Following the U.K.’s decision in 2025 to cut the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income, debates around U.K. overseas aid have intensified. Many Members of Parliament (MPs) against ODA cuts argue that this decision will harm the world’s most impoverished communities and undermine long-term poverty reduction. Here are three prominent voices challenging the ODA budget cuts and emphasizing the critical role of aid. 

Sarah Champion

Sarah Champion has emerged as one of the strongest voices among MPs opposing ODA cuts. Champion is using her role as chair of the International Development Committee (IDC) to push back against reductions and show development as the first line of defense. Champion argues that cutting aid weakens global stability and increases poverty. 

She has consistently framed development as a preventative tool, not a luxury. Champion warned that reducing aid to fund defense represents a “false economy” that will make the world less safe. She also highlighted the direct human cost of the ODA budget cuts. 

In parliamentary discussions, she pointed out that millions of children risk losing access to education, especially in low-income countries where U.K. support has historically played a major role. Champion has revealed that certain health-focused ODA programs in countries such as Sierra Leone and Malawi are at risk of being cut altogether. The expected result is that 250,000 people will lose access to modern health services.

Champion’s position centers on a clear principle: investment in education, health and stability reduces poverty at its roots. Without sustaining the ODA, fragile communities face worsening inequality, which ultimately fuels conflict and displacement. Beyond her public statements, Champion has shaped the broader parliamentary critique of aid cuts. 

Reports from the IDC have warned that reducing funding risks worsening outcomes for the world’s most vulnerable and shifting focus away from poverty reduction. Champion has explained that value for money has driven the ODA to lose sight of poverty reduction as its foremost concern, placing millions of lives at risk of losing aid. She has also challenged the government’s definition of value for money, arguing that aid should prioritize improving lives rather than focusing on domestic returns. 

Through her work, Champion reinforces a central message shared by many MPs against ODA cuts: effective aid directly reduces poverty, strengthens institutions and prevents crises before they escalate.

Harriet Baldwin

Harriet Baldwin is among the MPs against ODA cuts. She has also spoken out strongly against the reductions, particularly highlighting their impact on education. Baldwin and others within the Parliamentary Network for Education have called for the government to reverse cuts, arguing that they disproportionately affect schooling in impoverished countries. 

She has drawn attention to several alarming global realities. Hundreds of millions of children remain out of school, while literacy rates in low-income countries remain critically low. Furthermore, drawing on her experience as a former development minister, Baldwin has highlighted U.K.-funded programs that support education and health care in fragile states. 

She argues that these interventions play a vital role in helping communities out of poverty. Baldwin’s arguments focus on long-term poverty reduction through education, helping pave the way for a better life for future generations. She emphasizes education’s role in driving economic growth. Like other MPs opposing the ODA cuts, she warns that these reductions risk trapping future generations in poverty.

Monica Harding

Monica Harding has positioned herself among MPs opposing ODA cuts, arguing that aid cuts threaten both poverty reduction and global stability. She has spoken out against the reductions, calling the government’s approach “strategically illiterate” and an opportunity for other developed countries to step up and replace the U.K. as an aid supplier. 

In parliament, Harding has criticized the scale of the cuts, describing them as a “moral catastrophe.” Furthermore, she warned that they would damage the U.K.’s ability to influence global development and support vulnerable countries. She has consistently linked aid spending to poverty prevention. 

Harding argues that development funding plays a crucial role in preventing conflict and instability. Cutting aid weakens security and creates greater long-term risks. Harding’s contributions to committee discussions have also highlighted the real-world consequences of reducing the ODA budget. 

She has raised concerns that a falling aid budget will limit programs that keep vulnerable countries stable and livable and increase the likelihood of displacement and deepening poverty. Indeed, Harding’s argument has remained clear: sustained investment in development helps communities build resilience and avoid crises. Without that support from the ODA, poverty intensifies and instability spreads, making recovery far more difficult. 

Final Remarks

These three MPs represent a growing and prominent group opposing ODA cuts, arguing that overseas aid remains essential. They do not see the ODA as a charity but as a strategic investment in global stability and poverty reduction. Their message remains that cutting aid may deliver short-term fiscal savings. However, it risks long-term human and economic costs that the U.K. and the world cannot afford. 

– Leah Denning

Leah is based in Bristol, UK and focuses on Good News and Politics for The Borgen Project.

Photo: Pixabay