UK Foreign Aid Cuts Threaten Child Hunger Warns Labour Peer

The foreign secretary’s statement on UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) allocations has been a year in the making.

I have been dreading this day since the decision last year by the prime minister and chancellor to cut ODA spending from 0.5 to 0.3% of gross national income.

Yvette Cooper’s words about UK values and “supporting those in conflict and extreme poverty” are welcome, but the reality of her statement reveals significant, real-life impacts.

Girls will leave schools and children will go hungry. We will damage our international reputation, increase migration and hinder progress towards self-sufficiency through economic development.

Sub-Saharan Africa is home to most of the world’s poorest countries, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Malawi. It has a population of 1.3 billion people – and growing. Its land is degraded by climate change, many countries are ravaged by decades of conflict, and its population feels the impact of a volatile global economy far deeper than wealthy countries such as the UK.

Yet this Labour government has decided to disproportionately cut aid to the part of the world where it makes the biggest difference. And there is no clarity yet in what the cuts will mean for the building blocks of sustainable development, in particular education and skills development.

We know conflict flourishes where the population remains uneducated. And, keeping girls in school is one of the most straightforward ways of supporting a country’s development. All the evidence shows girls who complete secondary education are less at risk of teenage pregnancy, HIV and domestic violence.

Crucially, during their lifetime they will help boost their country’s national productivity and wealth, have fewer children, and raise healthier children who are far more likely to succeed at school.

There is some good news. Britain’s contribution to the Global Fund to fight Aids, TB and malaria has been prioritised, and aid to richer countries will be deprioritised. Spending on violence against women and girls, including the prevention of sexual violence in conflict, seems to have been protected.

But we await clarity on conflict prevention and governance programmes. We are currently witnessing how hard power is in danger of destabilising peace and the global economy. While we need strong defences, investment in soft power is how we will build a better world.

I have had my ups and downs with party policy over the years, but I never thought a Labour government would so dramatically slash UK
support for the world’s poorest people.

It is a mistake to cut vital support to people in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere at a time when UK aid is needed more than ever. And it is a matter of deep regret that it is a Labour government that has made this choice.

No one should be proud of cuts that are proportionately larger than Donald Trump’s cuts to US Aid.

A Labour government that – for the first time ever – spends less on the world’s most vulnerable than the Tories will be remembered for the wrong reasons.