Ministers rejected a recommendation made by the cross-party International Development Committee.
The UK Government has said that aid cuts are “necessary” to meet new defence spending targets, as it refuses to make spending commitments on nutrition.
Responding to a report by the cross-party International Development Committee, the Government rejected the committee’s recommendation to reconsider its cuts to the UK’s aid spending.
Its decision to reduce the aid budget was a “necessary” one in order to increase defence spending to 2.5% of gross national income by 2027, it said, adding that protecting national security was “the first duty of any government.”
The Government also said the ongoing Spending Review process meant it was unable to make a funding commitment at the Nutrition for Growth Summit or to make a future pledge to the Child Nutrition Fund.
In its report, the Committee had called for the Government to “lead by example” in pushing forward attempts to eliminate global hunger, by ensuring that all aid spending committed to nutrition and food security was predictable, long term and safeguarded from changes to funding.
The report focused on the Government’s efforts to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 2: a target set ten years ago to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture by 2030.
Progress towards this goal is faltering. Last year the UN’s World Food Programme found that 733 million people faced hunger in 2024, while 45 million children under 5 suffer from acute malnutrition.
The Committee’s report urged the Government to learn lessons from previous cuts calling for a “phased transition” with clear communication, warning that a repeat of the way in which cuts were handled in 2020 could mean “the damage to the UK’s reputation will be all but impossible to reverse.”
In response, the Government said it had learned lessons from previous reductions, including by gradually reducing aid to 0.3% and by carefully considering the strategic shifts that will be required to deliver reductions over the course of the Spending Review.
Labour MP Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said: “The Government’s response sets out some positive steps and a desire to do the right thing, which makes it odd that they’ve not agreed to more of our recommendations.
“While it is understandable that Ministers might not want to make promises they cannot keep, one can only surmise that important decisions on aid and development are being held hostage by the spending review process.
“There are hints in this response of the ‘significant shifts’ required to deliver sharp aid cuts. But what will these shifts actually involve? The Committee heard no further detail during our recent evidence session with the Development Minister.”
