UK aid cuts are a \u201ctragic error\u201d that put Britain\u2019s national security at risk, MPs have said. With the government also failing to take into account improvements to poor people\u2019s lives when deciding if foreign aid<\/a> spending is good value for money.<\/p>\n The International Development Committee (IDC) has raised concerns in a new report that slashing the development budget will “continue to lead to unrest and further crises in the future” and will have “devastating consequences” across the world. The cuts will threaten not only the UK’s soft power “but also its national security”.<\/p>\n The cross-party group of MPs said it was \u201cdisappointed\u201d by the government\u2019s focus on the cost of development projects to the public purse without considering how good they are at reducing poverty, which it said risked \u201cworse outcomes for the world\u2019s most vulnerable\u201d. <\/p>\n The inquiry has also called for spending on overseas aid to be brought back up to 0.5 per cent of national income. Spending on such projects was reduced from 0.7 to 0.5 per cent of the economy by the last Conservative government in 2021, amid the Covid-19 pandemic – a move that was supposed to be temporary. But in February this year, after Labour took office, Sir Keir Starmer moved to reduce spending even further from 0.5 to 0.3 per cent. <\/p>\n \u201cThe 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,\u201d said chair of the committee Sarah Champion<\/a>. <\/p>\n \u201cReducing poverty must be the central aim of the development budget,\u201d she added. \u201cWhile accountability to the taxpayer is an important consideration, the [Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office] (FCDO)\u2019s current definition of value for money risks diverting focus away from improving the lives of the most vulnerable \u2013 the very reason the aid budget<\/a> exists at all\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cThe government must take urgent action to wipe out waste and ensure the money we are still spending makes a genuine difference,\u201d Champion added.<\/p>\n While the MPs acknowledged value to the British taxpayer should be an \u201cessential consideration\u201d in any government spending, experts consulted for the report warned that this couldn\u2019t be judged in the short-term.<\/p>\n Deborah Doane, founder of the Reimagining the International NGO (RINGO) project said: \u201cI would expect that for the UK and other European donors who are cutting aid budgets, humanitarian work will be prioritised over \u2018development\u2019 – which unfortunately is the work that builds long-term resilience and should lead to reducing the need of humanitarian aid\u201d. <\/p>\n Former chair of the IDC, Andrew Mitchell MP, said \u201cchopping and changing figures\u201d as a result of cuts was \u201cvery bad value for taxpayers. Why? Because you do not stop and start programmes: if you break them off, you lose a lot of the benefit of the initial investment; then you restart it and you have to go out again. It is bad value for money. Development is, essentially, long term\u201d, he said. <\/p>\n![\"Chair](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/GettyImages-629939272.jpg\")
Chair of the international development committee Sarah Champion said \u2018savage\u2019 aid cuts would cost lives. (Getty Images)<\/p>\n