United States: Withdrawal from International Organisations

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Scriven

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There is a lot more involved in this than peacekeeping, but it is a very important element of what the United Nations and other multilateral organisations involve themselves in. The point about value and efficiency is critical. We are being quite forward-leaning, as they would say in the Foreign Office, about our desire to see reform and change. It matters that this money ought to find its way to the front line, be that in support of a peacekeeping mission in Somalia or for maternal health in Kenya. Efficiency and value for money matter in their own right, but also because we want to sustain and grow public confidence.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister just needs to look behind her to see that faces behind her know that this is the wrong thing to do. While the Minister might suggest that it is for the United States Government to make this decision, which it is, the Government of this country can have a view. Do the Government support the US Government withdrawing from these 66 organisations as a matter of policy?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think my relationship with my colleagues on this side of the House is pretty good, actually, so I am not overly worried about that. They will have their own views, too, by the way. It is not really for the United Kingdom to make a fuss with the United States about withdrawing from organisations that we are not a part of and some regional groupings that we are not involved with and demand that it should stay engaged. We have to keep a bit of perspective here—this is 3% of the UN budget we are talking about. On our ability to make progress with certain agencies to do with health, women’s health in particular, we have always been at the forefront of this and that is not going to change.

HIV/AIDS: US Withdrawal from WHO

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Scriven

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There is no doubt that research and development is critical to making progress on this and many other agendas in development. We are working through the impact, as the noble Baroness suggests we should. Clearly, we cannot fill the void, but we can work smarter and more collaboratively, and certainly with our university and research partners it is important that we do so.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister seems to suggest that devices and medication are expanding. The problem is that people need to get tested. The impact of the US pulling out is that there are 228,000 fewer tests a day and the supply of things such as condoms and PrEP has ceased in certain programmes. If the Minister wishes the UK to take a lead, as she said at the Dispatch Box, what extra support and resources will be made available if this temporary suspension becomes permanent?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are working through the impact of the United States’ decision and looking at how we reprioritise our own spending. The noble Lord is absolutely right. Encouragingly, in 2023, approximately 86% of people living with HIV worldwide knew their HIV status. What we do not want to see is that incredible achievement going in the wrong direction. He is right to remind the House of that.

Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Scriven

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this set of regulations in such a clear, concise and understandable way to try to make sense of the existing situation post the situation that she talked about.

These Benches support the thrust of and details in the statutory instrument but I want to ask a couple of questions. First, I am somebody who is not an expert in statutory instruments, but the dates on which the SI is to be made and come into force have three asterisks next to them. Is that normal? When is this statutory instrument intended to come into force?

The second issue is to do with the thresholds and the use of VAT. Some goods are exempt from VAT while some have a VAT level of 5%. The effect of putting in the statutory instrument the figures of £12,000 and £30,000 will be that some contracts, for example in printing, will by default have a slightly different total value than those with a 20% rate of VAT because they are exempt from VAT. Would it not be more sensible to use the figures of £10,000 and £25,000 and include a provision that the threshold for the contract will be at the rate of VAT for the goods and services being procured, rather than having a blanket rule when some goods and services do not have a VAT rate of 20%?

With those questions, as I say, these Benches support the thrust of and reasoning for this statutory instrument.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

This is really just about making a change in order to keep things the same. We certainly agree with the decision about NHS trusts and foundation trusts but I have a question about services or goods that are VAT-exempt and the Government’s thinking on them. There also seems to be a delay in this issue coming about and it being rectified. I wonder whether that may has disadvantaged some businesses, particularly small businesses, over that period.

I notice that, when consideration of this instrument was raised in another place, my colleague, Flo Eshalomi, asked specifically why it has taken the Government nearly a year between introducing the new regulatory scheme on 1 January 2021 and attempting to fix this inconsistency. When the Minister responded, he did not answer that at all. I am concerned, as it is troubling that something so straightforward and uncontentious was allowed to drift for so long. What does the Minister make of that? Does she have an assessment of what the impact of that might have been?