Why are we slashing foreign aid when it can help stop the boats?

Independent

5 hours ago

When I was an MP in Kent, I saw the problems on our coastline – and have always supported tough measures to cut the number of people arriving in this country without permission.
Later, as immigration minister, I took measures to stop people hiding in the backs of lorries, and more recently, I voted and spoke in favour of the Rwanda plan, set out by the former Conservative government.
There is no single magic bullet to stop boats crossing the English Channel. But one key part of an effective strategy is to reduce the incentives for people to climb into those boats in the first place – to offer a stick as well as a carrot.
As powerful new research from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy shows, well-targeted aid provides that incentive for someone to stay in their home country and abandon dreams of fleeing to Europe. It tackles the root causes of the problem, with benefits to us and would-be asylum seekers.
We know that most people in these small boats come from countries in conflict, or where there have been humanitarian emergencies – from Afghanistan, Sudan, Syria, Eritrea – so delivering improvements where living conditions are desperate will mean fewer people starting the journey.
I'm not talking about spending taxpayers' money to salve our consciences – my argument is that this would be spending our money wisely, in the interests of the British people.
The Kiel research shows that, in Sub-Saharan Africa, a marked improvement in health and education services resulted in a 27 per cent fall in people saying they planned to move abroad over the next 12 months – the key ingredient in reducing that push factor.
In the same way, if aid is spent wisely in conflict-stricken countries, it is a very effective tool in reducing the danger of fresh outbreaks of violence and, therefore, migration.
In the future, as the climate crisis bites, helping agricultural communities adapt by providing better irrigation or more resistant crops will become an increasingly effective use of aid funds.
As Tobias Heidland, professor of economics at Kiel University and the study's co-author, puts it: 'When aid improves basic services like healthcare and education – or helps stabilise post-conflict regions – people are less likely to leave.'
The research underlines that most people only decide to migrate as a last resort. It is a choice they feel forced to make because they lack opportunity, physical security, or basic services such as healthcare and education. Targeted aid investments can improve these conditions.
It also shows information campaigns highlighting the dangers of a journey, such as attempting to cross to Europe and on to the UK, can deliver a 10-20 per cent fall in the share of people ready to migrate – but only once they believe their own situation is no longer hopeless.
This all means that relying on tough border controls alone to curb the type of migration we see almost every day in the English Channel will only take us so far. Success requires steps to stop journeys at their start, as well as at their end.
Moreover, spending aid in this way is not only the clever thing to do, it can also be popular. Polling from More in Common found that three in five Britons and two-thirds of Reform voters support aid that reduces the numbers of people from war-torn countries seeking asylum in the UK.
I regret the short-sighted decision to raid the UK's development budget for the funds that are badly needed to bolster our defence in an increasingly dangerous world, but I recognise that decision has been taken and is unlikely to be reversed.
What matters now is to make the case for the survival of essential programmes beyond the current cost-cutting, for those that benefit us all. And there is no more obvious example of that than aid that tackles the small boats' crisis at source.