The Tribune

There seems to be a general view in Britain that the provision of monetary aid directly to other countries is unpopular with the public. During periods of relative national prosperity, that may not manifest itself because overseas aid tends not to be an issue for most people. But, in the midst of today’s coronavirus crisis and consequent economic emergency, it perhaps comes as no surprise that opinion polls show the majority of British people favour a substantial reduction of the nation’s foreign aid budget.

The issue has come to the fore following last week’s UK spending review in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Minister of Finance equivalent) announced a temporary cut in overseas aid from 0.7 to 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) which would provide an annual saving of the equivalent of about $5 billion. According to official figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Britain is the world’s third biggest contributor to international aid and development – much of it channelled through the UN, multilateral agencies and non-governmental organisations – behind the US and Germany; and even after the 0.2 per cent cut it would be in fifth place.

The background to this is interesting. In 2015, a Conservative government led by the then Prime Minister David Cameron enshrined in UK law a commitment to meet the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent of GNI on overseas aid, and a pledge to that effect was included in the Tory manifesto for last year’s election. He himself is on record as saying there was a moral imperative for a wealthy country like Britain to lend a hand to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable when it possessed the means, the tools and expertise to do so – and he maintained it was also in his country’s national interest to help address underlying causes of misery, disorder and instability like poverty, disease and lack of opportunity, both for reasons of humanity and decency as well as in order to prevent conflict.

All that is admirable. It fits with the notion of “noblesse oblige” and the contention that – both at home and on the world stage - the rich and privileged have a duty to fulfil certain social responsibilities towards the less fortunate. However, in the UK at present Boris Johnson’s government is responding not only to a health emergency but an economic one, with huge extra public expenditure related to coronavirus that has created a national debt bigger than the economy which is forecast to shrink by some 11 percent this year.

In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising many consider there is a compelling case for diverting a proportion of overseas aid to much needed domestic priorities in an effort to keep the economy afloat. In such an unprecedented time of crisis, there is wide agreement that, in order to keep tax rises to a minimum, every penny of public expenditure should come under close scrutiny so that a temporary and relatively small cut in aid spending should be seen not only as reasonable but prudent and responsible.

Nonetheless, this decision has been opposed by some and could even spark a rebellion among Tory MPs – even though, with a lower GNI because of the virus, spending would anyway have been down. Mr Cameron himself has described it as a sad moment and a moral, strategic and political mistake to break Britain’s promise to the poorest of the world and that this cut could have a devastating effect on the lives of millions in less developed countries.

Others say the UK’s annual aid budget of some $15 billion is a tremendous achievement of so-called “soft power”, so a cutback would be a dismal start to Britain’s chairmanship of the G7 and its hosting of the upcoming UN climate change conference. Charity leaders in the UK say now is not the time to renege on international aid commitments, and to do so risks damaging the UK’s standing globally as the nation defines its role in the world post-Brexit.

The arguments about cuts are finely balanced and this will have been a difficult decision for Mr Johnson who only recently was lauding the creation of a new department – the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office – in order to link bilateral aid more closely to foreign policy objectives. But, despite all this, public opinion at a time of crisis cannot be ignored and a government’s first duty is towards its own citizens. Moreover, as I mentioned in a column last June, the Prime Minister had earlier commented that UK overseas aid was being treated much like a “giant cashpoint in the sky” and there needed to be greater transparency and accountability in relation to poor and misdirected disbursement of public funds overseas.

In light of this, I imagine the reduction will apply mainly to direct programme aid for particular countries and will not affect Britain’s emergency aid in response to disasters worldwide, especially humanitarian assistance to fellow members of the Commonwealth. A good recent example of that on our own shores was, of course the highly effective UK government response to last year’s devastating Hurricane Dorian. It is also the case that earlier this year the UK’s aid budget was adjusted to respond to the virus pandemic, including a pledge of some $975m to help stop its spread and to help to develop a vaccine – with an emphasis also on tackling the increased risk of famine in developing countries in an effort to help the world’s poorest people.

In summary, the current cut is relatively small and it is temporary, but it has been deemed necessary as a contribution to helping the nation get back on to some sort of even economic keel. Public reaction to severe economic conditions has been predictable. But, assuming the new vaccines do their job and Britain’s and other countries’ economies recover, attitudes may change and it is unlikely any UK government would seriously reduce its aid commitments in the longer term. So there is little doubt that Britain will remain a major and generous donor nation for the foreseeable future.

Light at the end of the tunnel

From what I have heard, more and more people are wondering about developments following all the excitement in reaction to the Pfizer BioNTech announcement earlier this month that a COVID-19 vaccine was imminent. This vaccine, together with others, will surely be a game changer, so the official explanation here at home last week about extending the government’s emergency powers and the possibility of further restrictive measures seemed strangely defensive and pessimistic. But, whatever is happening with Pfizer and the other US manufacturer, Moderna, there is positive news coming from sources in Britain about a separate vaccine – and it may be helpful to explain the details.

In a statement last week, the British Prime Minister spoke enthusiastically and optimistically about the coronavirus vaccine being developed by the British-Swedish pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca – with its headquarters in England - in collaboration with Oxford University. He said the vaccine, whose development had been partly financed by British taxpayers, had been shown to be highly effective in clinical trials but there were more tests to be done. Subject to approval by regulators across the world, the signs were that it could be available in the near future and be both affordable and easy to use – and the good news is that it has been reported separately in the UK press that National Health Service hospitals have apparently been told to prepare for a rollout of the vaccine within the next month.

In a press release last week, the director of the Oxford vaccine group confirmed that trials showed the vaccine produced in collaboration with AstraZeneca was effective at preventing COVID-19 and offered a high level of protection. It would save many lives by preventing infection in up to 90 per cent of people and should therefore be as successful as Pfizer’s and Moderna’s product; but, unlike them, this vaccine can be stored in normal refrigerated conditions. It has also been stated that, since it will be affordable and available globally, it should have an immediate impact on the public health emergency.

Reportedly, Oxford and AstraZeneca are aiming for global manufacture and distribution and a key element of their partnership is their joint commitment to provide the vaccine on a not-for-profit basis while the pandemic continues across the world. For its part, AstraZeneca is quoted as stating it was engaging with governments, multilateral organisations and collaborators around the world “to ensure broad and equitable access to the vaccine at no profit for the duration of the pandemic”.

The British Health Secretary has hailed this vaccine as a major development. But production timetables for it and its two US rivals may mean a delay of months before all who want and need a vaccination actually receive one. Its development is surely a significant achievement by this British company in collaboration with such a famous university. If it leads to mass vaccination by early next year, could it mean that an end to the long nightmare of the coronavirus crisis is in sight and that, at last, there is now a real prospect of a return to some sort of normality?

Times have certainly changed

Last February, I wrote about a row at the heart of the British establishment involving a much publicised clash between a sitting Home Secretary (Minister of Interior equivalent) and the most senior civil servant in the department. The minister, Priti Patel, had been accused of bullying and belittling staff in breach of the ministerial code requiring such leaders to “treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect”.

One might have reasonably thought something of this nature could have been sorted out amicably in grown-up fashion over a cosy drink after hours. But no, the Permanent Secretary not only resigned in a huff, complaining of a “vicious and orchestrated campaign” against him when he challenged the alleged mistreatment of civil servants, but he is now taking the government to a tribunal for alleged constructive dismissal.

Much ado about nothing, some might say. But it all came to a head last week with the finding at the end of an official inquiry into the matter that Ms Patel had indeed violated the ministerial code by bullying civil servants but had done so unintentionally. Despite that, the Prime Minister declined to take any action, let alone sack her as some had demanded – and many believe this was the right approach.

Apparently, she is known to yell and even swear at individuals – and that is rude and regrettable for sure. But can it really be called bullying which implies an insidious and persistent campaign of intimidation against an individual? What is more, perhaps she is even justified in raising her voice against underperforming officials who may also be trying to thwart her policies as a government minister. The hilarious BBC TV programme called Yes, Minister in which officials attempt to do just that is nearer to the truth than some have assumed.

In the Westminster system, it is essential that ministers - who as elected politicians are widely known to the public and are subject to intense scrutiny for their actions – should be in charge of policy. It is they, not unelected and unaccountable civil servants, who have the right and duty to set policy in accordance with the government’s priorities and should not allow themselves to be frustrated in this endeavour by officials. So, perhaps Ms Patel might be forgiven for a degree of irritation in the face of a department which was infamously described by a former Home Secretary as “unfit for purpose”. But she might also do well to acknowledge the old adage that – as in life generally – civility, politeness and calmness, rather than discourtesy, rudeness and anger, are likely to be more effective in getting one’s way in the longer term.