Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
MPs have said cutting UK aid is a “tragic error” that has put Britain’s national security at risk. The government has also failed to take into account the improvement in the lives of poor people while taking this decision foreign aid It is good value for money to spend.
The International Development Committee (IDC) is concerned in a new report that cuts to development budgets will “lead to future unrest and further crises” and have “devastating consequences” around the world. The cuts would not only threaten Britain’s soft power, but also its national security.
The cross-party group of MPs said she was “disappointed” by the government’s focus on passing on the cost of development projects to the public without considering how well they do at reducing poverty, which they said risked “even worse outcomes for the world’s most vulnerable people”.
The inquiry also calls for bringing spending on foreign aid back to 0.5 percent of national income. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, spending on such projects was cut from 0.7 to 0.5 percent of the economy in 2021 by the previous Conservative government — a move that was considered temporary. But in February this year, after Labor took office, Sir Keir Starmer cut spending even further, to 0.5 to 0.3 per cent.
The committee chair said, “The massive aid cuts announced this year are already proving to be a tragic error that will cost lives and livelihoods, weaken our international position and ultimately threaten our national security. They must be reversed.” sarah champion,
“Poverty reduction should be the central objective of the development budget,” he said. “Although accountability to the taxpayer is an important consideration [Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office] The current definition of value for money (FCDO) risks diverting attention from improving the lives of the most vulnerable – here’s why aid budget Absolutely present”.
“The government must take urgent action to end waste and ensure that the money we are still spending makes a real difference,” Champion said.
While MPs acknowledged that the value to the British taxpayer should be an “essential consideration” in any government spending, experts consulted for the report warned that it could not be assessed in the short term.
Deborah Donen, founder of the Reimagining the International NGO (RINGO) project, said: “I would hope that for the UK and other European donors who are cutting aid budgets, humanitarian work will be prioritized over ‘development’ – which unfortunately is the work that builds long-term resilience and should reduce the need for humanitarian aid”.
Former chairman of the IDC, Andrew Mitchell MP, said the cuts resulting in “cutting and changing figures” were “very poor value for taxpayers. Why? Because you don’t stop and start programmes: if you break them, you lose a lot of the benefit of the initial investment; then you start it all over again and you have to go all out again. It’s poor value for money. Growth is, essentially, long-term”, he said.
Continuous cuts in UK aid expenditure “The effectiveness of aid in reaching those most in need has declined” in recent years, Mitchell said.
The inquiry also called for a limit on the percentage of the aid budget that can be spent on refuge hotels. The government has said it will stop using asylum hotels by 2029.
This article was produced as part of The Independent Rethinking global aid Project