Women and children ‘will suffer most from overseas aid cuts'
An impact assessment carried out by the Foreign Office warned that plans to reduce spending on health projects in Africa would increase disease and ultimately deaths, particularly among women and children.
Planned cuts to education spending in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo would have a 'negative impact' on 170,000 children in former conflict zones, the report added.
Ministers announced plans to cut the aid budget by five per cent this year as the government reduces spending from 0.5 per cent of GDP to 0.3 per cent by 2027.
Support for Sudan will fall from £145 million in the last financial year to £120 million this year. Aid to Ethiopia will fall from £314 million to £161 million, and Somalia will lose more than £36 million.
Total global spending on health projects will fall from £974 million to £527 million. The budget for humanitarian aid, food security and resilience will also be cut.
•
Some areas have been protected, however, and their budgets will increase. The BBC World Service 's total budget will rise from £104 million to £137 million. Spending on energy, climate and the environment will rise from £414 million to £656 million.
Overall, total government spending on official development assistance will fall from £9.2 billion last year to £8.7 billion this year.
These cuts will be much deeper next year: the overseas aid budget falls to £6.8 billion before it is reduced again to £6.1 billion in 2027.
Ministers said the cuts meant that Britain would have to support organisations with a 'proven track record of impact'. This is likely to lead to significant cuts to bilateral programmes, where Britain directly supports individual countries.
Government sources said they were still working through the implications of next year's cuts, which would result in 'difficult choices'.
An impact assessment, published alongside the government's new spending plans, said some programmes would be adversely affected immediately.
The cuts will affect aid programmes in Kenya immediately
DONWILSON ODHIAMBO/GETTY
Among those is the hunger safety net programme in Kenya, which the Foreign Office said would have a negative impact given the 'critical role of social protection for poor, vulnerable and marginalised households and groups'.
The budget for the programme to support the ending of preventable deaths will also be cut, which the report said would reduce assistance in 11 countries 'at a time when demand is likely to be high given other funding cuts'.
Baroness Chapman, the development minister, said the cuts meant the UK needed to 'modernise our approach to international development'.
She said: 'Every pound must work harder for UK taxpayers and the people we help around the world and these figures show how we are starting to do just that through having a clear focus and priorities.'
Gideon Rabinowitz, the director of policy at Bond, which represents UK aid organisations, said it was clear that the government was 'deprioritising funding for education, gender and countries experiencing humanitarian crises such as South Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia'.
He said: 'The world's most marginalised communities, particularly those experiencing conflict and women and girls, will pay the highest price for these political choices.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
27 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Full list of 11 banned essentials that will cost £200 to chuck in green bins under new rules
Households will have to use four different bins BIN SINS Full list of 11 banned essentials that will cost £200 to chuck in green bins under new rules – including toothpaste Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) THE full list of 11 essential items banned from green bins has been revealed ahead of new rules coming into force next year. Households in England that flout the new "Simpler Recycling" rules could be hit with a penalty. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 The Government is introducing the regulations as part of its drive to achieve net zero by 2050 That penalty could increase up to £200, according to one expert. The new laws are already in place for businesses. Those that do not comply with the new Simpler Recycling regulations could face hefty fines and civil sanctions. This ranges from £110 fixed penalty notice to a £5,000 fine or more for business owners. The switch, due to come into force for households next year, will force properties to use four distinct bins. The Government is introducing the regulations as part of its net-zero drive. This is the strategy that sets out policies and proposals for decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet the target by 2050. The fresh rules are scheduled to begin from March 2026. The new default requirement for most households and workplaces will be four containers for: Residual (non-recyclable) waste. Food waste (mixed with garden waste if appropriate). Paper and card. All other dry recyclable materials (plastic, metal and glass). The latter may be various container types, including bags, bins or stackable boxes. One expert has outlined the 11 essential items that if left in green bins could trigger the £200 penalty. Waste specialist James Ward from Wheeldon Brothers warned certain items cannot be recycled. He explained: "Common misconceptions about recycled items are animal waste, disposable nappies, glass cookware, ovenware, drinking glasses, ceramics and sticky tape. "Items like tissues, wet wipes, cotton buds, and cotton wool are also unsuitable for recycling. "They should be disposed of in waste bins to prevent contamination." He added: "Individuals need to be aware of what items are unsuitable for recycling, as ignoring this can lead to potential fines." Mr Ward said: "Despite being plastic-based, toothpaste tubes require specialised recycling methods not typically offered through kerbside collection. "Instead, consumers can explore take-back schemes facilitated by manufacturers and retailers, diverting toothpaste tubes from general recycling bins to designated recycling channels. "While your council may accept plastic bottles for recycling, other forms of plastic packaging like wrappers or containers might not cut it depending on the council. "These items, though recyclable, require specialised processing beyond what's available locally, adding to disposal costs. "It's a reminder to explore alternative disposal methods or utilise designated recycling centres for these materials." The Government has confirmed that a four-bin system will represent "the maximum default requirement and is not expected to increase in the future". A spokesperson for the Government said: "This is a sensible, pragmatic approach to the collection of materials for every household and business in England. "We will make recycling easier: citizens will be able to recycle the same materials across England whether at home, work or school, and will no longer need to check what is accepted for recycling in their local area. "A universal standard will ensure that everything that can be collected for household recycling is collected in every region." Simpler Recycling has been designed to address the unique challenges in England, drawing inspiration from the successful strategies already in place in Scotland and Wales.
The Sun
28 minutes ago
- The Sun
The nine health conditions most at risk of being hit by Universal Credit and PIP cuts
SOME disabled Universal Credit claimants face cuts to their payments when new Government rules come in, campaigners have warned. Labour is planning to bring in major reforms to the benefits system that will see Universal Credit payments slashed for new claimants. 1 A bill intended to cut back on welfare spending was heavily watered down last month following a rebellion by backbench MPs. But some MPs and disability campaigners are still warning benefit claimants with serious, lifelong illnesses could see their out-of-work benefits halved under the reforms. They are worried people with degenerative conditions such as Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis (MS) could be affected, as well as those with serious mental health conditions such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. The campaigners say people with these conditions could miss out on the Universal Credit health element, which is worth about £3,000 a year. MPs on the Work and Pensions Committee have called for the cut to be paused until an independent impact assessment on the changes can be carried out. Andy McDonald, Labour MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, told The i newspaper that ministers should look again at the criteria for the higher rate of Universal Credit. "The bill creates a two-tier system which will result in people with identical conditions being treated entirely differently, based on an arbitrary cut-off point. "There is no justice or equity in that. It's simply not the right thing to do," he said. Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, said it was "reckless to go ahead with the planned cuts" without an impact assessment. Meanwhile James Taylor, head of strategy at disability equality charity Scope, said: "We are concerned that the changes to the health component of Universal Credit will create a two-tier system where some disabled people receive more support than others. "We believe this approach is unfair and that it does not reflect the realities of disabled people's lives." What is Universal Credit and what changes are being made? Universal Credit is a monthly payment given out to those who are struggling to make ends meet. Changes to UC & PIP payments in full as Labour reveals bruising welfare bill concessions in bid to quell rebellion More than three million recipients of Universal Credit don't have to find work due to their poor health. A single person who is aged 25 or over can receive the basic level of Universal Credit, which comes in at £400.14 every month. But you can get a further £422.37 by claiming the incapacity top-up if you have a disability or long-term condition. This more than doubles the original payment. People who currently receive Universal Credit will be protected from changes to the Welfare Reform Bill. But new claimants will have their payment halved to £217.26. Only new claimants who meet a "severe conditions criteria" will get the full amount - so those with severe, lifelong conditions will remain protected. However, disability groups have warned that those with degenerative illnesses or fluctuating conditions, which can vary day to day, might still have their payments slashed. This is because the new criteria demands a health condition be constant. Which conditions could be affected? There is no full or official list of conditions that could be affected by the change as the "severe conditions" criteria hasn't yet been fully decided. But anti-poverty charity Z2K has said there are at least six health conditions it believes could be affected by the change. They are: Parkinson's Schizophrenia Multiple sclerosis Bipolar disorder Autism Dementia A select committee report on the matter also mentions ME, Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD) and eating disorders. Its understood claimants will not be assessed on what their condition is but on how it impacts them. No conditions are excluded from the "severe conditions" criteria and it will be considered for all health conditions and disabilities. Ayla Ozmen, director of policy and campaigns at Z2K, told The Sun: "Disabled people with conditions like Parkinsons, schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis are at risk of losing out on over £200 per month as a result of cuts to the Universal Credit health element which have been approved by parliament. "Contrary to government claims, we fear that many of the disabled people affected will never be able to work because of their conditions. "We're calling on the government to clarify how it will ensure that disabled people with severe conditions will be protected under these plans." A Government spokesperson said: "Our welfare reforms will support those who can work into jobs and ensure there is always a safety net for those that need it. The impact assessment shows our reforms will lift 50,000 children out of poverty – and our additional employment support will lift even more families out of poverty. "The reforms will rebalance Universal Credit rates to reduce the perverse incentives that trap people out of work, alongside genuinely helping disabled people and those with long-term health conditions into good, secure work – backed by £3.8billion in employment support over this parliament. "We are also tackling poverty by extending free school meals to all households on Universal Credit, helping to address holiday hunger with our Crisis and Resilience Fund, supporting over a million households by introducing a Fair Repayment Rate on Universal Credit deductions, and delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation, as part of our Plan for Change." What other changes are being made? The Government had hoped to bring in even tougher measures to stop the increasing cost of welfare from spiralling out of control. It previously projected the number of working-age claimants of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) will rise from 2.7million in 2023-24 to 4.3million in 2029-30. Meanwhile the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimated the overall cost of the working-age benefit system would rise from £48.5billion last year to £75.7billion by 2030. As part of its Welform Reform Bill, the Government had planned to introduce stricter qualifying measures for those claiming PIP and freezing the extra health payments available to those on Universal Credit who are unable to work. An FOI carried out by advice website Benefits and Work showed a staggering 154,000 people with back pain as their main health issue were likely to lose their PIP under Labour's stricter rules. Some of the other conditions at risk included arthritis, chronic pain, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, anxiety and depression. But following the backlash from MPs, it's unclear so far how PIP could change as a review is now going to be carried out by disability minister Sir Stephen Timms. The paper, which will not be published until the end of next year, will set out recommendations for the Government.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Sprawl or nothing: medium density advocates despair as Brisbane swings back to urban expansion
Almost two decades ago, the Queensland historian Peter Spearritt issued a dire warning. If planning attitudes didn't change, Brisbane would become 'the 200 kilometre city' – a giant conurbation, solid suburbs from Noosa to the NSW border, causing traffic chaos and dooming millions to a worse standard of living. 'I don't think many people realised just how dramatic continuing suburban sprawl would be,' he says. Queensland's governments did put some legal limits on untrammelled expansion. But with the city facing an epic housing shortage, many planners are now concerned the new conservative state government will return to the city's historic sprawl-or-nothing approach. The government has started test drilling on a proposed underground freeway designed to permit new suburbs in farmland west of Caboolture. At $14bn, the four-lane north-west transport corridor would be the most expensive road project in the city's history. The first new suburb, Waraba, is set to boast 70,000 residents once complete. Spearritt, now an emeritus professor of urban history at the University of Queensland, says legal limitations on sprawl are crucial for a city with few geographical barriers – unlike Sydney, Brisbane doesn't have national parks on three of its four sides. 'There were no green space barriers, and that makes it much easier to just basically develop former agricultural land forever,' he says. Brisbane has always been an unusually car-dependent and low-density city, even by Australian standards. There's a simple reason for this: since 1885 Queensland has more or less banned townhouses and apartments. It worked. Just 11.3% of residents of the Brisbane local government area live in townhouses, which is even lower than the state average, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Ten times more people told the 2021 census they drove to work than took the bus or train. Locked out of the inner city, decades of newcomers have been forced into new communities in Logan, Ipswich, Moreton Bay and even further afield, swelling the populations of those outer areas by millions. In 2006 the state government stepped in, setting the first south-east Queensland regional plan. For the first time it established an 'urban footprint' – a limited area where development is permitted. 'It was a big political moment. I think it got fairly widespread support,' Spearritt says. 'Was Brisbane actually thinking about how it would shape itself for the future? And I guess that sort of approach has been completely swamped by the rhetoric about the housing crisis'. As expansion slowed, the pace of inner-city development did not speed up. As a result, house prices and rents have skyrocketed, as development approvals head in the opposite direction. Under Labor, the state government used the regional plan to set density targets for councils – effectively requiring 60% of new homes to be apartments and townhouses. Now the Liberal National party planning minister, Jarrod Bleijie, has signalled radical change to the unpopular rule. 'We are going to review every regional plan in Queensland and we are going to review them in consultation with local government,' he told parliament in March. 'The time for state government acting like Big Brother over local government is over.' Asked last month if he would ditch the targets, he confirmed that there would be a move back to sprawl. 'We need to look at the urban growth everywhere, across every regional plan, including the south-east Queensland regional plan,' he said. 'The problem with the current south-east Queensland regional plan, the density is upwards, but developers are finding it incredibly difficult to afford to build vertical towers at the moment and to find buyers for them. So it's no use putting in the regional plan to just go up, when the towers and housing is actually not being provided.' The government has also budgeted to spend $2bn subsidising council infrastructure to speed up development in new-build estates, including in regional Queensland. The Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) is one of many groups concerned that the city's urban footprint boundaries might be expanded. Jen Basham, the council's urban sustainability lead, says: 'Further urban sprawl is not a solution to the housing crisis – it's slower, more expensive and environmentally damaging.' A recent QCC report found that the city could more than accommodate all new growth within its current boundaries – and that doing so would cost the taxpayer less and result in better social outcomes. New suburbs tend to be more car-dependent because there are few alternatives, the report says. That means greater emissions and many hours trapped behind the wheel for the residents. Sprawl also tends to cost more – an estimated $75,000 per dwelling in Sydney, according to the NSW Productivity Commission – due to the need to construct new infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. Instead, the OCC report concludes, Queensland should look to the long-banned 'missing middle' housing typologies – townhouses and small apartments. Dorina Pojani, an associate professor of urban planning at the University of Queensland, says increasing density doesn't have to mean towers blocks. 'That's a failure of the imagination,' she says. 'What about the missing middle: row housing, 4-5 storey apartment complexes, co-housing, and so on? We need to move away from both the detached single-family and the tower typology. Zoning codes need be overhauled.' Travis Jordan, an organiser of the Yimby (yes in my back yard) group for greater Brisbane, says there is another factor in favour of reform. The single-family house with a picket fence on 400 sq m isn't for everyone, he says. Some people want to live within walking distance of work, shops, schools and friends – and the law shouldn't stop them. 'Priorities change. The things we wanted to stop 40 years ago might be things we want to encourage now, and the kinds of homes our parents wanted might not be the ones our kids want to grow up in.' Jordan says other Australian cities are making better choices. The NSW and Victorian state governments have rolled out new rules limiting the power of councils to halt more sustainable development. Globally the real leader is New Zealand, he says. Since 2016, cities including Auckland have eliminated bans on apartments and townhouses, a policy that now has national support. Research has found that as a result, there has been a huge spike in construction, and a resulting dip in rents. Jordan says it's time for Brisbane to follow their lead. 'For most of the last 20 years, 'tall versus sprawl' is all our planning schemes said you were allowed,' he says. 'Instead of saying that's too hard, the government should be standing up to the busybodies who want to tell everyone else what kind of homes they're allowed to build on their land.' But Brisbane city council, the hemisphere's largest and most powerful, flat out opposes missing middle development. It passed a new version of the century-old ban on townhouses in 2020. 'Spreading the density right across every suburb of Brisbane is not the right answer,' lord mayor Adrian Schrinner said at a candidates debate in the 2024 election. In 2015, Spearritt announced that his warning had already come true. Brisbane had fused 200km of unending city. Ten years later, he doesn't see much political will for reform. 'I think it's depressing that that there's not more interest in the quality of community life and the quality of the urban environment. It's almost as if people have sort of given up,' he says. 'Maybe it'll take another generation to realise – Jesus, this city is really getting awful.'
