Letters | 4 June 2015

Targeting aid

Sir: The way that our aid is being spent is a national scandal (Leading article, 30 May). This is because Dfid has outsourced its professional advice and thus no longer has the expertise to manage an aid programme, and because the establishment of the 0.7 per cent means that funds must be spent regardless of outcome.

Your solution, using aid funds to socially beneficial military purposes is well-intentioned but not feasible, because international rules would not permit Britain classifying this as aid. Fortunately there is a feasible solution that could be implemented without abandoning the aid target. This is to take up the Prime Minister’s promise in the Conservative Aid Policy manifesto ‘that hard-earned taxpayers’ money will be properly audited’. He never intended that the target should be met regardless of use, and could not object if proper auditing meant a smaller aid programme.

At present most aid goes in the form of unauditable grants to corrupt governments, or in huge amounts to international organisations, some 64 per cent of our aid. Instructions to Dfid staff that outcomes should take precedence over targets, grants to corrupt governments should be phased out, and that multilateral organisations should only get what is needed could save at least £5 billion per year. This would deliver a smaller, better-quality aid programme, about the size of those of Germany and France.
Gordon Bridger
Guildford

Bring in Iran

Sir: Last week’s Spectator carried three articles suggesting three different ways of dealing with Isis (30 May). They are: sending in ‘private military companies’, sending in special forces, and tacitly helping Iran to eradicate Isis from Iraq. The last should be implemented. Early on in the catastrophic rise of Isis, Iran offered to help. The assistance was supported by the UN; Iran had recently helped America in Afghanistan.