Pressure on Philip Hammond to reduce UK foreign aid budget

Chancellor Philip Hammond (pictured) asked backbenchers to come up with ideas for next week’s Budget. The third most common request was cutting UK foreign aid 

Tory MPs have piled pressure on Philip Hammond to slash the amount Britain spends on foreign aid.

The Chancellor asked backbenchers to come up with ideas for next week’s Budget – and received more than 220 written submissions from backbenchers.

The third most important request – behind housing and student finance – was for reductions in overseas aid.

Many Conservative backbenchers are angry that Britain is still meeting the controversial target to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on aid – currently around £13billion.

Now they have warned Mr Hammond this is wrong when frontline domestic services such as hospitals and the police are struggling.

The strength of feeling will put pressure on the Chancellor to announce some loosening of the target.

But Theresa May has repeatedly stated that she wants to see the 0.7 per cent target continue.

It comes just days after Labour’s first aid minister Clare Short called for the ‘destructive’ foreign aid target to be dropped.

And Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary, said: ‘I don’t think protected budgets are an aid to good government.’

The Tories’ move was welcomed by Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North East Somerset, who did not himself put the proposal in his submission.

Backbencher MPs want more money to be spent on the NHS and police (file picture)

Backbencher MPs want more money to be spent on the NHS and police (file picture)

He said: ‘It is a view I share. When expenditure is squeezed in key areas such as health and defence, it is odd to ring-fence overseas aid.

‘This is exacerbated by the lax controls over some of the spending to meet an arbitrary target.’

Fellow Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: ‘One pound out of every £8 in aid comes from the UK, and we haven’t seen other countries rushing to match our generosity.

‘There are many other pressing needs for taxpayers’ Treasury funds within the UK – from schools and hospitals to social care, the police and the armed forces.

‘An arbitrary 0.7 per cent target can create the situation where if GDP is adjusted upwards at the end of the year, money is shovelled out of the door.

‘That is never going to be efficient spending. Mis-spending taxpayers’ money never aids anyone.’

In the summer a watchdog warned that aid cash was being sent overseas in a desperate last-minute attempt to hit the target.

The National Audit Office (NAO) said departments were dishing out as much as 98 per cent of their budgets in the final three months of the year. 

Keeping the target in line with economic growth means ministers have to find new ways of spending ever greater sums.

In a major review, the NAO said Ministers were failing to ensure officials could cope with the extra expenditure. 

It raised concerns over accountability and whether the success or failure of schemes was being assessed properly.

The watchdog found there were problems with officials splurging cash shortly before end-of-year deadlines – with five Government departments using half or more of their overseas development budget in the last three months.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, pictured, said it was 'odd' to ring-fence overseas aid when there was a 'squeeze' on expenditure

Jacob Rees-Mogg, pictured, said it was ‘odd’ to ring-fence overseas aid when there was a ‘squeeze’ on expenditure

Mr Straw told Prospect magazine last week that protected budgets led to ‘sloppy’ decision-making.

‘Those departments don’t have to argue their corner and they get sloppy,’ he said.

‘It leads to officials in DfID searching for projects to spend money. An awful lot of money goes to spend on jobs for middle-class whites.’

Miss Short, who was the UK’s first international development secretary, said the money could be better spent in a different way.

She added: ‘I am afraid the department has lost capacity and that 0.7 [per cent] has ended up being destructive. Money is useful if it is well spent, not in itself.’

The ex-minister said that while the target was a ‘good idea’ it had gone wrong in practice, and there needed to be a ‘serious debate about what has gone wrong and how to put it right. 

It would be great to keep 0.7 and refocus, but this may not be possible.’

Read more at DailyMail.co.uk