Liam Fox challenges Cameron's overseas aid pledge

[Prince Myshkin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/17/liam-fox-challenge-pm-overseas-aid-targets

 

Defence secretary says statutory requirement to spend 0.7% of national income on aid will lead to legal challenges

 

 

The defence secretary, Liam Fox, has challenged David Cameron's plan to enshrine the government's overseas aid spending targets in law, it has been revealed.

 

In a letter to the prime minister, Fox argued that creating a statutory requirement to spend 0.7% of national income on official development assistance (ODA) from 2013 will open the government up to legal challenges.

 

Instead, he said, the target should be recognised in legislation, along with a commitment to produce an annual report on whether it was being met.

 

Ironically, this was the same approach initially favoured in the case of the military covenant, which Fox was forced to ditch after pressure from armed forces charities.

 

A source close to Fox insisted that he was not opposed to the government's plan to increase spending on aid, saying: "The defence secretary fully supports the principle of a 0.7% target on international aid. The issue is simply how best to reflect this in law."

 

Some Conservative MPs have voiced anger at the decision to increase international aid budgets over the coming four years, at a time when spending on domestic priorities – including defence – is being cut.

 

Fox's letter, obtained by the Times, makes clear that he raised his concerns with the international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, and foreign secretary, William Hague, before writing to Cameron.

 

"I have considered the issue carefully, and discussed it with Andrew and William Hague, but I cannot support the proposal in its current form," wrote Fox.

 

"In 2009 the proportion of national income spent on ODA was only 0.52%." Putting the commitment on the statute books "could limit HM government's ability to change its mind about the pace at which it reaches the target in order to direct more resources toward other activities or programmes rather than aid".

 

He said more stringent monitoring requirements may threaten the ministry of defence's ability to report and fund some of its own activities as ODA.

 

"I believe that creating a statutory requirement to spend 0.7% ODA carries more risk in terms of potential future legal challenges than, as we have for the covenant, putting into statute recognition of the target and a commitment to an annual report against it. The latter would be my preferred way to proceed."

 

Downing Street declined to comment on the leaked letter.

 

But a spokesman said: "The aid allocation in the spending review shows our commitment to implementing our pledge to spend 0.7% of GNI (gross national income) on official development assistance from 2013.

 

"We are fully committed to enacting the 0.7% commitment into law, in line with the coalition agreement."

 

I find this quite interesting. I know very little about how this works and the complexities of our economy so I'm up for listening to others opinions on this, but it seems to me that if he's for spending 0.7%, why would he rather continually produce reports to see if they are managing it but not actually necessarily doing anything about these reports? Seems like a waste of money for a party cutting down on bureaucracy and pointless expenditure etc. I reckon Cameron should stick to his plans.

[a_face_of_light]

I think the Government should get their own Country in order before worrying about other peoples, what's worse is the money given in Aid to some Countries tends to line the pockets of the super rich there while not helping the people it was intended to at all, the way the Country is at the moment I would cut it to 0.0% personally.

[Prince Myshkin]

Being a caring human being, I wouldn't do that.

As has been mentioned in several threads around the board recently, many of our problems come from other countries lack of wealth, and therefore their anger.

[a_face_of_light]

I think if they wanted to do some genuine good they could give money to the Red Cross etc rather than just donate money to Countries directly, where most of the time the corrupt leaders and their cronies use the money to buy gold plated toilets and guns rather than things that would actually benefit the population.

[Prince Myshkin]

So not 0.0% then?

I believe that we have a duty to provide for others.

Regardless of the current situation we are still privileged.

The avenues on which these funds go down to get to those in need may indeed need reviewing, but that doesn't mean it should stop altogether.

[a_face_of_light]

If they are going to continue with the current system then yes I think 0.0% would be a good figure as at the moment it does very little good for the people the money is intended to help or our Country to be spending vast sums of money for the benefit of a few corrupt people who abuse their power.

 

If the system was changed to actually help the people it was intended to then I would be for it, as it stands I'm not.

[Prince Myshkin]

Even if only 20% got through I'd pay it.

The same way I'd rather support a system that allows quite a few people to scrounge (as bad as it is) but then keeps a small percentage over the poverty line, rather than cutting funding to all of them and letting that small percentage sink.

 

If David Cameron is willing to pay it then we can afford it.

[a_face_of_light]

Like I said, I'm not against helping people who are in need of it, far from it I would like to see people in less fortunate Nations enjoy a higher quality of life, I just feel the current system is ineffective and I resent that and would like the money spent in Aid to really do some good.

 

There are a number of other ways we could save the Country money too, like bring our Military home from unwinnable pointless overseas conflicts that do nothing but cost lives and money.

[Prince Myshkin]

Like I said, I'm not against helping people who are in need of it, far from it I would like to see people in less fortunate Nations enjoy a higher quality of life, I just feel the current system is ineffective and I resent that and would like the money spent in Aid to really do some good.

 

There are a number of other ways we could save the Country money too, like bring our Military home from unwinnable pointless overseas conflicts that do nothing but cost lives and money.

 

But this is the current system, and until it is reformed simply stopping all funds isn't the answer. I wouldn't stop supporting simply out of resent.

 

Pulling out could do more damage as it stands. Entering was questionable but it's happened now.

 

In both of the scenarios, things need changing, but simply stopping aid or pulling out are far too reactionary and brutal to do, without there being severe consequences.

[a_face_of_light]

I would stop paying until a system that is both fair and heavily monitored was introduced.

[Prince Myshkin]

I have too much of a conscience. I'd start to make changes whilst continuing to support them.

[a_face_of_light]

I guess that's where we differ, not that there's anything wrong with that:).

[Guest howyousawtheworld]

I agree that as a fully developed powerful economy that we continue spending on foreign aid even during times upon which the government HAS to cut public expenditure on the domestic front. But I don't think it's right for the PM to try and make it law as circumstances on spending changes all the time. There should always be a commitment from the UK government but I don't see much point in wasting time in trying to push through such legislation.