NGOs are being outmanoeuvred on overseas aid

If the promised legislation to lock in the 0.7% is not secured in the next two years, the NGOs will only have themselves to blame.

I agree with David Cameron. Yesterday he told the UN General Assembly that “when we make a promise to the poorest people in the world, we should keep it, not turn our back on people who are trusting us to help them.” But I really wish that he would keen the promise that he made in his manifesto and legislate for the commitment he reaffirmed yesterday. On page 117 of the Conservative manifesto, his commitment, and the timing of it, was explicit:

“Will be fully committed to achieving, by 2013, the UN target of spending 0.7% of national income as aid. We will stick to the rules laid down by the OECD about what spending counts as aid. We will legislate in the first session of a new Parliament to lock in this level of spending for every year from 2013.”

This was reaffirmed in on page 22 of the coalition agreement:

“We will honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013, and enshrine this commitment in law.”

Just after the new Development Secretary Justine Greening was appointed, the Chancellor argued that “it is not about legislation; it is about delivering the money." But I beg to differ.

Yesterday, UK development NGOs were falling over themselves to welcome the Prime Minister’s declaration at the UN but the NGOs are at risk of being outmanoeuvred on this issue.

No doubt the aid budget in 2013/14 will represent 0.7 per cent but DFID will almost certainly underspend it. This is because the budget has effectively been frozen since 2010 and so will jump by a third in 2013. Greening will be under pressure to deliver another underspend in 2014/15 after which the future of the aid budget will be subject to the next round of election manifestos.

I predict that, as opposition from their backbenchers grow, the Conservatives will commit to an independent review after the next election, much like the one on tuition fees after the last election and like the review on the third Heathrow runway after the next election. The UN’s 0.7 per cent target is 40 years old, after all.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats will be under no electoral pressure to create a political dividing line on this issue. In fact the opinion polling suggest the opposite. Their political incentive will be to wait for the outcome of such a review to neutralise the debate until after the election.

I have written for New Statesman about the importance of the promised legislation many times before (here, here, here and here). But after the reshuffle, I am now more convinced than ever before that if the NGOs can’t secure the legislation in this Parliament, and thus require another vote to repeal it, then the UK’s aid budget will only remain at 0.7 per cent for two years.

Justine Greening may be the first Development Secretary in British history who didn’t want the job. Metro newspaper claimed she said “I didn’t bloody well come into politics to distribute money to people in poor countries” [as in the print version, although now removed from online as Greening's office disputes the quote], while The Times said three No 10 sources claimed said she argued for an hour at Downing Street on reshuffle day.

When Greening is reported as saying she wants the aid budget to “do more, with less” I feel conflicted (Greening denies having said this). I like the first sentiment but not the second. Everyone wants taxpayers money spent well and if after two years of operation, Andrew Mitchell’s Independent Commission for Aid Impact isn’t working, then Greening is right to be focused on value for money. But the government did inherit a department that the OECD and the ONE campaign consistently ranked as a global leader in aid effectiveness.

On Newsnight last night, David Grossman rehearsed all the arguments about why the aid budget should not rise as promised. But the most compelling argument of the night was put by Adrian Lovett of the ONE campaign: that you can’t clear the deficit by cutting the aid budget anyway. Recent IPPR analysis of the big choices facing politicians in the next Spending Review shows that the planned rise in the DfID budget is just a rounding error in the public finances. The big choices are about the NHS budget, the welfare budget, future tax rises and crucially, the pace at which the deficit is reduced. Even if you scrapped DfID entirely, you’d still have to face up to one of these four big public spending choices.

The spirit of Make Poverty History is needed now more than ever. IPPR and the ODI have studied UK public attitudes towards international aid and development as a contribution to the next phase of UK campaigning on poverty reduction and global development. It is time for NGOs to stop apologising for politicians and campaign for them keep their promises. If the promised legislation is not secured in the next two years, the NGOs will only have themselves to blame.

UPDATE 26/09/2012 16:00

A DfID spokesperson said:

"Justine Greening's views are clear. She has said "Delivering on our promise of 0.7% is the right thing to do, whether it's helping countries cope with natural disasters and famines, or working with some of the British charities who are world leaders in international development. I will critically assess our budget on behalf of the British taxpayer to make sure that, pound for pound, it goes exactly where it's intended and where it can make the biggest difference."

Richard Darlington was Special Adviser at DFID 2008-2010 and is now Head of News at IPPR - follow him on twitter: @RDarlo

New International Development Secretary Justine Greening. Photograph: Getty Images

Richard Darlington is Head of News at IPPR. Follow him on Twitter @RDarlo.

Show Hide image

What it’s like to fall victim to the Mail Online’s aggregation machine

I recently travelled to Iraq at my own expense to write a piece about war graves. Within five hours of the story's publication by the Times, huge chunks of it appeared on Mail Online – under someone else's byline.

I recently returned from a trip to Iraq, and wrote an article for the Times on the desecration of Commonwealth war cemeteries in the southern cities of Amara and Basra. It appeared in Monday’s paper, and began:

“‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the engraving reads, but the words ring hollow. The stone on which they appear lies shattered in a foreign field that should forever be England, but patently is anything but.”

By 6am, less than five hours after the Times put it online, a remarkably similar story had appeared on Mail Online, the world’s biggest and most successful English-language website with 200 million unique visitors a month.

It began: “Despite being etched with the immortal line: ‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the truth could not be further from the sentiment for the memorials in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Amara.”

The article ran under the byline of someone called Euan McLelland, who describes himself on his personal website as a “driven, proactive and reliable multi-media reporter”. Alas, he was not driven or proactive enough to visit Iraq himself. His story was lifted straight from mine – every fact, every quote, every observation, the only significant difference being the introduction of a few errors and some lyrical flights of fancy. McLelland’s journalistic research extended to discovering the name of a Victoria Cross winner buried in one of the cemeteries – then getting it wrong.

Within the trade, lifting quotes and other material without proper acknowledgement is called plagiarism. In the wider world it is called theft. As a freelance, I had financed my trip to Iraq (though I should eventually recoup my expenses of nearly £1,000). I had arranged a guide and transport. I had expended considerable time and energy on the travel and research, and had taken the risk of visiting a notoriously unstable country. Yet McLelland had seen fit not only to filch my work but put his name on it. In doing so, he also precluded the possibility of me selling the story to any other publication.

I’m being unfair, of course. McLelland is merely a lackey. His job is to repackage and regurgitate. He has no time to do what proper journalists do – investigate, find things out, speak to real people, check facts. As the astute media blog SubScribe pointed out, on the same day that he “exposed” the state of Iraq’s cemeteries McLelland also wrote stories about the junior doctors’ strike, British special forces fighting Isis in Iraq, a policeman’s killer enjoying supervised outings from prison, methods of teaching children to read, the development of odourless garlic, a book by Lee Rigby’s mother serialised in the rival Mirror, and Michael Gove’s warning of an immigration free-for-all if Britain brexits. That’s some workload.

Last year James King published a damning insider’s account of working at Mail Online for the website Gawker. “I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications’ work lifted wholesale. I watched editors...publish information they knew to be inaccurate,” he wrote. “The Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication.”

Mail Online strenuously denied the charges, but there is plenty of evidence to support them. In 2014, for example, it was famously forced to apologise to George Clooney for publishing what the actor described as a bogus, baseless and “premeditated lie” about his future mother-in-law opposing his marriage to Amal Alamuddin.

That same year it had to pay a “sizeable amount” to a freelance journalist named Jonathan Krohn for stealing his exclusive account in the Sunday Telegraph of being besieged with the Yazidis on northern Iraq’s Mount Sinjar by Islamic State fighters. It had to compensate another freelance, Ali Kefford, for ripping off her exclusive interview for the Mirror with Sarah West, the first female commander of a Navy warship.

Incensed by the theft of my own story, I emailed Martin Clarke, publisher of Mail Online, attaching an invoice for several hundred pounds. I heard nothing, so emailed McLelland to ask if he intended to pay me for using my work. Again I heard nothing, so I posted both emails on Facebook and Twitter.

I was astonished by the support I received, especially from my fellow journalists, some of them household names, including several victims of Mail Online themselves. They clearly loathed the website and the way it tarnishes and debases their profession. “Keep pestering and shaming them till you get a response,” one urged me. Take legal action, others exhorted me. “Could a groundswell from working journalists develop into a concerted effort to stop the theft?” SubScribe asked hopefully.

Then, as pressure from social media grew, Mail Online capitulated. Scott Langham, its deputy managing editor, emailed to say it would pay my invoice – but “with no admission of liability”. He even asked if it could keep the offending article up online, only with my byline instead of McLelland’s. I declined that generous offer and demanded its removal.

When I announced my little victory on Facebook some journalistic colleagues expressed disappointment, not satisfaction. They had hoped this would be a test case, they said. They wanted Mail Online’s brand of “journalism” exposed for what it is. “I was spoiling for a long war of attrition,” one well-known television correspondent lamented. Instead, they complained, a website widely seen as the model for future online journalism had simply bought off yet another of its victims.