Letter: Good and bad uses of overseas development aid
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Sir Tim Lankester's evidence to the Commons Public Accounts Committee ('Major approved pounds 234m aid for 'wasteful' dam project', 18 January) exposes a disturbing situation with regard to the disbursement of funds voted by Parliament for overseas aid. In the mid-Seventies the late Judith Hart introduced a 'new strategy' whereby overseas aid was to be primarily directed towards 'the poorest people in the poorest countries'. I am not aware that this policy has been formally rescinded, but there has certainly in the last decade been a change of emphasis whereby the primary criterion appears to be Britain's perceived commercial advantage.
Through devices ranging from the overt 'aid and trade' provision to, as is now exposed, prime ministerial intervention much of Britain's aid has been diverted to countries (Malaysia is a case in point) which can by no means be described as among the poorest while, as I myself experienced, British representatives in the poorest countries albeit with close traditional links with Britain (in my case Sierra Leone) were told that our countries had 'little priority'.
The Overseas Development Agency generally seeks to excuse Britain's poor performance in regard to the UN-recommended target of proportion of GNP by claiming that British aid is of 'high quality'.
We do have a good record in regard to emergency assistance, but Sir Tim's exposure belies this in regard to development aid. It is to be hoped that Parliament will now insist that aid funds are used for the purpose for which they are voted and that money for trade promotion is correctly designated.
Yours faithfully,
DEREK W. PARTRIDGE
London, SE16
18 January
The writer was British High Commissioner to Sierra Leone, 1986-91.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments