MPs have criticised the Department for International Development (DfID) for closing aid programmes based on negative media coverage and expressed concern over its handling of reputational risk.

Aid spending is coming under intense scrutiny and has been much criticised in the media. But much of the coverage was misleading, according to a report published by the House of Commons international development committee.

In January, the government axed plans to give £5.2m to Girl Effect, an organisation campaigning for girls’ rights in Ethiopia, after negative reports in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph. It had been criticised in the past by the independent aid watchdog. Both newspapers said that millions of taxpayers’ cash had gone via Girl Effect to Yegna, an Ethiopian radio drama and talkshow project that was mistakenly described as a girl band, and dubbed the “Ethiopian Spice Girls”.

DfID has denied that the newspapers had any influence over its decision to cut the funding.

Citing cuts to the Yegna project, as well as to a programme supporting the Congolese police after abuse allegations, the report said: “We note that programmes occasionally appear to be closed down based on negative media headlines, despite performing well in DfID’s own assessments, and without a proper review of the programme being undertaken.”

It added: “We are concerned with DfID’s management of its reputational risk.”

The report was also “increasingly concerned” about a lack of emphasis on strategy, a concern that MPs said was amplified as the allocation of aid to other government departments.



It noted that under Priti Patel as secretary of state for international development, the department had a greater focus on “wasteful spending”. However, it said the level of such spending in the department is “minimal” and urged Patel to lead proactively “in publicising when it is doing good work and achieving life-changing impact around the world”.

Stephen Twigg, the chairman of the committee, said: “The 2015 UK aid strategy sought to demonstrate how overseas development assistance is in the UK’s national interest. Through our inquiries in this parliament, the committee has seen first-hand that this is true. UK aid spending has allowed refugees fleeing the war in Syria to settle closer to home, and has provided support to help create jobs and livelihoods for those refugees, so that they did not have to make dangerous journeys across Europe.

“However, the department needs to publicise its good work to a wider audience. DfID decisions on the allocation of resources should be based on evidence.

“We are particularly concerned that a lack of strategic direction is holding UK aid back. This is more important than ever, with increasing amounts of aid being spent by government departments other than DfID. The basis on which aid spending decisions across the government are made needs to be clear.”

The committee said it strongly believed DfID should remain a standalone department, responsible for oversight and coordination of UK aid.

The MPs “strongly welcomed” Patel’s commitment to maintaining DfID and the 0.7% of gross national income as aid.

The report said DfID’s delays in publishing spending reviews – which came out a year late – had a “grave effect” on a number of organisations as well as “the quality of some programming”.

A series of recommendations included the direction that DfID’s decisions over the allocation of resources should be based on evidence rather than media coverage; that UK aid should remain untied; that it should provide clear guidance on management of reputational risk; and that the department should spend more of its budget on its own administration.

A government source said: “I’m disappointed that some Labour members, not for the first time, have sought to politicise the report based on assertions not evidence.”



Responding to the report for DfID, a spokesperson said: “At a time when the world is facing numerous unprecedented humanitarian crises, saving lives depends on using UK aid in the most effective and accountable way possible … Britain’s place in the world is enhanced by our commitment to UK aid but we should never shy away from delivering the tough messages of reform that will make a real difference on the ground.”