OPEN LETTER TO IAIN STEWART regarding cuts to UK Aid and the two myths (1) it's about money (2) the impact will be temporary

 

From: Mike Cashman 
Sent: 14 March 2021 20:19
To: 'iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk' <iain.stewart.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: OPEN LETTER TO IAIN STEWART regarding cuts to UK Aid and the two myths (1) it's about money (2) the impact will be temporary

 

Dear Iain Stewart

As you know I am writing to you as one of your constituents. I hope you and your family are well during these difficult times – I recall you have elderly parents in Scotland - and thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I am deeply concerned at the cuts to international Aid and the threats to the volunteering work of VSO.

There are two points which I find impossible to reconcile with the facts, though both have been promulgated, for example on BBC  Radio 4 “Any Questions” on Friday :

1.       That the issue is money

2.       That the impact will be temporary.

1.- Is the issue one of money?

DFID  was taken over by FCO in June with the assurance “UK Aid is safe in  our hands” which has not aged well. The cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was made in November. Serco/Deloitte Test & Trace was being defended in Parliament by Baroness Harding seeking to justify the spending of £22 billion -  more than the whole of Crossrail. But even that was apparently not enough and with little fanfare another £15 billion was allocated in March to this programme (and Parliament was underwhelmed by the impact of the initial  £22 billion).  My point here is that the further £15 billon “need” was unknown last November, or else it would surely have been declared (and if you can find a public declaration of it before March 2021, please let me know) ; you and I have discussed project management before – as a project manager I would be in big trouble if I was not open about future anticipated costs. And so this further £15 billion ”need” came to light much more recently, and was nodded through. If the Chancellor had the ability to find £15 billion in March 2021 then he certainly had the ability to defend a legally committed £4 billion in November 2020.

Let’s compare the impact of £1 million. That could fund five of the less expensive £1000/day  consultants for a year (or ten for six months, or forty for three months etc). OR in UK Aid it could be used to enable 700 families from Turkana in Northern Kenya, formerly nomadic  but forced out of that lifestyle in part by a climate change they did nothing to cause, to clear bush, irrigate, and grow their own food forever. This is one of many positive examples of UK Aid – I use it as an illustration having monitored the grant project, and having been out to visit, meet some of the families, and seen the project  before work started and also when the land had been made fertile. ,Having worked on large Government projects with hundreds of staff, I can assure you that nothing of this nature needs thousands of “consultants”. It may need many staff and it may need a few consultants. The  Conservative “spend whatever it takes” may be  emotionally satisfying but is strategically unwise, leading to over-spending , waste, and potential corruption – see the National Audit Office Report and the questions raised by the Good Law Project. If we adopt a “Value for Money” mindset rather than a “No limits”  mindset (and I was required to follow Value For Money even for education in Syria or Ebola eradication in Sierra Leone), then I have no doubt that substantial savings could be made as compared to the wasteful spending of £15 billion

Which is the better use of money in the comparison above ? I feel sure you would come to the same conclusion as me.

And so we can clearly see that this cut was not about money

2. Will the impact be temporary ?

With such a large cut, projects will be stopped, jobs will be lost, skills will not be retained. I’ll take up the specific example of VSO below.

But anyone with good knowledge of operational management will understand the massive disruption on the operation of a cut from 0.7% to 0.5% . I roughly estimated that after some ring-fencing is allowed for this cut might mean a 50% operational cut, and the impact on the DFID Yemen budget seems to illustrate that. So it will not be possible to turn the volume back up again and carry on as before – unless the gap is very short indeed, e.g. 3 months. The impact on capability will be swingeing.

I am sure  that those driving this in Cabinet are well aware of this, and therefore that this is their intention – to cut current programmes , and in time replace with work that is of more political value to the Conservatives. If that is not the case, please tell me how skills will be retained. I have worked with many local staff across Africa, working for DFID, on local salaries, highly skilled, who will be lost to DFID if there is no light to look forward to. I am also well aware that DFID staff in UK may be lost and not replaced, until at some point in the future budget is available. But much may then be spent on consultants at great expense , reported as spent from the programme budget (i.e. not reported as an admin cost). I fear we may be heading for UK Serco Aid or UK Deloitte Aid. This trend has already started.

The damage will be permanent, unless action is taken now

EXAMPLE -  VSO
I would like to raise the specific example of VSO. I have been deeply involved with VSO – eleven years ago as an international volunteer, and in more recent years training many cohorts of youth volunteers on the ICS Programme.

I need to clarify that I have no financial interest to declare; all my work for VSO has been completely on a volunteer basis. And in fact let’s start with that as an example. By enabling the VSO volunteering programme in the past DFID did a wonderful thing, leveraging the skills, time, passion and enthusiasm not only of the young people dedicating months to helping communities across the world and working with them, creating a positive impact for Britain , and then bringing that experience, those lessons, that knowledge, back to their homes – but also of old codgers like me , with experience on the ground in half a dozen African countries plus projects in Nepal and Syria in my case, to equip and enthuse those young people. All that time given for free. That’s Value for Money

I have been shocked to hear about threats to the future of VSO’s funding from the UK government as a result. VSO is a British institution, representing the best of British values overseas and as I’ve pointed out volunteering is a form of aid that is cost-effective and has long-term impact on communities around the world. Across 33 countries, VSO works to support girls’ education, support open and inclusive societies, improve sexual and reproductive health rights, and build inclusive global health systems, all through the power of volunteers. This is at the core of why I choose to support VSO.

If VSO’s funding is not renewed, it would mean, in practice, that the UK government would be closing their entire support for international volunteering. This comes just at the time when, around the world, volunteering has been shown to be an essential answer to complex global challenges, including the pandemic. With the pandemic, there will not be regional winners and losers, Either we eradicate Covid-19, as we did with DFID support for Ebola in Sierra Leone – or at least drive it down to a very manageable level , worldwide – or else mutations will develop in areas not well served and will prove in time able to overcome vaccine defences.

VSO offers people across the UK the opportunity to volunteer overseas on programmes which really make a difference, and VSO’s development programmes have consistently received ‘A’ ratings for their impact and effectiveness from DFID and now the FCDO. As my MP, I am asking if you share my support for VSO, and what action you will be able to take to raise this issue with the government and what enthusiasm and effort  you will commit to ensuring that VSOI’s work can continue undimmed.

With  best wishes

Mike Cashman