Why is British aid still propping up corrupt regimes?
There’s long been a conspiracy of silence among development experts about the failing impact of British aid, as a result of misplaced public loyalty or a fear of jeopardising a career and income.
This has now been exposed, ironically by the Government’s own aid watchdog, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, in what might be the first time in British regulatory history auditors have bitten rather than just barked.
scandals have emerged in Uganda, Malawi, Maputo, rwanda, Nepal, Kenya, ethiopia and Nigeria.
More worryingly, the auditors have expressed concern about ‘a culture of fear within the Department for International Development of criticising the outcome of aid expenditure’.
I and many others believe there is a strong moral case for aiding poor countries, providing aid in the case of emergencies, and I have great admiration for frontline staff.
But there’s a problem with bilateral aid programmes which entail massive grants to corrupt and incompetent governments: why are we, for example, giving the governments of Nigeria £250 million, ethiopia £320 million and Pakistan £280 million?
Many are unlikely to be aware that almost all British financial aid now goes to governments that are delegated to spend it on education, health and agriculture.
This form of aid, classified as budgetary aid, sector aid or provincial aid was abolished by Barbara Castle when she set up the Ministry of Overseas Development (for which I worked) for good reason: it undermined local efforts, it could easily be diverted to other ends, it implied acceptance of government policies and it couldn’t be properly audited.
It took five years before it was abolished for all major recipients. Unfortunately, it was re-introduced in the Nineties.
Under Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, it was decreed that poverty in Africa would be solved, and the ever-increasing aid programme would achieve this.
This was either amazing naivete or political astuteness, but when added to the Government decision to spend 0.7 per cent of our GNP on aid, it added up to a reckless spending programme. The DFID publishes annual statistics of the millions of people benefiting from aid, but this data isn’t audited.
It’s impossible to audit the impact of this type of aid, and dangerous for those who try, as an auditor in Malawi discovered recently when an assassination attempt on him failed and the DFID had to suspend its aid.
We need an aid programme, but the pursuit of spurious ‘targets’, which has done so much damage to our Nhs, police services and education, is leading to the massive misuse of several billions of pounds of aid per year and propping up many corrupt regimes.
We should discontinue aid which can’t be audited and run a far smaller, but far higher quality, aid programme. Tying down the 0.7 per cent commitment in law would be an irresponsible folly. GORDON BRIDGER,
Guildford, Surrey. NeWs of corruption fuelled by our foreign aid programme will come as no surprise to anyone who has lived or worked in some of the recipient countries. In many parts of Africa, for instance, corruption is accepted as a way of life to ‘oil the wheels’ of the economy.
The problem in trying to help ‘developing countries’ is that they don’t appear to develop. DAVID SKELTON,
Goole, Yorks.
Shareholders win again
IT’s a myth that Gordon Brown’s removal of tax relief from pension firm dividends was the reason for the demise of many final salary pension schemes (Mail).
removing this tax relief raised £5 billion a year in tax income, but that sum should be seen in the context of significant increases in dividends paid to shareholders from all UK businesses.
In 2007, UK shareholders received £60 billion in dividends; by 2010 this had grown to £80 billion and in 2014 to almost £100 billion.
If businesses had chosen to share just a fraction of these profits with the people who helped make them — the employees — many more final salary pensions would still be in existence.
TERRY KELLY, Widnes, Cheshire.
Talking turkey
As A rare breed buff turkey, I’m upset with the Native Americans who are being animalist towards me. I’m not even beginning to think about sinitta and ellie Goulding. I’m proud of my feathers and think I’m handsome. I don’t like people dressing up and trying to look like me. If white, middle- class, sandal- wearing, Guardian readers are upset on behalf of Native Americans’ feelings and sensitivities, they should join the queue behind me.
I missed the chop last Christmas and now live a life of luxury down on the farm. Just don’t get me started on meat-eaters.
NOEL the Turkey, (Mrs Josephine Bond, Totton, Hants).
Too many tests
I’M PleAseD that Mrs Marlen von roth’s problems with blood tests during her pregnancies turned out well (Mail). her experience took me back to the sorrow I had 36 years ago when the doctors first brought in the alpha feto-protein test for mothers over the age of 30.
I was living in Belgium but decided to have my baby, my first, in england. I had a private specialist.
At four months pregnant, I was advised to have the blood test. It was very worrying: I was told as the same as Marlen. It showed above normal, so I had to have the amniocentesis test, when a needle is inserted into the womb to collect amniotic fluid to be tested to see if the baby was normal.
I wasn’t told there was a high chance I would lose the baby or I would never have had it done. The result came back a week later and all was normal. I went back to Belgium for Christmas.
On Boxing Day, I began to lose fluid and my little son was born at 25 weeks. he lived for five days and then passed away.
I did have another baby a year later, a boy once more. I stayed in Belgium this time to have him, and refused any tests. I went on to have a little girl five years later, who was perfect — without any tests once more. Goodness knows how many mothers- to- be have lost their babies through this testing of babies in the womb. Too much technology sometimes is no good. Mrs JANICE P. Van BRABANT,
Palma Nova, Mallorca.
Priced off terraces
JOse MOUrINhO is right to criticise Chelsea fans for the lack of atmosphere and singing at football matches (Mail). But the problem is that the supporters of the seventies, eighties and early Nineties, who made most of the noise, can no longer afford to go.
how many of today’s supporters can remember standing in the shed end at Chelsea where the atmosphere always intimidated opposition teams.
Bring the price down and you’ll get the atmosphere back.
CLIVE BROWN, Watford, Herts.
Leave Rooneys alone
I DON’T know what the rooneys, particularly Coleen, have done to attract so much venom (Mail). I suspect it’s a case of ‘how dare someone from an impoverished Northern community acquire such wealth and acclaim’.
Many of the attacks on this couple are personal and snobbish, narrowminded and reeking of envy.
I am aware that Coleen and her husband work tirelessly for the less fortunate and, as far as possible, keep these generous activities out of the public eye, shunning any connected publicity.
REG ALEXANDER, Merseyside.