5 Impact assessment
38. The impact assessment included with the draft
Bill does not contain any monetised costs or benefits for the
main affected groups.[63]
For example there is no quantification of the cost of reaching
the 0.7% target in 2013 and no assessment of the likely impact
of the Bill on developing countries from the UK meeting the target.
The impact assessment simply notes that the non-monetised benefits
of the legislation would be the enshrining in law of the commitment
to meet the 0.7% target, greater predictability of aid flows to
recipient countries and a galvanising effect on other donors.
39. There are many pressures to reduce international
aid volumes.[64] We discussed
the impact of the Bill in terms of its potential to divert attention
from the debate on the quality of aid. Witnesses commented that
DFID was very concerned about aid effectiveness and that the Bill
itself should not detract from that.[65]
Professor Haddad believed it was more important that, as aid levels
increased to meet the 0.7% target in 2013, proper measures were
in place to ensure aid quality did not suffer.[66]
He further stressed the need for DFID to strengthen its communications
with the British people about the benefits of aid.[67]
Simon Maxwell assured us that the need for aid was more than sufficient
to justify increased levels of aid.[68]
40. We asked the Minister what he thought the
impact of the Bill would be and why this was not included in the
impact assessment. He said that if the target was met in 2013
there would be an additional £3 billion, above the 2010 ODA
allocation, available for development assistance and that:
That could potentially buy an extra 400,000 classrooms
in developing countries. It could potentially train an extra three
million teachers or buy an extra two billion textbooks. That is
just to use education as one particular example. On health, it
is potentially an extra 600 million bed nets, immunisation of
another 250 million children or another 500,000 lives saved by
strengthening health systems. It is not a perfect science about
the potential impact but I think it does give a flavour of the
huge potential difference that achieving 0.7% could make in developing
countries.[69]
41. The sparse nature of the
impact assessment included with the draft Bill impedes effective
scrutiny of it. Moreover, the inclusion of an assessment, however
imperfect, of the benefits to developing countries would help
gain public support for the Bill. This is especially important
in a period when there is scepticism about the impact of development
assistance more generally. DFID needs to improve the way it communicates
the achievements of development expenditure to taxpayers. A detailed
impact assessment of the draft Bill would have contributed to
the public debate. We strongly recommend that the Government include
a more comprehensive impact assessment of the Bill if it is brought
forward after the General Election.
63 DFID, Impact Assessment of the Draft International
Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, 6 January
2010 Back
64
See Fourth Report of Session 2008-09, Aid Under Pressure: Support
for Development Assistance in a Global Economic Downturn, HC
179 Back
65
Q 5 [Alison Evans] Back
66
Q 5 [Professor Haddad] Back
67
Q 24 Back
68
Q 5 [Simon Maxwell], Qs 6-7 Back
69
Q 130 Back
| 
