When David Cameron and the Conservatives promised to ringfence foreign aid at 0.7 per cent of the national growth income, most people thought it a decent and honourable thing to do. It’s very British to give and help those in need, plus at the same time international aid makes good economic, business and security sense. Long term, its benefits will by far outweigh its cost. This fraction of the national income realises more than its tangible amount – because a pound Stirling in the developing world achieves ten times and in some cases even hundreds of what it can achieve in the UK and the developed world.

Besides being a small portion of the UK’s overall spending, overseas aid also puts us in a favourable position with those that receive it. By giving aid to these states we help them grow and support their own economies while at the same time it allows us to be the first in line when these economies need investors, partners and begin trading in the global market. Add to that, it is a huge security and crisis management protocol. The more economically stable developing states are the more secure they become and the less risk they pose to us and the rest of the developed community.

So all in all, foreign assistance is positive all-around for all concerned. And although the percentage ring-fenced is a very small amount, for many in the UK its significance is causing a great deal of debate. Which is very understandable, when all other services paid for by taxpayers are being frozen or cut, many feel tax funded International Development ought to be treated equally and reduced during times of financial strain.

Particularly as they feel some of the money paid in aid finds its way to individuals and fat cats at the top of these states, rather than the venerable and the projects needed to advance these nations. That might have been true in the past, but as we saw recently, nations who don’t need or misuse our help lose that help. However, putting to one side the notion of funds misuse until it is proved, International Aid’s benefits by far dwarf its cost and subsequent harms.

Nonetheless, the question still remains. In this particularly austere times, should the UK not ringfence its International Aid budget and end its commitment to spending a fixed 0.7 per cent of the gross national income on aid come what may? Or should we look at the bigger picture, the developments, the economic stability in aid receiving nations and the security that affords them and us?

Today, London and Prime Minster David Cameron are hosting a conference on immunisation in conjunction with Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) attended by national leaders, CEOs, NGO representatives and leading international stakeholders who pledged that by 2015 they can immunize 250 million children and save four million from death.

No one in their right mind reading the above statement will say International Development or what Andrew Mitchel is doing is wrong, bad or too much. But what a lot of people are saying – we need to reassess some of those we give annual aid to – again that doesn’t mean not to give to overseas aid; however, it means to give wisely and responsibly.

Non Immunisation is one of the major infants’ killers in Africa and the developing world – due to two handicaps – lack of drugs and education. It therefore makes sense to educate and teach developing communities of its importance. That’s the responsible part on this situation.

There are other situations where being responsible means when giving aid we must follow through and see to it that our money, aid and relief given ends in the right hands and is solely used for its intended purposes. That can sometimes be challenging as it will require further resources.

But since it’s the British tax payers who are the givers – the responsible thing for our government to do – is to fully explain and take on board the feelings and concerns of the British public. Because giving with one hand while the other is troubled is neither kind nor sincere and even the most destitute of nations deserve sympathetic heartfelt charity.

Britons are very generous, they daily give tirelessly to many causes nationally and internationally – so the notion by some that they are mean or greedy is simply preposterous and is more a reflection on those who claim it than our generous nation.

When Melanie Phillips, on last night’s Question Time said international aid should be used to improve prisons and to help the needy in our country first, some people treated her like a Nazi. Sadly, today with our so called ‘progressive’ elite – and those who crowned themselves overseers of all things ‘correct’ – common senses and logic took a back seat. Being sensible and putting self and family first has become an unspeakable selfish sin, even when it is the right thing to do!

I agree with Ms Philips in that we should be responsible for our own first, in times of great need it is egotistical and self serving of our politicians to ring-fence money for international spending while there is a need for it locally. Granted the amounts we spend overseas pales in significance to what is spent at home and it greatly helps needy people there. However, it should be treated as part of the overall economy and reflects the mood of the nation, ring – fencing it in this occasion is a slap on the face of many Britons who already feel neglected and left behind by their own.

Of course, it’s a duty to care and help those who are in need, but not without the blessing of those who the money belongs to in the first place! Even if the money given is a very small amount, percentage wise, the public should still be at ease with how and where the money is spent. Generally, the British people are very caring and giving, they are always at the ready, with their hands in their pockets to help whenever others are in need. However, they feel the same cuts that affected their quality of life should be reflected on international giving.

Where I don’t agree with Ms Philips is in stopping International Aid all together. Just as our politicians are extreme in ring-fencing aid when most everything else is not, she is extreme in wanting to abolish it all together. As long as there is a need for help we have a duty to help – but we also have a duty of accountability when giving that money. Knowing how and where the money is spent – following it throughout and making sure it leaves a lasting legacy – punishing those who misuse it and train those who need guidance to use it properly – are all as important as giving the money. Otherwise it is just selfish gratification!

Coming from Africa, I saw how international aid, US-AID and various EU monies can be misspent. A great deal of it is put to wonderful use but also large sums of it end up in personal pockets, arming and strengthening the wrong people and numbered accounts overseas. How else do you think all the developing world dictators stay in power for decades, have riches beyond belief while the rest of their people are oppressed, live in mud huts, walk bare feet with empty bellies and little cloth!?