Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office also fails to answer questions on aid target u-turn.

Campaigners have described the UK Government’s failure to carry out an impact assessment on the effects of its massive cuts to international aid funding as “unthinkable”. 

Ahead of implementing a 40% reduction in Official Development Assistance (ODA) funding to redirect money to defence and military projects, Labour ministers took no steps to assess what damage could be done as a result of the move. 

Sir Keir Starmer’s government downgraded the already-depleted ODA budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income (GNI), despite an election pledge to return this funding to 0.7% of GNI.

The depth of this cut means that, by the end of this parliament, Keir Starmer will have reduced international aid more than any other prime minister on record – including Boris Johnson and Margaret Thatcher. 

The decision was met with heavy criticism from NGOs and charities, who argued there would be significant damage done to the lives of vulnerable people across the globe as a result. 

Groups from across the aid sector warned of cuts expected in programmes such as the protection of women and girls, education and peacebuilding.

Responding to preliminary legal proceedings to block the government’s move to slash international aid, the UK Government confirmed it made no effort to consider the impact a cut of £6billion would have. 

The government said in its response they are only required to make this assessment at the next stage, before decisions are made about cuts to individual programmes.

The UK Government was repeatedly asked by TFN why no impact assessment was carried out, but declined to comment.

The ONE Campaign, who took forward the initial challenge, will not be seeking a judicial review, but said this “indicates a chaotic and callous approach to major decision-making”.

The campaign said undertaking a full judicial review “against the might of the government machine is too great a legal and financial risk” that may see the government “simply change the law with a new act of parliament” anyway. 

The UK Government also u-turned on a claim by one of its ministers that the reduced spend on its ODA budget was the “new normal”. 

But International Aid Minister Baroness Jenny Chapman said in May that the government was not treating the reduction in spending on international aid to 0.3% of GNI as temporary. 

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) told TFN the Government has always been clear that it intends to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when fiscal circumstances allow.

Darren Jones MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasure, had previously said the government was “committed to restoring ODA spending to the level of 0.7% of GNI” but that this was not expected to happen during this government. 

Asked by TFN whether Baroness Chapman was contradicting her own government’s policy when she stated the move to 0.3% was not temporary, the FCDO did not respond to TFN. 

Adrian Lovett, ONE’s executive director for the UK, Middle East and Asia Pacific, said: “We are glad to hear the government clarify, in its official legal correspondence with ONE, that a deviation from the legally enshrined target of 0.7% is temporary, and not the long-term goal. We will use this key concession to hold ministers accountable for delivering a return to higher aid spending in the coming years.

“However, we are deeply concerned by the confirmation that the government failed to conduct assessments into the likely impact on poverty reduction and gender equality. It would be unthinkable to commit to a 40% cut to the NHS without considering how many people will die as a result. Aid should be no different.

“We urge the government to commit to a timetable for returning to the 0.7% target. In the meantime, ministers must urgently focus what remains of the aid budget on programmes with the largest lifesaving impact – such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. They must also show serious global leadership, using diplomacy and other levers of influence, beyond aid, to improve the health and economic opportunities of vulnerable people around the world.”

Groups representing NGOs in Britain said Labour ministers are contradicting one another. 

Bond, the UK network for organisations working in international development, told TFN the government must urgently carry out and publish an impact assessment on their decision. 

Gideon Rabinowitz, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Bond said: “Recent comments by the PM and Foreign Secretary contradict Baroness Chapman because both have said on record that there remains an intention to return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows. The looming cuts are concerning, especially for communities already grappling with conflict, poverty, and climate change. They are the ones who are at risk of losing access to essentials such as clean water, education for their children, and life-saving vaccines.

“Regrettably, the government appears to have made this political decision without conducting an impact assessment. This must be urgently addressed so that both affected communities in the Majority World and British taxpayers understand exactly what the UK no longer intends to fund. What we do know is that cuts are planned for education and gender-focused programmes, areas where women, girls, and marginalised groups have already borne the brunt of previous reductions. It is extremely disappointing that the government is choosing to abandon them now, especially when the US has already cut all gender programming. We urge the government to publish any impact assessment on these decisions as soon as possible.

“There are also cost-free actions the UK government can and should take. These include listening to the demands of lower-income countries voiced at the recent Financing for Development Summit and supporting the Sevilla Agreements to reform global decision-making on debt finance, so the Majority World have more of a voice. By backing these efforts, the UK can show real leadership, using its significant influence as the jurisdiction where most private debt is governed to support debt relief for lower-income countries.”