Committee publication · Report · 28 April 2026 · HC 1835
Large Print - 11th Report - UK Aid and Development Assistance in a Fracturing World: Strengthening Resilience and Cooperation
Summary
The International Development Committee's 11th report scrutinises the UK Government's revised approach to Official Development Assistance (ODA) as aid is cut to 0.3% of GNI. The committee supports the government's strategic ambition but finds critical gaps: insufficient evidence for the 'four essential shifts' (donor-to-investor, service-delivery-to-systems, grants-to-expertise, international-intervention-to-local-leadership); unclear how poverty alleviation will be prioritised; and inadequate detail on implementing these shifts coherently. The report proposes a working policy paper and demands greater transparency on evidence bases, multilateral engagement, risk assessments, and civil society coordination.
Key findings
- Government has outlined four essential shifts in development partnership but provided no clearly articulated theory of change, limited coherence across strategy, and no detail on how poverty alleviation will be prioritised across ODA programming.
- Lack of evidence that partner countries genuinely want shift from ODA support to financial investment; £880m ODA allocated to British International Investment (BII) in 2024/25 lacks transparency on tangible benefit to marginalised groups.
- Growth and Investment Partnerships launched in South Africa, Indonesia, Tanzania, and Uganda include G20 countries which Foreign Secretary stated would not receive ODA—rationale unexplained.
- Technical assistance approach risks promoting paternalistic image of UK; lacks evidence on effectiveness and ignores opportunities for two-way expertise flows and South-South skills sharing.
- Multilateral funding choices made through non-public 'partial review'; greater transparency needed on impact of UK contributions and reform expectations, especially given higher operating costs of multilaterals versus INGOs.
- Limited attention to role of INGOs and private contractors despite implications for value for money and rebuilding public case for international aid; Centrally Managed Programmes to be cut by approximately 42%.
Recommendations
- Government must outline evidence base for 'four essential shifts' with clear qualitative and quantitative success metrics and timeframe, including model for development partnerships with defined roles for FCDO missions, external stakeholders, and departmental support.
- Provide evidence-based description of multilateral engagement strategy with rationale for choice of organisations and mechanisms, prioritising proven track record of delivery, accompanied by measurable time-bound reform plan.
- Set out risk and impact assessments beyond Equalities Risk Assessment covering: discussions with other ODA-delivering countries, communication with bilateral development partners, and intentional efforts to ensure multilateral contributions fill gaps left by bilateral ODA reprioritising.
- Present clear strategy for government engagement with UK civil society on development challenges, including how diaspora groups and UK-based NGOs will complement ODA spending priorities.
- Adopt fifth essential shift 'From unfamiliarity to understanding' to improve communication around breadth of UK aid activities, focusing on mutual benefits and preventative role of ODA.
- Propose Global Education Programme to help new generation understand importance of overseas assistance and mutual benefits of progress toward Sustainable Development Goals.
- De-classify costs of supporting in-country refugees as ODA and put safeguards in place to prevent recurrence.
- Ensure FCDO missions have structures, autonomy, and expertise to approve and assess impact of both centrally-managed programmes and Communities of Expertise programmes based on locally-identified strategic priorities.
- Continue sustained scrutiny of multilateral spending; reform multilateral bodies to centre voices of UK's developing country partners in decision-making.
- Government considers Appendix 1 working policy document as framework for aid and development approach.
Tone
CriticalTopics
Key actors
Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), Baroness Chapman (Minister of State, International Development and Africa), Sarah Champion (Committee Chair, Labour MP Rotherham), David Lammy (Foreign Secretary), British International Investment (BII), Independent Commission on Aid Impact (ICAI), Yvette Cooper, International NGOs and civil society sector
Notable line
“… there is no clearly articulated theory of change; limited coherence across the strategy; and, crucially …”
Key Quotes
“"alleviating poverty" remains the main purpose of ODA spending.”
“The limited information shared with us on this approach contains the components for a transformative and empowering approach to many of the challenges faced by the UK's partners. However, the level of detail on how various priorities and approaches will work together for a coherent policy, and the evidence base for the decisions that have been made, is woefully inadequate.”
“This approach is not new, and it is unclear why it should be privileged. Indeed, large scale technical assistance has been highlighted as one of the worst practices in foreign aid”
“A narrow focus on simply exporting UK expertise is likely to promote a paternalistic image of the UK and achieve little lasting change.”
“The money the Government allocates to ODA should be used to provide assistance overseas.”
“In a fracturing global order, ODA spending can demonstrate to the UK's partners that it is committed to their development goals, and to mutually beneficial objectives.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗