Select committee: International Development Committee
Conclusion 25
7th Report – Assessing Value, Ensuring Impact: The FCDO's Approach to Value for Money in Official Development Assistance
Published 29 Oct 2025
Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
International Development Committee The FCDO's approach to value for money All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
The FCDO’s use of private contractors is not inherently poor value for money. However, the published organisation and activity data of all implementing partners, including private contractors, is often incomplete and obscure. This exposes every pound spent to a higher risk of under-delivering impact. (Conclusion, Paragraph 87)
From: International Development Committee, 7th Report – Assessing Value, Ensuring Impact: The FCDO's Approach to Value for Money in Official Development Assistance (HC 422), 29 October 2025
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 11 February 2026 (deadline 29 December 2025).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The Government's response agrees with some recommendations, partially agrees with others and disagrees with several, including calls for a new stand-alone VfM strategy and a return to spending 0.5% of GNI on ODA.
- It disagrees that a new VfM strategy is needed, saying the Programme Operating Framework and PrOF Guide on VfM already set out the approach. It will instead update existing guidance and publish a version for external partners on gov.uk.
- On ODA levels, it disagrees with the 0.5% recommendation and is committed to returning to 0.7% of GNI "as soon as fiscal circumstances allow", noting the OBR's latest forecast shows the ODA fiscal tests are not due to be met within this Parliament.
- It agrees to publish an impact assessment of ODA cuts, which the FCDO "plans to publish" after ODA programme allocations are finalised, and agrees that IATI publishing by implementing partners should be improved.
- It disagrees with a new multilateral aid review, an audit of long-running contracts and ringfencing MEL spend, saying existing scrutiny and oversight processes apply and that ringfencing "is not appropriate in the current fiscal landscape".