Foreign aid ‘to help UK’

FOREIGN aid money should be spent on projects that benefit Britain, James Cleverly has told bureaucrats.

It is understood that when the Foreign Secretary was promoted last year, he was alarmed that the list of priorities had been how much was spent and the impact on the recipient country – with any benefits for the UK third in line.

He apparently made it clear that “spending lots of money without showing benefit to the British taxpayer is the wrong way round”.

When he receives a report on spending, sources say he wants the list of priorities to be reversed – the benefit for the UK and its taxpayers, followed by the impact for the recipient country and then how much is spent.

Sources have said that the rethink is part of a much more active foreign policy in trying to use aid and other levers to further British interests.

It is part of a push with other Western democracies in taking on the way China is trying to buy influence through its aid programme.

Speaking on a recent trip to Japan for a G7 summit, Mr Cleverly warned that Chinese aid came with “strings attached”. He led a session at the summit on reducing the debt burden on African nations, in particular, which have been caught out.

Mr Cleverly said: “We are seeing quite heavy-handed conversations about how countries that have a relationship with China vote in the international forums. So, the point we’ve made is that we are a better, more reliable, more mutually beneficial partner.”

He also wants to restore the controversial level of aid spending to 0.7 per cent of GDP “as soon as possible” but warned “we can’t wish away the largest economic shock of our lifetimes” after Covid.

He added that Britain is “still one of the more generous aid donors in the world” at 0.5 per cent.

He said: “I’m very proud of that.” Mr Cleverly also defended diverting the aid budget to spending on migrants’ hotel accommodation while their asylum applications are processed. He said: “The definition of aid expenditure is set internationally – we don’t define it.”

‘Our priorities were wrong’