Spending review sees very slow reductions in Home Office use of UK aid – Bond reaction

Yesterday, during the Chancellor’s unveiling of the government’s Spending Review, the Chancellor declared that the use of hotels for asylum seekers will end ‘in this parliament.’

However, Bond has calculated that the use of UK aid for asylum costs in the UK is only changing marginally and is projected to be at 22.9% of the UK aid budget in 26/27 and remaining at around one fifth of the total annual UK aid budget until the end of this parliament.

The SR reveals:
FCDO ODA allocations
2026/27: 68% (£6.815bn of £10bn)
2027/28: 70% (£6.188 of £8.9bn)
2028/29: 74% (£6.945 of £9.4bn)

While the SR does not include in-donor refugee cost allocations for departments, Bond has calculated what’s left from the departmental allocations, that the Treasury has budgeted the following for in-donor refugee costs (asylum costs):
2026/27: £2.29bn (22.9% of ODA)
2027/28: £1.87bn (21% of ODA)
2028/29: £1.6bn (17% of ODA)
So £5.76 billion in total over the 3 years.

In reaction, Gideon Rabinowitz, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Bond, the UK network for organisations working in international development and humanitarian assistance, said:

The spending review lays bare the true impact of the UK aid cuts. Vital development and humanitarian programmes that tackle the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement are being slashed, while nearly a fifth of the reduced UK aid budget will be diverted annually to cover asylum costs in the UK. We are also yet to see the impact assessment for these cuts.
While it is welcome that the Chancellor has committed to ending the use of hotels for asylum accommodation by the end of this Parliament, planning very slow reductions and diverting £5.76 billion of UK aid over the next three years to cover these costs is a political choice that comes at the direct expense of the world’s most marginalised people.
This is not just poor value for money but shows there is a lack of urgency within government to reduce these costs, further undermining the UK’s credibility as a global development partner.

ENDS.

Notes for editors