Monica Harding
Main Page: Monica Harding (Liberal Democrat - Esher and Walton) Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Monica Harding ExcerptsWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Chambers
Yes, these are really important summits, and it is important to show international co-operation.
The Global Fund has been central to the progress I have spoken about. It has helped to save millions of lives and allowed millions of babies to be born HIV-free. Yet progress is fragile and without the sustained investment mentioned by the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), the gains made will unravel and history will repeat itself.
The United States AIDS programme—the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief—launched more than 20 years ago, has saved around 25 million lives. It supports testing, treatment and prevention in more than 50 countries. To show the impact of cuts on these programmes, following funding cuts to that initiative earlier this year, an estimated 120,000 people have died—more than the population of a constituency.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this vital debate and powerfully laying out the success of the Global Fund. Stepping back now and cutting our contribution to the fund, just as the United States is abandoning vaccination programmes altogether, would be devastating for some of the world’s most vulnerable people, and a step back in the progress made. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government do not commit to replenishing the Global Fund sufficiently this year, that not only betrays our extraordinary progress and leadership but, as co-hosts, gives a signal that it is okay for others to do the same?
Dr Chambers
I completely agree about the importance of demonstrating international leadership on this issue. If international support declines, from us and other countries, an additional 10 million new HIV infections, including up to 880,000 in children, could occur by 2030. Those are preventable deaths—people who could be alive this time next year if we choose differently and maintain funding.
Tuberculosis, often called a Victorian superbug, is on the rise again, with cases in England up 13% last year. Globally, it remains one of the leading infectious killers. It is largely preventable, treatable, and curable in the vast majority of cases, yet is too often neglected. Malaria is a microscopic parasite, spread by something as small as a mosquito, that continues to kill half a million people a year. There is a saying, “If you think you are too small to make a difference, you have never spent the night in a tent with a mosquito.” We know what works: mosquito nets, repellents, rapid tests and education. The challenge is not the science but the access. The tools exist but too many communities cannot afford or reach them.
When it comes to global public health,
“Nobody wins unless everybody wins.”
Those are not my words but Bruce Springsteen’s. They apply just as much to global health as they do to any other struggle. If we allow international health systems to weaken and turn our backs on collaboration, we are failing not only others but ourselves. Every time we strengthen a health system abroad, we strengthen Britain’s safety at home. We reduce the risk of the next pandemic reaching our shores, protect supply chains, stabilise economies and open new opportunities for trade and innovation.
If we invest now, we can cement the UK’s reputation as a global leader in health innovation, not just through our laboratories and universities, but through partnerships such as the Global Fund that translate research into real-world impact. British expertise in vaccine development, diagnostics and data science already help to shape programmes that have saved lives across the world. Continued investment allows us to share knowledge, strengthen health systems and, in doing so, build influence and resilience that benefit the UK and our global partners.
We also need to be honest about the wider picture. The UK’s official development assistance budget has already been reduced from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income. The Government are now reducing it further, to around 0.3% by 2027. The Fleming Fund, which monitors and helps to tackle antimicrobial resistance, has been scaled back, and the UK’s contribution to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has fallen from about £1.65 billion to £1.25 billion for the next funding cycle, which is a real-terms reduction of roughly 40%.
Taken together, those decisions risk sending a message that Britain is retreating from its proud record of global health leadership. If we are serious about being a world leader in science, public health and international development, maintaining our commitment to the Global Fund is one of the clearest and most effective ways to show it. A rushed transition from global aid to self-financing, forced by rapid funding reductions, will result in direct harm through reduced healthcare, stock-outs of essential medicines and untimely deaths. When this is done in the context of infectious disease, the long-term cost will rise in exchange for short-term savings.