International Development - Helping the World's Poorest

I recently joined Conservative Friends of International Development having spent considerable time on the Department for International Development (DFID) website finding out exactly where, and how, our aid is being spent.

Notwithstanding the difficult economic situation in Britain, throughout the EU and beyond, David Cameron was absolutely right to say, at the G8 Summit in May 2011, that Britain will not balance the books on the backs of the world’s poorest.

The fact is that British aid is saving and transforming the lives of millions of people, many of whom live on less than £1 a day. The Coalition has committed to enshrining in law a commitment that 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) will be spent on international aid from 2013. The UK Government was the first G20 country to do this.

It is right, too, that the Government is seeking to achieve the maximum value for money it can with its aid budget. No one wants our money sent abroad to be spent unwisely by dictators or inefficient international organisations.

Since 2010, Andrew Mitchell, the International Development Secretary, has conducted an extremely thorough review of the Government’s aid programme. These have been evidenced-based and scrutinised by independent development experts and it has helped to transform the way aid is given.

In its defence, the previous Labour Government had pledged to commit 0.7% of GNI to international aid from 2013 as well and should be commended for doing so. Both Gordon Brown and Tony Blair continue to take a keen interest in international development since leaving office.

As a result of the reviews into the aid programme, by 2016 the DFID will have closed bilateral programmes in no fewer than 16 countries. Yet the UK will continue to meet its existing commitments and will exit in a responsible way. Some of the countries where our aid will cease include China, Russia, Iraq, Serbia, Lesotho, Niger, Cambodia and Burundi. This will support efforts to ensure the UK’s aid is focused where it is most needed and where it is best spent, including Afghanistan, Burma, the DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, India, Liberia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Zambia and Zimbabwe amongst others.

One country that stands out in those where support will continue is India. The UK has already announced that aid to Russia and China will end, so why is India continuing to receive UK aid? India, the DFID argues, is different. The development programme there is in transition and now is not the time to leave. In my view, the DFID is right again. Until 2015, support will focus on the poorest states in India. Let’s not forget, there are more poor people in these areas of India than there are in the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa. The UK is enjoying a revitalised relationship with India and development is a key part of that for the time being.

In India and elsewhere, the DFID has shifted the focus of aid: health, education, wealth creation and conflict will be the four main areas for assistance. In 2011, the Government released its ‘operational plans’ which set out the results UK aid will achieve over the next few years – in each of the countries DFID works in.

The set of plans show exactly how Britain's aid programmes will deliver results and measure progress up to 2015 in each of the countries, including:

• In Bangladesh, lifting 5 million people out of extreme poverty
• In Ethiopia, providing basic healthcare for 7.5 million people
• In Pakistan, getting more than 4 million more children into school
• In Democratic Republic of Congo, protecting 15 million people from malaria
• In Uganda, getting access to contraception for 1.35 million more women
• In Zambia, supporting more than 3 million people to vote in the next elections
• In Sierra Leone, ensuring 1 million people get access to drinking water

One outcome of the multilateral aid review, which examined value for money issues in 43 countries the UK sends money to, is that aid funding to four poor performing international organisations which are not delivering sufficient value for money will end. This money will be reinvested in top performing agencies. Another outcome is that four international agencies have been placed in DFID ‘special measures’, working closely with them to secure reforms and improvements in performance. Money will also be channelled through agencies with a proven track record of delivering cost-effective results on the ground, such as through UNICEF and the GAVI – Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation. Funding to UNICEF will double to £40m a year until 2013.

The Government has outlined some of what the international aid budget will do to help some of the world’s poorest people:

• Secure schooling for 11 million children – more than we educate in the UK but at only 2.5% of the cost
• Vaccinate more children against preventable diseases than there are people in England
• Provide access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation to more people than there are in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
• Save the lives of 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth
• Prevent 250,000 newborn babies dying needlessly
• Support 13 countries to hold freer and fairer elections
• Help 10 million women get access to modern family planning

In the present economic climate, it is entirely reasonable for people to be sceptical and to ask why the UK is increasing international aid at a time when public finances are so tight at home. Not only does the Government consider it to be morally right, it reflects our values as a country: generosity, compassion and humanity. It can also be argued that aid is in our national interest – helping to create a safer, more stable and prosperous world will help keep the UK, and our allies, safe from infectious disease, organised crime, and political instability.

Perhaps most important, UK aid is focused on countries that account for three quarters of global maternal mortality, nearly three quarters of global malaria deaths and almost two thirds of the population of children out of school. Almost a quarter of the world’s poor live in fragile states and not one of these countries has yet achieved a single Millennium Development Goal, although progress towards them was being made. The UK should not make any apology for increasing aid to conflict-ridden countries – as long as the money continues to be spent wisely and by the top performing agencies.

Andrew Mitchell was right when he said “Aid can perform miracles but it must be well spent and properly targeted. The UK’s development programme has now been reshaped and refocused so that it can meet that challenge.”

I am proud to support our international development objectives and we should not be afraid to tell people exactly what our aid is achieving in some of the world’s poorest countries.