UK Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 263 Shares20 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: The UK used to proudly lead the world on international aid – now we don’t save lives that we should

      by

      The decision to cut the UK’s contribution to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a mistake. Hundreds of thousands of deaths that were preventable are now to be expected. Our support to the Global Fund represents the best of Britain, working with other countries to deliver value-for-money impact. With our funding, the Global Fund made extraordinary progress in the fight against the most prevalent preventable diseases. Millions of lives have been saved, with health systems strengthened across the poorest countries. We are closer than ever to eliminating Aids. Yet at this pivotal moment, the UK has become the first host country ever to cut its contribution. It is tempting, at times, to be sceptical about the UN and multilateral funds. They can be remote, overly bureaucratic and detached from local realities that make aid truly effective. But the Global Fund has proven itself to be what we all want from the aid sector. Since its founding in 2002, it has saved 70 million lives and delivered extraordinary value for money. This isn’t charity; it’s partnership. My time working on the ground in Kenya made one thing clear: programmes succeed when they’re designed with communities as partners, not recipients. The Global Fund combines global scale with local knowledge. It works because disease eradication requires both. This disappointing cut follows the UK’s 20 per cent reduction to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, earlier this year. A pattern is emerging: our retreat from the programmes that have delivered the greatest results. Cuts to multilateral programmes don’t just shrink spreadsheets in New York and Geneva. They cascade downwards, landing hardest on the programmes and people who can least afford it. It is women and girls who will pay the highest price. They already face a disproportionate burden of these diseases, particularly HIV. Discrimination, unequal access to education, healthcare, water and sanitation, and gender-based violence drive up infections and create barriers to treatment. At a time when women’s rights are under assault globally, Britain should be standing against that tide. We have watched this happen before. In 2021, when the Conservative government slashed aid recklessly, women and girls were the first to be abandoned. Clinics shuttered. Reproductive health programmes vanished. School initiatives stopped abruptly. The most vulnerable left behind, not because their needs had changed, but simply because there was no plan. Now, that same uncertainty has returned. The development budget has been cut again, and we are still waiting for a clear strategy to emerge. Last year, the former development minister, Anneliese Dodds, had laid out her vision for Britain’s future in a well-received speech to Chatham House. Much has changed since then, but the need for strategic thinking hasn’t. As the new foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, considers how to deliver the temporary aid cut announced by the prime minister, one question remains: where will the axe fall? Without a plan, we’re poised to repeat the mistakes of 2021. The upcoming Budget is a chance to change course. Britain needs what we’ve lacked for years: a long-term plan. A clear timetable back to investing 0.7 per cent of national income in international development. An end to the use of overseas aid to fund refugee accommodation in Britain. Properly directed, this investment serves our national interest, preventing the spread of conflict and disease to keep Britain safe. Britain once proudly led the world in international development because we embraced a first principle: that cooperation and compassion are expressions of strength. Our strength and purpose must extend beyond our borders. Co-hosting the Global Fund’s 8th Replenishment alongside South Africa on 21 November sends a strong signal. But leadership isn’t measured by the conferences we host. It’s measured in the lives we save, and those that we don’t when we could. Fleur Anderson is a member of parliament’s foreign affairs select committee, a former Northern Ireland Minister (2024-5) and Labour MP for PutneyThis article has been produced as part of The Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid project More

    • 175 Shares18 Views

      in UK Politics

      UK’s £150m cut to worldwide fund fighting deadly diseases will force ‘impossible life-or-death decisions’

      by

      The UK has announced it will axe £150 million from Britain’s contribution to the international fight against Aids, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria – putting some 250,000 lives at risk, many of them children. Charities say the cut will force officials into “impossible, life-or-death decisions.” The UK has pledged £850m towards the Global Fund’s work over the next three years – down from £1bn in 2022, itself a cut from £1.4bn in 2019. It comes as part of plans to shift money away from foreign aid to pay for defence. The Independent revealed the cut of 15 per cent on Friday, with seven Labour MPs who served as ministers under Keir Starmer also having written to the prime minister warning the cut would be a “moral failure”. In a statement to parliament, international development minister Jenny Chapman said: “I am proud to announce that we will invest £850 million in the Global Fund for 2026-2028 to deliver lifesaving prevention, testing and treatment services. “This commitment is not only a moral imperative, it is a strategic investment in global and national health security and in wider economic growth and stability.”She added, “The decision on the UK’s pledge to the Global Fund has been taken in the context of the difficult decision this government has made to reduce spending on development assistance from 0.5 per cent of [national income] to 0.3 per cent to fund increased spending on our defence and national security”.The Global Fund aims to raise $18bn (around £14bn) to save an estimated 23 million lives between 2027 and 2029. Worldwide NGO the ONE campaign calculates that a £1bn commitment by the UK would save 1.7 million lives, so a £150m drop could see more than 250,000 lives lost. Labour MP Fleur Anderson was one of those who wrote to Sir Keir. Despite the rosy statement from government, she told The Independent that concerns remained: “It’s important to be leading as a country,” she said. “We are taking our place on the global stage and this is one of the ways in which we can make sure that our actions back up our words.“Defence funding is going up but there has to be balance with our diplomacy and development funding in order to ensure our security”.The Global Fund uses contributions from richer governments including the UK to pay for a significant chunk of the world’s programmes to fight HIV, TB and malaria. Ms Anderson said she was concerned aid cuts were making successful funders of drugs and vaccines compete with each other for funding. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said: “The UK’s new support for the Global Fund is an investment in our shared security and prosperity.“No nation can tackle global health threats alone. As we co-host this vital funding replenishment with South Africa, we call on all partners to join us in building a safer, healthier world for everyone.”Chair of the international development committee, Sarah Champion, said she was, “deeply disappointed that our new contribution is 15 per cent lower in cash terms than at the last replenishment, while global inflation means that our new pledge counts for far less than it did a few years ago”. Adrian Lovett, UK executive director of the ONE Campaign, which advocates for investment in Africa, said this pledge could help save around 1.4 million lives in the next three years. “But if the government had matched the UK’s previous commitment, it could have helped save 255,000 more lives, many of them children,” he added. “Labour’s devastating 40 per cent cut to the overall budget for international assistance has forced officials into impossible, life-or-death decisions.”The UK’s pledge announcement comes ahead of the fund’s official fundraising event on 21 November which Sir Keir Starmer is co-hosting along with South African president, Cyril Ramaphosa. Given the UK’s role, “it would have been very embarrassing not to have been as generous as we possibly can,” Catherine West, another Labour MP to write to the prime minister on Friday, told The Independent. Ms West said she welcomed the figure, which she had feared could be lower – especially in light of the “tough budget that we’ve got in two weeks’ time”. “I am really pleased that both Jenny Chapman and also the prime minister have all decided that this is a really worthwhile and important fund”. But chief executive of UK-based HIV charity STOPAIDs, Mike Podmore, said the UK’s reduced pledge, “puts at risk the real possibility of ending AIDS by 2030. “While still a major contribution, a reduction may also limit the Global Fund’s ability to maintain existing progress and deliver its life-saving work,” from prevention work to medicine access. Labour MP Kerry McCarthy said she stood by the fears laid out in Friday’s letter to the prime minister. “I am concerned about the commitment being reduced,” she said.”We know that spending is finite,” she added, but the Global Fund was an area where, “we could put our money and just know that it’s having a really good impact. I think the important thing about it is it also feeds down to the governments in these countries. It’s not just handouts. It’s facilitating these governments taking control of…the HIV, TB, and malaria in their own countries”.Chief Scientific Officer of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Dr Kavindhran Velen, said: “Now is not the time to cut funding and engagement in the fight against TB – we can do that once the job is done” adding that the “devastating impact” of the US cuts had created a moment for the UK to “step up, not retreat”. Malaria No More UK’s managing director, Gareth Jenkins, said: “This is a disappointing step-back from the UK’s long-held leadership in the fight against malaria. “Letting our guard down now could scar Africa’s next generation by claiming tens of thousands more children’s lives. The economic consequences could also be severe with billions wiped from sub-Saharan African economies and weaker trading partnerships denting the UK’s own growth prospects”. The government had said the fund would receive a larger share of the aid budget for health, indicating the depths of the pain to come for those areas in line for much deeper cuts.In order to cut 40 per cent of the aid budget overall, Baroness Chapman has previously said that other recipients of UK aid money, including services specifically supporting women and girls, would lose more or all of their funding. Mr Lovett, of the ONE Campaign said: “In the context of deep cuts to the overall budget for international assistance, this investment in the Global Fund is a welcome commitment to collective efforts to fight HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria – but ministers must go further.“Investing in the fight against these deadly diseases has the wide support of the public. They recognise it is not only the right thing to do, but that it is in our own interests. Viruses and diseases do not stop at borders – so when we invest in healthier lives abroad, we make ourselves safer here at home too.”This article has been produced as part of The Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid project More

    • 163 Shares38 Views

      in UK Politics

      African HIV services face double blow of cuts from both Trump and UK

      by

      Groups fighting to prevent HIV on the ground in Senegal face a double blow of aid cuts – with Britain announcing a £150m cut to their biggest donor, the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria on top of Donald Trump slashing US aid funding.Senegal has already had its ability to stop the spread of the virus hollowed out by Trump’s cuts announced at the start of the year, which have hit services reaching some of the most vulnerable groups. While aid from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) made up a quarter of funding for HIV services in Senegal, another third comes from the Global Fund. On 21 November, the Global Fund will host a summit aiming to raise $18bn (£13.3bn) for its work for the next three years. The UK has announced a pledge of £850m – a fall of 15 per cent which it is estimated could cost up to 255,000 lives.After the USAID folded following the announcement from Trump at the start of this year, around 25 sites – roughly a fifth of those in Senegal offering pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent new infections – have been left scrambling. “Does it mean that some people have had to stop the PrEP? Yeah, for sure,” said Ousseynou Badio, project lead for Alliance Nationale des Communautés pour la Santé (ANCS), a Senegalese national health alliance. Ibrahim* began taking a daily medicine known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) – which prevents potentially life-shortening HIV infection – two years ago after learning about the programme through a friend.“At the beginning, I was quite hesitant to start on it because I didn’t know what I would find there,” he said. “I was quite scared”. In order to avoid discrimination, Ibrahim was not open about his sexuality. “I would have to hide and also be very careful,” he said, so he avoided HIV testing for fear of the result and of turning the “eye of the community” on him. But with the support of the National Network of Key Populations of Senegal (RENAPOC), he did get tested, confirming his HIV negative status. He was then offered PrEP to help prevent him from becoming one of the up to 30 per cent of gay men in the country who have the virus. That is in comparison to the relatively low national infection rate of around 0.3 per cent. Since being on the medicine, “I think I’ve become more confident,” he told The Independent. Ibrahim is one of the lucky ones, his access to PrEP and support hasn’t been affected. But the US, while protecting HIV programmes more than many other areas, has scrapped almost all prevention. Based on a questionnaire of 128 health workers and 18 leaders of community organisations in the wake of Trump’s cuts, the National Council for the Fight Against AIDs (CNLS) found a decline in access to PrEP, testing and condoms as well as decline in people living with the virus sticking to their antiretroviral treatment. The true impact of the budget cuts across the country won’t be known until at least end of this year, however, the council said. Dakar, in Senegal More

    • 138 Shares26 Views

      in UK Politics

      Keir Starmer hints he could scrap two-child benefit cap in Budget

      by

      Sir Keir Starmer has hinted that he could scrap the two-child benefit cap at the Budget, saying he is “determined” to drive down child poverty. The prime minister said that the government will be “taking a number of measures” to tackle the issue, amid speculation that the cap will be altered or scrapped entirely following pressure from Labour MPs. It is the latest hint that the cap could be removed after Rachel Reeves said on Monday that there are “costs to our economy in allowing child poverty to go unchecked”. In a clip broadcast on ITV’s Lorraine programme on Tuesday, the prime minister said: “I can tell you in no uncertain terms I am determined to drive child poverty down. It is what the last Labour government did, and that’s one of the things we were proudest of. “I am personally determined that is what we’re going to do. You won’t have to wait much longer to see what the measures are.” Pushed on whether that would involve getting rid of the cap, the PM added: “We won’t have to wait much longer. But I wouldn’t be telling you that we’re going to drive down child poverty if I wasn’t clear that we will be taking a number of measures in order to do so.”Rachel Reeves has said that there are ‘costs to our economy in allowing child poverty to go unchecked’ More

    • 150 Shares45 Views

      in UK Politics

      Ed Davey calls for Robbie Gibb to be ousted from BBC board

      by

      Sir Ed Davey has called for Sir Robbie Gibb to be ousted from the BBC board. The Liberal Democrat leader said that Sir Robbie – who served as Theresa May’s director of communications – should have “no role in appointing the new director general” following the departure of Tim Davie. It follows claims that Sir Robbie “led the charge” in claims over systemic bias in the corporation, which was followed by the resignation of Mr Davie and the head of BBC News, Deborah Turness.Writing in The Guardian, the Lib Dem leader said that “to ensure the BBC’s independence, impartiality and trust, Sir Robbie should have no role in appointing the new director general”.He wrote: “The government should remove him from the board immediately – and end the practice of political appointments, which so badly undermines the BBC, altogether.” Davie and culture secretary Lisa Nandy ahead of the concert celebrating the 80th anniversary of VE Day, London, May More

    • 188 Shares45 Views

      in UK Politics

      What is the two-child benefit cap? The controversial policy explained as Reeves hints at changes

      by

      Labour is reportedly considering scrapping the two-child benefit cap following pressure from backbenchers, campaign groups and political opponents.Ahead of the Budget on 26 November, Rachel Reeves has given the strongest hint yet that Labour could abolish the controversial policy, saying she does not think it is right that children are “penalised” for being part of large families.Speaking on BBC 5Live, the chancellor said it was important not to let the “costs to our economy in allowing child poverty to go unchecked”. She added: “In the end, a child should not be penalised because their parents don’t have very much money.”The chancellor’s comments suggest that action will be taken on the cap, likely either at the Budget or as part of the government’s delayed child poverty strategy, which is due before the end of the year.Rachel Reeves said it was important not to let the ‘costs to our economy in allowing child poverty to go unchecked’ More

    • 175 Shares28 Views

      in UK Politics

      Half of employers could raise prices if cost of hiring goes up in Budget

      by

      Britons might need to be poised for fewer jobs or higher prices once more next year, after a new survey of business owners suggested almost half of them (49 per cent) would be considering hiking them if employment costs are raised again in the Budget.Most firms have been hit at least once this year and several of them from multiple angles, following changes to the minimum wage, National Insurance contributions, rules around packaging costs, the end of business rates relief for some industries and the prospect of lower overseas sales due to tariffs.Those cost pressures, along with widespread uncertainty over what is coming in this month’s Budget, has left some firms holding off on hiring additional workers, even as interest rates have slowly lowered across the year.Now research by Employment Hero and a survey of 1,000 business leaders by One Poll shows that pricing and employment plans are both in the firing line if Rachel Reeves delivers further disappointment.Along with the 49 per cent considering raising, a third (33 per cent) also said they would delay further hiring if the cost of employing people rises again. Almost one in four (24 per cent) also said they would consider making redundancies from existing roles.More than half (59 per cent) of business owners suggested they don’t feel Budget decisions consider the needs of small businesses, while a whopping 86 per cent said they were “concerned” over what the Budget would mean for the company over the longer term.The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) have repeatedly warned the government against any further raises of business taxes, saying firms couldn’t continue to shoulder more and more of the burden to fix the economy.While Ms Reeves has cited the need for economic growth, experts have argued that her policies are taxes are stifling it.Rising prices contributes to increased inflation, which has been a major issue in the UK over the past few years. While the rate was lower than expected at 3.8 per cent in September, it remains well above the 2 per cent target and an inflationary Budget could add to the damage.While the numbers over potential price rises will be of concern, other data may point to a limiting effect in what actually transpires.Business insurance provider Simply Business released a report on Monday showing fewer small firms who had planned to raise prices in spring actually did so – fewer than half, compared to 74 per cent who had planned to do so.However, that in turns means that absorbing extra costs means profitability shrinks, placing further pressure on those who would normally provide jobs.“The Chancellor has an opportunity to address these challenges by reducing the cost of doing business and providing a platform for growth. Small business owners are calling for the government to reduce Corporation Tax for small profits (15 per cent), reverse or reduce employer NI increases (14 per cent), and provide more support for energy bills (14 per cent),” said Julie Fisher, UK CEO of Simply Business.Kevin Fitzgerald, UK managing director at Employment Hero, added: “When you tax small businesses, you tax everyone. It creates a domino effect – higher costs lead to higher prices, fewer jobs and less money in people’s pockets. Small businesses employ the majority of our workforce. Make life harder for them, and you make it harder for Britain to grow.“The Autumn Budget is an opportunity to learn from past mistakes.” More

    • 138 Shares28 Views

      in UK Politics

      Lammy urged to end ‘scandal’ of people imprisoned for own protection

      by

      David Lammy has been urged to end the “scandal” of people imprisoned for their own protection while they await trial – just days after Britain’s overcrowded jails were blamed for prisoners being wrongfully released. Sir Keir Starmer hit out at the strain on the system, which he said had been caused by the last Tory government, as he denounced the wrongful releases as “intolerable”.Now more than 40 leading experts and organisations have written to the justice secretary calling on him to use the government’s Sentencing Bill to remove the courts’ power to remand defendants in custody for their own protection, or their welfare in the case of children. They warn the law comes from a “mistaken belief that prisons are suitable places for people at risk of harm”. Manhunts have been launched after prisoners were mistakenly released More