Charity concern as Cameron says aid funding could be spent on defence

David Cameron, Prime Minister. Image credit:Home Office

Charity concern as Cameron says aid funding could be spent on defence4

Fundraising | Niki May Young | 21 Feb 2013

The Prime Minister has advised ahead of next month's Budget that additional funding from the Department for International Development could be reassigned to defence.

David Cameron told journalists this morning that DFID is "no longer seen as, nor does it see itself as, a sort of giant NGO" and that "I think we have to demonstrate that the DFID budget is used wisely. One of the things that Justine Greening is rightly keen on is to make sure that countries that are affected by conflict, that we think about them particularly."

DFID is part of the National Security Council, he affirmed, and works "incredibly closely with the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence".

As the military is implementing significant funding cuts, one journalist at a briefing this morning noted that backbenchers have raised concerns over aid spending in this context. The journalist asked: "I’m just wondering whether you have any thoughts on whether or not there is more you can do, given that there is a sense among part of your party, maybe, that DFID’s doing quite well and the MOD’s not doing so well?"

In response Cameron said: "If you’re asking, can they work even more closely together, can we make sure that the funds we have at our disposal are used to provide basic levels of stability and security in deeply broken and fragile states, then yes, we should. I think that’s an important part of development."

Pooling funds

Questioned on whether this meant that there would be a "pooling of budgets" the PM said: "There is already.  There’s the Conflict Pool, which we already have. Can we do more? Can we build on this approach? I’m very open to ideas like that. We have our moral responsibilities for tackling poverty around the world; we also have our national security responsibilities for mending conflict states and helping with development around the world. We should see DFID in that context."

The Conflict Pool is governed and managed jointly by DFID, the FCO and MoD and funds the government’s aims for preventing and managing international conflict. The official description of the pool states that it "helps address global conflict, by bringing together the UK government’s development, diplomatic, and defence interests". DFID would not confirm whether this meant funding troops or any other military resource. 

According to DFID's accounts in 2011/12 £21.6m was spent via the joint Conflict Pool. 

A DFID spokesperson said: "All DFID's aid spend is in line with internationally agreed guidelines.

"As part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, we pledged to invest 30 per cent of our bilateral aid in fragile and conflict-affected countries by 2014/15 and we work closely with the FCO and the MoD to make sure our approach is joined up, including through the Conflict Pool which provides funding for conflict prevention."

Charities respond

Charities have raised concerns that the move would detract from the government's pledge to provide 0.7 per cent of gross national income to international aid. Charities involved in the recently-launched Enough Food for Everyone IF campaign, such as World Vision, directed the public to a petition to protect the aid budget via Twitter.

Oxfam's head of policy Max Lawson said people expect money to be spent on "schools not soldiers". "Aid is a very small proportion of government spending," he said, adding:

"We should not see a single penny diverted into the military. If the government needs to raise more money it should clamp down on tax avoiders rather than make insane choices between the safety of a family and their health and education."

Matthew Reed, chief executive at the Children's Society added his voice to concerns, saying: "The aim of aid should be supporting the poor, not UK foreign policy. Confusing the two also puts aid workers at risk."

National director for the Leprosy Mission England and Wales, Peter Walker, voiced concern that the move could mean the government plans to renege on its 0.7 per cent pledge: “We were delighted when David Cameron promised to protect Britain’s pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on overseas development. We are concerned, however, that he appears to be going back on that promise today in a bid to compensate for defence cuts.

“Money needs to be found for both development and for peacekeeping in war-torn countries. The government has already stopped aid to India from 2015 – a country which is home to a third of the world’s poor.  Although families in Britain are being squeezed, there is a desperate struggle for survival in the areas in which the Leprosy Mission works.

“We really do see the poorest of the poor and we have a moral obligation, as a country, to help these people.  David Cameron’s proposition of subsidising the UK defence budget at the expense of the world’s poorest people must be challenged," he said.


Want access to all content?

Subscribers gain access to all expert advice, analysis, surveys, special reports and the full archive of content from as little as £43.20 per year. Find out more...



Habib Malik
Head of Islamic Relief (Scotland)
Islamic Relief
22 Feb 2013

The proposal, with mainly political implications, can strongly harm the interest of UK registered INGOs and their overseas staff (British and non-British) who are busy serving the poor and needy in the developing countries; in natural and man-made disasters. This PM proposal, if implemented, could most likely break the trust of the people on UK aid workers, who are already facing many physical and emotional challenges in the disaster zones. Hence the mutual relationship between the victims and aid workers, based on respect, trust and confidence could be affected.
Peace keeping, no doubt is an essential issue but it should not be resolved at the peril of poor and needy people who are in desperate need of aid and help. Being an aid worker, I have very minutely witnessed them longing and looking for food, clean water and shelter for their survival. It is not a healthy and sound idea to use the aid for recruiting and deploying armed forces instead of providing the poor with life-saving aid. It would also be a bad idea to build armed colonies and settlements instead of building education and health centres to make people grow both mentally and physically. Can guns and other weapons replace the life saving and much needed medicines? Can gunship helicopters and fire fighters easily substitute for the urgently needed clothes and shelters in different severe weather conditions?

Euan Hall
25 Feb 2013
Response to [Habib Malik]

of course helicopter gunships dont substitute for clothes -however unelss one has a stable peaceful country in the first place they are pretty worthless - you need to remove the cause of the problem before trying to deal with the symtoms! otherwise you keep puming in aid that makes no difference but actually perpetuates the problem

21 Feb 2013

It is a fact ... "All DFID's aid spend is in line with internationally agreed guidelines. ..."

But DFIF funds transferred into the Conflict Pool are not subject to the internationally agreed guidelines.

Richard Molineux
molineux fundraising
21 Feb 2013

It is perverse to divorce foreign policy, aid and defence from each other. A major justification for diverting UK taxpayers' funds to foreign nationals is that strong overseas economies benefit us as well as the people in the strengthened economies. This being so, many countries make their aid contingent upon the recipient countries giving them various benefits in return - construction contracts etc.
It seems sensible to look at how to make government, ie taxpayer, - funded, investment in overseas aid have a better chance of being used effectively by ramping up civil security in areas where it will be spent. It is clear that the finances of the UK were driven into the ground by Mr Brown's profligacy and using some of the aid money to defend the people spending it looks like an imaginative compromise.


[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear


  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

Commission ‘urgently assessing’ Kids Company’s funding position

6 Jul 2015

The Charity Commission has said it is in contact with Kids Company following recent media reports over...

Sector leaders urge Chancellor to bring forward review of the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme

6 Jul 2015

Nine charity sector umbrella organisations have warned the  Chancellor that if he does not address...

Camila Batmanghelidjh steps down at Kids Company

3 Jul 2015

Camila Batmanghelidjh has stepped down from her role as chief executive of Kids Company after a joint...

Business models of medium-sized charities 'no longer working', CFG conference hears

2 Jul 2015

Diminishing public funds and emerging social needs will render the business models of medium sized charities...

Peers debate changing definition of social investment

2 Jul 2015

The House of Lords last night debated whether to change the definition of social investment and whether...

Breast Cancer Now loses a quarter of its staff after merger

30 Jun 2015

Breast Cancer Now has reduced staff numbers by a quarter since the merger, through a mix of redundancy...

Institute of Fundraising unveils new mobile-compatible website

3 Jul 2015

The Institute of Fundraising has unveiled a new mobile-compatible website which it says better “reflects...

Get a mobile compatible website or lose donors, Google executive tells charity conference

2 Jul 2015

It is "not an option" for charities to have websites which don't work on mobile, because donors are increasingly...

Contactless donations set to soar, CAF study suggests

24 Jun 2015

There is a “massive future” for charity donations using contactless payment technology, according...

Join the discussion

Twitter button