Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)

My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to follow my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this debate and for the briefing he so generously shared with all of us taking part. His long-standing record on global health and international partnerships reminds us that our commitment to international development is beyond the significance of finance. It is about co-operation between people, institutions and nations—a partnership capable of building sustainable capacity and strengthening development systems at country level. Yesterday, a number of noble Lords listened to the right honourable Speaker of the Parliament of Uganda. It was clear from that conversation that many African nations continue to value Britain’s partnership in economic development, education, health research, technology and defence. But we must acknowledge honestly that our bilateral relationship across Africa and the global South have historically included an approach too often defined externally. Development assistance has rightly supported vaccination, literacy, maternal health and other services, but these relationships have existed alongside different co-operation cloaked historically as international development assistance and the extraction of valuable natural resources, sometimes without sufficient attention to the priorities and aspirations of local people. Today, we face an increasingly complex environment, with wars and conflicts and infectious diseases, including Ebola, in our daily view. Dengue and malaria continue to threaten communities, while famine and hunger remain realities for many millions. At the same time, international development funding is under extraordinary pressure with the reduction by the US and the changes in the UK’s defence priorities. The consequences, with receding resources, are fewer health services and less support for women and children, which communities have come to rely upon for decades. In these circumstances, we need a collaborative response. I would welcome the development of a stronger coalition between international funding agencies, national Governments, respected local organisations and experts. Such co-operation would pool scarce resources and help donor organisations design services more effectively, reduce duplication and improve service delivery. It would put the people who understand local circumstances at the heart of determining priorities. That includes women. The UK has an honourable tradition of supporting women’s organisations across the world, yet in societies afflicted with conflict, displacement or economic instability, women’s voices and influence often diminish precisely when they are needed most. In the face of these existing and emerging crises, how do the Government intend to ensure that the basic needs of vulnerable women and children in Africa and Asia are reflected in the way that development programmes are planned, designed and delivered? I seriously question whether women themselves would prioritise defensive military training within the framework of international development over feeding and educating their children, securing clean water, accessing healthcare and ensuring the safety of themselves and their families. The UK’s modern approach to development is very welcome. It recognises the importance of local leadership in defining country priorities, but the principle must be lived in practice. We need to ask what happens to well-established programmes when international NGOs withdraw offices because of funding cuts. Have we done enough over the years and decades to ensure that locally created organisations and solutions have the capacity, resources and confidence to respond when international support diminishes? I sincerely hope that we will not sacrifice the good work that is already under way. Nevertheless, Britain retains significant strength and influence. As has been mentioned, our universities, financial institutions, the NHS—as was mentioned—research and technological capabilities and strong civil society have all contributed to the relationships and co-operation built over generations. They are assets which readily enable Britain to remain a trusted international partner with humility as well as expertise. I recognise that practice can sometimes fall short of the principles we espouse, and we must remain vigilant and willing to improve at all times. I say this having visited UK-supported programmes and spoken to Rohingya women in Bangladesh who had experienced rape, torture and ethnic cleansing, and to women from Syria, Lebanon, Sudan and elsewhere facing equally devastating circumstances. It is impossible to overstate the hopelessness of such experience and of how far removed women are from the decisions made about development assistance that directly affects their lives. We should therefore be cautious about imposing burdensome conditions that, however well intentioned, can unintentionally undermine the well-being and dignity of the very people the programmes are intended to support. Of course, at the same time, we must keep in mind the legitimate expectation of British taxpayers that public money is properly governed and accountable. Transparency, therefore, should not become disconnected from upholding humanity. We need a balanced approach that recognises the realities of people who have endured extreme hardship, lost homes and livelihoods, been deprived of basic choices and, in many cases, fled unimaginable violence. In the current financial environment, this is undoubtedly a difficult balance for all countries and Governments, who are managing competing demands while families in their own nations experience pressures and bear the cost of living crisis. This is precisely why locally led solutions can be more sustainable, responsive and cost-neutral, particularly when we place women as partners at the heart of development decisions. Women’s organisations across Africa and the global south possess practical experience in all the areas that development assistance intends to address. A similar principle applies to young people. As usual, I have written far too much to read out, but I want to say that I am encouraged to see the shift in the Government’s approach towards Africa, which places greater emphasis on mutual respect and the long-term relationship, encompassing trade, investment and education. I believe that that approach can inspire a new generation of young women and men to see Britain not as a donor but as a partner and help build towards a better international development space and a more balanced and equitable world.