Spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid is madness. This madness must stop

In the brilliant comedy series, Yes Minister, many political truths were spoken in jest. One of my favourites was on the subject of health spending in the episode, The Compassionate Society. Jim Hacker, Minister of Administrative Affairs, was trying to explain to his Permanent Secretary, Sir Humphrey Appleby, that health spending is increased to make sick people better. Sir Humphrey replied:

“On the contrary, Minister, it makes everyone feel better – better for having shown the extent of their care and compassion. When money is allocated to Health and Social Services, Parliament and the country feel cleansed. Absolved. Purified. It is a sacrifice.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter a jot how the money is spent, or if people benefit from an increase in spending. The sick may get sicker, but at least the Health Secretary can stand at the despatch box in the House of Commons and throw statistics around all day. “We have increased spending by x% in the last year”, he can say, as all kinds of abuse is thrown at him from the opposition benches.

What is true for health spending is also true for spending on overseas aid. Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, is the luckiest minister in Whitehall. Not only does she have her department’s spending ring-fenced, the ring is made of diamond encrusted gold. One of the prime minister’s former speechwriters, Ian Birrell, summed it up in an article in the Mail on Sunday when he said, “The Department for International Development (DFID) is the only Government department that must explain to Parliament if it fails to spend enough money.” The reason being that it is enshrined in law that we must, every year, spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid.

But what if we can’t find enough projects to spend the money on? It doesn’t make any difference, the money must be spent. But what if the money is wasted? What if it goes into the back pockets of dictators? What if there aren’t any ways we can measure results? It still doesn’t make any difference, the money must be spent – and it is a sizeable amount of cash. Currently 0.7% of GDP works out at £12 billion a year, and that is set to rise to £16 billion by 2020.

According to the Budget Red Book, Government borrowing in 2016-17 will be £55.5 billion. And that’s if you believe the estimates. After George Osborne’s various U-turns since he delivered his speech last month, the figure is likely to be higher. We are literally borrowing money to spend on overseas aid projects, with much of that borrowed money being wasted, and at the same time, the Government is also spending £39 billion of our money this year to pay the interest on its existing debt.

Not only is the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP one we can’t afford, it is also an admission of failure. Instead of helping those in poorer countries move into a life of self-reliance and prosperity, we are admitting that our aid will never solve their problems. If British taxpayers’ money was really doing the job it was intended to do, surely the amount we spend on aid would decrease?

At the time of writing, a petition organised by the Mail on Sunday has accumulated over 201,000 signatures. This means it will almost certainly be debated in Parliament. (If you wish to sign the petition to give it added weight, click here.) It calls for the Government to stop spending a fixed 0.7 per cent slice of our national wealth on Foreign Aid.

The British public tends to be generous when there is genuine need in other countries. As a country, we do not sit idly by or walk on the other side of the road. That is the British way; however, currently DfID, which seems to be in a permanent state of looking for projects to throw money at, is giving overseas aid a bad name. This madness has to stop.