OVERSEAS aid spending should be smarter, not smaller-scale, a new report has found.

Critics have suggested the sum used to help development, alleviate poverty and respond to emergencies abroad is too high since the UK committed to spending 0.7 per cent of its gross national income in this area.

The total, which goes to projects including famine relief for East Africa, midwifery programmes in Bangladesh and child marriage prevention in Ethiopia, ran to £12.1 billion in 2015, amounting to 70p for every £100 made here.

A recent petition launched by The Mail on Sunday newspaper argued the money should be diverted to address areas where austerity has led to domestic budget cuts. It gathered almost 236,000 signatures, leading to a debate in Westminster Hall.

But in a report released today, the cross-party International Development Committee says the 0.7 per cent target should stand.

The committee found the aid was a “strong investment” in creating a more prosperous and stable world, which benefits UK taxpayers, with no evidence to suggest the Department for International Development (DFID) is more wasteful than any other Westminster office.

However, they raised concern that a lack of staff could hamper its effectiveness, and said other departments should stop spending their budgets on aid to ensure a coherent strategy.

The report comes just one day after Prime Minister Theresa May visited DFID staff in East Kilbride.

On the 0.7 target, the report said: “This is both morally right and in our national interest. The response to many of the criticisms of aid spending is for DFID to continue to strive to spend better, not for it to spend less.”

However, it went on: “We are further concerned that DFID’s own capacity could be affecting the effectiveness of UK aid.

“The number of DFID staff has not kept pace with increases in its budget to achieve the 0.7 per cent target. DFID’s administrative capacity appears to have fallen below what is required to manage its increasing budget optimally, causing it to become more reliant on larger external organisations.

“We recommend that DFID spends more of its budget on its own administration and increases its staffing.”

On strategy, the report said that DFID’s “good work” may not be being carried out “in a consistent and coherent manner” due to lack of guidance at an operational level, and officials providing less information about spending decisions, priorities and plans than in the past.

Committee chair Stephen Twigg said: “We are particularly concerned that a lack of strategic direction is holding UK aid back. This is more important than ever, with increasing amounts of aid being spent by government departments other than DFID.

“The basis on which aid spending decisions across the government are made needs to be clear.”