Drug-related Deaths

Charlotte Nichols Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I extend my thanks to Mr Speaker for providing the opportunity to discuss the crucial matter of drug-related deaths. I declare an interest as the unremunerated chair of the Centre for Evidence Based Drug Policy, a think-tank in this policy space. The Office for National Statistics reported last month that deaths related to drug poisonings have increased for the 12th consecutive year, and have consequently reached an all-time high once again. The ONS reports that in 2024, there were 5,565 deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales, with just under half of those confirmed to involve an opiate. Continuity is therefore not a strategy; it is a guarantee of further avoidable loss. Every single one of those lives mattered, and every single one of those deaths was preventable.

Eight months ago, a similar debate was held in Westminster Hall on the topic of preventing drug-related deaths, to which the Minister responded. Though it was a well-attended debate, during which Members from across the House called for the expansion of harm reduction and evidence-based measures, I am afraid to say that, since then, limited progress has been made in advancing drugs policy to limit the unspeakable further loss of life in our constituencies.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Stoke-on-Trent has the highest number of drug-related deaths in north Staffordshire. Synthetic cathinones, colloquially known as monkey dust, are used in Stoke-on-Trent to an extent not seen elsewhere in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to battle the scourge of monkey dust in Stoke-on-Trent?

[Charlotte Nichols]

I absolutely agree. There are huge regional disparities in drug deaths across the country, and a regional approach need to be taken to tackling them.

While I appreciate that drugs policy and legislation do not fall under the Minister’s departmental remit, I am happy to see her here, as the drugs-related deaths crisis is primarily a public health issue, and must be treated as such if we are to avoid repeating the same mistakes of the last 50 years.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I am proud to be a patron of Burton addiction centre, a residential rehab centre in my constituency. It is calling for a 2% target across the nation. Does my hon. Friend agree with that target for residential rehab? Perhaps the Minister would like to visit some time, when she is able to.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I completely agree about the role that rehab facilities can play in supporting people into recovery, and about the need for proper, consistent funding from the Government.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. I congratulate her on the campaign, and on her words to the House on the issue. We all greatly admire what she does, and thank her for it. In Northern Ireland, there were 169 drug-related deaths in 2023. That was an increase of 47% on the decade before, and it proves her point that the issue is not specific to her constituency; unfortunately, this happens everywhere. Does she agree that the tactics we have in place are not addressing the growing prevalence of drug abuse, and that not only this Government but the devolved Governments must work to save the precious souls who are passing away?

[Charlotte Nichols]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; without it, it would not be an Adjournment debate. I completely agree. The deaths that I am talking about today are drug poisonings in England and Wales only, but if we look at drug deaths in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and at deaths related to alcohol and despair, we see that drug poisonings in England and Wales are a very small part of a huge issue in every part of our United Kingdom.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Scotland has had the highest number of drug deaths in Europe for seven years in a row; there were 1,017 in 2024. Does she agree that cuts to funding for rehabilitation facilities and drug and alcohol support services undermine the holistic, comprehensive approach needed if we are to bring down the number of drug deaths, and to give hope to those living with addiction, and to their families?

[Charlotte Nichols]

The number of drug deaths in Scotland is stark, and it underlines the fact that the issue affects every part of the UK. We know what we need to do to start addressing it. I welcome the recent Scottish Affairs Committee report, which I will mention later.

I have said before that putting drugs within the Home Office’s ministerial purview is putting the issue in the wrong place, so I am very happy that a Health Minister is here to respond. The current approach is rooted in the belief that we can simply arrest and imprison our way out of this. Despite the death toll rising every year in the six years that I have been doing this job, the Home Office seems to show not just a lack of curiosity but hostility towards harm reduction measures. My overarching question today is: will the Government finally take an evidence-based stance on drugs policy to reduce the immense harm that the status quo causes in our constituencies? Will the Minister work across Government to bring forward necessary changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and deliver a fit-for-purpose, public-health-led approach to drugs across the UK, saving thousands of lives?

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In the Bradford district, there were 70 drug-related deaths in 2023. I agree with her that we need to take a different approach to tackling the problem, and it must be a public health approach. The UK could learn much from countries like Portugal, which has gone a long way towards adopting such an approach to drugs and drug-related deaths.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I absolutely agree. Later, I will try to develop my argument for that kind of approach, which we could take here but do not.

As a Parliament and as a society, we may have inadvertently come to accept the yearly statistics, and have perhaps not given them the necessary thought, but I stress that there are cost-effective solutions that could save the taxpayer money and save the lives of our constituents, while taking money out of the pockets of exploitative, organised criminal gangs.

I am afraid to say that the problem may be far worse than is recognised. A recent report by King’s College London indicates that there has been a severe under-reporting of drug-related deaths over the past 15 years. The researchers found that drug-related deaths have been under-reported by 30%, and opioid-related deaths between 2011 and 2022 were found to be 55% higher than recorded, putting the estimated number of opioid-related deaths in that period north of 39,000.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She will be aware that many of those who have died from complications and overdoses related to opioids died on their own. That reflects the social isolation that so many experience when they become addicted to drugs. Does she agree that it is incredibly important that the social isolation of those seeking to move beyond addiction is broken through, and will she join me in thanking organisations like Jungle in my constituency, which seek to provide companionship and support for those who are trying to move beyond addiction?

[Charlotte Nichols]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The clearest way to recovery is with companionship and support—there is no path to recovery without that—and I of course give credit to the organisation she mentioned that is doing such fantastic work in this space, as we were discussing earlier today.

The implications of the under-reporting of drug-related deaths are that the problem is far worse than previously thought and the decision to cut funding to services under the previous Government was based on flawed figures. The National Audit Office reported that between 2014 and 2022 there was a 40% reduction in real-terms spending on adult drug and alcohol services, so I do not think it is a coincidence that the Office for National Statistics has reported a near doubling in drug-related deaths since 2014, and that the number of deaths only rises every year.

It is clear that the problem has been made substantively worse by under-investment by the previous Government. We can all acknowledge that, but acknowledgment without reform is meaningless. Persisting with failed, punitive policies will only deepen a crisis that already ranks among Europe’s worst. Now is the time to show the difference a Labour Government can make by putting in place harm-reduction policies that will start to undo this extensive damage.

As I mentioned previously, and I will repeat again because it is important, near half of all drug-related deaths registered in 2024 were confirmed to involve an opioid. In addition, this year’s ONS report found that the number of deaths involving nitazenes—a group of highly potent synthetic opioids—almost quadrupled from the year before. This marks the beginning of a new stage in the drug-related deaths crisis. As we have seen across the Atlantic, once those synthetic opioids take hold, it becomes all the more difficult to limit their devastation.

I welcome this Government’s changes to the human medicines regulation that further expanded access to naloxone, the lifesaving opioid antidote administered in the event of an overdose. Indeed, naloxone plays a vital role in the fight against drug-related deaths. However, further change is necessary and naloxone should be available rapidly and reliably in every community pharmacy in the UK, so that it can be quickly accessed in the event of an overdose.

It is important to note that naloxone cannot be administered by the person overdosing and must instead be administered by someone else. That necessitates further education on the existence of naloxone, and how and when to use it, with people who may come into contact with people who use opioids, including frontline service workers, such as police officers and transport workers, and the loved ones of those struggling with addiction.

The period immediately after release from prison or discharge from hospital is when risk peaks. Opt-out pathways for naloxone distribution should be the norm. Take-home naloxone on release or discharge, same-day linkage to community treatment and a clear pathway for handover care are essential for people struggling with substance use disorders.

As of December 2021, the Government estimated the annual cost of illegal drug use in England to be £20 billion. Around 48% of that was attributed to drug-related crime, while harms linked to drug-related deaths and homicide accounted for a further 33%. Notably, the majority of those costs are associated with the estimated 300,000 people who use opiates and crack cocaine in England.

Dame Carol Black’s landmark 2021 review of UK drug policy found that for every for every £1 spent on treatment, £4 are saved through reduced demand on the health and justice systems. In the face of rising fatalities and a cost of living crisis, failing to scale treatment and harm-reduction measures is both morally indefensible and financially illiterate. If we want to realise that four-to-one return, we must provide long-term funding for organisations delivering services. Drug treatment services can only deliver if they are able to retain staff, train consistently and scale according to demand.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House. Does she agree that organisations such as Change Grow Live, which I have visited in Rugby, are doing superb work with people as they recover after the problems that they have been facing, and that it is incumbent upon all of us to do everything we can to encourage the Government to ensure that those organisations get the funding and support they need to do that important work?

[Charlotte Nichols]

My hon. Friend is exactly right: Change Grow Live is a fantastic organisation. Multi-year funding schemes with clear outcome metrics, such as faster time for treatment, improved retention and improved naloxone coverage, will make a difference in bringing down the figures I have talked about. That is the path out of this crisis.

I recently received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime stating she could not support overdose prevention centres because of concerns about organised crime supplying the drugs there. Overdose prevention centres are a frontline, evidence-based intervention that save lives and public money, reducing ambulance call-outs and A&E attendances, cutting public injecting and needlestick injuries, and creating a bridge into treatment. I recognise and share the Minister’s concerns about supply but, with or without such centres, people will use the same drugs, either in alleyways and stairwells or in safe hygienic settings where sharps are disposed of, and where staff can intervene and build relationships that can be the foundation for recovery from addiction.

The Scottish Affairs Committee recently published a report into problem drug use in Scotland and Glasgow’s safer drug consumption facility, and it is interesting to note the call for legislative action from the UK Government and Parliament and the fact that they seem to share my frustration with the Home Office’s ideological rather than evidence-based approach on safer drug consumption facilities.

In written correspondence to me, my hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime also maintains that supplying essential safer inhalation equipment would contravene current legislation, and that the Government are unable to support such a provision or to provide a legal pathway to address this. Encouraging drug users to change their method of consuming drugs from injecting to inhaling can be an important harm reduction step, yet while supplying clean hypodermic needles is exempt under section 9A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Government continue to support a policy of criminalisation of potential providers and users of safer inhalation equipment.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking an intervention, and indeed for bringing forward this debate. As she has referenced, the Scottish Affairs Committee has done some work on this issue and has visited the safer drug consumption room in Glasgow, but it has also looked at facilities in Norway and Lisbon. The disappointment we have is that at the moment the Thistle operates under the prosecutorial discretion of the Lord Advocate in Scotland and that could continue indefinitely—she has made that clear—as could her permission for other centres to open. We need a change in the legislation that would allow such centres to be set up across the country if necessary. There is going to be a three-year assessment of the Thistle, and if that assessment comes up with the results that we think it might, then surely that evidence should be used to inform Government policy. Our particular disappointment is that the Government seem not to think that is relevant.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I absolutely agree and I took a note from that report:

“However, it was clear from the Minister’s evidence that the Home Office will not make legislative changes, even if the evaluation finds that the facility has been effective in meeting its aims.”

That is ideological, not evidence-based, which is why I believe the Home Office is fundamentally incapable of dealing with drug deaths and drug harm in our communities.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Does she agree that even if the Home Office does not agree with changing legislation, more could be done within existing legislation, for example with drug checking facilities, of which a very small number are already licensed by the Home Office? That would allow those consuming drugs to have clarity about what they are consuming, but it would also provide important intelligence to the authorities about the drugs that are in circulation to inform the response of health and other authorities.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I absolutely agree that more can be done without the need for a change in legislation, but it is concerning that the Home Office does not look at legislation. Despite everything that was said in the Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry on drugs in the last Parliament, for example, which made very clear how outdated our current legislative framework is, there does not seem to be curiosity about fixing this. I completely agree with what my hon. Friend said about treatment and testing, particularly at large-scale events and festivals, because that can be a lifesaving intervention.

It is both bizarre and frustrating that the Home Office actively chooses not to take some of the measures it could take on safer drug consumption facilities and safer inhalation equipment. That is something that is very much within its gift. We cannot continue to hide behind a 1970s statue, periodically tightened but rarely reviewed, that has too often exacerbated harm. If the House wishes to take money out of criminal markets, I ask the Minister to work across Departments to expand diamorphine-assisted treatment, which is proven to be effective and cost-saving both here and abroad, to provide dignified, supervised care for those with the most entrenched opioid dependence. After all, it was in this country that that type of world-class treatment originated, with the publication of the Rolleston report in 1926.

I have focused much of my remarks on opioids, but in the short time remaining I will touch on some other substances. The first substance is cocaine, with 1,279 deaths involving cocaine registered in 2024, which was 14.4% higher than in the previous year and 11 times higher than in 2011. That is perhaps not surprising, given that the UK is the largest consumer of cocaine per capita in Europe and the second-largest consumer of it in the world, according to the OECD. The National Crime Agency estimates that in 2023, England, Scotland and Wales consumed 117 tonnes of the drug. It is worth mentioning that around 52% of homicides are drug-related, and there is evidence that cocaine use is fuelling domestic violence. In 2023, a pilot scheme found that 59% of domestic abuse offenders arrested in seven police force areas tested positive for cocaine and/or opiates. The status quo is not working.

The second substance is ketamine. While ketamine deaths are relatively low, with 60 deaths, the stats are again trending the wrong way, as is the prevalence of the drug in our communities. I refer Members to the rate of past-year ketamine use among 16 to 24-year-olds, which has doubled since the drug was reclassified from class C to class B in 2014. We need a fit-for-purpose national drug policy, not a platform for point scoring or performative “tough on crime” posturing while harms continue to mount.

There is much talk at the moment about the reclassification of ketamine to a class A drug, as if that is some sort of panacea, despite the fact that deaths from heroin and cocaine—both class A substances—have been increasing year on year. It is as though the Home Office thinks that making something that is already illegal more illegal is somehow worthwhile. In the light of that, I have tabled a number of questions recently on the effectiveness of the reclassification. I am genuinely concerned that no analysis of that move has been made, and the intention is clearly to ramp it up further. Other policy levers are available. In particular, an emphasis should be placed on tackling the mental health crisis among our young people, which can make the dissociative effects of ketamine an appealing proposition.

Throughout this debate, I have sought to lay out the extent of the problem and to offer realistic, cost-effective and constructive measures that could save this country billions of pounds, not to mention thousands of lives. There are solutions to these issues, and the UK has both the expertise and the capacity to lead in this area. We must simply find the political expediency and courage to take bold action and do what is right. We cannot govern as the careful custodians of a failed Conservative settlement; we must replace it.

This is a solvable problem, and it is clear what works. With clear guidance, consistent commissioning and the courage to back frontline services, we can save lives, support families and ease pressure on our NHS. We will not solve this problem overnight, but I hope to come back next year with the figures at least trending in the right direction. No amount of warm words or hand-wringing in this place will absolve us of our collective responsibility if we do not take the steps necessary to do that now. We promised the country change, and it is now time to see it.

Global Fund: Supplementary Funding

Charlotte Nichols Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have secured the Adjournment debate this evening on supplementary funding of the Global Fund, a subject that I am passionate about, and one that I know the Minister responding is, too. I want to start by paying tribute to the organisations that work tirelessly and diligently on these matters, including Malaria No More and STOPAIDS, which have advocated throughout the replenishment period for the UK to meet the Global Fund’s funding target.

I would like to begin by describing the work of the Global Fund and highlighting its impact in saving lives across the countries that it operates in. In 2002, the Global Fund was created to fight what were then the deadliest pandemics confronting humanity: HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria—diseases that are all treatable and preventable; diseases of poverty and inequality; diseases which at that point seemed truly unbeatable. Bringing together civic society organisations, the private sector, Governments and local communities, the Global Fund has proven that, with collaboration and the correct investment, action can be taken to improve lives.

The results have been stark. In the 20 years following the initiation of the fund, 50 million lives have been saved. The number of deaths caused each year by AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria has decreased by 70%, 21% and 26% respectively since 2002. Yet those numbers alone paint only a partial picture, because the fund helps to better the livelihoods of families and communities around the world. Every dollar invested for the Global Fund’s seventh replenishment will yield an astonishing $31 in health gains and economic returns.

The Global Fund targets countries in the greatest need. Countries in Africa receive about three quarters of the Global Fund investments, and Commonwealth countries receive about half. The Global Fund promotes gender equality, strengthens health systems and allows children to gain an education. It is perhaps the most successful initiative the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office supports, and it demonstrates to the international community our efforts to end AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria epidemics in line with UN sustainable development goal 3.3. Its success was highlighted by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which praised the fund for its low operating expenditure, saying that it represents the best “value for money” of any UK development assistance initiative. Indeed, the Minister himself said that the Global Fund is “brilliantly effective.” In his time as a Back Bencher, the Minister urged the Government to ensure that we are as generous as possible on the replenishment of the fund and he is now in the perfect position to ensure that the Government are as generous as possible. He knows the Global Fund can only be as effective as it is if it is properly funded.

I want to highlight one example of the programme in action. I would like to speak about Krystal. Krystal is a field entomologist in Uganda. Her story is particularly relevant on International Women’s Day, as malaria has a disproportionate impact on women and young children, and in particular on pregnant women. She collects mosquito samples, which are then studied to develop genetic technology that can interrupt malaria transmission. Krystal’s fight against malaria is not just professional, it is personal. She remembers the horrors of having malaria as a child, her little brother convulsing with the disease, and her mother struggling to afford the treatment for her children. When Krystal and her two brothers were growing up, their mother worked to support the family. When one of her children got malaria, she was left with the impossible decision of whether to stay home to care for her sick child, or go to work to earn the money to look after her family and pay for treatment. Krystal says that the Global Fund’s arrival in Uganda was a game changer. She said:

“I remember what it was like when the Global Fund came to Uganda. They brought free malaria treatment to hospitals, free mosquito nets that protected children and their families, and funded village health teams.”

In Uganda, deaths from malaria fell by almost two thirds between 2002 and 2020, while the percentage of people using long-lasting insecticidal nets almost doubled over the same period. In 2020, almost every person in Uganda with suspected malaria received a test. That accomplishment was only possible with the intervention of the Global Fund and Krystal’s story is one example of the outstanding work the Global Fund carries out. There are many more.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I would like to share another example. I was recently in Kenya on a delegation with STOPAIDS. At the Ngong Sub-County Hospital just outside Nairobi, I met Abigail, a two-year-old child. Her mother was HIV-positive and had been supported through a programme funded by the Global Fund which provides what are called Mentor Mothers. That meant her mum got peer support for two years—not only for the period of her pregnancy, but until Abigail was two—to make sure she was taking her antiretroviral tablets and her daughter was taking the prophylactic treatment that was needed because her mum was breastfeeding. Now, as a two-year-old, Abigail is HIV-free, despite being born to a mother who was HIV-positive and who had not been complying with treatment earlier on. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government can put a cost on these sorts of interventions, but they cannot necessarily put a value on them? They are hugely important.

[Dan Carden]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad she had the opportunity to get that on the record.

Let me turn to the UK’s most recent funding contribution. At the seventh replenishment in 2022, the UK Government pledged £1 billion to the Global Fund—a significant 30% cut to the UK’s 2019 pledge of £1.4 billion. The US, Japan, Canada, Germany, the European Commission and several other contributors met the Global Fund’s request for a 30% increase from 2019. France increased its contribution by 23% and Italy by 15%. However, the UK—alone—went in the opposite direction. The UK was the only G7 member to cut funding in 2022. Mike Podmore, the director of STOPAIDS, said that it was a “disastrous decision” that risks the lives of 1.5 million people and

“over 34.5 million new transmissions across the three diseases, setting back years of progress”.

[Dan Carden]

Absolutely, I agree. We know what is needed. Analysis has calculated that $18 billion is required to get the world back on track towards ending HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, to build resilience and sustainable health systems and to strengthen pandemic preparedness. The Global Fund is more than $2 billion short of reaching that $18 billion target. At the sixth replenishment, the UK was the second biggest donor. Now, the UK’s reduction in funding is the biggest contribution to the shortfall.

Now is possibly the worst time to be cutting funding following the coronavirus pandemic, which had a drastic impact on the ability to test for infectious diseases. In 2020, for the first time in the Global Fund’s history, we witnessed declines in key outcomes across all three diseases. Decreases in testing led to increases in infections, undoing years of progress. That is exactly what the statistics tell us: HIV testing fell by 22% and prevention services by 11%. In 2020, TB deaths increased, fuelled by a surge in the number of undiagnosed and untreated cases. The number of people tested for drug-resistant TB dropped 19%, and the number of people treated for TB fell by more than 1 million. Malaria testing fell by 4%. Now is not the time to reduce our commitments to the developing world; it is the time to redouble our efforts.

[Charlotte Nichols]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dan Carden]

I am not sure how much time I have, so I will carry on to get through what I want to say.

As co-founder of the Global Fund with permanent representation on the board, the UK is uniquely placed to direct policy and act as a leader in the field. We should do everything we can to strengthen that position, not undermine it. I ask the Minister, who is a champion of the Global Fund, to continue to be both vocal and resolute in his calls to his Cabinet colleagues.

Let me turn to the reasons that the UK decreased its contribution to the fund at the most recent replenishment. We were made aware in the autumn statement that the Chancellor had decided that the aid budget would not be restored to 0.7% of gross national income until “the fiscal situation allows”. The Government have been unclear on when the international aid budget will be increased again, if at all. The Home Office is now appropriating funds to host refugees, and only 0.3% of GNI is being spent on official development assistance—a smaller percentage than before 1997. That means less funding for the UK’s long-standing international aid commitments such as the Global Fund.

No other G7 country used the economic impact of the covid-19 pandemic to reduce its contribution to the Global Fund, but that is exactly the action that the UK Government have taken. Will the Minister share with the House what discussions he has had with Treasury colleagues about the urgent need to return the aid budget to 0.7%? What conversations has he had with FCDO, Treasury and Home Office colleagues about increasing the transparency of the aid budget spending that is allocated domestically? I have written to the Treasury on that point, but I hope his discussions have been more productive than mine.

The development budget—the pot of money we put aside to help the world’s poorest people—is being squeezed from every angle. Not only was it slashed by almost a third, but other Departments are now able to use the fund to cover shortfalls. The Minister should consider whether it is accurate to say that we are spending even 0.5% on international aid, when such a huge proportion of the pot is being spent domestically rather than on helping people facing enormous hardship across the world. I hope that ahead of next week’s Budget he has been lobbying hard for more money. The bottom line is that the UK was the only major donor that failed to deliver the same level of funding as in the previous replenishment, let alone the increase that was requested.

As we have seen in recent years, marginalised communities will suffer the most as a result of UK ODA cuts. These decisions have a drastic impact on infections and deaths from HIV, TB and malaria. We must explore what our country can do to ensure that our international obligations are met. Although of course those obligations involve replenishing the Global Fund, I remind the House that they must extend further.

If we are to ensure that the poorest countries have the resources to fund healthcare fully for their populations, we need to end the crippling debt crisis faced by more than 50 countries worldwide. As agencies such as the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development are warning, debt levels for low-income countries are at their highest for 20 years. Countries are being forced to choose between spending on debt servicing and spending on healthcare. The focus of this debate is the Global Fund, but let us not forget that there are actions that the UK Government can and must take to tackle the growing debt crisis. If we want to increase financing for healthcare in the poorest countries, action on debt is essential.

Let me return to the Global Fund. In the current resource-limited setting, it is vital that the UK ensures value for money and capitalises on the match-funding arrangements with the US for the seventh replenishment, under which the US will provide a 50% match for every additional £1 that the UK contributes. Supplementary funding to the Global Fund has the potential to unlock significant matched funding from the US and drive the delivery of the UK’s international development strategy, so the Government should be exploring the allocation of additional funding to the Global Fund in the upcoming Budget and beyond. I urge the Minister to listen to this call.

Finally, it is International Women’s Day. It is important to recognise that women and girls continue to be disproportionately affected by ill health as a result of AIDS, TB and malaria. AIDS-related conditions are the leading cause of death for women of reproductive age globally, and approximately one third of all pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa suffer from malaria. Thanks to the Global Fund’s investments, more than 85% of pregnant women living with HIV now have access to medicine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the huge benefits of the generous offer from the United States, which, along with Britain, has been one of the two core countries for the Global Fund. On his request that I keep this spending and the results under review, he may rest assured that I certainly will.

The Global Fund has kept health services going in conflict zones from Afghanistan to Ukraine. It has provided $25 million in emergency funding to Ukraine, which has been used to deploy doctors and mobile clinics. It has supported healthcare for those suffering from climate-related disasters in Pakistan and Somalia.

Addressing gender and human rights barriers is an integral part of the Global Fund’s strategy for the next five years, ensuring that life-changing services are available for all, regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation or income. Some 60% of the Global Fund’s investments go towards protecting women and girls. The UK continues to champion those values in all our work. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, today we celebrate International Women’s Day, and this morning we published our strategy, which puts women and girls at the heart of pretty much everything the Foreign Office does. We will stand up for them at every opportunity, work with our partners who do the same and counter any rollback in women’s rights and freedoms around the world.

[Charlotte Nichols]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am very sorry, but I am about to run out of time.

We are increasing our ambition, because threats to gender equality are mounting and because women and girls continue to be at particular risk from diseases such as HIV and malaria. Over the next year, global leaders will come together for UN high-level meetings on universal health coverage, tuberculosis, and pandemic preparedness and response. The Global Fund is an important partner to the UK in helping to advance those priorities.

To conclude, we have no doubt of the huge importance and value of the work of the Global Fund. We will fulfil our sixth replenishment pledge. This is an outstandingly successful partnership, which is why the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and I very carefully considered our £1,000 million pledge to the seventh replenishment, for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton has set out so eloquently.

We balance the needs of the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria against the many other demands on the aid budget, guided by the priorities of the international development strategy. We can all be proud of our commitment and the difference this pledge will make to millions of people around the world, helping to end those three diseases that shatter lives and to build a better, safer world for all.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the discussions on transparency with the Home Office. A new cross-Whitehall committee, co-chaired by myself and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will bear down on the quality of ODA spent throughout the Whitehall system. He asked about discussions with the Treasury on these matters and on ODA generally. I assure him that, short of camping under the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s bed, I could not lobby more than I am.

Finally, I shall give way to the hon. Lady, because there is one minute left.

[Charlotte Nichols]

The Minister has outlined brilliantly all the great things the Global Fund does, but as we have cut our replenishment funding, has the Department made an assessment of what that loss will mean, in terms of the inability to meet some of this need?

[Mr Mitchell]

We look incredibly carefully at the results our taxpayers are buying with their contribution. The contribution we have made of £1,000 million is a significant one, given the constrained circumstances that we and others around the world find ourselves in. We have made a contribution at that level for precisely the reasons set out by the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, in what I think you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, has been a most interesting and illuminative debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Human Rights Update

Charlotte Nichols Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The reality is that genocide has a very, very complex legal definition, which is why, in war crimes tribunals since Nuremberg, it has very rarely been found. The right thing to do is to respect the legal definition and allow a court to make those determinations. It is principally for the purposes of finding criminal accountability, but I understand the wider points that my hon. Friend makes.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]]

The Foreign Secretary said in January that we should not be doing trade deals with countries committing human rights abuses

“well below the level of genocide”—

yet now, in private, he has been caught out on record saying that he is happy for the Government to do trade deals with countries who fail to meet international human rights standards. Indeed, just this month we have signed one with Cameroon. Is the Foreign Secretary concerned that he has been misleading the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that needs to be withdrawn—I will let the hon. Lady withdraw it. Nobody misleads the house.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I withdraw that.

[Dominic Raab]

I am not sure what is left of the question with that bit withdrawn, but the reality is that it is a totally inaccurate reflection—I am sure inadvertently —of the remarks we have made. I made it clear that we will never do free trade deals with countries whose human rights records are beyond the pale. We are taking Magnitsky sanctions, as well as modern slavery action measures, precisely because we never shirk our human rights and responsibilities. But we do recognise the value of trade deals, and if we held countries around the world to ECHR-level standards, we would be—I do not hear Opposition Front Benchers calling for this—ripping up trade deals with Korea, Japan and not engaging with other countries that have either the death penalty or corporal punishment. We take a balanced approach, but, as we have shown today, we will never shrink from standing up for human rights and holding those to account, and we have done more than any other Government in this country’s history, and certainly more than the Labour Government before.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Charlotte Nichols Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for his courage and his conviction. He is absolutely right. Indeed, before the merger—but I think reinforced by it—we were making sure that the freedom agenda was at the core of our “force for good” priorities. I think he can see that in the media freedom campaign that we are co-partnering with our Canadian friends, right the way through to the Magnitsky sanctions that I recently introduced, which we are currently working on in tandem with the EU sanctions that are being considered in relation, for example, to the violation of human rights in Belarus.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

What measures will the Secretary of State take, and what reports will be made to this House, in the next six months to review the success or otherwise of the merger?

[Dominic Raab]

We obviously have the integrated review, and we have the work of ICAI and of course the Select Committee. So, ultimately, a combination of external scrutiny and the parliamentary scrutiny of this House will, I am sure, hold us to account. We do not shrink from that; we welcome it.

Bahrain: Prisoners Under Sentence of Death

Charlotte Nichols Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

Freedom of religion is also a cornerstone of our force for good in UK foreign policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) works with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on protection for religious freedom; he will take an interest in my hon. Friend’s point. We very much impress upon our friends around the world the importance of religious freedom, and we will do so with regard to Bahrain as well.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

If their death sentences are confirmed, Mohammed Ramadhan and Hussain Moosa will have exhausted all their legal remedies and will face imminent execution. What is the Minister’s assessment of the efficacy of the Government’s encouragement of Bahrain to follow due process and meet its international human rights obligations?

[James Cleverly]

As I have said, the existence of the oversight bodies is in part because of the work that the UK has done with Bahrain. We will seek to continue to improve the effectiveness and transparency of those oversight bodies. That will be an enduring function of our relationship with the Bahrainis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlotte Nichols Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

15. What recent steps he has taken to update travel advice on travelling to areas and countries affected by covid-19.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

16. What steps he is taking to support UK nationals based overseas who are at risk from covid-19.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)]

The Prime Minister spoke to his G7 counterparts yesterday about the international effort to take a global and effective response in tackling covid-19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation is moving very rapidly—to give him a sense of that, I should say that the Foreign Office made more than 200 changes to our travel advice over the last weekend alone. We have also published a checklist to help British travellers to think through the challenges of international travel and the questions they should ask about it. We are in contact with the airlines for the insurance reasons that my hon. Friend explained. As I mentioned, I will make a further statement after oral questions.

[Charlotte Nichols]

Over the coming weeks and months, as more and more airlines, travel operators and insurance firms go bust, more and more British nationals will find themselves stranded abroad without accommodation or flight options. Will the Secretary of State reassure us that the Foreign Office is gearing up for that challenge and will be there to provide whatever support is required?