Watchdog warns UK aid risks ‘strategic drift’ away from the neediest

The United Kingdom’s aid watchdog has warned that Britain’s development program is in danger of “strategic drift” away from its core mission of poverty reduction, as members of Parliament questioned its independence and the government’s management of a shrinking aid budget. At a hearing of the International Development Committee Tuesday, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, or ICAI, faced detailed questioning about its capacity to hold ministers to account, its future mandate, and whether U.K. aid is still reaching “the world’s poorest.” ICAI Chief Commissioner Jillian Popkins told members of Parliament that successive budget cuts and policy shifts since 2019 have left the nation’s development strategy increasingly fragmented. “We found a move away from reaching the very poorest,” she said. “We must ensure those lessons are not repeated.” Popkins said changes, including the 2020 merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and a greater emphasis on private investment, risked diverting scarce grant finance toward middle-income markets rather than fragile and conflict-affected states. “There’s room to make sure there’s greater coherence,” she added, urging ministers to clarify Britain’s strategic objectives under the reduced 0.3% aid budget. Popkins also acknowledged that maintaining ICAI’s independence from government has become harder under tighter fiscal rules. The watchdog, which reports to parliament, employs just 10 civil servants in its secretariat and depends on FCDO systems for HR and finance. “Maintaining our independence through this process continues to be a challenge,” she said. While describing her relationship with ministers and officials as “constructive,” Popkins said reliance on departmental systems limited ICAI’s flexibility and risked blurring lines between oversight and administration. MPs were broadly supportive, calling ICAI “a vital and precious resource” that ensures external scrutiny of British aid. Sarah Champion, chair of the IDC and a Labour MP, noted that independent analysis is key to maintaining public confidence “in times of ever-increasing aid cuts.” The session also examined the proposed expansion of ICAI’s remit, which was outlined in a letter from development minister Jenny Chapman to the commission at the end of the summer recess. The letter, copied to MPs, clarified that ICAI would in future assess not only aid spending but all “levers for development impact” at the government’s disposal — including diplomacy, partnerships, and policy influence. Popkins welcomed the shift, saying it would allow ICAI to take “a more holistic view” of how U.K. development policy achieves results. However, committee members expressed frustration that the formal ministerial statement confirming the change — which they had been told to expect the day before the hearing — had not yet appeared. The proposed expansion stems from the 2024 review of U.K. aid delivery led by Minouche Shafik, which recommended giving ICAI a broader mandate to assess the full spectrum of government development tools. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office has strongly resisted requests — from the IDC and Devex, among others — to share the review. Tuesday’s hearing followed an IDC report published on Oct. 29 raising similar concerns about FCDO’s approach to value for money in official development assistance. The cross-party committee found that while the former DFID had been a “global leader” on value for money, the merged FCDO lacks transparency and has yet to publish a clear definition or framework. MPs said they were “disappointed” that the department currently defines value mainly in terms of “value to the taxpayer,” rather than improving the lives of people in poverty. The report also warned that heavy reliance on private contractors combined with poor data disclosure “exposes aid spending to a higher risk of under-delivering impact.” Champion said in a statement accompanying the report’s release that the findings showed the need to re-center poverty reduction as the guiding principle of U.K. aid policy. “Reducing poverty must be the central aim of the development budget,” she said. “While accountability to the taxpayer is important, the FCDO’s current definition of value for money risks diverting focus away from improving the lives of the most vulnerable — the very reason the aid budget exists at all.” The report urged the government to publish a new strategy on value for money, require contractors to meet international transparency standards, and set a timetable for restoring the aid budget from 0.3% to 0.5% of gross national income. Civil society organizations echoed the committee’s concerns. Gideon Rabinowitz, policy and advocacy director at Bond, the U.K. network for organizations working in international development, said in a statement that the IDC’s findings “highlight that these devastating cuts — and an apparent lack of clear strategy within the FCDO around ‘value for money’ — risk undermining the impact of UK aid on the lives of those it is meant to support.” Gary Foster, CEO of Publish What You Fund, the global campaign for aid and development transparency, described the report on LinkedIn as “a call to arms” for stronger transparency in how aid is delivered. He wrote that to judge real value for money, data must be open “all the way down the delivery chain,” including private contractors and cofinancing philanthropies — not just within government. Popkins said ICAI’s next reviews will focus on climate finance, humanitarian response, and violence against women and girls — areas she described as crucial tests of whether U.K. aid spending still delivers measurable impact.