Connect with us

Published

on

The government’s decision to slash foreign aid will lead to unrest, further crises and threaten UK security, a group of cross-party MPs has warned.

A report by the International Development Committee found the decision in February to reduce aid to 0.3% of gross national income (GNI) by 2027/28 – coupled with the US cutting its aid budget – is having a severe impact.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates

The foreign aid budget was cut to invest in defence from 0.5% of GNI, which was meant to be an interim reduction from 0.7% to cope with economic challenges caused by the pandemic.

Total aid spending is set to reduce from £14.1bn in 2024 to £9.4bn by 2028/29.

The committee, chaired by Labour MP Sarah Champion, said spending is being prioritised on humanitarian aid over development, which “builds long-term resilience and should lead to reducing the need for humanitarian aid”.

They said the international development minister, Baroness Chapman, has made it clear “the UK will remain a leading humanitarian actor”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Explained: Key Sudan city falls

But the committee said while they are glad those in “desperate need of aid will be prioritised, particularly in the regions of Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan”, they are concerned about the long-term effect of pulling development aid.

“We are concerned that slashing development aid will continue to lead to unrest and further crises in the future, presenting a threat to UK security,” the MPs said.

David Lammy, when he was foreign secretary, on a visit to Chad to see how aid agencies are dealing with the humanitarian crisis. Pic: PA
Image:
David Lammy, when he was foreign secretary, on a visit to Chad to see how aid agencies are dealing with the humanitarian crisis. Pic: PA

Risk to UK’s national security

They said a reduction in foreign aid will have “devastating consequences across the world”.

The committee said it recognises an increase in defence spending is needed, but “to do this at the expense of the world’s most vulnerable undermines not only the UK’s soft power, but also its national security”.

They said the government must make “every effort” to return to spending 0.5% of GNI on foreign aid “at a minimum, as soon as possible”.

It is understood the government intends to return to spending 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow.

The committee also found long-term funding for development is “essential” to ensure value for money is achieved.

However, they accused the government of seeing value for money only in terms of the taxpayer, saying that downplays “equity and the importance of poverty reduction” and causes tension.

They agreed accountability to the taxpayer is “key to reducing poverty globally, and maximising the impact of each pound to do so, must remain the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s central tenet for official development assistance spending”.

A Foreign Office team member helping evacuees in Cyprus in 2023. File pic: Reuters
Image:
A Foreign Office team member helping evacuees in Cyprus in 2023. File pic: Reuters

Spending on migrant hotels

Spending on migrant hotels in the UK was also criticised by the MPs, who said while international aid rules mean they can cover refugee hosting for the first 12 months in the UK, given the recent cuts, that is “incompatible with the spirit” of the UN’s OECD Development Assistance Committee rules.

“Excessive spend on hotel costs is not an effective use of development budget,” they said.

The committee recommended costs of housing refugees should be capped “at a fixed percentage” of total foreign aid spending “to protect a rapidly diminishing envelope of funding”.

Read more: Govt struggles to slash aid spent on asylum hotels

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Inside Afghanistan’s hunger crisis

‘Short-sighted’

Reacting to the report, Timothy Ingram, head of UK advocacy at WaterAid, said: “The UK government’s decision to cut the aid budget was one that defied both logic and humanity. Aid when delivered effectively in partnership with local communities is not charity – it’s an investment in a safer and more prosperous world.

“Undermining it, especially vital finance for water, weakens the world’s resilience to climate shocks, pandemics, and conflict – impacting the one in 10 people without access to clean water, and ultimately making us all less safe.

“This is a short-sighted political decision with long-term consequences for the UK’s stability, economy and global standing. We join with MPs in urging the government, once again, to urgently reconsider.”

Lack of transparency over private contractors’ spending

In the report, MPs said it is worried the Foreign Office has not reviewed aid spending on multilateral organisations, which allows the UK less direct influence over spending, such as the World Bank or vaccine organisation Gavi since 2016, despite spending nearly £3bn on them in 2024.

They said the use of private contractors does not offer inherently poor value for money, but a lack of transparency and data can mean under-delivering and a loss of “in-house” expertise.

Palestinians carry aid supplies that entered Gaza. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Palestinians carry aid supplies that entered Gaza. Pic: Reuters

‘Tragic error’

Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said: “Ensuring aid delivers genuine value for money has never been more important. As major donors tighten their belts, we have to ensure that every penny we spend goes to the people most in need.

“The former Department for International Development was rightly seen as a world leader in value for money; the FCDO is broadly hanging on to that reputation. But it must make some urgent improvements.

“Reducing poverty must be the central aim of the development budget. While accountability to the taxpayer is an important consideration, the FCDO’s current definition of value for money risks diverting focus away from improving the lives of the most vulnerable – the very reason the aid budget exists at all.

“The savage aid cuts announced this year are already proving to be a tragic error that will cost lives and livelihoods, undermine our international standing and ultimately threaten our national security. They must be reversed.

“Value for money is critical to making the most of a shrinking aid budget. While this report finds some positives, the government must take urgent action to wipe out waste and ensure the money we are still spending makes a genuine difference.”

An FCDO spokesperson said: “As the International Development Committee’s report finds, the FCDO continues to be recognised as a leader in achieving both value for money and transparency for the public on UK aid spending.

“Every pound of the aid budget must deliver both for UK taxpayers and the people we support. Those two objectives will always go hand in hand.

“That’s why we’re focusing our efforts where they have the biggest impact against our priorities, such as supporting vaccine programmes through Gavi, which protects millions, and helping people caught in crises, because tackling global threats helps keep us all safer.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Child poverty strategy unveiled – but not everyone’s happy

Published

on

By

Starmer wants to lift half a million children out of poverty - but does his plan go far enough?

A new long-awaited child poverty strategy is promising to lift half a million children out of poverty by the end of this parliament – but critics have branded it unambitious. 

The headline announcement in the government’s plan is the pledge to lift the two-child benefit cap, announced in Rachel Reeves’s budget last week.

It also includes:

• Providing upfront childcare support for parents on universal credit returning to work
• An £8m fund to end the placement of families in bed and breakfasts beyond a six-week limit
• Reforms to cut the cost of baby formula
• A new legal duty on councils to notify schools, health visitors, and GPs when a child is placed in temporary accommodation

Many of the measures have previously been announced.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Two-child cap ‘a real victory for the left’

The government also pointed to its plan in the budget to cut energy bills by £150 a year, and its previously promised £950m boost to a local authority housing fund, which it says will deliver 5,000 high-quality homes for better temporary accommodation.

Downing Street said the strategy would lift 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030, saying that would be the biggest reduction in a single parliament since records began.

More on Poverty

But charities had been hoping for a 10-year strategy and argue the plan lacks ambition.

A record 4.5 million children (about 31%) are living in poverty in the UK – 900,000 more since 2010/11, according to government figures.

Phillip Anderson, the Strategic Director for External Affairs at the National Children’s Bureau (NCB), told Sky News: “Abolishing the two-child limit is a hell of a centre piece, but beyond that it’s mainly a summary of previously announced policies and commitments.

“The really big thing for me is it misses the opportunity to talk about the longer term. It was supposed to be a 10-year strategy, we wanted to see real ambition and ideally legally binding targets for reducing poverty.

“The government itself says there will still be around four million children living in poverty after these measures and the strategy has very little to say to them.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘A budget for benefits street’

‘Budget for benefits street’ row

The biggest measure in the strategy is the plan to lift the two-child benefit cap from April. This is estimated to lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030, at a cost of £3bn.

The government has long been under pressure from backbench Labour MPs to scrap the cap, with most experts arguing that it is the quickest, most cost-effective way to drive-down poverty this parliament.

The cap, introduced by Conservative chancellor George Osborne in 2017, means parents can only claim universal credit or tax credits for their first two children. It meant the average affected household losing £4,300 per year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated in 2024.

The government argues that a failure to tackle child poverty holds back the economy, and young people at school, cutting their employment and earning prospects in later life.

However, the Conservatives argue parents on benefits should have to make the same financial choices about children as everyone else.

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: “Work is the best way out poverty but since this government took office, unemployment has risen every single month and this budget for Benefits Street will only make the situation worse. “

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

OBR leak: This has happened before

‘Bring back Sure Start’

Lord Bird, a crossbench peer who founded the Big Issue and grew up in poverty, said while he supported the lifting of the cap there needed to be “more joined up thinking” across government for a longer-term strategy.

He has been pushing for the creation of a government ministry of “poverty prevention and cure”, and for legally binding targets on child poverty.

“You have to be able to measure yourself, you can’t have the government marking its own homework,” he told Sky News.

Lord Bird also said he was a “great believer” in resurrecting Sure Start centres and expanding them beyond early years.

The New Labour programme offered support services for pre-school children and their parents and is widely seen to have improved health and educational outcomes. By its peak in 2009-2010 there were 3,600 centres – the majority of which closed following cuts by the subsequent Conservative government.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Lord Bird on the ‘great distraction’ from child poverty

PM to meet families

Sir Keir Starmer’s government have since announced 1,000 Best Start Family Hubs – but many Labour MPs feel this announcement went under the radar and ministers missed a trick in not calling them “Sure Starts” as it is a name people are familiar with.

The prime minister is expected to meet families and children in Wales on Friday, alongside the Welsh First Minister, to make the case for his strategy and meet those he hopes will benefit from it.

Several other charities have urged ministers to go further. Both Crisis and Shelter called for the government to unfreeze housing benefit and build more social rent homes, while the Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, said that “if we are to end child poverty – not just reduce it” measures like free bus travel for school-age children would be needed.

The strategy comes after the government set up a child poverty taskforce in July 2024, which was initially due to report back in May. The taskforce’s findings have not yet been published – only the government’s response.

Sir Keir said: “Too many children are growing up in poverty, held back from getting on in life, and too many families are struggling without the basics: a secure home, warm meals and the support they need to make ends meet.

“I will not stand by and watch that happen, because the cost of doing nothing is too high for children, for families and for Britain.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Did Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves mislead us?

Published

on

By

Did Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves mislead us?

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

The chancellor is being accused of “lying” over what she knew and when ahead of her budget – so did Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer actually mislead the public?

Beth walks us through a detailed timeline of the OBR forecasts, the so-called “black hole”, and why journalists now feel they were given only half the story.

Ruth and Harriet weigh in on political honesty, the dangers of selective briefing, and why trust between the government, the media and the public is fraying fast.

Plus, former Number 10 director of communications Matthew Doyle joins the trio to discuss Labour’s early months in power, the turbulence around political messaging, and how governments lose (and can rebuild) narrative control.

Send us your messages and Christmas-themed questions on WhatsApp at 07934 200 444 or email electoraldysfunction@sky.uk.

And if you didn’t know, you can also watch Beth, Harriet and Ruth on YouTube.

St. James’s Place sponsors Electoral Dysfunction on Sky News, learn more here.

Continue Reading

Politics

Ex-Signature Bank execs launch blockchain-powered bank N3XT

Published

on

By

Ex-Signature Bank execs launch blockchain-powered bank N3XT

A group of former executives from the collapsed crypto-friendly Signature Bank has launched a new blockchain-based, state-chartered bank called N3XT, with the goal of enabling instant 24-hour payments.

N3XT said on Thursday that it aims to settle payments instantly at any time using a private blockchain and offers programmable payments through smart contracts. The company added that its systems have been designed for interoperability with stablecoins, utility tokens, and other digital assets.

Signature Bank founder ​​Scott Shay founded N3XT, which will operate under a Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI) charter and will not offer lending services.

Signature Bank was one of three crypto-friendly banks, along with Silicon Valley Bank and  Silvergate Bank, that collapsed in the 2023 US banking crisis due to a bank run and ties to the then-rapidly falling crypto market.