IBT members condemn the government’s decision to cut foreign aid

The announcement on Tuesday that the government is slashing the foreign aid budget to increase defence spending was met with alarm and dismay across the INGO sector. Henry Roberts looks at some of the reactions from IBT members and considers the next steps for the sector. 

The government’s surprise announcement that it would be cutting the foreign aid budget was met with shock and dismay by the NGO sector. Keir Starmer told reporters that UK Official Development Assistance would be cut from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income (GNI) in order to fund an increase in defence spending. The move represents the biggest cut to foreign aid by any British government, crumbling the UK aid budget to its lowest level in 25 years. 

The public needs to be informed about the world – now more than ever

IBT’s mission is to work with the media to ensure that the UK public remains engaged with global issues. We advocate not only for greater international news coverage, but also for global storytelling in general – be that through documentaries, podcasts, films or entertainment formats. We want to connect audiences in the UK to the rest of the world. 

Our view is that the Prime Minister’s decision to cut aid would not be politically possible if UK voters were more informed about the wider world and had a better understanding of the importance of international development spending. That this is possible at all represents a failure of our media. 

IBT members react with anger and dismay

Starmer’s announcement has been met with anger and dismay from IBT members, many of whom released statements shortly after the news broke. 

Simply put, the government’s decision “is a betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable children and the UK’s national interest,” writes Moazzam Malik, CEO of Save the Children UK. 

The decision “marks a cruel betrayal of people living in poverty globally,” reads a statement from WaterAid. 

“Cuts to USAID are already having a huge impact on communities around the world,” a statement from Plan International UK says. “The UK should be stepping up, not adding to the suffering.”

This is an incredibly tough time for the NGO sector. IBT will work to support its members in any way we can through this period. 

IBT members in the media

As well as releasing their own statements, IBT members have appeared across TV, radio and print. 

Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, spoke on the Sky News programme UK Tonight with Sarah-Jane Mee, arguing that the aid cuts were both morally wrong but also strategically wrong. 

Not only will the cuts result in children out of school, women no longer having access to family planning, and babies not getting life-saving vaccinations, Greenhill argued, but they will also threaten the UK’s defence in the long-term. 

She said that it’s morally wrong that “some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world are footing the bill for this defence spending” 

Speaking on the Jeremy Vine show, Charles Lawley, Director of Advocacy and Campaigns at Action for Humanity, reminded listeners that “the UK aid budget does not just treat the symptoms of conflict and climate change, but it also goes to preventing them. In an interconnected world, the decision to reduce how many lives you save will also make Britons less safe.”

He added: “We’ve gone from a post-Brexit vision of a supposedly Global Britain to Little England.”

Patrick Watt, CEO of Christian Aid, offered a brutally frank analysis in The Independent: “Donald Trump’s race to the bottom on international development has an energetic new entrant in the form of Keir Starmer.”

What are the next steps for the sector?

As soon as the government made its announcement, the aid sector started to strategise and consider how to respond. 

On Thursday, an open letter was sent to the Prime Minister signed by 138 leaders from the INGO sector (including IBT). The letter calls on the government to tell parliament whether other funding options were explored before committing to slashing the aid budget.  “No government should balance its books on the backs of the world’s most marginalised people,” it reads.

As the letter makes clear, instead of framing the discussion as a trade-off between international aid and security, there were alternative funding options which could have been explored, such as a polluters’ tax or accessing the frozen funds from the Chelsea Football Club sale. 

However, the mood in the sector is one of pessimism. This was not what was expected from a Labour government that was elected with a manifesto pledge to bring aid back to 0.7%. There’s also recognition that public messaging should focus on the communities that will suffer the most from these cuts, rather than the impact on the sector itself. 

In the meantime, IBT will continue to advocate for greater coverage of global issues, bringing the world to UK audiences, in the hope of achieving a better public understanding of the importance of funding for international development.