UK aid: Labour warned its plans 'won't work’ without more money

It is six months since the Labour Party won the United Kingdom’s general election — a perfect opportunity to assess whether it is meeting its bold promise to “turn the page” on what it condemned as a “degraded” international development program after 14 years of Conservative rule. How much has changed since Keir Starmer entered Downing Street last July? Is it possible to detect a different approach, or has that manifesto pledge crashed into the harsh reality of a government with other priorities, and with little money to spare? And what is the impact of U.S. President Donald Trump’s thunderbolts fired at foreign aid and climate action? Devex brought together three experts — Tamsyn Barton, the former head of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the U.K. aid watchdog; Romilly Greenhill, the chief executive of the Bond network for U.K. aid organizations; and Myles Wickstead, an associate program director at the foreign policy agency Wilton Park — to review Labour’s record so far. Reasons to be cheerful Our panelists were keen to accentuate the positive when they could, notably Greenhill who praised “an important shift” in the way ministers talk about development, saying: “We've heard a lot about new partnerships, respect and partnerships. I think there's a real interest in trying to rethink the U.K.'s relationship with other countries, particularly with low- and middle-income countries.” Barton highlighted the U.K.’s £1.98 billion ($2.47 billion) contribution to the International Development Association’s replenishment — “40% up after going down 55% under [former Prime Minister] Liz Truss” — and 200 development experts the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, or FCDO, is seeking to recruit. “Up to now, they've only been filling those posts with people who are broadly generalists. So that's quite striking,” Barton said. Doing the Conservatives’ work? The outgoing government left behind a blueprint putting the City of London’s muscle and money at the heart of development, with a beefed-up role for British International Investment, the U.K.’s well-funded arms-length development finance institution. Barton said it is “clear” that Labour has pinched this policy, pointing to Starmer’s announcement, at the United Nations in September, that BII will “mobilise billions in pension and insurance funds”. She said: “It's really happening, and I imagine that the rest of the initiatives that were already incubated in the department to crowd in private sector funds are continuing.” Greenhill agreed there is that “continuity of policy”, but argued the City of London should also be given a “do no harm” instruction — a requirement to use its powerful position to help countries in debt distress and to stamp down on “illicit finance.” Who’s in charge of development? Anneliese Dodds is the development minister, but she also holds the equalities brief — because of Labour’s decision not to restore a separate aid department — and answers to Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who has firm views about the “D” in FCDO. Wickstead drew a contrast with her Conservative predecessor, saying: “I don't think she has as much influence as Andrew Mitchell, because Andrew had a decade and a half of experience behind him [including] as a secretary of state for international development. She doesn't have that same sort of status.” Barton agreed, pointing to the fact that — while Mitchell had commissioned his own white paper — three as-yet-unreleased FCDO reviews were launched by Lammy, saying: “Anneliese Dodds is a kind of secondary audience for these reviews.” Is localization alive? Both Greenhill and Barton are disappointed that, despite Lammy advocating the devolution of aid funding and responsibility to local partners in opposition, localization is the dog that hasn’t barked since last July. “This was an obvious area for them to major on,” Barton said, before adding: “I've not really seen anything to indicate moves in that direction.” Greenhill said Labour must go further than seeking partnership with other governments, to embrace joint working with “civil society, local actors, trade unions, women's movements,” saying: “That's something we're not hearing quite enough of at the moment.” Can the UK mount a response to Trump? Wickstead conceded it would be “very hard,” but argued Labour has a responsibility to “demonstrate to the world that we care about poor people in poor countries,” adding: “We can show leadership and say we are not going to go down that route.” Greenhill pointed out that the U.K. will, before the next election, lead both the Group of Seven and the Group of 20 major economies, arguing this offered an “important opportunity to position itself as being on the side of multilateralism.” Barton said falling aid budgets across Europe meant “it's going to be really tough” to mitigate the damage from Trump’s approach — suggesting that a China increasingly multilateral in its approach could “fill the space in terms of the leadership opportunity.” What’s missing? In a word: money. Barton said the single, most straightforward change Labour could make to demonstrate it really intends to “turn the page” is to no longer raid the aid budget to meet the housing and subsistence costs of asylum seekers in this country, while acknowledging that “isn't a realistic expectation.” Greenhill pointed to the need for wider action to transform the financing landscape, by targeting private creditors blocking debt relief and by energizing the United Nations tax convention. As Wickstead put it: “There's a lot of thinking going on but, at the end of the day, unless the resources are available, it's not going to work.”