Plans by Reform UK to slash the aid budget by 90% would not cover existing contributions to global bodies such as the UN and World Bank, shredding Britain’s international influence and risking its standing within those organisations, charities and other parties have warned.
Under cuts announced by Nigel Farage in November, overseas aid would be capped at £1bn a year, or about 0.03% of GDP. Keir Starmer’s government is already set to reduce aid from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3% by 2027, but even that lower proportion would still amount to £9bn a year.
If a Reform government attempted to cut aid to £1bn, it would involve cutting back existing multi-year commitments to organisations, as well as global efforts connected to vaccinations and other health initiatives.
Multilateral overseas aid totalled £2.8bn in 2024, the most recent year for which detailed figures are available.
The UK’s existing commitments to the UN, the World Bank’s International Development Association, the Gavi vaccination alliance and the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria total more than £1.6bn a year.
Cutting those immediately would be difficult, with most settlements agreed over several years. Even if the total could be brought down to £1bn, there would be no funding left to respond to new natural disasters such as Hurricane Melissa, which devastated Jamaica in October.
Gideon Rabinowitz, the director of policy at Bond, the umbrella group for development NGOs, said a £1bn limit would “drastically reduce the UK government’s capacity to play a role in the global fight against disease, poverty and inequality”, and leave no scope to help with future disasters and conflicts.
He said: “Further cuts would also mean failing to honour our existing commitments to international institutions, damaging the UK’s reputation as a reliable global partner and undermining its presence in key decision-making forums.
“A budget of £1bn would put UK aid below that of Russia and China, weakening our own national interests whilst leaving opportunity for other states to gain influence.”
Rabinowitz said the UK had already cut back its contributions to Gavi and the Global Fund, which was expected to cause hundreds of thousands of otherwise-preventable deaths.
“The consequences of yet further reduction to UK pledges such as this would be unconscionable. This approach does not align with the values of the British public who want to see the UK play their part,” he said.
A Labour party spokesperson called Reform’s aid policy “back-of-a-fag-packet politics”.
They said: “It wouldn’t even cover the UK’s existing commitments, would leave nothing for future crises, and risks Britain losing influence and seats at the table. This is not tough decision making – it’s reckless and unserious.”
Monica Harding, the Liberal Democrats’ international development spokesperson, said even existing cuts to aid had resulted in a loss of UK influence and stalled progress in global health.
Further reductions, she said, showed “a complete ignorance of how our influence works overseas”. She said: “It would hollow out our diplomatic presence across Africa and Asia, affecting partnerships and economic opportunities, and our influence globally, including in international institutions like the UN, World Bank and IMF, would collapse.
“It would leave us all poorer, less secure and less safe – with Britain as an isolated and declining power. Their policy is the very opposite of patriotic.”
Zia Yusuf, Reform’s head of policy, said the £1bn limit would not threaten the UK’s place on any multilateral organisation, and would leave sufficient money for aid to Ukraine and a fund for “genuine disaster relief”.
He said: “Tory and Labour governments have poured eye-watering sums into wasteful foreign aid projects for decades. The Conservatives spent £230bn in real terms on foreign aid – is Britain more or less powerful on the world stage than in 2010?
“The Tories and Labour have abused the generosity of the British taxpayer to virtue signal. A Nigel Farage government will finally put British citizens and taxpayers first.”
