Mining: Pollution

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Oates on securing this debate, the powerful way he introduced it and exposing the shame and the scandal of Kabwe. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his continued campaign in that area, and the Church of England pensions board’s work on legacy, which I found interesting and worth while.

I want to make a more general point about where this has come from, and where it is going. “The flag follows trade” was the describing motto of the growth of the British Empire and started with the East India Company before extending everywhere. I have statistics for 1906, which show that the percentages of the world’s yield of mining production from the British Empire were as follows: gold, 60%; silver, 12%; tin, 73%; copper, 9%; lead, 15%; iron, 18%; nickel, 60%; manganese, 40%l coal, 30%; asbestos, 90%; graphite, 45%; mica, 90%; and diamonds, 98%. Mining continued throughout the colonial period and beyond, even if newly independent countries had a little more control.

I do not make a wholesale denunciation of the Empire: there were benefits in terms of infrastructure, the rule of law, education and the English language. But the prime objective of the Empire was to benefit Britain, and the consequences—good and bad—for the local populations were just incidental. When Harold Macmillan made his “wind of change” speech in South Africa in 1960, he set in train the process of decolonisation. It is worth recording. He said:

“The wind of change is blowing through this continent and, whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it”.


In the 10 years I had the privilege of chairing the International Development Committee, I travelled to many former British colonies. I found a remarkable amount of good will for the positive aspects of the legacy, and appreciation of our aid, in the amounts and the way in which it was delivered, but disappointment at our distance and lack of post-independence partnership. Of course, all this was before the slashing of our official development assistance. I am disappointed, to put it mildly, and sometimes outraged by the language used by Ministers to justify these cuts. Referring to our development assistance as a

“giant cashpoint in the sky”,

as Boris Johnson did, was as ignorant as it was offensive.

However, saying that that is outdated and patronising also undermines the impressive way that delivery of aid and development assistance matured under successive Governments, as we moved to deliver 0.7%. The drive behind the post-war settlement, the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions and the commitment to 0.7% were an acknowledgement that industrialised countries had grown rich partially, but very significantly, on the back of exploiting poorer countries; in other words, there is a moral imperative to work with former colonies today to help them achieve poverty elimination and prosperity.

I never denied the challenges, and always looked for what worked, what could be replicated, and how corruption could be curtailed and capacity and resilience strengthened. I think that UK aid focused well on that. What impressed me was how we focused on poverty reduction, with support for health systems, education, and the rights of women and girls as an essential underpinning. But now, faced with the world’s challenges, we choose to downgrade our commitment to continue to help the countries we exploited to help them secure their place in the world, or at least to the ambition of ending absolute poverty and leaving no one behind. What chance in the present circumstances do we now have of achieving that by 2030?

Our influence in what, for shorthand, is called the global South is diminishing and being displaced by an expansionist China and a disruptive, exploitative Russia. It is therefore not just a moral responsibility to acknowledge our legacy but in our direct current interests to show our former colonies that we are here to co-operate in helping their development and the elimination of poverty. I know, because I have heard the Minister before, that she will say that we aim to do things differently and it is not all about aid. However, quoting the Premier League, trade, investment, culture, education and so on goes only so far, mostly because they are beyond the Government’s control, financial support and responsibility. It is difficult to see how new ambitions can be achieved on the back of such a dramatic reduction in the funding of initiatives.

Can the Minister tell us what practical steps the Government will take to promote trade and investment in former colonies, especially in Africa? What soft power initiatives are planned to highlight the positive impact of UK plc across developing countries? How will the Government work with the private sector to promote trade and investment, and get it to consider funding development initiatives such as education, skills training, and upgrading infrastructure to deliver clean water and energy to more people? It is this that will create the climate where their businesses will flourish.

I can give examples of where the private sector can help. For example, when Botswana discovered diamonds shortly after achieving independence, it sought the best advice as to how to optimise this benefit, appointing one of the world’s leading diamond valuers. This led to a 50:50 partnership with De Beers, a company called Debswana. This partnership has added value by bringing diamond finishing to Botswana and has enabled Botswana to use the funds for public good and improve living standards. That is the positive way it could be done but, sadly, not the way it is often done.

I also chair a charity, Water Unite, which has attracted private funding to invest in sustainable businesses in developing countries to produce clean water, improve sanitation and recycle plastics. Funding has come from a levy on the sale of bottled water and soft drinks by the Co-op and other retailers, as well as an impact fund, which has attracted funding from private high net worth individuals and foundations. This has a potential to develop, free of taxpayers and on the back on the private sector. It would be helpful if the Government could help promote more of these kinds of initiatives.

The Government say that public support for aid and development has diminished. I am not convinced they are right about that, but to the extent that it is true it is because political leadership has undermined what was a strong cross-party initiative.

We are still exploiting people from poor developing countries by encouraging them to come here to do the jobs our people do not want to do, and paying them less. We then give them a lowly and vulnerable status and change the rules under which they came and can stay. If we truly want to reduce immigration then we need to ensure that developing countries are able to offer hope and prospects at home. We need to find ways of reducing dependence on immigration by attracting UK-based labour to fill vacancies.

Perhaps the Government could do more to test public opinion by offering more support for UK Aid Match—I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group for Aid Match—to see how generous the public will be if they know the Government will match their contribution, and I mean really match by giving extra funds, not just moving the budget around. The test for government rhetoric will be how all threads of UK engagement are woven together and the extent to which this delivers genuine progress in partner countries. We exploited many countries; we are still doing it. I do not support the case for reparations, but I understand how the demand may grow if we sow such indifference to our legacy and lack a positive current engagement to make a difference.