UK Development Partnership Assistance

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, and I thank my noble friend Lady Featherstone for her excellent introduction to this debate. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, for her excellent maiden speech; as a former Islington councillor also, who knows the Cally very well, I look forward to her contributions in the future.

For decades, the UK has been seen and expected to play a key role in peacebuilding and post-conflict recovery. Through diplomatic mediation and development funding, Britain was looked to as a stabilising force in fragile regions and countries, but today, in a volatile world, that influence appears to be fading just when it is needed. Instead of leading peace talks, supporting institution building and fostering economic recovery, the UK seems to have stepped back on its crucial role of using its soft power. While everyone understands why the UK is under pressure to increase its defence spending, it has been argued that cutting the UK ODA is not the best way to promote security and stability.

The FCDO has historically emphasised the importance of including women in peacebuilding efforts, recognising how this is crucial for sustainable peace and prosperity. Development-led soft power is, and continues to be, an investment in global stability and in the UK’s long-term national interest.

I would also like to focus on women and girls, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has just done. Support from the UK has helped deliver remarkable progress for women and girls, including a 40% decline in global maternal mortality between 2000 and 2023, according to a joint United Nations report published last year. At a time of pushback on women’s rights, the UK’s commitment to sexual and reproductive health rights, especially maternal health, and its leadership in advocating for the rights and choices for women and girls, is needed now more than ever.

There are clear links between the UK’s support for global SRHR, as part of its development work, and both conflict resolution and the exercise of soft power and diplomacy. Globally, we have led on enormous progress and we cannot allow pushback and retreat on these commitments. Just because the United States has, we do not have to.

A good example is the UK’s support for the United Nations Population Fund’s supplies partnership, which is a pooled fund that is the largest procurer of reproductive health commodities for the public sector. This programme provides a critical lifeline to women and girls in many of the world’s lowest-income countries. In 2024 alone, it helped prevent nearly 10 million unintended pregnancies and more than 200,000 maternal and newborn deaths. Can the Minister, in his response, reassure me that the Government remain committed to ensuring that women and girls remain at the centre of both foreign and international development priorities?

Peacebuilding is also about prevention. Addressing poverty, inequality, discrimination and injustice is a long-term investment that must be protected. I will close my remarks by touching on the wider implications of what we have heard, and some have mentioned, in Mark Carney’s speech, described by many as bold and brave. We were reminded recently by the United Nations Secretary-General that the rule of law is a cornerstone of global peace and security for smaller and less powerful countries, and those suffering from historical inequities and the damaging legacies of colonial rule. International law is a lifeline promising equal treatment, sovereignty, dignity and justice.

It is worth reflecting that the rules-based international order did not just erode gradually. For many in the non-western world, it collapsed when western Governments showed that the rules do not always apply when the violator is an ally. The catastrophe, for example, in Gaza did not just expose a weakness in the system; it revealed what the system is. For several years, many countries, especially in the global South, have argued that the world did not merely fail to restrain the occupying Government’s actions; it funded them, vetoed accountability, ignored legal standards and actively criminalised dissent. International law was seen to be selectively suspended. That was seen as a real point of no return in recent years: not simply because Donald Trump threatens to violate the sovereignty of Greenland, but because the precedent was set in full view of the world. This reinforces the need, more than ever, for the United Kingdom to show leadership and underline its commitment and obligations to international law, and to be seen to be doing this, while redoubling efforts on soft power and diplomacy.