Some of Britain’s biggest charities are calling on MPs to stick with the country’s commitment to overseas aid, with a major debate on the subject taking place in Westminster on Monday.
Critics say the UK’s aid budget – 0.7% of national income – is too high. But in a letter signed by, among others, the chief executives of Oxfam, the anti-poverty ONE campaign, Marie Stopes International, Unicef UK and Christian Aid, parliamentarians are told Britain should be proud of the impact it has on millions of lives.
Welcoming a debate, the signatories say: “The public can be proud of the influence Great Britain has on the world stage. We think big, and inspire others to do likewise. Nowhere is this more evident than in our proven record on international development and aid, which saves and improves millions of lives every day. Our recent surveys show most British people believe in aid. Their support is justified. UK aid makes our planet a safer, fairer, more prosperous place. The UK’s commitment to 0.7% of the country’s income being spent on helping others has inspired other governments to donate more from their national budgets. Many of the recent attacks on aid have, however, wilfully ignored the evidence of the enormous benefits UK aid delivers.”
The letter claims that over the past five years UK aid has helped more than 13 million people with emergency food aid, and given nearly 63 million access to water and sanitation. UK investment in immunisation and education saves lives and ensures 11 million children go to school. The UK became the first G7 country to meet the United Nation’s aid target of 0.7 of gross national income in 2014 and enshrined the target in law last year. It still spends less than five other countries – Sweden’s figure is 1.3% of national income.
Britain’s commitment, although backed by David Cameron, has many critics within the Conservative party who believe the money would be better spent on projects to help British citizens. There are many experts, too, who believe that overseas aid is not managed to create the best possible outcomes, with questions over how much of it disappears into administration costs or projects that hinder rather than help communities in need in the long term. Accountability and value for money have long been areas of sceptics’ concern, but NGOs argue that while these are fundamental issues which have to be looked at, cutting spending is not the best first step.
The letter states that ending the 0.7% commitment “sends all the wrong signals – not just to the other richer nations of the world who we are encouraging to step up to this mark, but also to hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest who we are supporting to lift out of poverty once and for all.”
