On 9th July 2026 APPG member Baroness Sugg asked a Short Question for Debate – “To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of cuts to Official Development Assistance on international development outcomes for women and girls.”.
Baroness Sugg opened the debate by stressing that the reduction of UK aid from 0.7% to 0.3% of GNI is a political decision, not an unavoidable fiscal necessity. She argued that development and defence are mutually reinforcing, and that stepping back from development weakens the UK’s strategic position globally. She emphasised that ODA cuts are not abstract numbers but decisions that directly affect millions of women and girls, particularly in fragile and conflict‑affected settings. She pointed out that the UK has a unique opportunity next year with the presidency of the G20 and expressed the hope that the Government might seize this chance to embed gender equality as a central theme of the summit.
Baroness Hussein‑Ece focused on the disproportionate impact of ODA cuts on women and girls, particularly in fragile and conflict‑affected states. She highlighted how reductions in UK aid undermine access to sexual and reproductive health services, maternal healthcare, and protection from gender‑based violence. She stressed that women and girls are consistently the most affected by conflict, displacement and poverty, and argued that the UK’s retreat from development spending risks reversing decades of progress. She underscored the need for sustained investment in programmes that directly support women’s health, safety and autonomy.
Baroness Jenkin emphasised the scale of global challenges facing women and girls, citing high levels of violence, maternal mortality, and barriers to education. She welcomed the Government’s strategic framework on women and girls but warned that policy commitments cannot compensate for reduced funding. She drew attention to the success of UK‑supported SRHR programmes—particularly the WISH programme—and argued that cuts to centrally managed ODA risk closing clinics, reducing access to contraception, and increasing unsafe abortion. Her contribution stressed that investment in women and girls is cost‑effective, life‑saving, and central to UK global leadership.
Baroness Nargrund highlighted the humanitarian consequences of ODA reductions, particularly in countries experiencing conflict and instability. She pointed to the situation in Sudan, where millions of women and girls require humanitarian assistance, and warned that cuts to UK funding exacerbate risks of sexual violence, trafficking, and early marriage. She argued that the UK must maintain strong support for protection services, maternal health, and emergency care in crisis settings, and stressed that withdrawing aid at a moment of escalating global need is both dangerous and counterproductive. Her remarks reinforced the call for targeted, sustained support for women and girls in the most vulnerable contexts.