In 2005, Britain will spend £4.6 billion on international aid, which is 0.4 per cent of national income. The United Nations set a target of 0.7 per cent.

Problems of poverty and disease in the developing world are as pressing as ever. Britain should meet the UN target, which is reasonable, but it is important to acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong with where aid is currently spent.

The Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short summed up the current Government’s approach when she said:

“We are also increasingly providing support directly into the budgets of developing country governments in return for a commitment to good governance that includes not only investment in basic services but also improvements to financial management and justice systems.”(1)

Although improving financial management and justice systems and developing good governance are important, sending funds directly into the budgets of developing country governments does not seem to be the best direction of aid money. Government-to-government funding is susceptible to misuse or corruption – funds are easily siphoned off into military budgets, official entertainment or Swiss bank accounts. Government-to-government funding involving millions of pounds is likely to exacerbate the problems of dependency, oppression, corruption and environmental degradation. How much of the money benefits the people is hard to say.

Conservatives believe in helping people to help themselves. A core Conservative value is to do as much as possible through people and civil society, and keep government small and focussed. Promoting initiative, enterprise, creativity and independence among people – helping move people away from dependency – is at the heart of Conservative thought.

Person-to-person aid
These values should shape our approach to international aid. A future Conservative government should turn the aid budget on its head and develop person-to-person aid.

Time and again it has been shown in the developing world that what is really required is not sackloads of rice and flour, but people with expertise to share. In the short-term, humanitarian aid will doubtless be required to keep people from starvation and disease, but aid policy should also focus on the long-term. Development is about small steps, not ambitious solutions.

Conservatives should therefore campaign for part of the Department for International Development (DFID) aid budget to be used to finance British people to go overseas to help develop skills. Perhaps 30% of our aid budget should be allocated this way, rather than the current allocation of less than 5%.  This can be done by increasing the number of grants awarded to the numerous organisations which exist for this very purpose and to encourage the formation of new ones. The developing world desperately needs trained doctors, lawyers, teachers, computer technicians and mechanics. Perhaps even more, there is a need for basic training in primary healthcare. Proper hygiene can prevent many diseases, and prevention is better than treatment.

In addition, the aid budget should be used to fund more small, community-based  development programmes that provide person-to-person care instead of government-to-government.

However, in many places, the problem is not a lack of skills but a lack of material resources. For example many places have skilled healthcare workers but do not have medical supplies.  DFID funds are therefore well spent when procuring supplies in bulk which can be distributed by non-state organisations which have a presence in a given area. 

Conservative Association sponsorship
But Conservatives do not need to wait until we are in Government to begin this. Conservative Associations can start now, by identifying people in their local communities – of whatever political persuasion – who would like to spend a few months or a year overseas helping develop skills. If every local Conservative Association, and perhaps Conservative-controlled councils, sponsored one person in their constituency to go abroad and teach IT, journalism, law, English, medicine or plumbing – or any other skill that they have – for up to a year, the effect would be extremely positive.  It would:

• address the aid and development problem in a practical way;
• show Britain that Conservatives do care about the world’s poor;
• impact British society for the better, helping to redirect our national culture.

The developing world would benefit, and the volunteer would benefit. They would learn more about the world and gain fresh experience which would develop character. The volunteers could be in their “gap year”, aged 18, before university, but they could just as easily be any age. They could be in their thirties and wanting time off from the rat-race of work, or anyone taking a sabbatical. They could be in their sixties and wanting to do something new in their retirement. Each Conservative Association could invite applications and interview the applicants. The decision should be made purely on the basis of the suitability of the person for the prospective project, and the desirability of the project, and not on any political agenda.

When the volunteer returns from abroad, they could give a presentation to the Association and local newspapers, and thus everyone would learn something more of the developing world.

Current approaches to aid and development, by government-to-government funding or through large relief organisations which have little personal contact or sensitivity to the local culture and needs, are proving to be ineffective. It is time to try a new approach, a Conservative approach, based on people, skills, accountability and creativity.