UK Aid Cuts to Child Health Programmes Should Be Reversed
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/david-harewood. "I have seen with pride how British overseas aid saves children’s lives. That is why I say cuts should be reversed | David Harewood | The Guardian." September 27, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author, who witnessed UK-funded equipment saving premature babies' lives in Sierra Leone, argues that recent UK aid cuts are already causing real harm and reversing years of progress. He calls on the government to restore aid spending, especially for children's health programmes, because the benefits are proven and the need remains urgent and largely unmet.
Conclusion
The UK government should reverse cuts to overseas aid, ringfence at least 25% of its development spending for children's programmes, and commit to a credible path back to spending 0.7% of national income on overseas development.
Premises
- UK-funded programmes in Sierra Leone have demonstrably saved children's lives, as evidenced by special-care baby units where admissions rose from 1,000 to 14,000 annually and survival rates improved from 78% to 90%
- UK funding for Sierra Leone's newborn care programme is now ending in December 2026, two years earlier than originally planned
- The cuts are already causing concrete harm: ended paediatric support and nurse training, and reduced availability of lifesaving medicines for newborns, children and pregnant women
- Building resilient health systems and transferring skills to local capacity takes sustained time; withdrawing support prematurely undermines infrastructure before it can stand independently
- The need remains vast and unmet: approximately 45,000 newborns in Sierra Leone require specialised care annually, but only about 31% are currently reached, leaving roughly 31,000 babies without access
- Children bear disproportionate consequences from poverty, conflict, and climate shocks, and therefore should be prioritized in aid allocation decisions
Assumptions
- Continued UK funding is a necessary (not just helpful) condition for sustaining these health outcomes
- The positive outcomes observed (survival rate improvements) are primarily attributable to UK aid rather than other factors (government policy, other donors, general development)
- Reversing cuts is fiscally and politically feasible despite competing budget pressures
- Ringfencing 25% for children's programmes would not simply redirect funds from other equally critical aid programmes
- The moral weight of visible, identifiable harm (a specific baby, a specific ward) should translate into broader policy priorities
- Foreign aid effectiveness in one country (Sierra Leone) is representative of aid effectiveness more broadly, justifying the general funding restoration