Aid

CONSTITUENTS frequently tell me that, given the tough times we face, we spend too much on international aid and that some of the countries that receive our support should do more to alleviate poverty and hardship themselves.

The UK spends £8-billion a year on international aid. In addition we have pledged to raise this to 0.7% of GDP by 2013 — this will see the figure increase by another billion or so. By comparison, we spend £14-billion a year on policing.

I am strongly in favour of international aid. To help the most vulnerable in the world — some being entirely desperate — is something that marks us out as a decent society.

Our aid programmes have supported nine million children in primary education and trained 190,000 teachers. We have assisted six million of the world's poorest establish a legal right to land and property. We have helped to immunise 55 million children, saved 50,000 women from death in pregnancy and halved mortality from malaria in the ten countries most severely affected. We should be very proud of that.

So my support for the principle of international aid is strong but I am, however, like many of my constituents, concerned about the total amount that we provide and about some of the countries that receive it. And this latter point prompted me to question the International Development Secretary in Parliament last week and to raise aid to India — home to a third of those who live on less than 80p a day and yet a country with a surging economy and twice the number of billionaires than the UK. The response was that our aid to India will continue to be reviewed. So maybe changes to come?

What do you feel about overseas aid? Let me know at [email protected]">[email protected]