Cutting aid undermines our national interest – and won’t stop the boats, writes Andrew Mitchell
9 June 2025, 07:46 | Updated: 9 June 2025, 07:48
Cutting foreign aid weakens our national security and undermines efforts to curb irregular migration.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
As the government prepares for next week’s Comprehensive Spending Review, the Prime Minister faces yet another round of tough choices. But one decision could carry serious long-term consequences: the continued erosion of Britain’s budget for international development aid.
As someone who has spent much of my political career making the case for smart, targeted aid, let me be clear — cutting effective aid doesn’t just harm those abroad. It weakens our security, damages our influence, and increases pressure on our borders.
We hear a great deal about the need to “stop the boats.” And rightly so — irregular migration through small boat crossings is dangerous, deeply unsettling for the British public, and politically unsustainable. But while deterrents and enforcement may grab headlines, they will never solve the problem alone.
If we are serious about reducing irregular migration, we must look further upstream. The most effective strategy is to reduce the reasons people feel they have no choice but to leave home. And that’s exactly where well-targeted aid can play a decisive role.
New research from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy provides compelling evidence. In Sub-Saharan Africa, a marked improvement in public services like healthcare and education was linked to a 27% drop in migration intentions. In countries affected by conflict or climate stress — such as Sudan, Afghanistan or Syria — aid that stabilises fragile regions, supports livelihoods, or helps farmers adapt to a changing climate can reduce future displacement.
Most of the people arriving in small boats today come from countries facing humanitarian crises. They’re not economic opportunists — they’re often fleeing instability, poverty, or violence. When we invest in making those regions safer and more secure, we reduce the push factors that fuel irregular migration.
This is not charity. It is strategic spending in the national interest.
And it’s not just about controlling migration. Investing in development abroad also means protecting ourselves from future threats. Aid spending on infrastructure in fragile states may result in fewer terrorist plots and reduce the risk of radicalisation that impacts our shores. Research from the Kiel Institute has shown that every US dollar spent on measures that prevent conflict yields a long-run payoff of $26–75 and up to $103 in states with recent violence.
It is deeply short-sighted for any government, including this new Labour one, to raid the aid budget to plug short-term spending gaps. They are shooting themselves in the foot, undermining efforts to address one of the very issues they’ve committed to fixing.
We are not asking for a return to 0.7% overnight. But we must protect the most effective aid programmes that deliver results both abroad and here at home.
If we want to manage migration, maintain global influence, and uphold Britain’s reputation as a responsible power, smart aid is part of the solution. Let’s not abandon one of the best tools we have — especially when the evidence makes the case so clearly.
________________
Andrew Mitchell is the Shadow Foreign Secretary & former Deputy Foreign Secretary. He has been the MP for Sutton Coldfield since 2001.
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk
