared interests, rather than just transactional or coercive intent. It creates access to non-elite actors, such as local governments, civil society and community leaders, thus broadening diplomatic influence far beyond central governments.
Development programmes support peacebuilding infrastructure, including community reconciliation, transitional justice and inclusive political processes. Peacebuilding is central to the well-being of us all. Long-term development engagement sustains peace settlements after ceasefires and fills gaps that neither the military nor diplomatic interventions alone can address. Conflict-sensitive aid design helps mitigate the risk of exacerbating tensions and reinforcing the UK’s credibility as a neutral and constructive actor. This is soft power. This is conflict prevention in its most cost-effective form. However, soft power is fragile and depends on consistency, credibility and clarity of purpose. When development policy is perceived as short-term, transactional or subject to volatility, our diplomatic influence is weakened and our partnership strained.
On multilateral and global leadership, UK development assistance strengthens influence within multilateral institutions by demonstrating leadership, expertise and burden sharing. The strategic use of aid allows the UK to shape global norms on development effectiveness, humanitarian principles and conflict sensitivity. Development leadership supports the UK’s claim to be a force for good, reinforcing diplomatic standing post-Brexit.
If we are not there, then, as we can see, benign values will be replaced. Make no mistake: internationalism and co-operation are under attack. Development partnerships deliver return not as immediate revenue but as reduced instability, fewer humanitarian crises and lower future security costs. Every conflict prevented is a cost avoided—militarily, diplomatically and morally.
Chatham House produced a policy paper in 2025, Rethinking UK Aid Policy in an Era of Global Funding Cuts. The paper examines the security and geopolitical consequences of the recent cuts to official development assistance. It explicitly highlights concerns:
“Reductions in aid to fragile and conflict-affected states risk entrenching instability and generating wider spillover effects”
in contexts of extreme poverty, displacement, climate change and violence. The cuts jeopardise programmes designed to prevent conflict and stabilise fragile states, and risk reversing progress in supporting stability. This is a direct policy analysis linking UK aid cuts with the increased risk in fragile and conflict-affected settings.
There is already emerging evidence of the impacts of the USAID cuts to peacebuilding, including in Nigeria and eastern DRC, and the prior UK cuts to Sudan. On Sudan, the IDC has also stated that
“the FCDO failed to learn the lessons of its previous cuts to stabilisation and peacebuilding, which likely contributed to the escalation of conflict in Sudan going unchallenged”.
Stability abroad is national interest at home. We must be cognisant of what happens when vacuums are left and who and what fills them. The BBC World Service is one of Britain’s most effective and trusted soft power assets. It reaches hundreds of millions of people with impartial reporting, providing a powerful counterweight to propaganda and disinformation. Its budget has fallen sharply. It dropped by around 21% in real terms between 2021 and 2025, tightening its ability to sustain language services and maintain presence in contested information environments. Funding pressures have driven job cuts, including a recently announced 130 World Service job reductions as part of savings measures.
Cuts have forced withdrawal from key services, including BBC Arabic radio, reducing reach in regions where radio remains a resilient, low-cost platform during conflict and state disruptions. In Lebanon, for example, reports described Russian-state Sputnik radio moving on to the frequencies that were previously used for BBC Arabic. Information vacuums are filled instantly by hostile states or are aligned to the messaging of rivals.
The British Council, founded during a period of European instability, is a deliberate instrument of foreign policy. Its purpose was to build overseas understanding of Britain’s values, culture and way of life in support of British interests. Through cultural exchange, English language education and long-term relationship building, it generates trust that no short-term campaign could ever replicate. The council has vast reach, with hundreds of millions of people globally each year, operating in over 200 countries and territories and giving Britain an enduring platform for influence and relationships. However, the British Council faces severe financial pressure, and there is risk of closure in more than 60 countries in the coming years, potentially accelerating Britain’s retreat from the global stage precisely as competition intensifies.
The UK is now also facing deep reductions in the core machinery of statecraft. The FCDO is expected to reduce headcount significantly, with plans discussed publicly in terms of thousands of UK-based staff cuts and reductions of up to 25% or more of personnel. The Department for Business and Trade is also planning major reductions, with reports of around 1,500 job cuts shrinking its capacity to support exports, investment and commercial diplomacy.
Diplomacy is fundamentally relationship-driven and sustained influence requires people on the ground, yet having fewer officials means fewer relationships, less follow-through and reduced leverage. We have sustained many cuts in bilateral support to places such as Pakistan, Ethiopia, Yemen and Syria. Planned bilateral cuts this year include reductions of 18% for Sudan and 21% for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Disgracefully, a growing share of the aid budget has been absorbed by domestic refugee hosting costs—around one-fifth of ODA.
Rebuilding British soft power is one of the most cost-effective ways to strengthen national security and to protect British interests in an increasingly volatile and dangerous world. Let us look to the growing hot spots and upstream security, because instability is increasing in several regions of strategic importance to the UK, including Africa, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. These regions are facing weak Governments, conflict, climate change and low levels of economic development. Those consequences ripple outwards and hit us here with irregular migration, extremism, and humanitarian and global health risks.
Africa will be the central theatre of upstream security in the coming decades. Demographics alone guarantee its strategic weight. It is projected to reach 2.5 billion people by 2050, reshaping global trade, migration pressures and geopolitical influence. China, Russia and the UAE are all vigorously pursuing overseas programmes—not for benevolent purposes but to expand their influence to secure access and to lock-in strategic leverage.
This debate is not about whether development assistance should be guided by the national interest, as we are all agreed that it must. The question is how best that interest is served in a more unstable and contested world. I hope that the House will agree that a strategic, better funded and disciplined approach to development assistance remains not only compatible with the national interest but essential to it. I beg to move.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
I am very grateful. I thank everyone for such brilliant speeches—there is such knowledge in this House; it makes me so proud of everybody here. To the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, I say that I was a designer before I came here, and my studio was at 7 Caledonian Road. I just wanted her to know that. I have an anecdote for the noble Lord, Lord Barber, about our ability to send potentates’ and dictators’ children to private school, but I will tell him that privately.
Lastly, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who has been so kind and so wonderful to everyone. There was not a little “V” by his name on the speakers’ list—he is even too modest to tell us it was his valedictory speech.
I just want to say to the Government that this debate asks that “this House takes note”, but I sometimes feel that in such debates, we, the contributors, get it, but I want the Government to get it. We have been forced to look at our defence spending by our friend in the White House; let us look at our spending on soft power too. Let us not wait for catastrophic world events and wars; let us move now and let us lead on prevention and peacebuilding. I thank all noble Lords for such brilliant contributions.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, my name will be mud because I have allowed this to overrun for two minutes, which is absolutely impossible in your Lordships’ House. But the question now is that this Motion be agreed to.