UK launches new aid inquiry in response to 40% budget cut

A U.K. parliamentary committee has launched a major inquiry into the future of the country’s international aid program after the government confirmed plans, first announced in February, to slash overseas development spending by 40% to help fund an increase in defense spending. The review, led by lawmakers on the International Development Committee, or IDC, will explore how the U.K. can still deliver “high impact” aid as the budget falls from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income by 2027 — the lowest level since the mid-1990s. “We are at a critical moment when it comes to the future of U.K. foreign aid,” said Member of Parliament Sarah Champion, who chairs the committee, when announcing the inquiry. “How do we ensure no one is left behind, particularly the most vulnerable including the extreme poor, women and girls and people with disabilities, whilst also meeting the government’s stated priorities?” David Mundell, a Conservative member of the IDC, told Devex the goal is to ensure that cabinet ministers are held to account as they redefine Britain’s role in global development. “We are living through a time of profound change in international development,” he said. “The government says it wants to shift from a model of paternalism to one of partnership. We want to understand what that means in practice — and our findings will put the government’s choices under the spotlight, to ensure the U.K. is still standing up to its international obligations.” Across the development community, the inquiry has been welcomed as a rare opening for dialogue — but few expect it to reverse the cuts, particularly in light of the Conservative Party’s conference pledge this week to reduce aid even further if elected. Bond, the U.K. network of humanitarian and development organizations, called that pledge “reckless, short-sighted, and morally indefensible.” Gideon Rabinowitz, policy and advocacy director at Bond, described it as “vital” that Parliament and the sector have a say in shaping the government’s vision. “However, with decisions already underway, we’re cautious about the impact the report will have on where the cuts will fall and on the future direction of U.K. aid,” he said. “We urge the government to genuinely engage with the inquiry’s findings and take on board its recommendations.” That skepticism is born from experience: Previous IDC inquiries have influenced debate but left overall spending decisions unchanged. Other campaigners suggested that the debate about how to spend a shrinking budget misses the larger issue. “Cuts to the U.K. aid budget are a political choice that will cost lives and exacerbate poverty and inequality around the world,” said Halima Begum, chief executive of Oxfam GB. She added that the reductions “will have a devastating impact on people facing conflict, poverty and climate disasters and must be reversed,” arguing that the government could fund aid properly through fairer taxation on wealth and corporations. Britain’s shifting model The government insists the shift is about efficiency, not retreat. In a letter sent to the committee in July, Development Minister Jenny Chapman called it a move to work which “must be about partnership,” going beyond “aid and paternalism,” words which are echoed in the inquiry’s terms of reference. Critics countered that the new model risks masking deep reductions in bilateral programs, particularly in fragile states. The IDC’s review will test whether the “investor” approach can still reach the poorest people — or whether, as many NGOs fear, it represents a managed withdrawal from Britain’s traditional development role. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office said it would fully cooperate with the inquiry. “The global challenges we face demand a reset of our approach to development,” an FCDO spokesperson said. “We are modernising our approach and focusing on greater impact — ensuring every pound delivers for the UK taxpayer and the people we support.” The uncertainty around U.K. aid goes beyond budgets. A new essay collection published by the Fabian Society think tank less than a fortnight before the inquiry launched laid bare how fractured the political consensus has become. In one of the essays, former U.K. development secretary Andrew Mitchell warned that the cross-party commitment to international development which lasted for 15 years is “dead and buried.” In another, former Labour development minister Anneliese Dodds argued aid must now be justified in terms of national interest, while in a third, Clare Short, who created the now-defunct Department for International Development in the 1990s, called for the entire official development assistance system to be replaced with global public investment funds. Chapman, by contrast, used her essay to defend Labour’s new focus on “four shifts” — from donor to investor, grants to expertise, intervention to local provision, and charity to mutual interest — as a pragmatic response to fiscal reality. Their contrasting visions make clear that even among those at the highest levels of U.K. development, little agreement exists on what government policy should achieve, leaving the IDC inquiry to navigate not only policy gaps but a collapsing consensus.