Full details of the spending reductions were outlined this week. 

Former ministers and Labour’s own MPs have slammed the government’s cuts to international aid after the move was waved through in Westminster. 

Last month Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced his government will increase spending on defence to 2.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from April 2027, funded from reductions in the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget.

On Wednesday, Chancellor Rachel Reeves set out in her Spring Statement the full details of the international aid cuts. 

The UK will go from spending around 0.5% of the UK’s Gross National Income (GNI) on international development this financial year to 0.3% of GNI by April 2027. 

The government claims the budget will be gradually reduced over three years to help smooth the transition, but reductions will begin from next week. 

Minister for International Development, Baroness Jenny Chapman, said: “Our work on development is critical for the UK’s interests, making the world safer, more secure and better off. We have to work harder than ever to make sure it delivers for the British public and our Plan for Change.

“We are committed to modernising our approach with less money: working with our partners in new ways to maximise our impact. These latest changes to the ODA budget will give greater certainty and stability, helping us provide the best value for money for taxpayers.”

But the government’s claims of “stability” have been dismissed this week, with leading figures warning of the grave impact of the looming cuts. 

The UK aid budget will no longer be linked to changes in the UK’s gross national income, instead being given a fixed budget potentially protecting it from spending by other departments, the Government has confirmed.

The announcement could mark a major shift in the way that UK aid spending is allocated.

In a letter to the chair of the International Development Committee, Minister Baroness Chapman said the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will lose its role as the Government’s aid ‘spender and saver of last resort’, meaning that it will no longer need to adjust its budgets to hit a spending commitment if gross national income (GNI) changes or other department’s costs increase.

The Minister also confirmed that bilateral aid spending has been set to meet only existing contracts, suggesting that with a few exceptions there will be no new additional bilateral aid programming in 2025/26. 

Exceptions include full aid allocations for Ukraine, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Sudan, and the Overseas Territories.

Sarah Champion MP, Chair of the International Development Committee, said: “I'm very nervous about what these changes signify. Aid programmes deliver benefits over years and decades, not months. What UK aid needs above all is stability. Vital programmes for the world’s most vulnerable people must be protected from the ebb and flow of domestic priorities.

“The measures announced could represent a positive step forward. Unshackling aid from percentage targets could protect aid spending from drains on its resources like reckless Home Office spending on asylum hotels at home.

“But we need more information. Will the aid budget rise as well as fall, if income forecasts improve? Which specific programmes are set to be cut? Which areas are high priorities for ministers? Until we know, it is impossible to assess whether the Government is serious about its international commitments and the potential risks these changes present.”

A senior Labour MP also suggested the government must rediscover its “lost moral compass”. 

Barry Gardiner, a London-based MP originally from Glasgow, said he had been proud to stand on a manifesto which promised to increase ODA spending back to the 0.7% of GNI. 

He asked his own frontbench: “So could we have a debate, please, in government time on how it may be possible to find… a lost moral compass?” 

Gideon Rabinowitz, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Bond, the UK network for organisations working in international development and humanitarian assistance, said: "It is deeply concerning that the government is prioritising UK aid funding for BII and university scholarships over critical humanitarian support for countries like Afghanistan, DRC, Ethiopia, Uganda and Yemen.

"This decision not only abandons communities facing unimaginable hardship but also undermines efforts to achieve global stability and damages the UK’s credibility as a reliable partner. The government needs to urgently publish an impact assessment explaining these decisions and whether the impact of the cuts has been thought through.

"The government is repeating the previous government’s past mistakes by focusing on short-term decisions instead of long-term impact. Stop-start funding disrupts development progress and is poor value for money.

"Ending the FCDO’s role as the ‘spender and saver of last resort’ is a stealth cut to the UK aid budget since FCDO will not be able to benefit from any improved GNI or any money that is recovered back from spending on asylum accommodation."

The calls come after former Deputy Foreign Secretary and former Minister for Development, Andrew Mitchell MP, gave evidence to Parliament's International Development Committee on the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office's (FCDO) approach to value for money. 

During the session, Andrew Mitchell commented on how development is "a long-term issue" and warned that "stopping and starting development spending is bad value for money and for our national security”. 

He also recommended that the government should not drop the UK aid budget from 0.5% of GNI to 0.3% but reduce the budget gradually, "to 0.4% then 0.3%" from 2027. 

He also warned that bilateral development programmes will suffer the most as a result of the cuts, stating, "I fear bilateral programmes will miss out."

Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, said: “We agree that defence, diplomacy and development all contribute to the UK’s national security, and the planned cuts to the UK aid budget is poor value for money and will undermine efforts to achieve long-term global stability. We saw with the previous UK aid cuts how stop-start funding disrupts development progress and is bad value for money in the long-term.

“We urge the government to reverse the cuts or, at the very least, maintain UK aid at 0.5% of GNI over the next two years and dramatically reduce the amount of UK aid spent on asylum accommodation in the UK. This would help prevent a sudden drop in funding and mitigate some of the worst impacts of the cuts on the most marginalised people globally."