Prevention is better than cure

The ongoing struggle to reduce the cost of vaccines in developing countries like Ghana.

 

Monday saw me in Committee room 1 in Westminster amongst Parliamentarians and health and development activists at the start of World Immunisation Week. Now I am in Ghana where more than 50 years ago I was inoculated against polio. This has now been eradicated in Ghana by the sort of mass immunisation campaign that I am privileged to see launched here this week.

Today, in Ghana the target is two of the biggest child killers in the world pneumonia and diarrhoea. These two diseases account for an estimated 20 per cent of all under 5 deaths in the country, but are largely preventable through the introduction of the pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccines. In the UK we take for granted the access and availability of these vaccines and we have little experience of the fatal impact of these diseases. But pneumonia and diarrhoea each kill roughly 500,000 children under 5 every year and 85 per cent of the diarrhoea deaths caused by rotavirus are in the developing world. In Ghana the fatal impact of these diseases is very real.

I am travelling to Ghana with the GAVI Alliance. This unique partnership between governments, North and South, civil society, and private sector philanthropists and businesses has revolutionised the market in and delivery of vaccines globally and saved the lives of millions. The origins of GAVI's funding lie in the very special coming together of activists and government that led to the UK’s historic commitments to the UN 0.7 per cent of GDP target for development. This is an enduring achievement of the last Labour government. The good news is that this saw the advent of a new national consensus. The consequence of which is that David Cameron and Andrew Mitchell, who hosted the last funding conference for GAVI, have committed a further £814 million pounds to the cause. This recognises not simply the need I see so clearly demonstrated in Ghana and indeed throughout my work in Africa but also of the effectiveness of GAVI and its unique model. This builds local ownership whilst intervening in world markets to reduce the cost of vaccines to developing nations through innovative funding mechanisms. The IFFIm on which I worked with Gordon Brown during our time at the Treasury was the first of these. Designed and championed by a very special partnership between the treasury, the city, and civil society including the Vatican, it proved to be a groundbreaking approach to securing sustainable funding for development. I am now seeing first hand in Ghana the product of a next generation initiative, the Advanced Market Commitment (AMC), which is delivering life saving pneumococcal vaccines to the poorest countries at a 90 per cent price reduction compared to the cost in the US and EU. And it has accelerated the pace of delivery so that by 2015 an additional 700,000 lives ought to be saved.

The child that I saw my self struggling for breath in the arms of her father, whilst a weeping mother looked on at the Princess Marie Louise Hospital in central Accra ought not to be joined by countless others. Politics and the budget process that protects DFID’s spending are too often disparaged by so many in the sadly cynical and disillusioned country that we have become. Not least by so many young people who have been turned off completely by the whole process. We all need reminding from time to time why politics and the contest of ideas and values matter so desperately. And why we need to restore and revitalise our own politics.

One of GAVI’s strengths, as I see it, is that GAVI builds and supports local ownership and participation. A traditional leader in rural Ghana told us through his linguist, the original version of our own Number 10 spokesperson, why he had called together the village community to get vaccinated. Ghanaian health professionals had proudly outlined the “cold chain”, the logistical triumph that will ensure that children in the remotest parts of Ghana will still get access to the vaccine in good time and at maximum effectiveness. The Health Minister rightly outlined the Ghanaian taxpayers’ contribution to the funding of the whole process supported by GAVI. This is best practice in international development. Britain’s contribution ensures that somewhere in the world every 2 seconds a child is being vaccinated and a life is saved every 2 minutes from diseases that no child in the UK ever dies. On my way back from the medical field unit so similar to the one my mum took me all those years ago now, I saw a “Tro-Tro”, Ghana’s ubiquitous minivan taxi system. They are famed for the proverbs emblazoned on them with great colour and decorative flourish. This one simply said, “Prevention is better than cure". 

Paul Boateng is a former chief secretary to the Treasury, ex-High Commissioner in South Africa and a Labour peer

Paul Boateng, a former British high commissioner to South Africa, MP, cabinet minister and civil rights lawyer, is a member of the House of Lords and a trustee of the Planet Earth Institute

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.