When the government announced that it was to divert almost half of the annual foreign aid budget to defence spending, the outcry, beyond the aid community and the demonstrative resignation of the development minister, was rather less than might have been expected in response to such a drastic switch.
To be sure, the muted response had its causes, which included the acceptance that Europe was going to have to pay a lot more towards its own defence; the continuing strength of UK public support for Ukraine; and the regrettable reality that foreign aid is rarely a popular destination for taxpayers’ money. If there was also an element of ignorance – or, at the very least, a reluctance to acknowledge the likely consequences of such a major redirection of resources – such excuses are no longer tenable, if ever they were. The scale of the likely damage has now been spelt out in an analysis by the charity Save the Children – and a disastrous picture it presents, too.
As is so often the case, the first to suffer will be the poorest, and chief among those are women and girls, mothers and babies. Programmes designed to widen access to education, family planning, clean water and food are all likely to be cut back or ended, affecting as many as 12 million people. Almost 3 million fewer children could be in education compared with five years ago. Poor sanitation means the spread of disease; curtailing sexual health programmes risks increasing the spread of HIV. By any measure, these add up to a big step in the wrong direction.
Even those dismal figures, however, do not tell the whole story. When the reallocation between the aid and defence budgets was announced, the prime minister insisted that aid to Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan would be protected. Together, however, these commitments amount to nearly £7bn of the £9.2bn that is envisaged to be the aid budget in 2027. To that has also to be added the £3bn or so that currently goes from the foreign aid budget towards the cost of accommodating asylum seekers and irregular migrants in the UK. Save the Children estimates a “black hole” of at least £750,000 that could presage the end of practically every other aid programme, with as many as 55 million people affected around the world.
One very partial remedy might be for the government to reallocate the asylum costs to domestic spending departments. But this looks unlikely. While it was questioned at one time by none other than the foreign secretary, David Lammy, the use of the foreign aid budget to fund accommodation for asylum seekers is clearly designed to fend off criticism and, with the number of small-boat crossings only rising, these costs look unlikely to come down soon, despite the home secretary’s hopes of cutting spending by speeding up procedures. Dan Paskins of Save the Children has it right when he says, “We should not fund our response to one crisis at the expense of others.”
International pressure to keep up foreign aid spending is also diminished. The Trump administration went so far as to disband one of the world’s biggest aid agencies, USAID, with some immediate dire consequences, including for earthquake relief in Myanmar. Rather than being seen as an example of what not to do, however, that one move seemed to give others a green light to downgrade their own foreign aid efforts. The UK was one – and the scale of the cut was savage. At 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI), the UK’s aid contribution is now at its lowest for 25 years.
It is a far cry from the 0.7 per cent of GNI that is called for by the UN, was promised by the Blair government, and was finally reached by the UK in 2013. This is where it stayed until 2021, when it was “temporarily” reduced to 0.5 per cent by the Johnson government in the light of Covid spending pressures. Last year’s Labour manifesto included an undertaking to restore the budget to 0.7 per cent. For all the current special circumstances, the government should be held to its pledge.
Summary cuts to vital aid programmes harm the intended recipients above all. But they harm the donor country and its government, too. They damage its reputation and its projection of “soft power”, but they also threaten to increase multiple risks, from the spread of disease to security threats and enforced migration, any or all of which could eventually reach our shores. A supposedly short-term slashing of the foreign aid budget today can all too easily translate into much higher costs for everyone tomorrow.
