BRITISH FOREIGN AID

It has emerged that Britain has sent more than £4million in foreign aid to North Korea in the past six years despite the communist regime’s threat to spark nuclear war.

Official figures reveal the UK spent £740,000 of taxpayers’ money on aid projects in the despotic regime in 2015 alone – a 167 per cent increase on the previous year.

The Foreign Office, which is responsible for most of the spending, has said it had no plans to axe the aid programme.

While there is little evidence that aid payments to North Korea have had much impact since the payments to the country began to be increased in 2010, some believe that aid could help improve relations with the pariah state.

The money also counts towards the Government’s controversial target of spending 0.7 per cent of Britain’s income on international development.

It is believed that ministers are now facing fresh calls to end all aid to North Korea in response to the increasingly bellicose threats from dictator Kim Jong-un. A view gaining traction is that it is unacceptable to hand taxpayers’ money to a country bent on attacking the West and its allies.

Sir Gerald Howarth, former Tory defence minister, said: ‘It is completely absurd to be giving aid to North Korea at this time… There are some very poor people there because of the regime’s actions, but the country is a communist basket case.

‘They are trying to build a nuclear missile to hit the United States, they are destabilising the entire region. Why on earth are we giving them aid?’

Sir Gerald said the case highlighted the problems caused by the 0.7 per cent aid target, which was enshrined in law by the Coalition government.

He added: ‘Ridiculous cases like this are just more evidence of the need to re-examine the whole basis of the aid programme. We need to repeal the legislation, slash the aid budget dramatically and spend the money on priorities like defence and social care.’

The prominent UKIP donor Arron Banks described the spending on North Korea as ‘shocking’.

‘In the past, we’ve had issues with the wastefulness of the foreign aid budget, but this is beyond ridiculous,’ he said.

‘While we funnel money into this failing state, they are spending most of their resources developing nuclear weapons designed to wipe us off the map.

‘What’s next? Giving foreign aid to Islamic State?’ The aid programme is also potentially embarrassing for Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson who has warned the despotic regime it ‘must stop these belligerent acts and comply with UN resolutions’ after a failed missile test last weekend.

North Korea has been upping the ante again this week in its stand-off with the West, telling the United Nations that ‘nuclear war may break out at any moment’.

But the Foreign Office insists its aid policy is helping to improve relations with the communist country.

In 2009, British aid to North Korea stood at just £32,000.

But spending was increased rapidly by the Coalition government from 2010 onwards as it pursued the new aid target. In the past six years, more than £4million of taxpayers’ money has been spent on aid projects in the country, with spending peaking at £1.3million in 2013.

Projects include schemes designed to promote Western values – such as English lessons for regime officials and workshops for entrepreneurs.

But money has also been spent on projects to provide equipment and training for physiotherapy units in the country, potentially allowing the regime to free up resources to spend on its murderous military programme.

The Foreign Office has defended the programme, and has stressed that money is spent on individual schemes rather than handed directly to the regime.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: ‘The projects we carry out in North Korea are part of our policy of critical engagement, and are used to promote British values and demonstrate to the North Korean people that engaging with the UK and the outside world is an opportunity rather than a threat.

‘We conduct a range of small-scale project work, many of which help to improve the lives of the most vulnerable members of society.’