International Vaccine Programmes: Funding
Debate between Lord Fowler and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend put that incredibly well. This is about security. I would not call it philanthropy; I would call it a partnership with countries that benefit from the ability of Gavi to vaccinate at scale and with value for money. I point out that countries do not just stay as a recipient of Gavi vaccines but progress to become donors to Gavi—look at India and Indonesia—such is the success of this approach.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I very much appreciate the Answer that the Minister has given, but does she agree with me that there is far too much satisfaction shown by financial spokesmen on the reduction in overseas aid, given that the certain outcome is more illness and more death, particularly among women and small children?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not sure which financial spokespeople the noble Lord is speaking about. On behalf of the Government, I can say that the decision to reduce our ODA spend was taken in order to invest more in defence. That is a decision I support; it was the right decision to take at that particular point in time. It is our hope that, in time, as the economy improves, we can increase our spending. We understand the long-term benefits of enabling countries to develop and to become safe and more secure, more prosperous and able to stand on their own two feet. This is what countries are telling us repeatedly. They want to be partners with us and move on from simply being recipients of aid.
Gaza: Humanitarian Aid
Debate between Lord Fowler and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, surely the only way of reaching some agreement on the size of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza is by allowing in the international press and television. They can report on what is actually happening there, as opposed to putting and leaving it in the hands of the public relations people. Should that not be one of the first priorities of the Government in their international discussions?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our first priority, as I have made very clear, is to get food to the people who are starving. The noble Lord is right that that is not being helped by the inability of journalists to report accurately what is happening in Gaza. I do not know the precise reasons the Israeli Government have for not permitting journalists to do their job. I know that there are journalists who, despite the undoubtedly enormous risk to themselves, would be willing to undertake that task. It would be far preferable for us to have accurate reporting.
HIV/AIDS: US Withdrawal from WHO
Debate between Lord Fowler and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the United States of America’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization on the global treatment of HIV/AIDS.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for the work that he has done on this agenda over very many decades. The UK will continue to work with the World Health Organization, member states and other partners to support the WHO’s ongoing transformation and to strengthen its efficiency, transparency and responsiveness. We are proud of our long-standing support for global health organisations at the core of the response to HIV/AIDS and we continue to support efforts to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. There have been, to date, 40 million deaths from AIDS across the world. Because of the success of efforts over the last years, official predictions were that AIDS could be eliminated as a public health disease by 2030, as the Minister has just said, but that was before the abrupt and recent changes of policy by the American Administration, which have caused havoc across the world. Is it really the Government’s view that the 2030 target is achievable in the new conditions? Do they share the view of most medical experts that the American policies are leading the world backwards, to defeat, in a vital area of public health?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think it has made it any easier, but we stand by our commitment to do this by 2030. There are some things in our favour around medical advances and new treatments, and a willingness of some Governments now to play a part that perhaps they have not been able to in the past. There is no doubt that the situation is now more challenging, but we will work as firmly and with as much energy as we ever have towards this goal, because it is important that we do.