Government preparing to cut humanitarian aid budget for second time during pandemic

Spending could be ‘adjusted’ further, Treasury ministers say

The chancellor, Rishi Sunak, says the country cannot afford it. In reality the country cannot afford not to do it (Getty)

The UK’s humanitarian aid spending may be slashed for a second time this year, the Treasury has signalled.

Aid agencies urged ministers not to cut the budget, saying this could have a damaging effect on healthcare, water, sanitation, education and food availability across the poorest countries.

Rishi Sunak in July announced a £2.9bn cut to the aid budget, justifying the move by saying the UK economy had shrunk. The chancellor said the promise of spending 0.7 per cent of gross national income on international aid could be met with a smaller contribution.

Ministers now say they are prepared to cut development spending further if the economy performs even worse than expected.

“Arrangements are in place to tailor our spend further during the remaining months as we start to gain a clearer economic picture,” Treasury minister John Glen said in a written answer to a parliamentary question about the possibility of further cuts.  

Bond, the umbrella organisation for aid agencies whose members include Oxfam, ActionAid, British Red Cross, Cafod, and Christian Aid, warned that cuts to programmes would be coming at exactly the wrong time and that poverty-reduction plans should be left alone.

“The midst of a pandemic is not the time to be scaling back effective programmes to those most in need,” said Simon Starling, policy director at Bond.

The Independent revealed this week how the coronavirus crisis had left charities, including aid NGOs, “fighting for their very survival” because of a sharp fall in private donations, set to be compounded by further government cuts. Anti-poverty charity Oxfam is thought to be losing around £5m a month in lost income from retail and fundraising events.

Labour’s shadow international development secretary Preet Kaur Gill, who wrote to ministers last month to ask them the basis for the £2.9bn cuts, told The Independent that the government had “repeatedly refused to disclose the evidence behind cutting the aid budget by almost 20 per cent”.

“We do not believe it is necessary or reasonable,” she said, adding: “We accept some savings could be made, but this must never be at the expense of tackling poverty and delivering value for money for British taxpayers.”

Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrats’ foreign affairs spokesperson said the government needed to “wake up”.

“No one will be free from this virus until we are all free. UK aid plays a major role in bringing us closer to making that a reality, as well as helping to eradicate poverty globally,” she said.

“The UK government must commit to protecting the aid budget in real terms, and prioritise this spending on economic development and poverty eradication. Now is not the time to roll back on our support for the most vulnerable.”

The 0.7 per cent GNI target was created in 1970 by the UN general assembly. The UK has met the target since 2013, and it has been legally binding since 2015.

The cuts imposed by the Treasury are not automatic: in 2015, the UK spent 0.71 per cent of GNI on aid without cutting programmes, but under Mr Sunak the 0.7 per cent has been treated like a ceiling, with the shrinking economy leading to cuts in aid spending.

Bond’s Mr Starling told The Independent: “We need to protect the most effective programmes that are up and running and ensure that the FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) has the flexibility to adjust aid spending whilst continuing to meet the needs of those most affected by crisis now.  

“We have asked that the government restrict any necessary cuts to programmes that are not explicitly focused on people or reducing poverty.

“UK aid that has been called out for being ineffective in terms of poverty alleviation includes that going to the CDC Group – the UK’s development finance institution – the Prosperity Fund and the Newton Fund.

“Non-essential funding promised in advance to CDC and multilateral institutions should instead be reallocated towards programmes that are already delivering healthcare, water and sanitation, education and food.”

The Department for International Development and the Treasury did not respond to requests for comment.