There was no comfort in today’s spending review for those across all parties who care about international development. The reduction of Britain’s overseas aid budget to meagre 0.3 per cent will come back to haunt us.
There are plenty of people who argue that cutting overseas aid should not overly concern us. Why should foreign people in distant countries profit from the UK taxpayers’ hard-earned money? If any aspect of our budget is expendable, surely it is this.
But much is missing from this simplistic analysis. Aid is not about giving handouts. It is about connecting the dots between conditions abroad and the UK’s serious challenges on health, security and migration.
Indeed the whole point of international development is to improve social conditions in vulnerable countries to contain the scourge of disease, conflict and extremism – all of which in turn step up the pressure on our borders. Morality aside, aid is a strategic investment of the highest, if not the most glamorous, order.
We hear a great deal about the need to “stop the boats.” And rightly so — irregular migration through small boat crossings is dangerous and deeply unsettling for the British public. But while deterrents and enforcement may grab headlines, they will never solve the problem alone.
If we are serious about reducing irregular migration, we must first tackle the reasons that people feel they have no choice but to leave their homes. And that’s exactly where well-targeted aid can play a decisive role.
New research from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy provides compelling evidence. In Sub-Saharan Africa, a marked improvement in public services like healthcare and education was linked to a 27 per cent drop in migration intentions. In countries affected by conflict or climate stress — such as Sudan, Afghanistan or Syria — aid that stabilises fragile regions, supports livelihoods, or helps farmers adapt to a changing climate can reduce future displacement.
Most of the people arriving in small boats today come from countries facing humanitarian crises. They’re not mainly economic opportunists — they’re often fleeing instability, poverty, or violence. When we invest in making those regions safer and more secure, we reduce the push factors that fuel irregular migration.
Investing in development abroad also means protecting ourselves from future threats. There is growing evidence to support the link between development spending and our own security.
Again, research from the Kiel Institute found that improving basic services, for example, reduces the aspiration to migrate: In Sub-Saharan Africa, a marked improvement in public services (such as health and education) was linked to the 27 per cent lower intentions to migrate.
Similarly, aid that’s used to stabilise fragile regions can prevent renewed conflict with mass movement and with far-reaching security repercussions.
I still find it difficult to believe that a Labour government has raided the aid budget to plug short-term spending gaps. While I did not expect a return to 0.7 per cent of development spending any time soon, I genuinely believed that Sir Keir Starmer would stand by his manifesto commitment and had the strategic nous to protect the remnants of a budget that has been persistently plucked and picked at. Robbing Peter to pay Paul might play well populistically, not least in an age where the pulse-racing demands of social media are at odds with the slow-burn tempo of international development transformations – but make no mistake, it is a proverbial shot in the foot.
Finally, we can’t escape the human tragedy that the aid cuts will unleash. An old African proverb says "the axe forgets, but the tree remembers". International development has been denigrated and delegitimised over the years in a burgeoning climate of narrow nationalism flourishing from a broken international system.
Those responsible for riding that populist wave will soon move on. But the people left behind will carry this for years to come. We too will suffer.
Sir Andrew Mitchell is a former deputy foreign secretary, a former minister of state for development and Africa, and the Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield
This story is part of The Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid series
