Bambos Charalambous MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jul 2025 · Music Education · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of music education. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music education. Music has the power to move us and stir our soul. We marvel at a captivating song or composition when we hear it for the first time, and we are transported back in time when we hear a long-forgotten evocative melody. A world without music would be empty and barren: that is why we need to value music and do everything we can to protect its long-term future. Key to that is music education. It brings many benefits to students, aside from the ability to play an instrument or make music: building confidence, improving learning skills, fostering teamwork, increasing concentration, strengthening discipline, inspiring creativity and equipping individuals with the transferable skills necessary to succeed in life. But there is a crisis in music education in our schools, and if we are to reverse it we need to start with the basics. The number of students who receive music tuition in schools is falling rapidly, and schools are no longer encouraging students to pursue a music GCSE. There is a worrying decline in the recruitment and retention of music teachers. Music hubs are being financially stretched, and music education funding remains at a standstill. Music education should be accessible for everyone, but at present it is becoming inaccessible to those who cannot afford to take private lessons or take part in extracurricular music activities. It is no accident that the finalists in this year’s BBC young musician contest were all privately educated. Many older musicians tell me that they became musicians because of the encouragement and inspiration that they received from music teachers when they were young, and the pathways that were open to them to progress and pursue their talent. We are struggling to meet recruitment targets for music teachers, however, and many teachers are leaving the profession altogether. The Department for Education has missed its recruitment targets for music teachers in 11 of the past 12 years. In 2011 there were 8,000 music teachers, but in 2023 the number was 7,184—a decrease of nearly 1,000. The situation is even worse for peripatetic music teachers, who are on low pay and precarious contracts. We have also struggled to meet the recruitment target for postgraduate initial teacher training in music: we have met it only once since 2015. Last year, just 27% of the target was met. Additionally, the financial incentives to train as a music teacher are severely lacking. While trainee geography teachers receive a bursary of £25,000, trainee music teachers are entitled to a bursary of just £10,000. The retention of teachers is also an issue. Key stage 5 music has experienced a workforce decline of 35% in the past 13 years, while taught hours have fallen by 40%, indicating that qualifications such as A-level music are not being offered in school as key stage 5 options for young people. That is why Ofsted’s 2023 music subject report says that some schools have dropped music altogether because they cannot recruit specialist teachers. In other schools, music is now taught by a non-specialist, which is a very worrying trend. One suggestion to improve the recruitment and retention of music teachers is to implement strategies to bridge the gap between trainee music teachers and early career teachers, given the significant recruitment shortfalls over the past 12 years. On recruitment, the Government should commit to increasing the size of the initial teacher training bursary so that it is in line with other subjects. Currently, the initial teacher training bursaries for trainee music teachers are nearly a third of what is offered to trainee chemistry, maths or computing teachers. Being a music teacher should once again be an attractive career option for music graduates. I have been working closely with the Ed Sheeran Foundation over the past few months. One of its key asks is that we urgently train 1,000 specialist music teachers to close the recruitment gap and make sure that students across the country can access music tuition. We need to make sure that there is at least one specialist music teacher in every school by the end of this Parliament. Access to continuing professional development for music teachers in state schools is a serious challenge and is crucial to the quality of music education offered, yet recruitment is struggling badly. In 2024-25, only 331 of the 820 training places for secondary music teachers were filled, leaving a massive 60% shortfall. There are nearly 600 fewer music teachers than there were a decade ago. Investing in focused, reflective CPD is a vital step to bridging that gap and improving music education for all students. With recruitment falling, and with an exodus of specialist music teachers, there is a severe inequality between state and independent schools in children’s access to music education. According to UK Music, 50% of children in independent schools receive substantial music tuition, compared with just 15% in state schools. The Education Policy Institute found that disadvantaged pupils are 39% less likely than non-disadvantaged pupils to take music at GCSE. Funding for music education in English state schools is severely lagging behind the independent sector. The Independent Society of Musicians report on music education found that the mean yearly budget in maintained schools’ music departments was just £1,865; in independent schools it was nearly £10,000. It is clear that music in state schools, where the majority of children are educated, is facing significant difficulties with access and inclusion. That is made worse by the fact that there is no accountability mechanism for schools to teach music. The mechanism for calculating school league tables, Progress 8, heavily incentivises schools to prioritise English baccalaureate subjects at GCSE, which exclude arts subjects entirely. This is creating a two-tier system within schools, with subjects like music deprioritised in the curriculum. The evidence supports this: GCSE music entries have fallen by 30% and A-level music entries have fallen by 43% since the EBacc was introduced in 2010. Music hubs are another key area in need of reform. They support music teaching in schools, typically through instrumental lessons and whole-class instrument tuition, but they also do incredible work outside the school curriculum. I have had the pleasure of seeing that work at first hand at the Haringey music service’s “Mini Massive” concert, at which year 4 children from schools across Haringey come together and perform at Alexandra Palace every year at the end of 30 weeks of whole-class instrumental lessons. However, since the publication of the second national plan for music education in 2022, music hubs have faced significant funding challenges. The plan promised to maintain funding levels until August 2025, yet no additional resources were allocated to cover rising costs, including teacher pension contributions, despite a clear Government commitment in 2019 to supporting them. There are many good things in the national plan for music, but it is in urgent need of an update. A clear steer is needed from the new Government. Arts Council England’s guidance made it clear that there would be no additional ringfenced funding for pensions, effectively slashing over £1 million in crucial support. On top of that, the rushed consultation process for the plan led to a reduction from 80 hubs to just 43, increasing administrative burdens without evidence that access to music education would improve. The delayed announcement of successful funding bids, which came only in April 2024, left hubs with a mere four months to implement major changes, further straining limited resources. The ongoing uncertainty and underfunding risk undermining the vital role that music hubs play in enabling access to music education across the country. I am sure we all agree that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue, so what needs to be done? Funding levels for music education have been roughly the same for the last decade, which represents a significant real-terms cut. The Government’s plans to increase spending for state schools are welcome, but they must make it clear how much additional funding will be allocated to music. Music hubs need urgent reform and better funding, because without sustainable support they simply cannot provide equitable access to music education for all children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Many hubs that cover more than one local authority area complain about the duplication of paperwork, which is adding to the pressures of ensuring that quality music services are delivered at a local level. The lack of central co-ordination means that any data collected by the hubs is not properly collated. Additionally, music hubs need the certainty of long-term funding. I know that the Government are looking to give local authorities financial settlements that go beyond a year; perhaps the same can be applied to hubs. To truly reform music hubs, we need improved, detailed and long-term data collection that reflects the diverse musical experiences of young people and local contexts, enabling strategic, targeted funding to support meaningful, high-quality music education across all regions. The announcement of a new national centre for arts and music education presents a good opportunity to make a positive contribution to the development of music education across the state sector, particularly in secondary schools. However, the uncertainty about what it is, what funding will be made available and who will run it is undermining its credibility. The Government are undertaking public engagement on the national centre, but greater clarity would be welcome. Most people involved in music education cite the EBacc and the Progress 8 measure as a barrier to music education and in urgent need of reform. Since the introduction of those accountability measures, schools have been under significant pressure to prioritise other subjects, and music education has been left behind. Research shows a decline in the uptake and provision of music education in schools since the EBacc was introduced, with disadvantaged students most affected. Many in the sector suggest that, as a minimum, a creative or vocational qualification should be introduced in Progress 8, as was previously pledged in the “Creating growth” plan in the Government’s manifesto. I was recently visiting friends in France and was surprised to discover that philosophy is a compulsory subject there until the age of 18, as part of the baccalaureate. If it can be done in France for philosophy, we should be able to do it in the UK for music and creative subjects. The curriculum assessment review is due to report later this year, and although it is narrowly focused, it is vital that it address the issue. I am sure that Professor Becky Francis and her team are doing great work, but I hope that as a result of the curriculum review, creative subjects will be given greater prominence in the school curriculum. By reforming the accountability system, the Government can ensure that music thrives in state schools and gives high-quality music education to pupils from the most deprived backgrounds. Many amazing things are happening in music education. Last week, I saw work that the London Sinfonietta had done in getting local schools in Enfield to create their own musical composition, which was then performed by the London Sinfonietta’s excellent musicians—many thanks to the Enfield music service for co-ordinating that performance. I know that the Minister is a big music fan, as she and I recently attended the wonderful BrightSparks key stage 1 lunchtime concert performed by the London Philharmonic Orchestra in front of a packed house of children at the Royal Festival Hall. It was a wonderful concert, as I am sure the Minister will agree. The English National Opera and many other fantastic music organisations also do incredible outreach work with schools, but if we do not get more direction and leadership from the Government, I fear that the ball will be dropped and we will not get the change that we want. I have some questions for the Minister. First, what steps are the Government taking, including on terms and conditions for peripatetic teachers, to attract and retain more music teachers? Will more support be provided for music hubs, along with the review of their work, including the impact of the bureaucracy that they face? Can the Minister tell us whether the now outdated national plan for music—it was last updated in 2022—will be refreshed under the new Government? If so, when? Can she also tell us more about progress on the national centre for arts and music education and when it is likely to be up and running? Can she tell us of any plans to review the English baccalaureate and Progress 8? Can she tell us when the curriculum assessment review is likely to report back with its final findings? Finally, will she meet me and representatives from music education to discuss the progress of music education? For many people, the music that they are taught in school is their only exposure to the discipline, yet the availability and quality of music education has suffered greatly in the past decade and a half. We need to fix that and ensure that music education thrives under this Labour Government and has a bright long-term future, enriching all our lives.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Refugee Citizenship Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and making such a great speech. He is absolutely right that treating people differently based on how they arrived in this country affects community cohesion, which has a detrimental effect on our society. What we need are safe routes that allow people to come here legally rather than risk coming via irregular routes, which is why the policy was introduced in the first place.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  There are lots of witnesses.

• 15 May 2025 · Gavi and the Global Fund · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I congratulate her on securing the debate. Gavi has been one of the most successful development initiatives ever; more than 1 billion children are being routinely immunised against some of the world’s deadliest diseases. Despite its success, however, each year more than 1.5 million children continue to die from vaccine-preventable diseases. Does she agree that the UK needs to show leadership in ensuring that immunisation remains a funding priority for the UK, and that the Government, as a board member and a strong donor, should continue to fund Gavi and prioritise life-saving vaccinations?

• 14 May 2025 · Future of Public Libraries · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I congratulate him on securing this important debate. He mentioned community spaces. My borough of Haringey uses libraries as community spaces to encourage more people to use them, with various innovative ideas, such as the library late scheme. Libraries open later and get artists and musicians to make use of the community space that libraries are there to serve. Does he agree that is a good way to encourage diverse communities to access library spaces?

• 13 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Alawite, Druze and Christian minority communities in Syria are still living in fear of attacks from militiamen. What steps are the Government taking to put pressure on the Syrian Government to prevent any further attacks?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Although the extra sitting days to reduce court delays announced by the Secretary of State are welcome, does the Minister agree that the state of the court estate needs some attention, as some courts are out of action due to disrepair issues?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Hughes Report: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She is making an excellent speech. My constituent Susan Cole is in the Public Gallery. Her daughter was affected by sodium valproate. It is now 14 months since the Hughes report was published. The time for the payment of compensation is now. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could provide interim compensation even if they do not have the timeline for implementing in full the measures in the Hughes report?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Road Safety: Gig Economy Couriers · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps she is taking to help improve road safety for gig economy couriers using two-wheeled vehicles.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Road Safety: Gig Economy Couriers · Hansard source

  More

  Two-wheeled couriers working in the gig economy experience more road dangers than average riders due to time pressures from employers. Research from University College London shows that gig economy riders are three times as likely to report damage to their vehicle and nearly twice as likely to report injury. What steps are being taken, including with employers of gig economy riders and other stake- holders, to protect gig economy riders and reduce dangers for them and other road users and pedestrians?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) on securing this vital debate and making such an excellent speech. As the Member for Southgate and Wood Green, I have the privilege of representing two boroughs—Enfield and Haringey. Both have faced enormous pressures on their budgets since 2010, when we had the first iteration of the then Government’s austerity agenda. Funding to local councils was slashed, and London councils were particularly badly affected. Since 2010, Enfield has had £200 million slashed from its budget, a 42% cut. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that Enfield’s share of current local authority funding is the fourth worst in the country relative to comparative need, with a gap of £90 million per year. Like many other outer London boroughs, Enfield suffers from damping, under which the Government calculate the need of outer London boroughs but then take away a proportion and distribute it elsewhere. That is just plain wrong. Enfield needs to get the funding it actually requires to provide services for its residents, but it has lost £11.6 million year on year since 2012-13 as a result of the calculation for outer London boroughs. Since 2011, Haringey has had its budget cut by £143 million in real terms and has seen a 30% cut in its workforce. It too faces huge pressures on its budgets, particularly in adult social care, in which costs have risen by £31 million, and in children’s social care and SEND provision, where costs have risen by £6 million over the same period. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead has already mentioned the antiquated inner-outer London funding formula that adversely affects both Enfield and Haringey and, as is clear from the debate, many other outer London boroughs. The outdated inner-outer London definition needs to be scrapped. Other colleagues have mentioned the huge pressures that London local authorities face in relation to temporary accommodation. Last year, Enfield faced a £17.3 million overspend on temporary accommodation, and for Haringey the figure is £13 million over the last two years. Despite all that, the councils still provide excellent services. I am proud to put on the record the great work that Haringey Learning Partnership does in the circumstances. What needs to be done? The inner-outer London formula needs to be scrapped, and we need to double the homelessness prevention grant, introduce a funding formula that addresses deprivation, and reform capital flexibility.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) on his private Member’s Bill on this very important topic, and on his excellent speech. It is a well-established fact that good nutrition is essential for children’s brain development and learning. When children go to school without eating a nutritious meal, or eating at all, it has a detrimental effect on their behaviour and educational performance. Barnardo’s latest research, “Nourishing the Future”, found that “1 in 3 schools said hunger and food insecurity was impacting on children’s ability to learn, including poor concentration, tiredness and behavioural problems.” As a school governor, I know the challenges that schools face in dealing with challenging behaviour and getting children to learn, so anything that helps improve behaviour and learning is to be welcomed. Free school meals are meant to be a lifeline for low-income families. They are meant to ensure that the most disadvantaged children in society get a free nutritious meal every day that they are in school, to help them concentrate, learn and achieve. However, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, over 900,000 children across the UK do not qualify for free school meals because of restrictive qualifying criteria. According to the Food Foundation, a further 250,000 eligible children are missing out on free school meals for a variety of reasons, including lack of awareness, stigma or embarrassment, the complexity of the forms—the Minister referred to the previous checking system—or language barriers. The fact that obtaining free school meals is an opt-in process, requiring parents or carers to apply, is itself a barrier. If we want our children to flourish, thrive and get the best start in life, that needs to change. As the Minister mentioned, one of the Labour party’s five missions is to break down barriers to opportunity, and I believe this is one of those barriers. The solution is auto-enrolment for free school meals, as set out in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. However, he is not the only person to call for such a change; that call has come from many quarters. In 2021, the Conservative Government commissioned Henry Dimbleby, co-founder of the restaurant chain Leon, to produce a food strategy for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Recommendation 4 of the strategy was to extend eligibility for free school meals, and one of the three ways to achieve that recommendation was to: “Enrol eligible children for free school meals automatically.” The rationale for that recommendation was that “even eligible children are often missing out. Currently, FSMs are ‘opt-in’: parents have to know about the scheme and apply for it. The effect of this is that, according to a 2013 estimate by the DfE, 11% of children entitled to FSMs do not receive them.” In the benefits section of recommendation 4, it was noted that: “This would have benefits for those children’s health, but also for their educational achievement. Following one pilot of universal free school meals in 2009–11, primary school pupils made between four and eight weeks’ more progress than expected. Pupils from poorer families and those who had previously done less well at school showed the most improvement.” It was stated that there were clear education and health benefits in children having a nutritious free school meal—and that came from the Conservative Government’s food strategy. Sadly, as with many of the recommendations, auto-enrolment was not implemented. More recently, the Education Committee’s “Scrutiny of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill” report of 28 February states at paragraph 35 “that the arguments for auto-enrolment in free school meals for those children currently eligible are conclusive. In the interests of alleviating hunger in schools and improving health and educational outcomes for the poorest children, auto-enrolment must be brought in without delay.” We are lucky in London that the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, has agreed to fund free lunches for all London’s children in state primary schools, which is already making a difference to children’s educational outcomes. It is a shame that this policy does not apply to secondary schools too, but in the absence of such a policy, auto-enrolment is the best way to ensure all eligible children get the free school meals that they are entitled to and deserve. If we are to ensure that children get the best start in life, learn and thrive at school and achieve to their full potential, auto-enrolling of eligible children on to free school meals is the best way forward. We need to remove that barrier to opportunity, and this would, at a stroke, make a huge difference to those children’s lives. The Government are already doing many good things in education, and the announcement of the breakfast club early adopters was warmly welcomed by me and, I am sure, colleagues on both sides of the House. I hope that the Government will adopt this policy, because it helps alleviate child poverty, is good for children, and is the right thing to do. I hear what the Minister said about the child poverty taskforce strategy, and look forward to it reporting later in the year on what it would do to challenge child poverty. Data sharing is obviously to be welcomed, and I know that the Government will do all they can to ensure that all eligible children get the free school meals that they deserve, to help them learn and thrive.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentioned the attacks on Alawite and other minority communities, where civilians were attacked, killed and injured. Will he condemn the attacks? What support will he give those minority communities who feel incredibly under threat?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine Eligibility Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  People with respiratory illnesses, such as my constituent Jane Wessman, benefit greatly from receiving the free respiratory syncytial virus vaccine and also the shingles vaccine. The arbitrary decision to end eligibility for these vaccines at the age of 80 has a profound effect on those who need it the most. Accordingly, my constituent and others would like to see the age barrier lifted and the vaccines continuing to be available after the age of 80. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the Government take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to seek a reallocation of funds to ensure that the provision of the free Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine dose and Shingles vaccine dose is extended to those individuals who are 80 years of age or older.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that extending the eligibility criteria for the free Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine and the Shingles vaccine dose to individuals who are 80 years of age or older would bring considerable health benefits; notes that the former illness can cause acute respiratory infection, influenza-like illness, community-acquired pneumonia and lead to death and the latter illness can caused decreased vision or permanent blindness; and notes that vaccine doses for the Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Shingles virus are recommended to all individuals 80 years of age and over in the United States of America and in the European Union. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to seek a reallocation of funds to ensure that the provision of the free Respiratory Syncytial Virus vaccine dose and Shingles vaccine dose is extended to those individuals who are 80 years of age or older. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003045]

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am reading the text of new clause 1, and it is remarkably similar to the text of section 3(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, which says, “For the purposes of section 2, a person is unable to make a decision for himself if he is unable— to understand the information relevant to the decision, to retain that information, to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision”. It is not a novel concept—that wording is virtually the same as in new clause 1. I do not see why we need to have the new clause or the new definition, as it is already present in the Mental Capacity Act.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief. I very much welcome the Minister’s responses, certainly in relation to financial institutions and reforming the IMF, representation, how we look at debt, and transparency. In relation to external shocks, I think we should look at automatic cancellation of debt when a country is facing a climate event, for example. I very much hope that that can be looked into, long term. On comparable treatment, I know that the Minister has taken that on board and will be looking into it further. I disagree with her on legislation in relation to private creditors. Private creditors have not shown themselves to be responsible in this matter. I have given examples of private creditors who have not engaged in the G20 framework in the way they were expected to. I hope that, if the Minister does have regular meetings with them, she is able to convey this message to them. Until we see changes, I certainly will be pursuing legislation through my private Member’s Bill, the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill. We have had a good discussion today, and I thank all Members for contributing as they have, to show the unanimity on what we would like to see done. I think we all support debt cancellation and would like to see more done to help low-income countries—the most vulnerable ones—to get back on a level footing so that they can develop their economies as we would like to see them develop. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered debt cancellation for low-income countries.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered debt cancellation for low-income countries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the momentous Jubilee 2000 debt campaign brought together people from all walks of life, trade unions, churches, community groups, and even the odd rock star and celebrity, with the sole purpose of demanding debt relief for the world’s poorest countries, which are suffering extreme poverty caused by debt payments. The campaign was a resounding success and resulted in more than $130 billion of debt cancellation for 36 low-income countries, equating to an average 75% debt reduction for each country, allowing them to invest in health, education systems and other public services. Although the Jubilee 2000 campaign was widely celebrated, and world leaders felt that some good had been achieved, it later became clear that the symptom had been dealt with but not the cause. The current state of affairs is alarming. The World Bank’s latest international debt report stated that developing countries spent a record $1.4 trillion to service foreign debts, and that interest payments alone have soared by nearly a third to $406 billion, leaving many developing countries having to cut vital services, such as health, education and environmental programmes. The pressures are felt most greatly by the poorest and most vulnerable countries, which paid a record $96.2 billion to service their debt in 2023. Of that, $34.6 billion was in interest alone—a staggering fourfold increase on the figure a decade ago. Indermit Gill, the World Bank Group’s chief economist, said: “In highly indebted poor countries, multilateral development banks are now acting as a lender of last resort, a role they were not designed to serve. That reflects a dysfunctional financing system”. According to a report on the global debt crisis published recently by the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, 3.3 billion people now live in countries that spend more on debt servicing than on health and education, and the most food-insecure countries have seen the highest increases. Debt servicing is expected to consume 55% of low-income countries’ budgets in sub-Saharan Africa by 2025. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. When countries such as Ghana and Sri Lanka end up having to receive a 17th International Monetary Fund bail-out package, it is clear that things have to change. A complicating factor in dealing with debt relief is the role of private creditors, which have exploded on to the international debt scene since the success of the Jubilee 2000 campaign. Today, 61% of global sovereign debt is owed to private creditors such as hedge funds, asset managers and investment banks. Private lenders’ terms and conditions are often far more onerous than those of multilateral lenders, leaving low-income countries at the mercy of exorbitant interest rates and quick repayment schemes.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The lack of investment as a result of debt servicing leads to people seeking opportunities that are not available in their own country, so I totally agree with my hon. Friend on that point. Before I conclude, I thank CAFOD, Christian Aid, Debt Justice, UNICEF and Save the Children for their excellent briefings ahead of this debate, and for their support in relation to debt cancellation. I conclude with these questions for the Minister. Will the Government support my ten-minute rule Bill to prevent private creditors from being able to sue for enforcement in the UK courts for more than has been agreed in relation to debt relief with bilateral and multilateral lenders? Does the Minister agree that there should be comparable treatment for all creditors? Also, do the Government support a public global debt register for transparency? Does the Minister support the reform of the governance of the institutions, such as the IMF, that set the terms and conditions of bail-outs? The UK has a unique position in being able to use its global reputation to bring about change on the international stage in relation to debt cancellation, as it did 25 years ago. We led the way then, and it is time to do so again. We cannot afford not to. The global south is looking to us for action, and it is time for us to act.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come to that later in my speech, but she is absolutely right. We need to treat private creditors in the same way we treat bilateral and multilateral creditors. Private credit schemes are proving to be very lucrative deals for private creditors. In 2023 alone, private creditors received $68 billion more in interest and repayments from low-income countries than they had actually lent to them. That in itself is bad enough; what is worse is that when a defaulting country seeks debt relief there is nothing to compel private creditors to agree to be bound by any agreement reached by multilateral and bilateral creditors. In fact, there is no obligation to compel them to act in good faith or at all. One stark example is the case of Sri Lanka. In 2022, Sri Lanka defaulted on its sovereign debt, which led to the most serious economic crisis in the country’s history. Sri Lanka sought debt relief from its creditors, with 47% of it owned by private creditors. Despite reaching an agreement with its bilateral creditors, the private creditors refused to accept any debt relief and sued Sri Lanka in the US courts to prioritise their debts. As a result, the private creditors will receive 30% more in debt repayments than the bilateral creditors, while Sri Lanka had to seek a bailout from the IMF. Sri Lanka will have to slash its public sector spending and spend 30% of its Government revenue on debt repayments, which the IMF regards as unsustainable. It is morally repugnant that private creditors behave in such a way, deliberately hampering the ability of a low-income country to get back on its feet at a time of crisis. Sri Lanka is not alone in its experience at the hands of private lenders. Following the covid pandemic the G20, realising that international debt needed to be urgently dealt with, set up its common framework for debt treatments as the main global framework for dealing with resolving debt crises. The expectation was that all creditors would co-operate in collectively agreeing debt relief for countries that sought relief under the framework. Despite progress being made with bilateral and multilateral creditors, Chad and Zambia, which both sought debt relief under the framework, found that their private creditors would either drag negotiations out or offer debt relief that was significantly less than what was agreed with the bilateral or multilateral creditors. Chad failed to get any debt relief from its main private creditor, the UK-based company Glencore, and Glencore will be repaid 50% more than Government creditors. Zambia had been negotiating a debt relief agreement for more than four years when it finally reached agreement with bondholders. One of the private companies was paid 13% more than Governments, including the UK, while other private lenders, including UK-based Standard Chartered and Investec, are still to agree debt relief with Zambia. Ethiopia and Ghana have experienced similar behaviour from private creditors. The behaviour of private creditors is contrary to the spirit of the framework and has resulted in a loss of confidence in the framework’s efficacy among other debtor countries. To date, only four countries have sought relief under the framework. The truth is that private creditors have no incentive to agree to debt relief, because if they hold out, they get the interest payments and principal repayments as agreed. If there is a default, they can sue in the UK or US courts for enforcement action against the defaulting country, which will also be lucrative for them. For private creditors, it is a win-win situation; for low-income countries, it is lose-lose. Expecting private creditors to voluntarily enter into debt relief arrangements is like telling an alcoholic not to have a drink. Urgent legislation is required to compel private creditors to enter into and be bound by debt relief agreements. I have talked a lot so far about sums of money, but we must remember the human cost of investment not going to low-income countries as a result of debt re-servicing—for example, the rise in infant mortality due to cuts in health spending. UNICEF has stated that if a country has defaulted on debt repayments that remain unresolved for more than three years, the infant mortality level rises by 11.4% over that same period. Chronic under-investment in education leads to a less skilled, less healthy and less productive workforce, resulting in a lost generation, making it harder for them to escape poverty. So what needs to be done to resolve the debt crisis? In its excellent 2023 report entitled “Debt relief in low-income countries”, the International Development Committee came up with some recommendations. The first such measure would be the reform of the governance of financial institutions that control international debt, such as the IMF. The conditions imposed by the IMF on debt bail-outs often have dire effects and make things worse for the debtor country by placing more emphasis on the short-term repayment of debt, rather than on the long-term infrastructure development of a country that could provide it with lasting security and protection from indebtedness. Secondly, there is a need to create a level playing field by passing legislation to compel private creditors to actively participate in the debt relief process by preventing them from suing for more money than they would get if they accepted debt relief on the same terms as other lenders. In 2010, the Labour Government passed the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act, which did exactly that for debt that was owed prior to 2004. My ten-minute rule Bill is an updated version of the 2010 Act. As more than 90% of bonds owed by countries eligible for debt relief are issued in the UK, it would have a significant impact on low-income countries and could be transformative in allowing money spent on servicing debt to go into health and education systems and to be spent on the environment. It would cost the Treasury nothing and, at a time when aid spending is seeing little if any increase, it would be a sure way of getting money to the most vulnerable countries. There is no justification for treating private creditors differently from other lenders. Thirdly, there needs to be a public global debt register to record the details of all global sovereign debt. The need for transparency is urgent, and it would help populations in debtor countries to hold their Governments to account over entering agreements with predatory private creditors. Fourthly, there should be a framework for the automatic cancellation of debt servicing when highly indebted countries are hit by catastrophic events such as climate-related disasters like Storm Beryl. It cannot be right that while a climate-vulnerable country is struggling to get back on its feet, it is forced to make debt-servicing payments. Instead of making these countries apply to international institutions for debt cancellation, debt cancellation should be automatic. Given that in 2024 the total external debt serviced by all African countries was $104 billion, of which $47 billion was owed to private creditors, and the entire UK aid budget to Africa was £993 million, something needs to change; otherwise we are just servicing the debt owed to private creditors.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Dr Ward and Professor Hoyano, we heard yesterday evidence about the interplay between assisted dying, the Equality Act 2010 and the European convention on human rights. Should amendments be made to the Bill to deal with those issues? What are your thoughts about the interaction between those pieces of legislation and the Bill? Dr Ward: I heard the session yesterday and would agree with the comments that were made there, particularly around proportionality. Article 2 is an absolute right —the right to life—whereas article 8 is a qualified right. Again, it is about that balancing act. The courts have been very clear that we need to protect vulnerable people, and I feel strongly that the Bill straddles that very well by giving choice but in a very limited set of circumstances. On the Equality Act, there have been some claims made—this happened in Scotland—that the definition of disability in the Equality Act would cover people who are terminally ill. That that is not my reading of it, and that position is widely shared by the people advising us in Scotland on the legal capacity. That is all I have to say. Professor Hoyano: I would only point out to the Committee that the common law entrenched the human rights of the patient a long time before the Human Rights Act 1998. We must remember that we do not just have to look at the European convention and Strasbourg. The common law has been very active in entrenching fundamental principles of the rights of the patient, particularly their autonomy in decision making regarding their own body, since long before the HRA.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Following on from what Mr Porter said about the provision of hospices, we are blessed with some wonderful hospices in north London that provide fantastic facilities. I agree with Mr Royston about the need for an assessment of palliative care funding right now; that is important. The fact about the funding is quite shocking. One of the local hospices has something that has been nicknamed a “death café”, where people get to discuss the end of life in a setting with friends and family members. On the issue of ethnic minorities not accessing services, what are your thoughts on being able to have settings where they can discuss different options at the end of care, get the support they need and make properly informed choices about the end of life? That question is to the whole panel.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This is a question to Professor House. I know you are opposed to the Bill, but if it were to pass, what role do you see for psychiatrists in a multidisciplinary approach? Professor House: It is a difficult question, isn’t it? I have already said that there is an element of assessment that is needed here—that is not currently acknowledged very much in the Bill—of somebody’s psychological state. I say “psychological state”, which has these elements to it, one of which is the presence of diagnosable mental disorder—the top of the list of importance is depression, which is well known, particularly in the elderly, not to be that easy. Older people do not express distress necessarily as openly and obviously as younger people do. There is an element of the psychological bit of assessment, which you could call psychiatric assessment, that attempts to identify and diagnose mental disorders, particularly depressive disorders. That is particularly difficult in the elderly because they are sometimes what is called “masked”. There is then the element, which is mentioned in the Bill, of the difficulty at times of judging somebody’s mental capacity. The trouble with the ideas of incapacity and coercion, both of which float around a lot, is that they suggest a very high threshold. There is this middle ground, which we have just been hearing about, with a degree of impairment of judgment, or bias in judgment because of what is going on. Those are the sorts of areas where you would want a mental health professional and probably a psychiatrist, but a psychiatrist with a particular interest in this sort of area.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question is about how the legislation is going and how you have implemented it. What changes have you made since it began? What teething problems did you find as you were going along? What adjustments have you made to your process? Dr Spielvogel: The original version was called the End of Life Option Act. It legalised assisted dying in California when it went into effect in 2016. It was then amended in 2021, I believe; the effect of the main amendment was to shorten the waiting period. There was a 14-day mandatory waiting period between two verbal requests that a patient would give directly to their physician. What we found when we were studying it was that approximately 30% of people died during the waiting period. There were many conversations with patients. The thought process behind the waiting period is that somebody is making a persistent, well-thought-out and non-capricious decision when they are asking for this, but there is a false premise there— [ Interruption. ]

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  May I put the same question to Dr Kaan? Dr Kaan: You will know that throughout the United States there are a variety of aid in dying laws, all of them slightly different across jurisdictions. I practise in both the state of Oregon and the state of Washington, so I have to keep track of two slightly different laws. In the state of Washington, where I am the medical director for End of Life Washington, we updated our law in 2023, mostly because we were trying to increase access to it for people who lived in rural communities or for people in underserved communities. Any healthcare system in the world right now has experienced a shortage of physicians, so the requirement for two physicians to do the certification was a barrier for people in those communities that did not have access to two physicians. One of the things we did to increase access in 2023 was to make it so that one of the two providers could be a non-physician: a physician assistant or a nurse practitioner with advanced training. One of the providers still needs to be a qualified physician, but that has increased access for those in rural communities and underserved communities. We are very proud of the fact that we have done that. Additionally, we shortened our waiting period for similar reasons, from 15 days down to seven days. In Oregon, they shortened their waiting period. Well, they still have a 15-day waiting period, which has been stable since the start in 1997, but they also now have a provision whereby, if a patient is expected to die within those 15 days—if they are at the very end of their life and are not expected to be able to survive those 15 days—they can bypass the waiting period. I really like that provision, because there are patients who come very late in their process to this decision. It may not seem like much to us, who are healthy and relatively well, but 15 days for a dying person who is suffering and really wants this option is an incredibly long time.

• 23 Jan 2025 · International Day of Education · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a very positive debate, and it is great that there is cross-party support on this important issue. I thank all Members for their contributions and the Minister for her positive response. I look forward to how that investment from the Government is taken forward to build on the previous Government’s commitment to education. The Minister is obviously a passionate advocate for education, and will want to see the fruits of the investments and steps the Government are taking to achieve SDG4 as soon as possible. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the International Day of Education.