MoSvictory as Patel vows: I’ll defy order to blow £12bnon aid
Minister hits at ‘spending spree’ on waste and corruption
PRITI PATEL is abandoning the UK’s rigid commitment to spend a fixed percentage of the country’s national income on overseas aid each year – in a victory for The Mail on Sunday’s long-running campaign.
In a dramatic U-turn, the International Development Secretary has told aides she will ignore the legal requirement to spend 0.7 per cent of national income if it means authorising corrupt or wasteful projects.
Ms Patel, who was appointed to the post by Theresa May in July, has been shocked to discover that officials have been recommending projects on the grounds that they would help her Department for International Development (DFID) hit it £12billion spending target.
This newspaper’s campaign against the 0.7 per cent commitment, which was introduced by David Cameron as part of his drive to ‘detoxify’ the Conservative Party, led to a Commons debate after a Mail on Sunday petition calling for it to be scrapped was signed by more than 235,000 people.
We unearthed a string of abuses of DFID money, including handouts to Palestinian terrorists and the building of a £250 million airport on the island of St Helena which is too dangerous for aircraft to use.
Now Ms Patel has decided that, while not formally revoking the ‘0.7’, she will underspend her budget if it is in taxpayers’ interests to do so – and then explain her actions to the Commons.
A source close to Ms Patel said: ‘It seems clear that some of the most spurious projects have been signed off in spending sprees at the end of the financial year. Too much money is being spent without a proper focus on results, and we will refuse to make our decisions based on the accounting rules around 0.7. Although it is enshrined in statute, we have established that there would not be any legal sanction for failing to hit the target. Priti would merely have to tell Parliament why she had not spent all of the money.’
The source added: ‘While 0.7 remains a manifesto commitment, we won’t be spending money for the sake of it.’
The Mail on Sunday revealed in August that Ms Patel would direct more of her funds towards ‘national security and the national interest’, including helping the Ministry of Defence to fight the war on terror and boosting the United Kingdom’s trading relationships. Ms Patel aims to increase the proportion of her budget spent on other Government departments from 13 per cent now to closer to a third by 2020.
Priti Patel will not be bound by the ‘0.7’ pledge which has led to aid scandals that have been highlighted in MoS reports Defence Secretary Michael Fallon is supporting moves to use DFID money to ease the pressure on his own budget, and in particular to help in stabilising Afghanistan when the final British troops leave the country next year.
Mr Fallon has been alarmed by predictions that a fresh deterioration in the security situation there could lead to more than three million Afghans fleeing the country to seek asylum in Europe.
The DFID last week committed to spending £750million on support for Afghanistan over the next three years.
Although overseas development rules bar aid money from being channelled to troops engaged in combat, it can be
‘Cash won’t be spent for the sake of it’ Money must go to most-needy nations
used to fund peacekeeping operations. On Friday, Ms Patel used a visit to America to urge the World Bank to focus its aid spending – to which the UK is the largest contributor, giving more than £3 billion last year – more on ‘countries who need it most’, rather than developed nations such as Brazil, India and China.
The World Bank spent more than £14 billion in the past year on aid to upper and middleincome nations.
Last week, Ms Patel told the Conservative Party conference that she would scrutinise every pound of British aid to make sure that foreign projects were ‘mutually beneficial’.
She said: ‘When we open up budgets and let people see where the money is going, we can help root out corruption and ensure that resources reach the most vulnerable.’