Source · Select Committees · International Development Committee
Recommendation 13
13
Rejected
Excessive in-donor refugee spend, especially hotel costs, contravenes ODA's development spirit.
Conclusion
Whilst the Committee recognises that in-donor refugee spend is allowable under DAC rules, in a world of rapidly decreasing aid budgets it is not in the spirit of what ODA should be used for, which per the OECD is spending that promotes and specifically targets the economic development and welfare of developing countries. Excessive spend on hotel costs is not an effective use of development budgets. (Conclusion, Paragraph 46)
Government Response Summary
The government disagrees, stating that the FCDO's ODA budget is no longer automatically exposed to in-donor refugee costs and measures are being taken to reduce these costs, thereby allowing more ODA for 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.