Development committee warns that UK now places helping vulnerable people at bottom of list of aid priorities

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

The UK’s efforts to fight global poverty risk being sidelined by the competing strategic and economic demands of the government’s new aid plan, according to a report that urges the Department for International Development (DfID) to remain focused on helping the world’s most destitute people.

The new strategy, which was drawn up by the Treasury and DfID, and published last November, is intended to help the world’s poor while also advancing Britain’s security and prosperity.

But Tuesday’s International Development Committee (IDC) report warns that while the strategy represents “a welcome restatement of the UK’s strong commitment to international development”, it could actually hinder DfID’s efforts to fulfil its core mission: the reduction of global poverty.



Aid and national interest needn't be uneasy bedfellows if the balance is right | Jonathan Glennie Read more

“Poverty reduction has been, and should always be, the first priority of UK aid,” says the report.



“The strategy’s status as a Treasury-led document with little explicit focus on poverty reduction risks creating an impression that the objectives regarding the UK’s national interest, and therefore security and prosperity, were drawn up first, with DfID left to connect the dots with poverty reduction.”

It notes that the goal of “tackling extreme poverty and helping the world’s most vulnerable” is last on the list of the government’s four strategic aid objectives, behind strengthening global peace, security and governance; strengthening resilience and response to crises, and promoting global prosperity.



Not only does such low prioritising risk “damaging the reputation of UK aid abroad”, adds the report, it also sits oddly the first sustainable development goal, which aims to help the world “end poverty in all its forms everywhere”.



The IDC applauds DfID’s willingness to work in fragile states and regions – to which the department will allocate half of its spending – but again warns that the focus could distract from its wider work.

It recognises that crises such as the Syrian war cause migration and have serious implications for the UK, but adds: “Poverty reduction must be the primary purpose of UK aid spending, with other objectives surrounding security and the national interest flowing from it, rather than the other way round.”

Concerns raised over government attempts to redefine overseas aid Read more

The study also reflects concerns over the new strategy’s provisions to allow government departments other than DfID an increased share of the multi-billion-pound aid budget, which is now enshrined in law as 0.7% of gross national income.

The proportion of the aid budget spent by DfID is expected to fall from 85% now to around 72% by 2020. In 2013, the UK spent £11.46bn on overseas aid.

Although the the majority of witnesses told the committee that such cross-government working could improve aid impact and efficiency, some were worried that the other departments which will now be spending more aid money – including the Foreign Office (FCO) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) – cannot match DfID when it comes to transparency and accountability.

The report notes that while DfID is rated “very good” by the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), the FCO is rated “poor” and the MoD “very poor”, adding: “It is crucial that a change in the proportion of aid delivered by other government departments does not lead to a change in the effectiveness of that aid.”

The aid strategy commits all government departments to attaining a “very good” or “good” IATI rating within five years – a timescale the IDC describes as “unambitious and unacceptable”.

The committee warned that it, along with other relevant select committees and the government’s aid watchdog, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, would be keeping a close eye on how all aid money was spent.

Stephen Twigg, the chair of the committee, said all departments spending aid had a responsibility to fight for the world’s poorest people.

“The most important principle of allocating UK aid should always be that it is allocated to areas where it can most effectively be used to reduce poverty, which is clearly in the UK’s national interest,” he said.

“Tackling extreme poverty and helping the world’s most vulnerable must remain unequivocally the first priority of UK aid spending.”

A DfID spokeswoman said the department is tackling extreme poverty by addressing roots causes such as terrorism, corruption, disease and instability. She added: “This is both the right thing to do and smart thing for our national interest.

“Building a safer, healthier and more stable world requires using knowledge and expertise from a variety of government departments. All aid spend, by DfID and other departments, must follow internationally agreed rules and is closely monitored internally and by external scrutiny groups to ensure value for money.

“All four strategic objectives have equal weighting. They are not numbered and the order in which they are listed does not confer importance.”

Saira O’Mallie, UK director of the ONE campaign, said: “By underlining that poverty reduction must be the primary purpose of aid, the IDC have shown that the new UK aid strategy puts us in dangerous water, and risks diluting the UK’s position as a leader in international development.

“As one of the most transparent government departments, DfID should closely monitor how others spend overseas aid to ensure that every penny spent is delivering results for the poorest.”