Why maintaining the role of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact is more important than ever  

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) – the UK’s independent aid watchdog – was unexpectedly is back in the news, as MPs were told that its future may well be in doubt…again. 

MPs surprised to hear that ICAI’s future is in question

In an appearance in front of the UK Parliament’s International Development Committee (IDC) on 20 January, Baroness Jenny Chapman, the FCDO’s Minister for Development and Africa, surprised MPs by confirming that the department was reviewing the status of ICAI. She stated that: 

This is a prioritisation situation. I have to ask myself whether that is the right use of money or whether we could get what we need more efficiently. 

In response to questions about the alternative options available for securing scrutiny of and accountability for UK aid, Melinda Bohannon, the FCDO’s Director General for Global Issues stated that:  

Of course, there is the NAO [National Audit Office]…[T]here is also a transparency index that we are involved with. We also have internal audits. We have the IDC as well… 

MPs also queried whether ICAI had helped to promote public confidence in the UK aid budget, to which Baroness Chapman shared her view that it had not done so. 

The Labour Party has historically been a strong advocate of ICAI 

This is not the first time that ICAI’s future has been brought into question since its establishment under a Conservative government (led by David Cameron) in 2011. In 2020, a different Conservative government (led by Boris Johnson) threatened to abolish the IDC and its was rumoured that ICAI could also be closed. These proposals attracted significant opposition at the time, including from Labour MPs, helping to avoid this move.  

To provide further emphasis on the importance of ICAI, the Labour party then referenced the value of this body in its 2024 election manifesto, stating: 

 We will deliver value for money for the British taxpayer by working closely with the Independent Commission for Aid Impact to apply the highest standards to our aid spend – bringing in robust measures of development effectiveness, transparency, and scrutiny. 

Since coming into office, the Labour government has expressed an interest in further strengthening the role of ICAI, by writing (in August 2025) to its Chief Commissioner to propose expanding ICAI’s powers beyond simply assessing the aid budget and to include analysis of the impact of UK development partnerships, expertise, and the UK’s policy influence – a step that Bond would warmly welcome.  

It is therefore highly surprising that the government is now considering the option of abolishing ICAI.  

ICAI‘s scrutiny role is more important than ever 

The main reason that ICAI is facing deeper scrutiny seems to be that FCDO is currently in the process of significantly reducing its budget, as a part of the 40% overall cuts to ODA, and is also reducing its staffing by 15%-25%. As the department explores the options for these changes the opportunity cost of maintaining ICAI’s budget (less than £4 million – 0.03% of the current aid budget) and staffing (10 permanent posts – 0.0001% of FCDO’s total headcount) seem to be coming into focus.  

Although it is reasonable for the level of ICAI’s budget, staffing and approach to scrutiny to be reviewed in this resourcing context, ICAI’s scrutiny role and impact creates a strong case for taking its abolition off the table and treating its budget and staffing differently to the department’s general resourcing as cuts are made. ICAI’s scrutiny value and impact has been shown by its success in strengthening the transparency of UK aid programmes, processes for promoting safeguarding against sexual exploitation abuse and harassment (SEAH), processes for managing aid spent on refugees in the UK and the development impact of BII.  

ICAI’s scrutiny role and impact could not be replicated by the National Audit Office, which undertakes more narrowly focussed scrutiny, has never had the mandate to undertake the volume of reviews ICAI delivers on UK aid and has less independence than ICAI (raising the question about whether the NAO meets legislative requirements for UK aid to be independently evaluated). The FCDO’s reference to the role of transparency indices in promoting scrutiny of UK aid is also undermined by the fact that it is has not yet put itself forward for inclusion in the 2026 Aid Transparency Index. 

It is also arguable that the role of ICAI is currently more important than ever. The cuts to the UK aid budget and FCDO staffing pose deep challenges and ensuring that scrutiny is maintained at the highest level possible will help to implement them effectively. Intensive scrutiny will also be required to ensure that a much-diminished aid budget is spent as effectively as possible in support of development impact over the coming years.  

Maintaining high levels of scrutiny and improved impact reporting vital to securing public confidence in the UK aid budget 

Discussion in the IDC on ICAI’s future also touched on the question of this bodies’ impact in promoting public support for the UK aid. This is clearly a complex question, which shouldn’t just be viewed on the basis of ICAI’s most direct link to public discourse (i.e. media stories of its report which inevitably pick up on the most critical findings), and must emphasise its ability to strengthen the effectiveness of UK aid over the long term and the confidence high levels of scrutiny bring. Surely there will be few worse headlines for the UK aid budget than a government decision to reduce scrutiny of this spending.  

If the government is looking for measures to help strengthen public confidence in the UK aid budget there is much to be done in addition to maintaining the role of ICAI, and improved reporting on the impact of UK aid must be the priority. Before its abolition, the Department for International Development (DFID) produced detailed reports on development impact across its aid programmes, which were a critical resource for Bond, its members and others to make the case for UK aid.  

However, following DFID’s merger with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to form the FCDO (in 2020) this reporting was largely discontinued, with only selective and limited impact data still made public. Without FCDO stepping up efforts to make the case for its work it will be extremely difficult for others to do so.