David Lammy during a visit to Chad. (Image: Getty)
The Deputy Leader of Reform UK has savaged David Lammy after £20million worth of funding for was announced for Sudanese refugees.
Richard Tice blasted the Foreign Secretary for increasing the UK’s overseas aid contribution while millions of Brits struggle to make ends meet.
“We are going bust in the UK”, he told the Daily Express. “We must stop sending money overseas on all these pet projects of [the] PM and Lammy.
“When will they focus on improving lives for British citizens not illegal migrants and overseas people?”, he asked.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Richard Tice said the Government should stop sending taxpayers’ money overseas when the UK is ‘bust’. (Image: Getty)
The additional aid being handed out by the Foreign Secretary will go towards food production and lifesaving sexual and reproductive health services, the Foreign Office said.
In a statement, Mr Lammy said: “Sudanese people are facing violence on an unimaginable scale. This is the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world.
“Millions have already fled their homes – in the face of a struggle for power that has led to abhorrent atrocities against civilians and famine on an unconscionable scale.
David Lammy in the Chad-Sudan border town of Adré. (Image: Getty)
“The international community must wake up and act urgently to avoid this horrific death toll escalating further in the coming months, driving instability and irregular migration into Europe and the UK.
“Under this government’s Plan for Change, we are addressing upstream drivers of migration to secure UK borders.
“The UK will not let Sudan be forgotten. To do so would be unforgivable.”
Fury as David Lammy Hands Out £20m to Refugees Despite Claims the UK Is ‘Going Bust’
A £20 million funding announcement involving refugees fleeing the war in Sudan has reignited debate over Britain’s international aid priorities, the cost of supporting displaced people and the government’s responsibility to taxpayers during a period of financial pressure.
The funding was announced by David Lammy in January 2025, when he was Foreign Secretary. During a visit to Chad, where thousands of Sudanese refugees had crossed the border to escape the conflict, Lammy confirmed an additional £20 million in humanitarian assistance for Chad and Sudan. The money was intended to help provide essential support, including food and clean drinking water, to people affected by the crisis.
The announcement attracted attention because it came as Britain faced difficult decisions over public spending, taxation and the future of its overseas aid budget. Critics questioned whether the government was placing sufficient emphasis on domestic needs, while supporters argued that humanitarian assistance was both a moral responsibility and a way to address the consequences of conflict before they became even more severe.
The controversy highlights a difficult question for policymakers: how should Britain balance financial pressures at home with its commitments to people facing war, hunger and displacement overseas?
What Was the £20 Million Intended to Fund?
The £20 million announcement was additional funding for the humanitarian emergency caused by the war in Sudan. It was not a general payment handed directly to refugees living in Britain.
The money was announced on top of £226.5 million that the UK had already pledged towards the Sudan crisis. The wider programme aimed to provide humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people affected by fighting, displacement and severe shortages of food and other essentials.
Sudan has experienced a devastating conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. The fighting has forced millions of people from their homes, with many seeking safety in neighbouring countries, including Chad.
The border region has faced substantial pressure as displaced families arrive in need of shelter, medical care, food and clean water. Humanitarian organisations have warned that inadequate assistance can leave already vulnerable people exposed to disease, malnutrition and further insecurity.
Lammy argued that the international community needed to act urgently to prevent the humanitarian catastrophe from worsening. The government also presented assistance in the region as part of an effort to address the underlying causes of displacement and irregular migration.
That distinction is important. The funding was intended to help people affected by a conflict outside Britain, rather than to expand domestic accommodation or welfare payments for asylum seekers in the UK.
Why the Announcement Sparked Questions About Spending
Even when humanitarian funding has a clearly defined purpose, decisions about overseas aid can become politically contentious when households are dealing with rising living costs and public services are under pressure.
Britain has faced sustained debate about taxation, government borrowing, the NHS, housing affordability and the quality of local services. Against that backdrop, some taxpayers question why public money should be spent abroad when they believe domestic problems remain unresolved.
Critics of overseas aid frequently argue that the government should concentrate on improving living standards at home before committing additional resources to international programmes. They also demand greater transparency about how aid money is allocated, which organisations receive it and whether the spending achieves measurable results.
Supporters of humanitarian assistance counter that helping people in crisis is not necessarily incompatible with addressing domestic challenges. They argue that preventing famine, supporting displaced families and stabilising vulnerable regions can reduce suffering and contribute to international security.
The disagreement therefore involves more than the size of an individual funding package. It reflects competing views about Britain’s international responsibilities and the appropriate balance between domestic priorities and overseas commitments.
Is Britain Really ‘Going Bust’?
The phrase “going bust” is a powerful political description, but it should not be confused with a precise assessment of the UK’s financial position.
The British government has faced difficult fiscal choices, including high debt-servicing costs, competing spending demands and pressure to maintain public services without placing excessive burdens on taxpayers. Those challenges can justify scrutiny of individual spending decisions.
However, a country facing significant fiscal constraints is not automatically bankrupt. The UK’s financial position must be assessed through measures such as public debt, borrowing, economic growth, tax revenues and the government’s ability to meet its obligations.
The relevant question is whether spending decisions are affordable, effective and consistent with the government’s wider priorities.
A £20 million aid commitment is a relatively small amount in the context of total UK public expenditure. That does not mean it should escape scrutiny, but it does mean the announcement alone cannot establish that Britain is unable to finance its domestic obligations.
A balanced debate should examine the government’s overall spending plans rather than treating one humanitarian announcement as proof of national financial collapse.
Britain’s Overseas Aid Budget Faces Its Own Pressures
The funding announcement also sits within a wider debate about the future of British international development spending.
In February 2025, the government announced that UK aid spending would be reduced from approximately 0.5 per cent of gross national income to 0.3 per cent by 2027. The decision was intended to help finance increased defence spending.
The reduction created difficult choices for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which is responsible for allocating international development funding across humanitarian assistance, health programmes, education, economic development and other priorities.
As the overall aid budget comes under pressure, every additional commitment raises questions about which other programmes will receive less funding and how the government will determine its priorities.
Humanitarian emergencies can require urgent responses, particularly when conflict causes mass displacement or threatens widespread hunger. But emergency funding must also be considered alongside longer-term development commitments and the government’s financial limits.
For critics, the central concern is whether the government can demonstrate that overseas spending is properly targeted and produces clear results. For supporters, the concern is that excessive reductions could leave vulnerable populations without essential assistance and weaken Britain’s ability to respond to international crises.
Both arguments point to the need for transparent budgeting and clear explanations of how decisions are made.
The Difference Between Overseas Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Britain
Public debate can become confused when the term “refugees” is used to describe people receiving different forms of assistance.
The £20 million announcement concerned humanitarian support for people fleeing Sudan into neighbouring countries, particularly Chad. It was separate from the money spent by the UK government on asylum accommodation and support within Britain.
Domestic asylum expenditure has itself become a major political issue. The government has faced criticism over the cost of temporary accommodation, including hotels used to house people while their asylum claims are processed.
Those costs arise from a different system, with different administrative responsibilities and funding arrangements. They should not be combined automatically with international humanitarian assistance simply because both involve displaced people.
The distinction matters when comparing spending figures. A government can provide emergency assistance overseas while separately reviewing domestic asylum procedures, accommodation contracts and the processing of immigration claims.
Critics may question both forms of expenditure, but each requires its own evidence and assessment.
The Economic Argument for Humanitarian Assistance
Supporters of overseas aid argue that humanitarian spending can have consequences beyond the immediate provision of food, water and shelter.
When conflicts force large numbers of people from their homes, neighbouring countries can face significant pressure on healthcare, education, housing and local employment. Assistance from international donors can help those countries respond to the influx and reduce the risk of humanitarian conditions deteriorating further.
The UK government has also argued that addressing crises closer to their origins can help reduce instability and some of the pressures that contribute to irregular migration.
However, the relationship between aid spending and migration is complex. Humanitarian assistance cannot guarantee that people will remain in their region of origin, nor does every aid programme necessarily reduce migration. Its immediate purpose is often to save lives and alleviate suffering.
Effective spending therefore needs clear objectives. Emergency programmes should be assessed on whether they reach the people who need assistance, whether resources are distributed appropriately and whether the intended outcomes are achieved.
Where programmes fail to deliver, governments should be prepared to change them. Where they succeed, their value should be judged against their actual results rather than assumptions about foreign aid in general.
What Should Taxpayers Expect From the Government?
Taxpayers have a legitimate interest in understanding how public money is spent, both at home and abroad.
For international aid, that means publishing clear information about funding allocations, implementing organisations, intended beneficiaries and performance measures. It also means explaining how emergency commitments fit within a shrinking overall budget.
The government must make difficult choices between competing demands. It cannot fund every domestic service at every desired level while also meeting every international commitment without considering the consequences for taxation, borrowing and other spending priorities.
At the same time, refusing all additional humanitarian assistance would also have consequences, particularly during a major conflict in which civilians face severe shortages and displacement.
The debate should therefore focus on whether the specific programme is justified, affordable and effective. Political criticism is most useful when it identifies concrete shortcomings and proposes a realistic alternative.
Simply describing the country as “going bust” does not answer whether the £20 million package was properly targeted or whether a different use of the money would have produced a better outcome.
A Wider Test of Government Priorities
The controversy surrounding Lammy’s announcement illustrates the challenge facing any government attempting to balance domestic pressures with international responsibilities.
People struggling with household bills, housing costs and access to public services may reasonably demand that ministers explain their priorities. They may also want assurance that aid spending is not wasteful and that the government is taking the UK’s financial constraints seriously.
Meanwhile, people concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Sudan argue that the scale of suffering demands an international response. They see emergency assistance as a practical means of helping civilians who have lost their homes and livelihoods through no fault of their own.
These perspectives need not be reduced to a choice between caring for British citizens and helping people overseas. The real questions concern affordability, effectiveness, the scale of Britain’s commitments and the evidence supporting each decision.
The £20 million announcement should be understood in its proper context: it was additional humanitarian funding for people fleeing a devastating conflict in Sudan, announced during Lammy’s January 2025 visit to Chad.
Whether that spending represented the best use of public money is a question that can be debated. But the claim that Britain is “going bust” requires a broader assessment of the nation’s finances, while the funding itself must be judged according to its intended purpose and results.
Ultimately, the government owes taxpayers transparency about its spending and a clear explanation of how it balances domestic needs with international obligations. That is a more meaningful test than outrage over a headline alone.