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.
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, in particular my occasional mediation work for the World Bank and the CHD.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on not just securing this debate, which is timely and essential, but her excellent introduction that has very clearly laid out the issues in front of us. I am particularly pleased to see so many speakers from these Benches in this debate and so many new Members of your Lordships’ House taking part, including the two maiden speeches that I look forward to with great anticipation.
The new Labour Members of your Lordships’ House taking part in this debate reflects the renewed interest in development, conflict prevention and peacebuilding in the other place, where many of the new Members of Parliament elected in 2024 show a deep interest in these causes. They are the post-2005 generation inspired by the actions of a Labour Government bringing the world together in Gleneagles to secure some of the biggest changes in development and conflict prevention that we had ever seen. We were all proud of that action. When I joined your Lordships’ House in 2010, I was proud to see the new Government build on that approach and the success of the leadership that the Labour Government here had shown. That included the commitment shown by Ministers on the other side, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who are participating today.
It was particularly disappointing when, this time last year, our new Labour Government chose to focus only on hard power, to reduce their commitment to soft power and to cut the ODA budget so severely. The cruelty of those cuts and the blunt decision made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will be seen in all its glory over the coming months as allocations are announced. It is not too late to change that approach and to recognise that hard power and soft power have to go together. I hope that this will not be the first Labour Government in history to spend less money than the Conservatives on ODA and conflict prevention worldwide.
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on securing this debate and the way in which she introduced it. Following the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I was struck again by the strong cross-party consensus that always used to exist in this House on this important issue. That enabled us to project that collective power around the world. I hope we can return to that at some point. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speeches, particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. When I was Minister for International Development, we knew of the work he did in Pakistan in advancing education among young girls. It was a ground-breaking piece of work, and I look forward to hearing his contribution.
I believe we are at an inflexion point. The drastic cuts in overseas aid that are taking effect now may be a political debate for us, but they are a matter of life or death for the poorest. David Miliband called the cuts
“a blow to Britain’s proud reputation as a global humanitarian and development leader”.
They not only harm our national standing but undermine the health of our international institutions and risk destroying the critical humanitarian infrastructure it has taken decades to put in place. Last year, overseas aid was £14 billion. Next year, it will be £9.2 billion—the largest cash reduction in our history. At a time when the need has never been greater this century, the UK’s contribution to addressing that need has never been lower this century.
The World Food Programme has seen the number of those dependent on emergency food aid increase from 135 million to 318 million in five years, yet the Government have announced that they are cutting the WFP budget by 29%. The International Committee of the Red Cross is wrestling with the devastating effects of 130 armed conflicts around the world—twice as many as 15 years ago—yet the Government have cut its budget and are also cutting the budgets for other conflict prevention work. Those conflicts are causing mass movements of populations. The UNHCR has identified that as many as 117 million people may have been displaced—the greatest number since World War II —yet we are cutting the funding for organisations caring for those people at this time. Disease is on the increase around the world, yet we are cutting our contribution to Gavi, the Vaccination Alliance by 24%. It has been a brilliant initiative, saving millions of lives, and the ONE Campaign has estimated that this alone will cost around 600,000 lives.
My Lords, my thanks also go to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for picking up this really important issue. I too look forward immensely to the maiden speeches.
It is generally accepted that Britain has, in the past, excelled in soft power, punching above its weight. But we live in a world of scarcity and increasing conflict, as we have heard, and the UK’s strengths in this area are diminishing due to severe budget cuts. Creative solutions are necessary to off-set the potentially adverse effects.
For many decades, the chief engines driving soft power have been fourfold: the FCDO, the British Council, the BBC World Service and diplomacy. The mechanisms for delivering what can be defined as achieving strategic international priorities through work with the public overseas include cultural exchange, cultural diplomacy and broadcasting. The UK is fortunate in having a number of different assets and channels that reinforce its soft power. However, the wide range of approaches carries the risk of strategic incoherence. A more specific risk is that the different roles and methods of all the organisations involved—often NGOs—must be thoroughly understood if their soft power programmes are to be effective and acceptable to the recipient communities.
For example, the British Council puts emphasis on the use of culture to develop a multilayered network of relations—a modus operandi that has been honed since its establishment. In more recent years, however, the British Council has been called on to deliver projects on international development. For example, by 2018, £136 million of its total FCDO grant in aid of £168 million was spent on development activities in eligible countries. This detracts from its unique soft power strengths.
The BBC World Service has a much narrower focus, in seeking to provide
“the most trusted, relevant and high quality international news in the world”.
My Lords, I am profoundly grateful to have the opportunity to speak for the first time in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, I am profoundly grateful simply to be here. It is really not a normal trajectory from Cox Green comprehensive to here. I am deeply thankful to the incredible staff of this place—Black Rod, the doorkeepers, the librarians, the clerks and so many others who have been generous, patient and kind in their welcome. I am grateful to my supporters, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for their encouragement and guidance. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lady Royall, Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and many others who have offered the same from all sides of your Lordships’ House.
I owe an enormous debt of thanks to people across the Labour movement who have mentored, challenged and shaped me. I cannot name everybody but I will single out the Fabian Women’s Network and the Labour Women’s Network for their life-changing sisterhood, without whom I would not be chair of the Fabian Society nor in your Lordships’ House.
Of course, I must thank my brilliant, endlessly patient husband and my twin boys, who make everything possible, even on the darkest of days.
Soft power, conflict resolution and diplomacy are rooted fundamentally in relationships and curiosity about how we live together well in all our glorious diversity. Indeed, my own life story has been shaped again and again by people with whom at first glance I appeared to have little in common.
I have spent over 20 years living and working around Caledonian Road—the Cally—a tough but extraordinary neighbourhood with some of the best people ever. I spent many of those years living on the Bemerton Estate, and I chose the title “Baroness Hyde of Bemerton” so that I would never, ever forget where I came from nor lose sight of whom I am here to serve and to ensure a functioning democracy for.
Follow that, as they say. I begin my remarks by congratulating my noble friend Lady Hyde on an excellent maiden speech. I also look forward to that of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, whom I have known and admired for many years, and who shares a comparable commitment to public service.
My noble friend Lady Hyde has shared with us something of her own rich hinterland, and I want to take a moment to reflect on what she brings to this House. There are many noble Lords who know the pleasures and the pain of leading a think tank, and my noble friend has led the oldest and most venerated of them all in the Fabian Society. But there are very few noble Lords who can match her long experience of our prison system, a prison PhD and working with and for the most vulnerable in our communities. My noble friend’s expertise has been honed by years of working alongside those trying to rebuild their lives. She has lived the how of tackling human trafficking, preventing suicide, reducing violence against women and countering addiction. I suspect that she is not a woman who is going to allow casual claims about a broken Britain to pass unexamined in this place.
My noble friend’s love of the arts and their liberating potential will be a welcome tonic to our sometimes philistine instincts. I feel certain that Sara—not Sarah but Sara—with her own deep commitment rooted in her rich faith life, her values and her convictions, will both challenge and inspire your Lordships’ House in the years to come. I know I speak for the whole House when I say that my noble friend Lady Hyde is very welcome indeed.
I thank the Liberal Democrats for tabling this Motion. The Minister replying today, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, is a former distinguished deputy chair of the British Council. I currently serve in that role, and it is what I want to focus on today.
My Lords, with the world we live in defined by geopolitical competition, protracted conflicts and crises, and shrinking civic space, the United Kingdom’s development partnership assistance remains one of our most powerful assets. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate, and for her introduction, which made such a strong case for continued investment in development. It was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde. It is clear that she is going to bring much passion to your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I know that this House will benefit from his considerable expertise in development, diplomacy and delivery.
Beyond alleviating poverty and responding to humanitarian need, UK development partnerships shape political relationships, build long-term trust, and reinforce the norms and institutions that underpin international peace and security. When aligned with foreign policy objectives, development partnerships strengthen conflict prevention, support inclusive political settlements and enhance the UK’s soft power by demonstrating commitment to international law, human rights and multilateral co-operation. It is through these sustained partnerships—often built over decades—that the UK earns credibility, influence and the ability to convene and lead at moments of diplomatic significance.
I will focus on women, peace and security and how the UK should use its upcoming presidency of the United Nations Security Council. I declare my interest as chair of the charity, Plan International UK.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that women, peace and security sits at the heart of UK foreign policy. Next month’s presidency of the UNSC is one of the first opportunities to act on this commitment on the global stage. This is more than a procedural moment; it is a diplomatic opportunity that speaks directly to how the UK exercises influence in a contested world and how development partnership functions as a core instrument of our diplomacy, our conflict prevention efforts and our soft power.
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.
4:53 pm
20 of 56 shown
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.
Of the biggest powers economically and diplomatically in the world, the UK led the debate on defence, diplomacy and development and the need to integrate these three approaches globally when we were in government. We supported the actions of the following Government when we were in opposition. Today countries are not reducing ODA and their commitment to international support; Canada, Italy and Japan are all in the G7 and are all committing to continue their development assistance. Interestingly for today—because the Prime Minister is visiting China—I note that China is increasing its international intervention; we might not agree with the way it does it all the time, but it recognises the strategic importance of that in a world where many powers among the democracies are reducing their support. We should not join that race to the bottom. Whether or not the budget is cut over the coming weeks, within the Foreign Office budget we must prioritise conflict prevention, soft power and peacebuilding. These are vital in a world where disorder and instability are increasingly impacting the lives of everyone, particularly the most vulnerable.
The UK has the academic expertise, the history of government intervention, the cultural institutions and the charitable organisations that are a source of great strength in this area. Our military should be stronger, but it also has great strengths in building peace as well as fighting war. We need a dedicated budget for conflict prevention, a genuine commitment to the women, peace and security agenda, not just warm words, and a strategic commitment to put the UK at the centre of this effort globally, as a trusted and reliable partner. We owe that to the many millions—in fact, hundreds of millions—of children affected by violence and conflict around the world today who need us more than ever.
If the Government insist on implementing these cuts, it will not only cost lives but diminish our reputation abroad and undermine our security at home. That was the view of Dame Anneliese Dodds MP, who courageously resigned as International Development Minister last year rather than implement the cuts. In a resignation letter to the Prime Minister, she said:
“Ultimately, these cuts will remove food and healthcare from desperate people—deeply harming the UK’s reputation”.
She is not alone. That used to be the position of Rachel Reeves, when she was shadow Chancellor. In a passionate speech in the House of Commons, speaking about the then Government’s decision to reduce aid from 0.7% to 0.5%, she said:
“If this cut goes through this evening and the House votes for it, it will diminish Britain. It will reduce our power and influence for good in the world, and it will undermine our security here at home too”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/21; col. 220.]
She was right.
Often through mere accident of birth, many of us have had the enormous privilege to live in the best country on earth—the sixth richest nation economically. We have immense hard power as a nuclear weapons state and great diplomatic power as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and our cultural soft power is admired around the world. But with great power comes great responsibility—a responsibility to protect and to honour our promises, especially to the world’s poorest.
Again, in recent years, the transfer of funding to the licence fee, although now partly reversed, has had a severe effect on the breadth of World Service coverage. Furthermore, the BBC’s impact depends on the perception of editorial independence. This has been challenged by the Government’s emphasis on the strategic importance of a given region for the UK, leading to the Government taking part in the decision-making process.
Although much of the UK’s soft power is relatively independent of government, giving it strength, the tendency has been to bring organisations and their methodologies closer to government. The FCDO’s public diplomacy board now incorporates UK Trade & Investment, DfID, the DCMS, the MoD and the DfES, among other departments. The lack of co-ordination between these bodies has resulted in a degree of competition between them and a consequent reduction in the opportunities for cultural exchange.
What remains is the outstanding issue: the urgent need for a far-reaching strategy, together with effective co-ordination between the different actors. The UK, despite its intention to become the world leader in soft power, has in fact dropped to third place, after the US and China. The answer lies not so much in massive additional funds but in a serious focus on strategic alignment of our external policies in the national interest.
But let us go back. I was born on the banks of the Thames to a student and an NHS worker, and I want to thank my parents for raising me in a home where public service mattered and where working hard, putting others before yourself and collective endeavour were not abstract ideals but daily practice. They taught me that we achieve far more together than we can ever achieve on our own.
When I was 12, I experienced a significant bereavement through suicide, and that loss has undoubtedly shaped my life. In this House I intend to use my lived experience of suicides to help build a world in which they are vanishingly rare. There is much good work in the suicide prevention space and yet there is clearly more still to do.
I had a difficult time in adolescence and as a young woman, and there were many times when I was pretty unwell. But, as Rebecca Lucy Taylor might say,
“now I see it clear with every passing of each year.
I deserve to be here”.
The arts played a huge role in getting me through to the other side of this, and I remain a fierce champion for them—not as an optional pastime for the fortunate few but as a life-changing and often life-saving public good. They are essential—and fun.
I moved to Islington, and between my approximately 6,000 jobs—waitress, receptionist, call centre worker; the list goes on—I became embedded in the Cally community: youth work, homeless night shelters, community organising. The people at All Saints Church, in particular Kim, May, Feulah, Auntie Grace and Pat, took me in and treated me as one of their own.
From that Cally community I saw, time and again, that even in the hardest circumstances people still build connection, still love, still contribute. These lives, marked by poverty, addiction and struggle, changed me for ever through their grace, generosity and hospitality.
Prisons loomed large over these communities in every sense: nearby were HMP Pentonville and, back then, HMP Holloway. In 2008 I began working in Holloway with women whose children had been removed from them, and I spent the next decade working in and around prisons before undertaking a prison-related PhD.
Prison work led to me getting involved in politics, and I will use my time in this place to work for prisons and a justice system that ensures fairness for victims, and that rebuilds and restores and does not perpetuate or exacerbate harms.
To return to the subject of this debate, how we live together—generously and well—is one of the defining questions of our time. Long-held narratives fracture; truths have become flexible. Many people have felt, although this is changing, that things are not working for them, and desperation sets in.
When in pain and despair, that impulse to withdraw—to build walls—is an entirely understandable one, personally, nationally and internationally. Yet being isolated and surrounded by only those we agree with, who look and sound like us, diminishes our experience of what it is to be human and our ability to live in peace.
Internationally, these are somewhat unchartered times. Therefore, I draw on the words of the explorer Ernest Shackleton for inspiration. He said: optimism is moral courage.
So let us screw up our courage, and let us invest in, and utilise, our soft power as our morals and our optimism demand. Let us in every sphere keep connecting, keep listening and keep hoping.
As Nick Cave taught me, hope
“is adversarial. It is the warrior emotion that can lay waste to cynicism. Each redemptive or loving act, as small as you like … keeps the devil down in the hole. It says the world and its inhabitants have value and are worth defending. It says the world is worth believing in”.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I will do my very best to serve the people and communities of this country while I am in this place. I will get things wrong, I know. But while I am here, I will always give my very best as I act justly, love mercy and walk humbly. It is the honour of my life to do so—and to do so as a Labour Peer.
This morning the Prime Minister met the Chinese President, so it is fitting to start with that familiar Chinese proverb about tree planting: the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago and the second-best time is now. Soft power is like a tree. Its success is measured in decades and not in a single season. The British Council is a tree that we planted 90 years ago to nurture soft power. But today, by simply focusing on the season, we risk allowing it to wither. This tree has weathered the storms of fascism, war, the rise of the United Nations, the Cold War, the fall of Berlin, the pandemic and the fracturing of the rules-based order. The tree bends with the winds of geopolitical change, but the soft power purpose remains connection, trust and understanding. The British Council is not about military power or high diplomacy; it is about links that last.
Our British history—the history of empire, its rise and fall—makes this country a place of fascination, frustration, anger and fidelity for people around the world: people who want to know Britain better. We used to know this. Our enemies and our friends know this, but since the crash, the council has had a miserable time. In the last 20 years, the government grant to the council has, in essence, been flat, so it has halved in real terms. Meanwhile, the budget of its sponsor department, the FCDO, has grown by more than 50%. In a global context, the financial support for the council’s French and German counterparts is four to six times what we see in this country.
However, during Covid, the Conservative Government extended a loan. Conservative Ministers knew that that loan was not repayable from income; that is why no repayment plan was set at that time. Five years on, and many years of qualified accounts later, the Covid loan is still unresolved. The council offered its art collection—worth £200 million—to the Government to pay down the loan. There was no response. The council has therefore shed 17% of its staff, and the remaining 8,000 at home and around the world worry about their futures and the redundancies to come.
Meanwhile, the council carries on as a tree whose roots are constantly being pulled up by the Government. Last January, the then Permanent Secretary said, “Come up with a recovery plan, work with the Treasury and we will then sort the loan”. In August, the council delivered the plan and officials said, “Sorry, we need another report. We’ll commission EY”. In November, they said, “Sorry, we need another report; this time, we we’re going commission Deloitte”. By December, the NAO had decided that it wanted to get in on the act, and it is commissioning a report, too. Rumour now has it that yet another consultant’s report is to be required before we agree a recovery plan.
I commend to the Government what their own official of choice—the noble Baroness, Lady Casey— recently called the “grip and fix” theory of governing. Gripping is the task of Ministers, and fixing means dealing once and for all with that Covid legacy. If the loan remains, it simply kicks the can down the road.
I conclude with three possible solutions for disposing of the £200 million loan. The first is that the Government accept the art collection in payment. After all, HMRC is for ever doing this for artwork in lieu of tax liabilities. Secondly, the FCDO could use its underspend to pay down the loan. Two years ago, it was over £1 billion; last year, it was more than £380 million. Thirdly, the Government could allocate a fraction of the £1.5 billion extra package for the arts that they announced last week. None of this requires cannibalising development assistance. So far, we have landed nothing, so a significant resizing of the British Council is coming. That is inevitable, but my plea is, let us grip and fix.
I want to close by thanking the many noble Lords in all parts of the House who have been part of those efforts. It is time for the Government to nourish the soft power tree that this country planted 90 years ago.
The UK’s long-standing role as penholder on WPS gives us both credibility and responsibility. At a time of constrained development budgets and growing geopolitical competition, our challenge is to use our development partnerships more strategically to convene, to shape norms and to strengthen peace. The UNSC presidency offers a clear opportunity for the UK to translate long-term development commitments into immediate diplomatic impact by embedding WPS principles into the Security Council’s ways of working, from agenda-setting to briefings and outcomes. This matters because the evidence is clear: peace processes are more credible and more durable when women participate meaningfully. Development partnerships that support women peacebuilders, protect civil society space and strengthen local resilience directly contribute to conflict prevention and resolution. When the UK elevates these perspectives at the Security Council, it is not engaging in symbolism; it is improving the quality of decision-making and strengthening the council’s effectiveness. This leadership is particularly important at a moment of backlash against gender equality in multilateral forums. Resistance to gender-responsive language has already diluted mandates on civil protection, peacebuilding and conflict prevention.
The Protect Progress coalition, a campaign that is focusing on countering the rollback on women and girls rights, has suggested a number of events that would support the UK to deliver on its commitment to women and girls: a UK presidency signature event focused on securing women’s safe and meaningful participation and protection in all levels of decision making; a Foreign Secretary-led high-level ministerial meeting under the Arria formula focusing on the safe and meaningful participation of women in peace dialogue and processes in conflict contexts; and a formal council meeting on Sudan with a very strong gender lens—particularly important as women have, in essence, been cut out of the discussions here so far.
There are a number of other sensible ideas, including, importantly, a suggestion that the UK presidency should place a strong emphasis on systematic follow-up to recommendations emerging from previous Security Council meetings and briefings, particularly on women, peace and security. This would help move towards accountability and more effective, outcome-orientated decision-making. I have shared these suggestions with the Minister in advance of this debate, and I hope he and the department will consider them carefully.
I would be grateful if in his response the Minister could outline the steps that the Government will take on women, peace and security in the upcoming presidency of the UN Security Council. By placing women, peace and security at the core of our diplomatic engagement, the UK can demonstrate leadership that is effective, values-driven and grounded in the realities of conflict—reinforcing peace, strengthening multilateralism and exercising soft power where it matters most.
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.