Britain 'should cut aid to Pakistan'

By Steven Swinford,

Pakistan is a middle income country, does not do enough to help its own poor and should receive less aid from Britain, MPs suggest

Britain should consider cutting aid to Pakistan because its own leaders do not pay their taxes and other countries are more in need. The International Development select committee Pakistan is now classed as a middle-income country and is not doing enough to help its own poor. The committee also questioned aid spending in Nigeria, which is benefiting significantly from British taxpayers despite a booming energy industry and rapidly growing economy. In 2014/15, Britain is set to give £446 million of assistance to Pakistan, making it the largest recipient of UK bilateral aid in the world. "It is unlikely that expenditure would be so high if the country were not having to confront Islamic extremism," the committee concluded.

"If this is the case, the budget can only be justified if there is clear evidence that DfID (Department for International Development) support is effective in reducing the extremist threat. "If not, we recommend that DfID consider reducing spending in Pakistan and increasing it in low income countries." The committee previously said aid increases should be held back unless Pakistan's leaders improved tax collection and paid their "fair and proportionate" share.

In their report, the MPs welcomed the UK becoming the first to meet the UN target but said spending the money effectively at a time of reductions in operating costs was a "major challenge". Keeping costs much lower than comparable donor countries was "not in itself a virtue" if it meant staff that should be deployed in the field were stuck behind desks, it suggested.

A review of all £5 million-plus projects ordered by International Development Secretary Justine Greening might also have backfired by encouraging staff to "gold plate" them.

They should "spend less time writing the perfect business case and more in thoroughly assessing which areas to allocate funds to and in monitoring the implementation of programmes, including by spending more time in the field", the MPs said. There was also criticism of the share of funding devoted to reacting to humanitarian disasters in relatively wealthy countries. Britain could not afford to continue leading the world in dealing with situations such as the Syria crisis and needed to do more to persuade other high-income nations -such as France – to contribute more, committee chair, Liberal Democrat Sir Malcolm Bruce, said.

"The UK has met the target of spending 0.7% of national income on aid; others should do the same.

"UK spending on humanitarian assistance has risen substantially due partly to a very large increase in the aid budget for 2012-13. This will not, however, be repeated in future years as DfID's budget will be linked to GDP. "It will simply not be possible for DfID to continue taking the lead in future; other countries must do more. "DfID must not provide funds to support disasters in middle-income countries by raiding bilateral development programmes in low income countries. Rather, we argue for the percentage of income spent in low income countries to rise over time provided they are capable of absorbing it and of using aid effectively."

Staff should "spend less time in their offices and more time out in the field building local knowledge and monitoring whether UK aid money is being used effectively", he said. A Dfid spokesman said: "Our investment in overseas development, including in Pakistan, creates a safer and more prosperous world for the UK.

"Tackling poverty in the world's poorest places can mean tackling the root causes of global problems such as terrorism, which matter to us here in Britain. Education is vital to transforming Pakistan’s future and is where a significant proportion of our funds are directed. This is firmly in the UK’s own national interest.”