I appreciate the opportunity to speak on a matter of urgent importance: the shifting landscape of global health policy, and the direct threat that shift poses to public health security in the UK and worldwide. In recent weeks, the United States has announced its withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, and is significantly scaling back its support for major global health initiatives. It has also curtailed the activities of key institutions such as the National Institutes of Health and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, while pausing vital lifesaving programmes run by the US Agency for International Development.
These decisions sent shockwaves across the world. For decades, the US has played a crucial role in some of the greatest health achievements in history: eradicating smallpox and nearly eliminating polio; tackling childhood malnutrition; tackling some of the biggest killers in the form of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria; and responding rapidly to emerging diseases with pandemic potential. Now, with this one decision, it has undermined global health security, weakened its own defences and placed millions of lives at risk.
The UK and our Commonwealth partners have long benefited from strong global health systems. When the world is healthier and more stable, we are, too. However, as a recent study in public health challenges warned, the breakdown of global collaboration is as great a threat as any infectious disease, and the US retreat forces us to confront that head-on.
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I cannot imagine that any Member on either side of this Chamber will not be concerned about the prospect that we face, but we have to live with the reality. Given the withdrawal of the US from the World Health Organisation, it is essential that lines of communication on global health issues remain open and consistent. Does he agree that we must be proactive in establishing a new method of co-operation and information sharing as a matter of urgency? I think that is what he is looking for. If we can meet somewhere in between, that might be the way forward.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a hugely important point.
Economic pressures demand efficiency, but let there be no doubt: withdrawing support from the World Health Organisation is a false and dangerous economy. By stepping away instead of seeking reforms from within, the US has thrown global health security into turmoil. This is about not just principles, but consequences. A withdrawal on this scale damages health diplomacy and erodes trust. It allows adversarial states to step in and use disinformation and strategic influence to reshape the global health landscape to their advantage. If the World Health Organisation is weakened, its ability to track, contain and fight disease is also weakened, and that makes us all more vulnerable. Other nations are already considering following suit; Argentina is voicing similar intentions. If more countries withdraw, we risk a domino effect that could collapse the framework we rely on to monitor and respond to health threats.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that one lesson from the pandemic is that the last thing countries should do is withdraw from organisations such as the World Health Organisation and reduce international co-operation, given the risk of a future pandemic at some point?
I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is completely right. The World Health Organisation is at the heart of international disease surveillance, co-ordinating early responses to outbreaks of deadly diseases such as Ebola and highly pathogenic avian influenza, both of which have been in the news in the last couple of weeks. In today’s interconnected world, speed is everything. Without robust early warning systems, outbreaks that might have been contained could spiral into pandemics, just as my hon. Friend said.
We also cannot ignore the worsening impact of climate change on global health. Due to changing temperatures, diseases that were classed as tropical when I was at university are now being seen in other parts of the world. The US withdrawal from the Paris agreement has already slowed efforts to tackle climate-driven diseases; now, its retreat from global health co-operation leaves us even less well prepared to handle the consequences. The UK must remain firm in supporting the WHO’s role in pandemic preparedness, not only because it is morally right, but because it is in our national interest.
This crisis affects more than just emergency outbreaks; it threatens our ability to manage persistent health threats here at home. Take seasonal flu. Every winter, the NHS faces immense pressure from influenza. Our ability to develop effective vaccines depends on international collaboration, including data from US research centres. If those partnerships are disrupted, how will we prepare for the 2025 flu season? The same applies to broader scientific research. The UK and US have worked closely on the One Health Initiative, studying how animal, human and environmental health intersect. Hundreds of these projects have now stalled, cutting off vital knowledge that could have helped us understand future pandemics. We must explore ways to sustain these collaborations. That includes securing funding for key research programmes and ensuring that our world-class universities remain engaged in global health security efforts. If we do not do those things, we risk falling behind in disease surveillance, vaccine development and pandemic preparedness.
Twenty years ago, Nelson Mandela stood in Trafalgar Square waging a war on poverty. As my hon. Friend will know, he was also the first chair of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which has inoculated more than 1 billion children and saved 18 million lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government must fulfil their commitment to Gavi, and not fall behind? Even the Conservative Government said that they would fund Gavi properly. Mandela’s life reminds us, does it not, that the great victories are often in times of darkness, like today?
You are completely right about that very important organisation, which I shall come on to shortly. We cannot highlight enough to the impact that Gavi has had.
The World Health Organisation must adapt. This crisis highlights the need for a more resilient system, one that does not depend so heavily on any single nation. The UK must lead efforts to strengthen the World Health Organisation by broadening its funding base and encouraging greater collective responsibility among member states. At the same time, we must invest in our own global health capabilities, which means strengthening research funding, protecting key collaborations, and engaging with middle-income nations to forge new partnerships. Global health security is not just about pandemics; it is about economic stability, national security, and the long-term wellbeing of our people—and let us be absolutely clear: disease does not respect national borders. A threat anywhere in the world is a threat to the UK. If polio still exists anywhere, it is still our problem. If antibiotic resistance is surging in one part of the world, it will reach our hospitals. If a new pandemic emerges in a distant country, it will be on our doorstep faster than ever before.
When it comes to global public health,
“nobody wins unless everybody wins.”
Those are the words of Bruce Springsteen, but they apply as much to public health as they do to any other struggle. If we allow global health systems to weaken, if we turn our backs on international collaboration, we are not just failing others; we are failing ourselves. However, this is also an opportunity. The UK has a chance to lead the world in global health innovation while strengthening our economy. We have significant human capital available through our universities, businesses, learned societies and research institutions, and if we invest now we can become a global hub for public health expertise, vaccine development, artificial intelligence and cutting-edge medical research. We should also remember the power of our capacity to offer education and training as cost-effective interventions. We can export solutions, shape international policy, and create high-skilled jobs right here at home. The last Government saw universities as a battleground for culture wars. We must see them as engines of innovation, global collaboration and economic growth. They should not be political footballs; they should be powerhouses of discovery, opportunity, and progress. If we get this right, we will not just be protecting global public health, but securing Britain’s place as a leader in the industries of the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for securing this debate on such an important topic, and I am grateful to the other Members who are in the Chamber.
This Government are aware of the implications of the US Government’s initial decision to pause their overseas financial assistance while they undertake a review, including where that is accompanied by stop-work orders. We are monitoring those impacts closely through our diplomatic missions overseas and with other international partners. Of course, decisions on US policy are a matter for the US Government; I know the hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. We welcome the news that emergency food aid and lifesaving humanitarian assistance should be exempt from the pause during the review period.
I point out that these are early days for the new Administration, and it would not be appropriate—I know Members would not expect us to do this—for us to give a running commentary on each announcement and executive order issued by the US Government. Members will know that the US has a strong track record in global health and international development, and we have enjoyed close bilateral co-operation with it in pursuit of our shared objectives in this area. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Winchester rightly refer to that collaboration. Naturally, we are very keen for that to continue.
For our part, this Government are committed to working with others through genuine, respectful partnerships with donors, multilateral organisations and countries across the global south, so that we maximise our impact at home and overseas. This is an important part of how we fulfil every Government’s first responsibility: to keep people safe—the hon. Member for Winchester was right to refer to security in the context of this debate. It is also important for pursuing this Government’s guiding mission, which is to grow the economy and bring opportunity to people in our country, and to make progress towards our shared global goals for sustainable development during this decade.
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response to the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who set the scene very well. In my constituency of Strangford, I think of the Church groups, and in particular of the Elim Missions, which has a very constructive and positive strategy for Zimbabwe and Swaziland. In Swaziland, the number of people who have AIDS is at almost epidemic levels, but one of the things the west—the USA, the UK and others—can do is provide medications that can preserve life and help people to live longer than they ever have. That happens because of what the Government do but also because of what the Churches do. The Minister is always very helpful in her responses. Could the Government look at working more closely with the churches to make lives better?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that really important point and for his kind words. He is right to pay tribute to the incredible civil society that we have working on these issues right across the United Kingdom. He refers to the important work that church groups do with communities affected by HIV/AIDS and other diseases.
I was really pleased to hear the hon. Member for Winchester talk about the role of the Rotary group in seeking to combat polio, and I have been absolutely delighted to be working as a polio champion with some of the organisations campaigning on this issue, particularly the global programme to eliminate polio. It is really important that we seek to work together on these issues, and the Government are reviewing our strategy on civil society. I will make sure that the issue of health activism is fed into that process, because it is really important. We need to make sure that we face up to the ongoing threats together.
The hon. Member talked about the threats from communicable disease being intensified by the climate crisis and environmental degradation. He was right to do so, but we also see non-communicable disease becoming more frequent in many countries in the global south, and there is still a potential threat from pandemics too. We are also working with others to champion sexual and reproductive health rights and freedoms for all, including as a key part of our work to empower women and girls.
We are investing in global health work that we know provides excellent value for money, reaching millions of people and maximising the impact of every single pound that we put in. I was really pleased to hear Gavi mentioned by the hon. Members for Winchester and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who has so much international expertise. Our support to Gavi, the global vaccines alliance, is enabling it to immunise 300 million children and save up to 8 million lives from vaccine-preventable diseases over four years. That support for Gavi’s multilateral and engaged action internationally is clear, as I set out to the International Development Committee. I will not repeat that here, for reasons of time.
4:41 pm
House adjourned.
I have spoken in this House before about the urgent threat of antibiotic-resistant infections to the NHS. Alongside the UK, the US has been a strong supporter of WHO-led efforts to tackle antimicrobial resistance, which experts warn is one of the greatest global health challenges of our time. Antibiotic resistance does not respect borders. Drug-resistant bacteria and fungi travel with people and goods across the world. Without global surveillance, the consequences will be dire. More people will die in NHS hospitals from infections that we can no longer treat. This is not a distant problem; it is happening now. The UK has been helping Ukraine tackle antimicrobial resistance worsened by war. Despite severe funding challenges, collaborations between Chelsea and Westminster hospital, Great Ormond Street hospital, University College London and Ukrainian institutions have made progress. This proves that even in difficult circumstances, proactive partnerships can make a difference. We must apply these lessons to protect our own health security. I pay tribute to the laboratory team and Professor Inada-Kim in our hospital in Winchester, who are helping to lead the national effort to tackle AMR in our NHS.
The UK has a proud history of leading on global health. It was here that Sir Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, revolutionising modern medicine. Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccine laid the foundation for immunisation efforts that have saved hundreds of millions of lives. British researchers helped eradicate rinderpest in cattle, the only other disease besides smallpox to be wiped out completely. Today, smallpox is gone. Rinderpest is gone. One day, we hope to say the same about polio, but that vision is now at risk. I recently visited the rotary club in Winchester and learned about the long involvement of rotary clubs worldwide in supporting polio eradication over a period of many years. The US withdrawal forces us to consider how we reaffirm our leadership in global health.
The US has made itself and the world weaker. The UK now has a choice: we can watch as global health security unravels, or we can take decisive action to lead, collaborate, and strengthen the systems that keep us safe. With the UK’s aid budget being stretched thin, not least by the diversion of funds to cover domestic asylum costs, there is growing concern that our leading contributions to the work of Gavi, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), could be significantly reduced. That work has vaccinated over a billion children—over half the world’s children—and supports cutting-edge efforts to tackle major causes of death such as malaria. Let me ask the Minister two questions: how can we justify cutting support for an organisation that has saved over 18 million lives, and will the Government commit to restoring overseas development aid to 0.7% of GDP, to ensure that lifesaving initiatives such as Gavi and other key World Health Organisation initiatives can remain viable?
This is not charity. This is global health security, preventing outbreaks before they spread, reducing suffering, and strengthening healthcare systems in some of the world’s most fragile regions. This is a question of national security, moral responsibility and economic opportunity. I urge the House to ensure that the UK does not waver in its commitment to a healthier, safer, and more prosperous and secure world.
Our work on global health is crucial. Since I took up my role over six months ago, I have making been the case for action right around the world, on my visits to some of the countries most affected by the diseases that the hon. Member for Winchester talked about, and at major global summits. He will be aware that we are in the middle of a spending round process, so I am not in a position to outline specific investment plans—I know he would not seek to encourage me to do that—but I want to reassure Members that this Government will be at the forefront of international work on improving global health as a priority for our country.
It is the right thing to do, as the hon. Member for Winchester articulated, and it is the smart thing to do. No country can thrive if its people cannot thrive. In today’s interconnected world, we have all seen the impact of shocks in healthcare and communicable disease ripple right around the world. We saw that with the covid-19 pandemic above all, which harmed our health in the UK and all our global economies. To use the phrase that he rightly kept repeating, deadly diseases do not respect borders, nor does antimicrobial resistance, which he pointed to as another major challenge for us in global health terms. They threaten us all, and it takes a concerted international effort to tackle them, so we are working with countries around the world to help them develop the systems they need to tackle the health threats they face.
Similarly, the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria has saved over 65 million lives since 2002 and reduced the combined death rate of the three diseases by 61%. The UK has played a significant role in that success. In addition, the UK’s support for the child wasting innovation programme has helped it to raise financing from others, enabling treatment for 850,000 children. The multilateral architecture is critical here, and I was really pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman underline the importance of the World Health Organisation. The UK will remain a strong supporter of the World Health Organisation. He hopefully saw that we recently announced new funding for the WHO in support of its delivery and transformation agenda. We will continue to work closely with the WHO and its member states to strengthen the organisation, so that it can help countries to meet the health challenges of our times.
The UK’s national risk register estimates that there is up to a 25% probability of another pandemic in the next five years. That is one of the reasons why we remain committed to securing a pandemic accord at the WHO. Getting better at preventing and preparing for pandemics matters immensely for global health security, but also for UK health security and for this Government’s mission to build a national health service that is fit for the future.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the same applies to the threat of antimicrobial resistance. The UK is already seeing thousands of deaths that are attributed to antimicrobial resistance, and I was pleased to hear about the work of Dr Matthew Inada-Kim at Winchester University. I am also extremely proud of the work of Sally Davies, who has been working on these issues with the UK Government and Lord Darzi. The UK Government worked really hard to agree an ambitious global set of actions against AMR at last September’s high-level meeting, which was dedicated to that subject, and we will keep driving that work forward.
Before I wrap up, I want to shine a light on the wider work of the UK’s world-class scientists and public health and medical institutions. Harnessing the huge wealth of talent and expertise here in the UK is fundamental to the new approach to development that this Government are adopting. The UK’s scientists do a huge amount to address global health and development challenges by advancing our understanding of disease, pioneering work in genomic medicine and developing novel vaccines. I was really delighted to hear the passion with which the hon. Gentleman talked about this issue, and I have seen for myself the immense ambition of labs here in the UK, such as the Jenner Institute. Please forgive me if I smile, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am very proud to represent the constituency where the Jenner Institute is based, and I visited it recently.
British scientists have helped to develop two malaria vaccines that have the potential to save millions of lives. Thanks to the expertise and brilliance of British scientists, the dream of eradicating malaria looks increasingly possible. The hon. Member for Winchester quoted Bruce Springsteen, and I hope that the “glory days” for those scientists will come when we finally globally eradicate malaria. If we manage to do that, it will be because of those incredible efforts. We talked about Gavi earlier, and with the UK’s support, it plans to roll out these new vaccines to 25 countries this year.
Our health, life sciences and pharma sector is second only in value to that of the US. It has an annual turnover of £50 billion, with £25 billion a year in exports, and it supports 115,000 high-value jobs, which the hon. Member rightly referred to. I will finish by saying how proud we can all be of the work that our country does on global health. It is good for us here in the UK and for people across the globe, and it is a key part of how we make sure that as many of us as possible can keep working together in partnership towards the safer, healthier and more prosperous world that people everywhere want and deserve.