UK (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Labour MPs urge Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to halt a 20% cut to the Global Fund, warning it would damage global health and UK credibility.
As reported by The Guardian, seven former Labour ministers have urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to reverse plans to cut UK aid for global disease prevention, calling it a “moral failure” and a serious strategic blunder.
Ministers are preparing to finalise Britain’s pledge to the Global Fund soon, prompting renewed calls on the prime minister to abandon the proposed 20% cut.
Several Labour MPs have voiced concern over a potential UK aid cut to the Global Fund, which could be announced during the upcoming G20 summit in South Africa, attended by the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister faces backlash for appearing unwilling to commit UK resources to international aid, highlighted by the decision on the eve of COP30 to skip funding for the world’s tropical forests.
Aid groups warn that cutting the UK’s Global Fund contribution to £800m for 2027-29 could cripple a highly effective program and risk 340,000 avoidable deaths.
How Labour MPs warn Keir Starmer that a 20% UK aid cut could risk millions of lives?
A confidential letter to Keir Starmer was signed by seven ex-junior ministers, though only Gareth Thomas and Fleur Anderson have publicly confirmed their participation.
Mr Thomas, former Africa minister under ex-PM Gordon Brown and business minister for Keir Starmer, highlighted witnessing the Global Fund’s work, including protecting unborn babies from HIV through antiretroviral drugs supplied by a Swiss organisation.
He said,
“These were not abstract statistics. They were healthy babies who would not have survived without this assistance. The question now is whether we have the will to see this through.”
The ex-minister added,
“Since 2002, this remarkable partnership has saved 70 million lives and built resilient health systems across the world. We face a stark choice: stand firm and maintain our commitment or retreat from one of the world’s greatest health achievements.”
Mr Thomas said,
“The cost of retreat would be devastating. A 20% cut to Britain’s pledge would result in nearly 6m preventable infections, putting the most vulnerable – especially children – at serious risk. Such a move would not only be a moral failure but a strategic one.”
He slammed Britain’s decision to cut funding to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi), calling it a serious setback.
Mr Thomas said the reduction in Gavi funding was “a troubling signal of retreat”, adding,
“We are moving in the wrong direction, precisely when we must defend international cooperation and multilateralism most vigorously.”
He continued,
“But this is about more than health. It’s about Britain’s national security. Healthy communities that can learn, work and thrive create stable, resilient societies. Tackling disease in the poorest countries alleviates the conditions that fuel instability, displacement and conflict.”
Several Labour MPs raised concerns over HIV and AIDS, with 43 backbenchers sending a private letter to Prime Minister Starmer on the issue.
How did aid groups warn that the UK cut could trigger a global health crisis?
Gareth Jenkins, an executive director at Malaria No More UK, stated,
“The world stands on the brink of a malaria resurgence, which will be so much more likely triggered if the UK makes a cut to its contribution to the Global Fund.”
He added,
“In this scenario many more children will lose their lives, health systems will be overwhelmed and economies dragged down – with huge knock-on effects for UK trade and health security.”
Mike Podmore, CEO of StopAIDS, warned the UK’s proposed cut would “send a terrible message,” especially ahead of the co-hosted funding event.
He continued,
“Not only did the UK already make a 30% cut three years ago, but to date no host has ever reduced their commitment from their previous pledge. This would represent a serious lack of leadership and undermine the UK’s reputation and soft power.”
Adrian Lovett, the UK head of the development campaign One, stated that the cut would
“put at risk decades of progress in the fight against Aids, TB and malaria – and as diseases do not stop at borders, it would jeopardise our own health security here at home too.”
How did Monica Harding warn that UK funding cuts could harm global health?
The Liberal Democrats’ international development spokesperson, Monica Harding, said cutting co-host funding would signal a decline in Britain’s global diplomatic and development role.
She added,
“Stepping back now and reducing our contribution to the fund at a time when the United States is abandoning vaccination programmes wholesale would be devastating to some of the world’s most vulnerable people. It would risk undoing much of the progress we have made in the global fight against disease.”
What did the UK Foreign Office say about its role in fighting global diseases?
A Foreign Office spokesperson stated,
“The UK continues work with the Global Fund to play a significant role in the global response to fight disease globally. Our work has contributed to saving 70 million lives and reducing the combined death rate from HIV, TB and Malaria by 63%.”
They added,
“We remain firmly committed to tackling global health challenges, not only because it is right, but to help deliver the plan for change in the UK by supporting global stability and growth.”
How did the UK’s Gavi funding change under the latest foreign aid cuts?
The government pledged £1.25bn to Gavi over the next five years, 24% less than former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s 2021‑25 funding period.
Aid experts had raised concerns over deep cuts, but the UK’s £1.25bn pledge to Gavi exceeds expectations, even as foreign aid falls from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income, influenced in part by ministers and political pressure.
Why is the UK Cutting Global Aid?
Britain plans to cut its global aid budget primarily to fund an increase in its defense spending and to manage its domestic fiscal challenges.
The government aims to spend aid funds to help meet national security priorities amid perceived global threats, particularly from countries like Russia.
The core purpose is to redirect funds to increase military spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. The government argues this is essential for national security and aligns with calls for European countries to boost their defense budgets.
