Labour condemns the Government for sneaking out aid cuts

Labour’s Shadow International Development, Preet Kaur Gill MP, has today written to the Foreign and Development Secretary Dominic Raab MP raising a series of concerns about the way the Government has been consistently trying to hide cuts to the aid budget which is designed to help some of the world's poorest.

So far, there has not been a single announcement from the Government that clearly shows a comprehensive list of the countries or projects which face these devastating cuts. Ahead of today’s debate on the aid budget in the House of Commons, Labour is pressing the Government to stop sneaking out announcements of cuts and come clean on how much aid it is spending.

The Shadow Development Secretary has raised concerns that by hiding key information, it has “hampered the ability of Parliament to actively scrutinise decision-making on development issues” which has ultimately “resulted in the loss of life”.

She went on to ask a series of questions to address the “litany of failures” under this Foreign and Development Secretary. One question included asking why in November 2020, the Government said they needed to bring forward legislation to make changes to the aid budget, yet, they have since refused to bring forward this legislation or give Parliament an opportunity to have a meaningful vote.

Ends

Notes to Editors

ICAI, a public body that monitors aid spending have raised a number of issues over the last year:

· They were “unable to find out through the usual systems about the continuation of key programmes, and to access documentary evidence in many cases.”https://icai.independent.gov.uk/html-version/icai-follow-up-review-of-2019-20-reports/

· During the cutting of the aid budget in 2020, they found that there were “decisions taken which served to increase value for money risk” https://icai.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/ICAI-spending-targets-2020-rapid-review.pdf

· They highlighted that “government officials were instructed not to provide any information to suppliers, either about the prioritisation process or the implications for individual programmes” and that this lakck of communication contradicted “government’s Procurement Policy Note 04/20, issued in June, which stated that departments should “work in partnership with their suppliers, openly and pragmatically, during this transition” https://icai.independent.gov.uk/html-version/uk-aid-spending-during-covid-19-management-of-procurement-through-suppliers/

· Main Supply Estimates 2021 to 22:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/986125/CCS001_CCS0321282944-001_HMT_Main_Estimates_2021-22_Bookmarked.pdf

Full Text of Letter

Dear Dominic,

I am writing to express my concern about the lack of transparency and accountability within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The new department has failed to live up to the standards set by the Department for International Development (DfID) which has hampered the ability of Parliament to actively scrutinise decision-making on development issues. I am extremely concerned about some very real value for money implications with regard to the aid budget.

When the DfID-FCO merger was announced in June 2020, I raised concerns about the potential loss of transparency. DfID was one of the best performing bilateral donors on aid transparency in the world. The FCO was one of the worst. now, under your leadership there has been a litany of failures.

You promised you would strengthen transparency and accountability but under your leadership you have failed to provide value for taxpayers money, cost thousands of lives and decimated the reputation of a world leading department.

Please find my specific concerns regarding the conduct of your department over the past year.

Parliamentary Scrutiny

Throughout the past year you have sneaked out callous cuts which have resulted in the loss of life and signalled a continuation of your perennial retreat from the world stage. You announced the £2.9 billion cut in July last year the day before recess. There is a pattern as you again chose to make a written statement on the aid budget for 2021-222 not allowing for an urgent question or scrutiny.

Many of your statements have been structured in such a way as to frustrate attempts to make comparisons with previous years. The failure to include the aid spend of other departments serves to hinder Parliament’s role in understanding the proposed direction of this Government.

Furthermore, I tabled PQ’s to ascertain further information however myself and colleagues have received extremely unsatisfactory responses including many which are clear and brazen attempts to simply ignore the question. I would appreciate it if you could remind all those within the FCDO that PQs are an important way for parliamentarians to gain a greater understanding of the policies, priorities and activities of government departments to ensure Parliament can fulfil its function as a scrutiny body.

Refusal to put the aid budget to a vote

On the 26^th November 2020 you stood in front of Parliament and said that this Government were “in the position of not being able to rely just on the limited derogation written into the legislation which allows an ex post facto, if you like, derogation, having inadvertently missed the target” and therefore you would need to bring forward legislation.

Can you tell me when you changed your mind to bring forward legislation and give Parliament an opportunity to have a meaningful vote?

With a strong commitment to return to the 0.7% will you set out the criteria for what that situation would be? Will you also provide a schedule for how the government will return to spending 0.7% to allow for planning to take place now.

Main Supply Estimates 2021 to 22

The Main Supply Estimates published this year groups much of the funding within a spending pot named “Strategic priorities and other programme spending”. The FCDO Permanent Secretary has refused to provide a breakdown of this spending to the Chair of the International Development Select Committee despite this practice being commonplace in recent years.

It is fundamental we are able to compare between previous years is important for the continued scrutiny necessary to ensure the Government is delivering value for money for the British people.

Could you explain why the Government insists on trying to avoid scrutiny of where that funding is going, including how much is budgeted for ‘Regional Programmes’, ‘Other Central Programmes’ and ‘Policy Priorities and International Organisations’ and Humanitarian’.

Many regard this as a deliberate attempt to govern in secrecy.

Devtracker and IATI

In May you said that “Information on all HMG ODA spend, and results will appear on Devtracker”. This would be a welcome resource for understanding the impact the cuts are having. Yet on the Devtracker website it clearly states, “the information on this website may not reflect the latest allocated budgets for this year.”

Meanwhile, in your letter to the Chair of the International Development Select Committee in May you wrote that the FCDO updates International Aid Transparency Initiative data monthly. Yet, earlier this week Development Initiatives have written about the unpredictability of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office commitment data risking misleading conclusions.

Will you outline when this will be up to date and provide a list of all programmes that have been cut?

ICAI follow-up review of 2019-20 reports

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the body responsible to improve the quality of UK development assistance has recently raised serious concerns that there has been a reduction in engagement in the follow-up process. They found they were “unable to find out through the usual systems about the continuation of key programmes, and to access documentary evidence in many cases.”

Specifically, on the Newton Fund it became clear that the FCDO made decisions on ODA funding cuts “without consultation with stakeholders in the research community, and with little openness on how decisions were reached.” Can you tell me who gave the instruction not to engage with stakeholders? And do you think the unwillingness to consult made for better or worse decisions by your department?

Recently, three reviews were undertaken How UK aid learns, the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and The changing nature of UK aid in Ghana. All received inadequate scores. Can you immediately confirm that ICAI will have all necessary access to undertake their work?

Can you confirm if this was the case and outline why you think taking this course of action was appropriate?

Do you think suppliers could have alerted your officials and Ministers of the impact of cuts and dangers of governing in secrecy?

Could you also confirm what you have done since then to discuss the aid cuts you are making this year with suppliers so they can plan both for this year and for future years?

Last year, as a result of the forecast for the economy showing a fall in GNI, decisions were made which served to increase value for money risk according to ICAI, including giving departments five to seven working days to formulate and present proposals for budget cuts of up to 30% which were then reviewed, revised and approved by Ministers over only four meetings.

Were you responsible for leading this process and if not who was?

Despite repeated requests for a list of the ministerial attendees at those four meetings, which your Ministers have refused to provide. Will you now do so?

Will you also set out whether it was the FCDO or the Treasury who made the decision to continue to use the OBR forecast of the economy from March 2020 rather than the more positive outlook from July 2020?

Impact Assessments for aid cuts in 2020-21 and 2021-22

The British people want to ensure that the money they are spending is going to supporting the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, has value for money and is changing lives. However your admission that you have not caried out impact assessments means it was impossible for Ministers to make informed decisions about the impact of the cuts they were signing off. These cuts have cost lives and disproportionately affected women and girls.

Can you confirm who made the decision to follow through with a series of decisions without any knowledge or understanding of the implications of those decisions?

Will you now look to undertake impact assessments to better understand the Government’s actions will have for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable?

Consulting with stakeholders

Earlier this year one of your Ministers made clear that, he would not engage with the aid or development community about proposals or plans until decisions on the aid budget were completed.

This came on the back of what the Prime Minister referred to as a “massive consultation over a long period of time” ahead of the axing of DfID, which was revealed to include only 24 organisations, many of whom have refuted the idea that they were ever consulted over the takeover.

This continued and repetitive failure for the government’s actions to match rhetoric is a disaster for a government trying to be taken seriously. Will you end this hypocrisy?

The UK has consistently been a global leader in aid transparency but that reputation has been decimated over the past 12 months. I am sure that you are keen to rectify and reverse this trend and ensure that transparency and accountability are put back at the centre of the work of your department especially in a year that tests the UKs leadership internationally.

Yours

Preet Kaur Gill MP

Shadow Secretary of State for International Development