Andy Burnham has got off to a bright start as prime minister, as even his critics must admit, but difficult choices lie ahead. One concerns the shrinking international development budget.
Like Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves before them, the new prime minister and his chancellor, John Healey, face unprecedented demands for public spending to fix everything not working, including building prisons, reforming NHS dentistry, overhauling education, restoring lost bus routes, and regenerating high streets. This comes alongside even greater challenges like funding a National Care Service, maintaining the pensions triple lock, investing in energy security, and ramping up defence spending to Cold War levels.
They must do all this without irresponsible borrowing, increasing the tax burden on working people, or stifling growth.
Faced with these pressures, it is easy to understand why Keir Starmer broke his manifesto commitment to return to spending 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) on international development, instead making deep cuts to overseas aid he argued were necessary to increase defence spending. Andy Burnham took only two weeks to view the aid budget as low-hanging fruit to fund his £2 bus fare cap.
However, while raiding the international development budget might be an easy choice, we need to be honest with ourselves and the British public about the hidden costs and how short-term gain can lead to longer-term pain at home and abroad.
Based on evidence I heard serving on the Intentional Development Committee, here are four reasons why:
Killer pandemics do not stop at borders
After Covid-19, The Pandemic Fund was established to finance pandemic prevention, preparedness and response in lower- and middle-income countries so killer diseases could be detected and contained before spreading, but the UK has pulled out – a decision leading scientists described as “dangerous”.
Similarly, the Fleming Fund – the UK’s pioneering international programme to curb antimicrobial resistance (AMR), helping prevent the pre-antibiotics fate of an infection becoming a death sentence – has been abandoned, putting lives at risk.
Coupled with massive reductions in the USA’s contribution to the World Health Organisation’s global test and trace capabilities – a decision that closed the lab that first detected Ebola – aid cuts have left us less capable of preventing the next killer pandemic.
Our ‘First line of defence’ – conflict prevention – has been breached
Former defence chiefs are among the loudest critics of the aid cuts, arguing development is as crucial as military firepower in preventing conflicts and terror threats harming the UK. But the Integrated Security Fund, fusing defence, development and diplomacy, has been gutted, with up to a dozen programmes combating extremist threats in hotspots like Sudan, Somalia, Tunisia and Jordan shut down.
Demining operations by the Halo Trust and Mines Advisory Group, employing local former combatants alongside former British Army experts, have also been scaled back, leading to thousands of job losses, potential for unexploded ordnance to reach the wrong hands, and an ongoing refugee crisis as displaced people cannot safely return.
Our ‘soft power’ has been weakened
It is firmly in our national interest for developing countries to look to the UK as partners, speak our language, share our values, and develop mutually beneficial trading relationships. Bilateral aid can strengthen diplomatic ties and help shape emerging economies in our image. But the decision to protect aid spending through large multilateral agencies means UK bilateral aid to Africa has plunged by more than half.
The former foreign secretary David Lammy’s “new strategy for Africa”, forged on “genuine partnerships and respect” is the sincerest effort possible to mitigate this, but money talks! When Malawi and Mozambique, both ranked among the world’s six poorest countries, are among ten nations that will receive just £5m of aid a year – an extraordinary 90 per cent cut that will wipe out almost all projects – we cannot be surprised if they increase their reliance on China.
Our reputation among developed countries has been damaged too. United Nations humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher revealed “people giggle” at international conferences when the UK tries to argue it is still a big player – because its aid cuts are “so severe and dramatic”.
The human consequences are huge
The government has not assessed the impact of the cuts, but the respected Barcelona Institute for Global Health calculated more than five million lives would have been saved between 2020 and 2030 if the UK had kept spending at 0.7 per cent of GNI.
Women and girls will be hardest hit, with funding for up to 50 women peacebuilding organisations axed, alongside programmes to protect girls from female genital mutilation. The Ending Preventable Deaths Support Programme was also cut, despite officials calling it “a key component” in saving the lives of women, babies and children.
With the UK’s chairing of the G20 group of nations just around the corner, Andy Burnham has the opportunity to turn it around and restore the UK’s leadership in confronting these challenges.
Sam Rushworth is a member of parliament’s International Development Committee and the Labour MP for Bishop Auckland
This article has been produced as part of The Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid project