Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation

Thursday 6th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

15:00

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab) [R]]

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.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he has done in this incredibly important area over a long time. He talks about the impact of rising interest rates on low-income countries, to which could be added the impact of covid and dealing with climate change, and the private sector operators. Does he agree that when countries such as the UK choose to forgive sovereign debt, speculators and private sector operators should not profit from that but should follow this country’s lead?

[Bambos Charalambous]

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.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way, as well as the excellent points he is making. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Africa, I have noted with concern the language around the increased migration that we have seen over the last few years, and we are all concerned to see the way in which criminal gangs exploit vulnerable migrants. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that by allowing the extraction of so much value from countries in Africa, we are not aiding and supporting economic opportunities for Africans in their own countries and are therefore contributing towards increased migration?

[Bambos Charalambous]

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.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.

15:15

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms McVey. I commend the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for leading the debate. I spoke to him beforehand, and he told me that he led a debate in this Chamber two weeks ago. I had the debate last Thursday, he has the debate this Thursday, and I have the debate next Thursday in the same time slot—I think he and I are competing for the graveyard shift on a Thursday afternoon. I think that is two each. Maybe it will be exceeded—I am not sure—but well done to him, because this is a subject that we are all interested in, and that is why we are all here.

It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well in her new role, and we look forward to her response on a matter that I know is close to her heart. I am confident that she will do her best to encourage us all. I also give my well wishes to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I suspect he is newly appointed—I hope I am right about that—and I wish him well in the role.

The United Kingdom has been involved in various initiatives aimed at providing debt relief to low-income countries over the years, including in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. We continue as a country to work alongside LICs to ease pressure, which is something we should be proud of. Many will know that we are known for our generosity to other countries. We will always do our best to support, and it is a real pleasure to discuss that. Indeed, Northern Ireland—you will probably know this, Ms McVey—is one of the most charitable regions. I am not saying we are better than anybody else, but we are generous when it comes to charitable giving, and I just wanted to put that on the record.

In December 2024, the World Bank warned that developing countries spent a record £1.4 trillion—my goodness, that slipped off my tongue quite easily, but it is an astronomical figure—to service their foreign debts in 2023, and that interest rates had risen to a 20-year high. It concluded that 38 low-income countries, most of them in Africa and Asia, are in debt distress.

Debt cancellation is a reserved UK-wide policy, but Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales contribute to the UK’s foreign aid and international development budget, which largely includes the debt relief initiatives for the LICs. The Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network has long advocated for the UK’s involvement in providing debt relief to countries struggling with high financial burdens. Has the Minister had the opportunity to hold any discussions with the Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network? It is a good organisation that does great work, and it is always encouraging for such organisations to have engagement with Ministers.

It is interesting to look at the at the root cause of the debt. The sad reality is that for many countries, such as those in Africa, it is poverty. It is as simple as that, as graphic as that and as real as that. Poverty in Africa is a long-term and complex issue that impacts millions of lives every day. Political instability, uneven distribution of natural and Government resources, sometimes corruption, and climate change all contribute to this issue. Those who are most affected are often those in rural and remote areas.

There are incredible charities out there, and the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green mentioned some of those that contribute regularly. I want to talk about some of the church groups that contribute through their missions. I think first of Eden missions. Every year, I am fortunate to have engagement with those from Swaziland. A young people’s choir comes over and they do some fundraising when they are in our constituency. We do our best to help and support them in every way we can. Every one of the children in that choir has AIDS, because their parents passed it on to them. They are fortunate to have the drugs that help them. Even with those disabilities, their voices are something special.

I think of the Elim church missions. In the Strangford constituency, there are so many—the best thing might be just to name all the churches. There is the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Roman Catholic Church and Baptist churches as well. Then there are the independent churches, which contribute greatly. We see massive Christian faith-based volunteerism and energy to support projects in Africa.

I think in particular of Elim, because I engage with it every year whenever it comes to Northern Ireland. It provides schooling, health and work initiatives. That charity does so much. It prepares people for life and for jobs, whether on the farm, as a doctor or teacher, or whatever it may be. It gives people the opportunity to know how to sow the seeds and reap the crops, so that they can live. When they come to Northern Ireland, we see their smiles and we cannot help being lifted individually.

Those are just some of the people who do this work, along with all the other charities and more that the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green spoke about, and that others will speak of as well. I have no doubt that every one of us could name groups that work beyond belief to provide aid and support to these communities at a local level. In the conversation about debt relief, however, the policies come straight from the Government. These groups do their work outside of Government, but the Government and the policymakers in this House are of massive importance at international level.

The UK has worked incredibly hard to introduce schemes that ultimately write off or suspend large debt from certain countries. I will give four countries as examples— I think the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green mentioned them too. Zambia, Ghana, Chad and Ethiopia have applied to the common framework, which followed on from the debt service suspension initiative that was introduced in 2020. Thus far, an incredible $12.9 million in payments have been suspended, which will go a massive way to easing pressure and providing a little more financial security for those countries. They are struggling—and, as I said, more often than not the reason is poverty. When it comes to Governments repaying debt, where is the tax coming from if people are on the poverty line to such an extent that they cannot pay it?

From 2001 to 2010, at least 49 low-income countries owing debts to the UK had all or part of their debts forgiven. The total amount of debt owed to the UK is now $1.8 billion. There are calls for the UK to strengthen legislation on debt repayments. I know the Minister will give us some thoughts on how the Government can help when it comes to debt repayments. Compelling private creditors to be involved in debt relief schemes is one of the options.

The International Development Committee said that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is “uniquely placed”—that is the Committee’s opinion, and it is mine, too—to legislate, because 45% of sovereign debts, a large amount, are governed under English law. Is that the Minister’s intention? If we have the ability to legislate, as I understand we do, I suggest, very respectfully, humbly and kindly, that we should.

The scale of debt that is owed is huge. We have done our bit recently to ensure fairness to other countries. I thank the Minister and the Labour Government, and the Conservative Government beforehand, for all that they have done. Debt has a huge impact on the development of LICs. We must take that into consideration without forgetting that there are other means through which we can receive payments back. For example, would it be an option for countries to give us something back in kind? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plan to ensure that we protect LICs without putting the development of our own country at risk.

15:25

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate.

African nations face a debt crisis caused by global factors—a debt crisis that is leading to more poverty, more hunger and war. They cannot renegotiate the debt, because it is held by private lenders, each of whom, through no fault of their own, has only one incentive: to hold out for a better deal in their fiduciary duty to their shareholders. As the debt is issued in London, we can help private lenders break out of that trap by mandating that all of them must accept the outcome of debt negotiations. That will help us to end the African debt crisis, build functioning states and reduce extreme poverty, all without spending a penny.

Before being elected to this place, I worked as an economist in the Finance Ministry of Somaliland, one of the poorest places on Earth. I helped to write its budgets, its economic policy and its national development plan, and I saw that ending extreme poverty requires an effective Government, as we have seen in India and South Korea. A Government who raise their own revenue are far more effective than a Government who receive it in international aid, because with taxation comes representation.

African nations are stuck, unable to reduce poverty because they are spending one fifth of their revenue—more than they spend on healthcare—paying down debts. They are trapped in that debt because of global factors: post-covid supply shocks, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and rising global interest rates. Debt repayments are up by 30% since 2019, and have more than tripled since 2010.

African nations, like any debtor, need to renegotiate their debt. If that debt was owed solely to other nations, that would be relatively simple, but it is not; it is owed to an unknown multitude of private creditors. Each of those creditors has a fiduciary duty to gain the highest return for its shareholders. Each individual private lender is trapped. They have to hold out, let others take the haircut and try to get the full amount for themselves. They are not bad people and they are not evil, but they are trapped within a system that no individual has the power to break out of.

Today, we can give them that power, because 90% of African debt governed by the common framework is issued under England’s legal jurisdiction. We can help to end the debt crisis without spending a penny by changing British law so that private lenders have to abide by the outcome of debt negotiations. Where before, private lenders were trapped, damned if they did forgive and damned if they did not, they would be free to implement sensible debt renegotiations.

I know that some will disagree, and I will take their arguments head on. Some will say that the status quo—things like collective action clauses—is sufficient. That view is wrong. Ghana and Zambia have been waiting 12 months for private lenders to come to the table. They are still waiting. Chadian private debt is not owed in bonds, which means it is not governed by CACs. The current system is not fit for purpose.

Others will say that the proposed reforms would mean that debt would no longer be issued in London. If that were true, it should have happened after we passed the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010. It did not. Nations lend here and seek to have their borrowing issued here not because we have weak legal protections, but because we have the strongest and deepest legal system in the world, with centuries of case law. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) pointed out this week, 95% of African bonds are issued in England and Wales. This solution can work, and that is why the IMF and the World Bank support it.

I was an economist working in one of the poorest nations on earth during its worst drought in living memory. Yes, I saw people starve, but I also saw a nation being built from its own revenues, making budgets and implementing policies. A state that could end extreme poverty was and is in the making in Somaliland. That nation saw its economy grow by 16% in real terms between 2012 and 2020, despite a global pandemic. That reduction in poverty is about more than numbers—it is fewer people scratching around in the dirt desperately hoping that something will grow so that they can feed their children. That is what ending extreme poverty means.

We can end extreme poverty. When my father was born into rural poverty in India, he had a one in four chance of dying before his fifth birthday, while 70% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. Today, a child born in the same place is 10 times less likely to die, and only one in 10 of the world’s people now live in extreme poverty. We can end extreme poverty in the years to come by changing British law to end this debt crisis.

We can live up to and indeed continue the legacy of the former Members for Sedgefield and for Dunfermline East, who helped to cancel £30 billion of debt in 2005. Giving African nations the ability to use their own revenues, build their own Governments and create nations can end poverty. By making sure that private lenders can and must participate in debt renegotiations, we in this place can help to end extreme poverty for free.

15:31

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for organising this debate on a vital and extremely timely topic. As all hon. Members present are likely aware, we face the most acute debt crisis in history. According to CAFOD, more than 3.3 billion people are living in countries where they are forced to spend more on debt servicing than on providing for their citizens. Such high debt-servicing costs prevent those countries from spending on vital public services such as education and health, and investing in sustainable development goals.

Private lenders make up the largest group of creditors, with many based in the UK and 90% of their contracts governed by English law. Many hon. Members will also be aware that 2025 has been declared a jubilee year by Pope Francis. It is 25 years since the last jubilee debt forgiveness, known as Jubilee 2000, when 40 countries called for the cancellation of third-world debt. Biblically, an important part of the jubilee celebration was the cancellation of debt to give those in need a fresh start. We are told in the Bible not to be hard-hearted or tight-fisted towards others, but instead to be open-hearted and freely give what is needed.

For this jubilee year, Pope Francis has made debt cancellation a priority, stating:

“More than a question of generosity, this is a matter of justice.”

We must act now to end the vicious cycle that these countries are trapped in. Without being able to invest in development, countries are unable to grow their economies or fully escape debt. Furthermore, while in debt distress, countries may look to quick solutions that involve exploiting or exporting their natural resources to do so—extracting fossil fuels, mining or logging—and, in the process, worsening climate change. That disproportionately affects those in the global south, but also affects us here at home.

The UK has a significant role to play in solving this problem. As we have heard, 45% of all foreign sovereign debt is governed under English law. The Government have promised to tackle unsustainable debt and must hold private lenders and creditors accountable for that. Furthermore, the previous Government cut international aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income—an act that withheld billions of pounds from those most in need. We must restore our aid spending to what it was before, and restore our leadership in the field of international development; in doing so, we will restore our reputation as a kind and generous nation.

15:35

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms McVey. I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for bringing forward this crucial debate, and for his continuous campaigning on this matter.

I chair the APPG for Afrikan Reparations and I have long called on the UK Government to engage in discussions around reparative justice. I have said time and again that reparative justice is about just that—justice. It is about more than handing over money; it is about addressing the structural inequalities that colonialism created and still perpetuates, and changing those global structures that keep the global south in its situation. Those inequalities have been instrumental in creating the debt that we are discussing today.

Reparative justice is about addressing disparities that are starkly evident in the fight against climate change, particularly in the context of our international financial system, which is, quite frankly, a relic of the 20th century. Worsening droughts in east Africa, tropical hurricanes in the Caribbean, and tsunamis in Asia show how Britain’s former colonies remain disproportionately vulnerable to the frontline effects of crises that they did little to cause. Not only did we engage in colonial crimes, but we remain a leading historical emitter.

The UK could take responsibility by reframing reparative justice within the context of climate justice. We could fund large-scale restoration projects, compensate for biodiversity loss, and help nations to adapt to climate change. That form of reparative justice could remove the burden of debt that is preventing those countries from fighting the climate emergency themselves, by building infrastructure to defend against some of the environmental challenges that, if we do not get our act together, will be permanent.

Some of the world’s poorest and most climate-vulnerable countries are seeing their debt payments grow twice as fast as their climate support—they do not stand a chance. When faced with extreme weather conditions every year, such as deathly floods and droughts, they are forced to borrow more and more to support their people and rebuild their infrastructure—adding to their already insurmountable debt.

In 2022, I joined a parliamentary delegation to Kenya with CAFOD and saw at first hand the impact of famine and drought on the people living in Marsabit County. Their agriculture and their livestock had been decimated—the country had been decimated—by one of the worst droughts in living memory. The situation that we all saw on the ground in Kenya brought home the devastating ramifications of the climate crisis, and the inequities that it is rooted in—inequities that we benefited from and have sustained since.

Kenya is not a notable emitter of carbon dioxide and does not drastically contribute to climate destruction. In fact, it is responsible for just 0.03% of global carbon dioxide emissions to date—around 160 times less than the United Kingdom. Yet man-made climate change, for which the UK has historical responsibility, is causing untold levels of destruction in that nation, and its debt crisis means that, like many other countries mentioned today, it is unable to take meaningful steps to address it. In 2021, its debt repayments were more than five times the amount of money the Government were spending on measures to tackle the climate crisis. Like many other countries, it is fighting this crisis with both hands tied behind its back.

Countries in the global south will face an estimated $290 billion to $580 billion in climate-related loss and damage ever year by 2030—every single year. At the start of the covid-19 pandemic, the G20 agreed a scheme to suspend debt payments for over 70 countries, but because private lenders were not made to participate on equal terms, countries that applied to the scheme had under a quarter of external debt payments suspended.

As hon. Members have mentioned, over 90% of the bonds owned by countries eligible for debt relief, under G20 schemes, are governed by English law. That means that they are under our control, and we can actually do something about them. The UK could play a leading role in addressing the debt crisis, instead of standing by as private creditors are bailed out. The Government should be supporting efforts to cancel debts for all climate-vulnerable countries with unsustainable debts by expanding the G20 common framework to include middle-income nations, and strengthen it to ensure that private creditors participate. To be frank, we know that the situation for the average person in some so-called middle-income nations is still dire.

I call on the Government to enhance the UK’s commitment on international climate finance overall and to encourage other countries to do the same. That should be done through a comprehensive financing facility to offer unconditional grants, not more debt, to countries facing climate disaster, to push for automatic debt payment suspension and relief for countries in the event of a climate-related disaster, and to introduce legislation to stop private creditors from suing those same climate-vulnerable countries. The UK’s role as a major historical emitter, a former colonial power and a current global leader places a special obligation on us to put climate justice at the heart of the global response to the disaster we now face.

Some people ask: why reparative justice and not simply aid? That is because aid has not worked, and when a duty is put on people to do something, and when they understand that they owe somebody something as a matter of justice, they are more likely to do it. Aid has become an industry. Aid itself is subject to supply and demand, and so many countries are not benefiting from it in the way that they should be. We need to look at this issue as one of reparative justice, and we the UK have to pay what we owe.

15:41

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for bringing this important issue to the House, and I praise his work on raising awareness of it.

For decades many low-income nations have struggled under the weight of unsustainable debt, spending billions servicing debt that prevents them from addressing the needs of their people or responding to the climate emergency, threatening a wave of political instability. It also prevents them from long-term investment in healthcare, education and infrastructure—the essential pillars of progress and stability.

Lower-income countries have been facing increasingly unsustainable debts since the 2008 financial crisis, with debt payments increasing by over 200% between 2010 and 2025—reaching the highest level since the mid-1990s. That is no surprise when we consider the combination of the covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the global monetary tightening that has exposed vulnerable economies to insurmountable debt challenges, as private capital inflow stopped and sovereign defaults ensued for already vulnerable frontier communities.

The Liberal Democrats were the first to call for debt cancellation and have been calling for faster and stronger action on the global debt crisis ever since, because the case for debt cancellation is clear. It provides immediate relief, allows Governments to prioritise social investment and fosters long-term economic growth. Over the long term, it allows those countries to become less reliant on overseas development assistance from countries such as the UK. History shows that when debt relief is granted, countries are able to improve public services, reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development goals. When countries are crushed by debt, however, that leads to instability, mass migration crises that end up in the UK, and economic stagnation that affects us all.

Faster and stronger action on the debt crisis is particularly important in Africa. In 2023, African countries spent over 50 times more on external debt than they received in aid from the UK, and 50% more than the total aid to the region. That is why we are clear in our support of aligning the UK with the African Union’s push for full debt cancellation.

The current mechanism for debt cancellation, via the common framework, has been too slow in its progress on cases, with only four countries having applied and only three reaching agreement—Zambia, Ghana and Chad, with Ethiopia still in talks. Clearly, the Government must improve those mechanisms, and I note that the International Development Committee 2023 report on debt cancellation for low-income countries made recommendations for the previous Government. Many of those remain outstanding, so I hope the Minister will address that today.

I hope that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s upcoming development review will focus closely on the critical interplay between debt and development in its strategy. That is essential, because this Labour Government have presided over a further real-terms cut to the official development assistance budget, making it even lower than it was under the last Conservative Administration. Under this Government, there has been an absolute cut in the level of support being provided to the world’s poorest people.

Low-income countries have been put between a rock and a hard place for too long, forced to service ever-increasing debts with less and less overseas development assistance from the likes of the UK and now, of course, the US. That has compelled such countries to service debt rather than helping their most vulnerable people, plunging those nations into further poverty.

I sincerely hope the Minister can reassure us today that the Government will return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA. I hope that the news that there will be no new funding at the Nutrition for Growth summit this month is not a harbinger of the trajectory of the Government’s spend on international aid, and that the UK will return to its role leading on international development, particularly given the USA’s apparent retreat. I look forward to hearing what she has to say shortly.

I draw to a close by re-emphasising that although the UK’s ability to act independently is limited by international agreements, it has significant influence over debt restructuring, with 45% of all sovereign debts governed by English law. I look forward to hearing how the Government intend to strengthen the common framework and address the root causes of debt accumulation, including unfair trade policies, exploitative lending practices and lack of financial transparency. It is time for a new financial framework that stops the cycle of debt dependency, and it is time for Britain to restate its commitment to the world’s poorest.

15:46

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, for the first time as a shadow Minister.

I commend the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate. Constituency names have changed; I have always known him as the hon. Member for Enfield Southgate. He spoke with real passion today, and he brings with him knowledge and expertise about a topic that we must all focus on more carefully. It is a sensitive issue, and we must ensure we get it right. It should not be a party political issue; we should be looking for solutions. I think that today’s debate has contributed to that important discussion, so I thank him for securing it.

As has been mentioned, Britain is a nation that has always been known for its Christian compassion. At the same time, we have always advocated the principle of helping others to help themselves as the best pathway to providing long-term sustainability, particularly for developing nations, many of which have been mentioned in the debate.

So many contributions have been very powerful, particularly that of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who spoke about Somaliland. I met representatives from Somaliland recently. It is so important that we use our knowledge and expertise to help developing countries to develop the type of economy that will generate wealth and prosperity. Having such debts around their necks will not help them to get out of their problems and become prosperous in the future. The hon. Gentleman drew on his expertise, and I commend him for it.

Others have spoken about issues such as colonialism. To be frank, I am not convinced that the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) should focus on colonialism. There are other, more unifying things that we should talk about. Britain can lead the way in this if we get things right, but talking about Britain’s past wrongs—they are subjective, and there are a lot of good things that Britain has done—and tying everything to colonialism is a divisive route to go down. Let us look at solutions and advocate ideas that offer a way forward, rather than creating political division.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

This is not necessarily a divisive issue. When we ask those who are suffering the most from these matters, we find that they believe that it is difficult to move forward because of some of the wrongs that have been done to them in the past. It is simply about recognition and looking at ways to tackle this issue, and at how we can deliver recompense for the wrong that we have done. It is not about being divisive; it is just about accepting what went wrong and understanding that we have a duty to make it right.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that this debate is about debt cancellation for low-income countries.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I respect the hon. Member’s point, but she did say that we should pay what we owe. All kinds of arguments can be put forward about what we owe, but it is a matter of opinion. Today we should bring unity and look for solutions, rather than making this a political issue. We can achieve more for developing countries if we work together, rather than looking at where things have gone wrong or right in history and at who may owe what, depending on what is going on in the world today. I do not think that will get us very far, so we should move on from that and focus on how we restructure the repayment of debt, and how we can develop a better system globally to deal with this issue, rather than looking too far back into history.

It has been clear to me, right from when I stood for Parliament for the first time, that this issue needs to be addressed. That has been confirmed by the passion that hon. Members have shown in today’s debate. Debt relief deserves serious consideration, and the Opposition recognise that. Unsustainable debt burdens can be huge and significant impediments to economic development and growth, trapping nations in a cycle of poverty. However, I believe that we must approach this matter in a responsible way, with both caution and pragmatism.

If pursued, debt relief must be conditional and tied to a strong policy of fiscal responsibility measures, so I hope the Minister will provide assurances that any recipient countries would be expected to implement sound economic policies, tackle corruption and take steps to prevent future over-borrowing. I do not think the Minister can disagree that without those safeguards, we risk creating a system in which there is financial mismanagement in perpetuity. We should focus on rewarding the expense of responsible governance. Making the hard-pressed British taxpayer foot the bill is not acceptable to most of our constituents, and we need solutions. We need to solve these problems and not see this as a one-way street.

If the United Kingdom taxpayer’s money is involved, I want the Government to tell us how they will ensure that such relief also serves the interests of the British people. During these difficult economic times, we must justify every single penny spent by the Government and always be mindful that it is our constituents’ money, not the Government’s. Debt relief must become not an open-ended commitment, but a strategic tool that strengthens bilateral ties and ensures geopolitical stability.

I hope the Minister can tell us how the Government intend to prioritise sustainable development, and what mechanisms are in place to monitor that. I also hope she will agree that the focus should be not on perpetual aid or blanket debt forgiveness, but on fostering economic self-sufficiency. That is the only sustainable way forward. We must also consider how the United Kingdom can play a meaningful part in helping low-income countries to develop their domestic industries, improve resource management and reduce their reliance on foreign debt. Without those structural changes, would debt relief simply serve as a temporary fix, or would she prefer to have a system that offers a sustainable solution? That is what the Opposition want.

[Jim Shannon]

I would never wish to be anything other than supportive of what the hon. Gentleman says, but everyone who has spoken so far has mentioned the charities and groups that contribute and sometimes fill the gap. May I ask, respectfully, if some recognition could be given to those groups?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member touched on this in his speech earlier, as did the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes. That is another new constituency name, and I think it includes Chippenham. Is that part of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency?

[Brian Mathew]

No, but it is in Wiltshire.

[Andrew Rosindell]

It is in Wiltshire, so it is in that part of the world—a great part of the world.

Many churches and faith organisations, not just Christian, do a huge amount in all our constituencies to help raise funds to alleviate poverty. In my constituency, churches and the Christian organisations take the lead in this, and it is a wonderful thing. If we are to alleviate world poverty and deal with the restructuring of international debt, it has to be a collective thing. It is not just about Governments; other sectors must be involved in these discussions. We must all give credit to the charities, church organisations, faith groups and other parts of the voluntary sector that raise money week in, week out, to help to alleviate poverty and for disaster relief in different parts of the world. As Members of Parliament, we all know that from our constituencies. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and all Members for the charities, churches and organisations in their constituencies that do that incredible work.

We simply cannot ignore the geopolitical dimension. The belt and road initiative from the People’s Republic of China has created debt dependency, threatening many sovereign nations around the world. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government intend to counterbalance Beijing’s influence and provide a credible alternative to Chinese financing, which is of great concern? Will debt relief and the belt and road initiative feature in the Government’s China audit? Can she also confirm that any UK-backed debt restructuring would promote transparency, fair economic partnerships and long-term stability?

Beyond individual cases, will the Government tell us how they plan to advocate for more responsible lending and borrowing practices that ensure that relief leads to lasting improvements rather than repeated crisis? Does the Minister also accept that we should be looking beyond debt cancellation and focusing on investment incentives, infrastructure partnerships and trade agreements that enable these countries to generate revenue and pay their debts? How will the Government ensure that their approach fosters economic growth rather than continued reliance on external assistance?

It is crucial that any policy pursued by His Majesty’s Government is effective and responsible. Debt relief can be a force for good when structured correctly, but it must be part of a broader strategy that promotes economic resilience, accountability and sustainable development. The Government must navigate these challenges while always ensuring that British interests remain protected.

15:59

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

Thank you for calling me, Ms McVey. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, and I am sure not the last.

I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for drawing attention to these issues and for bringing this debate on debt cancellation to Westminster Hall today. I also thank the other Members, whose speeches have made for a rich discussion on this issue. I will mention them briefly and then hope to come to everyone’s questions, should time allow. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind words about my appointment—I am still early in my time in this role. I also thank him for underlining the importance of the role of charities in the development work that they do in low-income and vulnerable countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) spoke with great passion about his experience working in Somaliland. He brings great insights to the House after working in that capacity previously. I thank the hon. Members for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) for stressing that the UK needs to restore our leadership on international development. I will come to some of their questions later in my contribution.

I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for raising crucial points about the situation that many low-income countries vulnerable to the impacts of climate change find themselves in. I will say a little more about that, too.

The Government are highly concerned by the debt challenges faced by many low and middle-income countries, with 3.3 billion people living in countries that spend more on servicing their debt than on health or education—a point made by many hon. Members. Among low-income countries, 10 are currently in debt distress and 25 are at high risk, and there is an urgent need to address the vulnerabilities. As a Government, we are fully committed to tackling unsustainable debt burdens in a way that supports development needs and helps countries address those vulnerabilities.

We are acting in three key ways. I will attempt to answer questions, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green who secured the debate, when discussing the three key ways. The first is on addressing liquidity challenges; the second is on ensuring effective debt restructurings; and the third is on promoting debt resilience.

First, on addressing liquidity challenges, we are working with international partners to address immediate liquidity pressures facing many countries, which are crowding out vital spending on climate, health and education. We support the IMF and World Bank’s three-pillar approach, which is designed to support countries with high debt repayments. The first pillar is focused on action from vulnerable countries to improve revenue mobilisation and implement sound economic policies. The second focuses on ensuring that countries receive new flows of finance at concessional rates from international financial institutions and other development partners. The final pillar looks at providing case-by-case action to reduce the cost of existing debt burdens where needed.

Secondly, we are working to address debt vulnerabilities through improving the effectiveness of debt restructurings for countries in debt distress. The G20 common framework remains the best mechanism for co-ordinating debt restructurings to address unsustainable debt burdens, but further progress is needed.

The UK is working closely with the G20 and other international partners to ensure the framework delivers more timely, orderly and predictable debt restructurings. I know that is high on the priority list of the South African G20 presidency this year. The UK will be pressing for rapid implementation of the lessons learned from the common framework, which were agreed under the Brazilian presidency of the G20 last year.

The private sector, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members, must also play its part in debt restructuring efforts. We are actively engaging with private sector partners—for example, through the global sovereign debt roundtable—to ensure continued private sector support for addressing the debt challenges faced by countries, leveraging the City of London’s leading role in sovereign debt markets.

Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green, mentioned the issue of private creditors and whether we needed legislation to force them to participate. The Government are not currently seeing evidence that private creditors are refusing to participate in debt restructurings. Recently, private bondholders have agreed to debt treatments for common framework countries, including Zambia and Ghana. We are working closely with the private sector through bilateral meetings, engagement with representative institutions and Paris club discussions.

Hon. Members also raised the issue of comparable treatment by private creditors. I reiterate that both Zambia and Ghana have reached agreements on debt restructurings with their private bondholders. Official creditors have deemed these comparable with their own restructurings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green raised the need for UK leadership on debt relief, and we heard that from others, too. I highlight that the UK has a strong track record of pushing for effective and holistic solutions to debt challenges, including supporting the IMF’s three-pillar approach for countries facing liquidity challenges and pushing for more effective co-operation and co-ordination under the G20’s common framework. The UK also co-ordinates debt treatment through our membership of the Paris club and our commitments to the G20 common framework in partnership with other creditors.

This is a key point: unilaterally writing off debt owed to the UK would not be in the interests of the UK taxpayer—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), mentioned the UK taxpayer, of course—which would be subsidising ongoing payments to other creditors if done unilaterally. The Government are therefore working closely with borrowers, official and private creditors, and the IMF and World Bank to strengthen the wider debt architecture and provide timely and co-ordinated restructurings for countries, where needed to support holistic debt sustainability for low-income countries.

The third way that the Government are pursuing this issue is through tackling unsustainable debt by promoting greater resilience in debt markets. In response to the shadow Minister, I mention that the UK is committed to provide sovereign financing on sustainable terms and to act in an open and transparent manner to support global debt sustainability.

We are playing a leadership role internationally in several key ways. The hon. Members for Melksham and Devizes and for Esher and Walton asked what the UK was doing to provide leadership.

[Jim Shannon]

My contribution, not that it was better than anybody else’s, put forward the idea that the countries we are helping with debt might be able to supply us with some goods as a way of paying us back, rather than making a financial repayment. Is that something that the Minister and the Government would look at?

[Emma Reynolds]

I am not sure that is something we are actively considering, but I will check and write to the hon. Gentleman.

In December 2024, we were the first country to publish our self-assessment against the G20’s operational guidelines for sustainable financing. In line with those guidelines, we publish annual reports on the total stock of debt owed to the UK, including reports on our new sovereign lending transactions.

Finally, we are committed to provide sovereign financing on sustainable terms, adhering to the OECD’s sustainable lending principles. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green also suggested creating a private sector transparency register. The UK supports all initiatives to improve debt transparency and is open to considering proposals for such a register. We also acknowledge the ongoing work by Georgetown University in this area.

The UK has led the way in promoting debt resilience through the introduction of contractual innovations, an approach that the IMF has found to be working well. Under our G7 presidency in 2021, the UK developed two contractual innovations together with private sector stakeholders. The first relates to external shocks, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green mentioned in his speech. Climate resilient debt clauses help to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable countries by suspending debt repayments in the wake of external shocks, which frees up fiscal space for the country. The UK has led the way by including CRDCs in our own lending and calling for all lenders to adopt CRDCs by the end of this year.

Second, the UK helped to develop majority voting provisions, which are for use by the private sector specifically for syndicated lending. MVPs allow a majority of creditors to bind the minority to the terms of a restructuring and thereby mitigate the risk of a minority of creditors holding out in a restructuring scenario, which hon. Members mentioned in their contributions, and enable more efficient debt restructuring processes.

On Monday, at her speech at the London Stock Exchange, the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced that the FCDO will provide technical assistance for borrower countries that intend to include majority voting provisions in their contractual agreements with private sector lenders.

I will now turn to a couple of questions that were asked during the debate. I apologise if I do not get to answer all the questions in the time available; I promise to write to hon. Members if I do not get to all of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked about reforming the governance of international organisations. We agree that more needs to be done. First, we must change the international financial system in order to deliver a fairer deal for developing countries, including by using our board seats at the IMF and the World Bank, for a bolder approach on unsustainable debt. Secondly, we need to ensure that our system is more representative of those most in need, so we will make the case for not only fairer outcomes, but fairer representation in how we represent them.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, asked whether the Government would return to spending 0.7% of GDP on development, which the last Labour Government were very proud to commit to and reach. This Government remain committed to restoring ODA spending to 0.7% as soon as fiscal circumstances allow. Although the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts show that the tests have not yet been met, we continue to monitor these forecasts closely and remain one of the top ODA providers in the G7.

There were a number of questions about climate, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill, and I want to make a few comments about that. To strengthen the resilience of vulnerable countries and free up fiscal space when responding to shocks caused by climate change, the UK has led the way in encouraging the broader adoption of climate resilient debt clauses, which suspend debt repayments, on a cost-neutral basis, in the wake of exogenous shocks. We welcome creditors who have committed to providing CRDCs, and encourage others to follow suit.

My hon. Friend also said that the common framework should be expanded to middle-income countries and offer an automatic suspension for countries that apply for restructuring. The UK is fully committed to making the common framework a success. We support expansion of the framework to middle-income countries and providing automatic debt standstills for countries that apply for restructuring under the framework. We continue to push for those reforms in the G20. I hope that answers her question on that point.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford, for his contribution—I think this is the first time that we have debated this way. He asked about reassurance on sound economic policy and preventing corruption. We agree that any lending and policy must be agreed on a sustainable basis. First, the scale of debt treatments is set under the IMF’s debt sustainability analysis. Secondly, the UK is committed to acting in an open and transparent way, as we have shown by publishing our own self-assessment against G20 guidelines. The hon. Gentleman asked a number of other questions. He was talking about open-ended commitments and sustainability. I think we all agree we want to reduce the reliance of low-income countries on foreign debt. That is what this debate is about, and we want a sustainable solution. He asked about the role of China specifically. I am happy to write to him, in a follow-up to his questions, on that. All I will say now is that it is really important that we work with all international partners on this issue, because only by working multilaterally will we have success in the sense of providing sustainable solutions. We do not think we can act alone.

I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions during today’s important debate. Together with the international community, we must work actively and urgently in order to address the significant debt challenges faced by vulnerable countries, and the Government are committed to doing just that.

16:14

[Bambos Charalambous]

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.

16:15

Sitting adjourned.