Voices: The key four reasons why Andy Burnham has to rethink the UK’s aid cuts

A ndy Burnham has got off to a bright start as prime minister, as even his critics must admit, but difficult choices lie ahead. One concerns the shrinking international development budget .

Like Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves before them, the new prime minister and his chancellor, John Healey, face unprecedented demands for public spending to fix everything not working, including building prisons, reforming NHS dentistry, overhauling education, restoring lost bus routes, and regenerating high streets. This comes alongside even greater challenges like funding a National Care Service, maintaining the pensions triple lock, investing in energy security, and ramping up defence spending to Cold War levels.

They must do all this without irresponsible borrowing, increasing the tax burden on working people, or stifling growth.

Faced with these pressures, it is easy to understand why Keir Starmer broke his manifesto commitment to return to spending 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) on international development, instead making deep cuts to overseas aid he argued were necessary to increase defence spending. Andy Burnham took only two weeks to view the aid budget as low-hanging fruit to fund his £2 bus fare cap.

However, while raiding the international development budget might be an easy choice, we need to be honest with ourselves and the British public about the hidden costs and how short-term gain can lead to longer-term pain at home and abroad.

Based on evidence I heard serving on the Intentional Development Committee, here are four reasons why:

After Covid-19, The Pandemic Fund was established to finance pandemic prevention, preparedness and response in lower- and middle-income countries so killer diseases could be detected and contained before spreading, but the UK has pulled out – a decision leading scientists described as “dangerous”.

Similarly, the Fleming Fund – the UK’s pioneering international programme to curb antimicrobial resistance (AMR), helping prevent the pre-antibiotics fate of an infection becoming a death sentence – has been abandoned , putting lives at risk.

Coupled with massive reductions in the USA’s contribution to the World Health Organisation’s global test and trace capabilities – a decision that closed the lab that first detected Ebola – aid cuts have left us less capable of preventing the next killer pandemic.

Former defence chiefs are among the loudest critics of the aid cuts, arguing development is as crucial as military firepower in preventing conflicts and terror threats harming the UK.