Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 12
12
Rejected
High in-country refugee costs are disproportionately classified as ODA, diverting funds from global poor.
Conclusion
The Committee notes the continuing badging of high levels of Government spending on refugee costs within the UK as ODA with dismay. Whilst the Spending Review commits to ending the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament, the level of the UK’s in-country support for the poorest people in the world should not be dependent on the success of domestic immigration policy. (Conclusion, Paragraph 45)
Government Response Summary
The government disagrees, stating the FCDO's ODA budget is no longer automatically exposed to in-donor refugee costs and that measures are being taken to reduce asylum costs to ensure more ODA can be spent on overseas development.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
Disagree. The FCDO’s ODA budget is no longer automatically exposed to spending by other government departments, including demand-driven refugee and asylum costs in the UK, so a cap on Home Office in-donor refugee costs is not required. The Government has taken measures to reduce the asylum backlog and reform the asylum accommodation system to end the use of expensive accommodation in this Parliament to ensure more of our ODA budget is spent on our development priorities overseas. The aid spent in the UK on refugee and asylum costs fell by a third last year and the Home Office is working to bring it down further. The FCDO is supporting that effort through its own work to tackle organised immigration crime, and reduce pressures on the asylum system.