UK aid cuts a tragic mistake that will put national security risk, MPs say

Britain’s aid cuts are a “tragic mistake” that puts Britain’s national security at risk, MPs have said. The government also does not take into account improvements in the lives of poor people when deciding whether foreign aid spending is value for money.

The International Development Committee (IDC) has expressed concern in a new report that development budget cuts “will continue to cause unrest and new crises in the future” and have “devastating consequences” around the world. Cuts will not only threaten the UK’s soft power but also its national security.

A cross-party group of MPs said it was “disappointed” that the government was focusing on the cost to the public purse of development projects without considering how good they were at reducing poverty, which risked “worse outcomes for the world’s most vulnerable people”.

The investigation also called for foreign aid expenditures to be brought down to 0.5 percent of national income. Spending on such projects was reduced by the last Conservative government in 2021, from 0.7 per cent to 0.5 per cent of the economy, amid the Covid-19 pandemic; This was a move that was supposed to be temporary. But after Labor came to power in February this year, Sir Keir Starmer moved to cut spending even further, from 0.5 to 0.3 per cent.

“The brutal aid cuts announced this year have already proven to be a tragic mistake that will cost lives and livelihoods, weaken our international standing and ultimately threaten our national security. They must be reversed,” committee chair Sarah Champion said.

“Poverty reduction should be the main objective of the development budget,” he added. “While accountability to the taxpayer is an important issue, [Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office] (FCDO)’s current definition of value for money risks shifting focus away from improving the lives of the most vulnerable; That is why the aid budget exists.”

“The government needs to take urgent action to eliminate waste and ensure the money we still spend makes a real difference,” Champion added.

While MPs agreed the value of British taxpayers should be a “fundamental consideration” in any government spending, experts consulted for the report warned it could not be considered in the short term.

Deborah Doane, founder of the Reimagining the International NGO (RINGO) project, said: “From the UK and other European donors cutting aid budgets, I would expect humanitarian work to be prioritized over ‘development’, which unfortunately is work that builds long-term resilience and will lead to reducing the need for humanitarian aid.”

Andrew Mitchell MP, former chairman of the IDC, said “cutting and changing figures” as a result of the cuts was very poor value for taxpayers. From where? Because you don’t stop and start programs: if you cut programs, you lose most of the benefits of the initial investment; then you reboot and have to quit again. This gives bad value for money. “Development is actually long-term,” he said.

Mitchell added that successive cuts to aid spending in the UK in recent years had “reduced the effectiveness of aid in reaching those most in need”.

The inquiry also called for a cap on the percentage of aid budgets that can be spent on asylum hotels. The government has said it will end the use of asylum hotels by 2029.

This article was produced as part of The Independent. Rethinking Global Aid project