THERE was more trouble for Mr Major last night when MPs were told that
he had given his approval to a foreign aid project later condemned by
public spending watchdog the National Audit Office.
Mr Major joined Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd in giving the final
go-ahead to help fund a hydro-electric power plant in Malaysia --
despite opposition from a senior civil servant briefed to advise on the
project, the Commons Public Accounts Select Committee was told.
Overseas Development Administration permanent secretary Sir Timothy
Lankester, who had advised against the scheme, told the committee that
it had been approved initially in 1988 by then Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher and had been given the final go-ahead in 1991 by Mr Hurd.
The committee is investigating the Government's handling of the aid
project which, according to an NAO report last year, cost the British
taxpayer #56m more than planned.
Opposition MPs claim the aid package was granted as part of a #1
billion arms deal negotiated by Lady Thatcher in 1988, while
environmentalists claim the 600-megawatt plant -- due to be commissioned
in 1996 -- is an ecological disaster.
Sir Timothy said the project had been subject to a two-day ''appraisal
mission'' carried out during a two-day visit to Malaysia by two ODA
officials in March 1989.
This astonished committee chairman, Labour MP Robert Sheldon, who said
the shortest previous record appraisal mission known to the committee --
for the De Lorean car project in Northern Ireland -- had lasted 10 days.
In response to later questioning, Sir Timothy said ''a lamentable
slip-up'' had been made. He added: ''There should have been a fuller
appraisal.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article