‘Sweat the asset’: new development minister plots path to make UK aid count
The UK's development minister, Kirsty McNeill, has reaffirmed Labour's manifesto commitment to eventually restore aid spending to 0.7% of national income, while stressing there is no timetable and the increase depends on fiscal conditions allowing it. Her remarks matter because they come after the government cut aid spending to 0.3% of national income, drawing criticism from charities over reduced support to poorer countries, and after her predecessor Jenny Chapman took over the role following Anneliese Dodds' resignation in protest at the scale of the cuts.
Speaking ahead of a Monday address to charities and campaigners at the New Economics Foundation, McNeill said she would announce up to £15m from the humanitarian crisis fund to help countries most at risk from El Niño, which the UN warns could be the most severe in 1,000 years, funding measures such as vaccinating livestock and giving farmers cash for supplies. She argued Labour should make a confident, direct case for aid's ability to save lives rather than hedging, while acknowledging voters' concerns centre on value for money, pledging to "sweat the asset" and focus the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on what she called "five securities" — health, climate, food, human and economic security — alongside reforming international bodies and building new "bespoke partnerships".
- Minister reaffirms 0.7% aid target but gives no timetable
- £15m pledged to help countries prepare for severe El Niño
- Minister vows to improve aid's value for money, not just spend more
New here? Start with this
Aid spending in the UK is the money the government gives to help poorer countries, and until recently it stood at 0.7% of the UK's total income, a target set out in law. In 2020 the government cut this to 0.3% as part of wider budget savings, a move that charities say has reduced support for people in the world's poorest places. The Labour government, now in power, has said it wants to eventually return to the 0.7% figure but has not set a date for doing so, saying it depends on the state of the public finances.
Kirsty McNeill is the minister currently responsible for international development, a role based in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the government department that handles both diplomacy and overseas aid. She took over after her predecessor, Jenny Chapman, who herself replaced Anneliese Dodds; Dodds resigned from the post in protest at the scale of the aid cuts. The frequent change of ministers reflects ongoing tension within government over how much Britain should spend on helping other countries and how that spending should be justified to voters.
This matters because aid funds practical help such as vaccines, food and support during humanitarian crises abroad, but it is also politically sensitive at home, where many voters want reassurance that the money is spent well. The debate touches on Britain's role in the world, its relationships with international partners, and how it responds to global challenges such as climate-related disasters and food shortages in vulnerable countries.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for restoring aid to 0.7% argue that Britain has a moral obligation to help the world's poorest people, particularly amid crises like the looming El Niño event the UN has called potentially the most severe in a millennium, and that cutting aid to 0.3% has already cost lives and undermined the UK's international standing and soft power. They contend that well-targeted aid, such as livestock vaccination and cash transfers to farmers, is demonstrably effective and cheap relative to the harm prevented, and that a confident, unapologetic case for aid's life-saving impact is both the right thing to do and a more persuasive political strategy than hedging or apologising for it. For this camp, reforming institutions and building bespoke partnerships shows aid can be modernised and made more efficient rather than abandoned.
The case against
Sceptics of restoring the aid budget argue that with strained public finances, rising domestic pressures on health, welfare and defence spending, and voters' clearly expressed concerns about value for money, committing to a higher, fixed percentage of national income for overseas aid is difficult to justify without a clear funding plan or timetable. They contend that governments should prioritise taxpayers' immediate concerns at home before increasing commitments abroad, and that repeated past overspends or inefficiencies in aid delivery justify caution and a demand for proven results before any increase. For this camp, McNeill's own acknowledgement that voters focus on value for money underscores the need for firm fiscal discipline and evidence of impact rather than a return to an arbitrary spending target.