Conclusions and recommendations
Process of the merger
1.Reorganising departments is not easy. In our view, the decision to merge the FCO and DFID into a new international department, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), is flawed on a number of grounds:
- The decision was taken whilst the Integrated Review was paused, in its early stages, and far from ready to reach any decisions about future systems and structures.
- Linked to the status of the Integrated Review, there appears to have been no structured consultation of the aid sector, either in the UK or internationally, nor other obvious stakeholders to inform the decision to merge DFID into the FCO.
- It is also perplexing that the decision to merge DFID into the FCO was taken in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision puts the international response to COVID-19 in jeopardy at a time when global cooperation is needed. It is the world’s poorest and most vulnerable who are likely to pay the greatest price.
- Little, if any, detail has been provided about the rationale for the decision or its timing, the options considered, likely costs and specific benefits, implementation plans for the reorganisation and how its success will be measured, the new department’s aims and objectives, and how it will tackle global challenges beyond aid. (Paragraph 28)
2.While merging departments may seem attractive short-term, with improved policy coherence and possible administrative savings, they can be extremely costly and disruptive and impair organisational effectiveness. In the long run, the creation of the FCDO could reduce the UK’s influence on the world stage. (Paragraph 29)
3.In the light of developments since the publication of this Committee’s interim findings on the effectiveness of UK aid, we restate the recommendation we made in that report about significant reorganisations of UK aid: that the Government should present a statement to Parliament setting out an evidence-led rationale for any change; quantifying expected costs and how intended benefits justify the costs; and showing how both will be measured and controlled. (Paragraph 30)
4.While there has been a trend in recent years for some OECD donor countries to merge their development and foreign policy administrative bodies, all the other most substantial donor countries - the United States, Germany, France and Japan - typically adopt governance models where there is a clear separation between policy and implementation. (Paragraph 39)
Maintaining the effectiveness of UK aid
5.UK aid spending amplifies the UK’s voice on the world stage, promoting our national interest by projecting our core values, and transforming the lives of people living in the very poorest countries. A potential shift of the UK’s ODA budget away from helping the very poorest people would be counterproductive - global poverty drives conflict and instability, and inaction on tackling poverty will compromise the other strands of the UK’s international policy. (Paragraph 57)
6.Poverty reduction should continue to form a central part of the Government’s international policy. Accordingly, it should commit to targeting the majority of the UK’s ODA spend towards the very poorest countries. The Government should also set out how its refreshed international policy intends to work towards attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals and ensure that no-one is left behind. (Paragraph 58)
7.The UK’s development legislation plays an intrinsic part in ensuring that aid is spent well and is focused upon poverty reduction. The very presence of this legislation demonstrates the UK’s role as a serious player in international development, and accordingly the Government should commit to maintaining the UK’s development legislation. (Paragraph 64)
8.We recommend that the Government appoints a Minister for Development with responsibility for the totality of the UK’s aid spend, and that this Minister attends Cabinet. We also recommend that this Minister attends the National Security Council. (Paragraph 69)
9.UK aid will increasingly have to balance short term diplomatic needs and initiatives with long term development objectives. Ultimately, ensuring that UK aid interventions are high quality is crucial to maintaining the UK’s reputation as a top-level development provider, and we are concerned that the FCO’s performance in ICAI reviews suggests it is not yet reaching the performance level required. The Government should set a target for all FCDO programmes to achieve a minimum ICAI grading of ‘green/amber’ within the next year. (Paragraph 76)
10.In the face of pandemic-related budget cuts, difficult decisions will need to be made as to how savings can be made whilst protecting the overall effectiveness of aid spending. Given the grave challenges faced by developing countries in tackling COVID-19, disproportionately cutting long-term and locally led development programmes would hamper both present efforts to tackle the pandemic and long-term development goals. The Government should maintain a commitment to multi-year programming and grants to locally led projects in order to safeguard hard-won development gains. In its current review of ODA spending, it should prioritise life-saving projects across the global south. (Paragraph 77)
11.To safeguard the effectiveness of UK aid interventions, the Government should set out how it intends to capture and retain DFID expertise in doing development well, and what plans are in place to rapidly train FCO staff in the skills necessary to manage effective and poverty reduction focused development programmes. (Paragraph 83)
12.Aid spending through the FCO continues to raise concerns relating to transparency and quality of programming. With the new FCDO set to become the largest implementing department of UK aid spending, this trend is very concerning. The Government should set out how it intends to ensure that ODA administered through the new FCDO meets high standards for transparency in its programming. Consequently, it should commit to all UK ODA funding meeting the transparency standard of ‘good’ within the next year. (Paragraph 86)
13.Multilateral spending forms an important part of the UK’s ODA, but we are concerned that the merger may lead to an increase in funds provided to these organisations for generalised future spending rather than targeted funds delivering immediate benefits. As part of the Integrated Review, the Government should set out its strategy for development spending through multilateral institutions over the next five years, including the proportions of UK ODA to be spent through bilateral and multilateral channels, whether it intends to honour existing agreements and how it will it will seek to influence these organisations to ensure that UK aid is spent in the best possible way. (Paragraph 91)
Scrutiny arrangements
14.In 2019, the UK aid budget totalled £15.2 billion. Given the size and complexity of this budget, thorough parliamentary scrutiny of UK aid spending is essential. This is best performed by a dedicated select committee which is able to take a holistic overview of UK ODA, ensuring that aid is spent in a strategic and transparent manner on high-quality interventions. Therefore, we recommend the creation of a House of Commons Select Committee on Official Development Assistance (ODA), with a remit for scrutiny of the totality of the UK’s ODA spending. (Paragraph 102)
15.Through its close work with us, and our sub-committee, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) is a crucial part of the robust scrutiny architecture which ensures the aid budget is well spent. ICAI’s expert reviews identify areas of good practice as well as areas for improvement, helping the UK to maintain its reputation as an international development superpower. It also satisfies the statutory requirement set out in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 for independent scrutiny of UK aid spending. There is simply no reason to change these arrangements. We recommend that the Government retains ICAI in its current form in order to provide thorough and independent scrutiny of the UK’s aid budget. (Paragraph 103)
16.Drawing upon the highly effective model of cooperation between the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee, the new ODA Committee should have responsibility for receiving and considering ICAI’s reviews. It should also have responsibility for the other aspects of cooperation and coordination with ICAI in which we currently participate, including recruitment of the Chief Commissioner and other commissioners; agreement of the forward work programme and commissioning work. (Paragraph 104)
Published: 16 July 2020