COP29 and International Climate Finance

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Ellie Chowns]

Thank you, Sir Roger—I am still learning the ropes. I thank the Minister for coming to respond to the debate. It is my pleasure to introduce this debate on international climate finance, and I particularly appreciate the presence of so many colleagues, given that it is an extraordinarily busy day when, with the Budget, we are discussing domestic finance. I may have one or two words to say on that in a moment.

This debate is particularly important, because we are in the run-up to COP29—the conference of the parties—in Baku. It is supposed to be the finance COP, because it is crucial that we mobilise the necessary finance to tackle the global climate crisis. My purpose in securing this debate is to encourage the Government to put a bit more flesh on the warm words that we have heard so far. I recognise those warm words: for example, the Foreign Secretary saying that he wanted to put climate change “at the centre” of foreign policy—that is welcome—and the commitments from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on domestic investment. However, there is still much more to do.

I will give the Minister advance notice of the topics on which I would love her response. At COP29, we are looking for the international community to agree a new collective quantified goal for climate finance in the trillions of dollars, not the billions. That is the scale of the challenge that we face. Do the Government recognise that, and are they prepared to play their part in leading from the front to ensure that there is collective commitment to the goal?

International climate finance needs to tackle mitigation, as well as the urgent need to invest to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It needs to tackle adaptation, because an enormous amount of global warming is already built into the climate system through historical emissions. It also needs to tackle loss and damage: the costs that are already being borne particularly by the most vulnerable in the poorest countries, and are due to the historical debt that early industrialising countries built up through our burning of fossil fuels.

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

For some low-income countries, one of the biggest factors is debt through private creditors, which I think is greater than the other debt that a lot of those countries owe. Does the hon. Lady agree that the matter of debt owed to private creditors must also be addressed to tackle the need for more funding for climate emergencies?

[Ellie Chowns]

The hon. Member raises an important point. There is a history of multilateral and bilateral efforts by Governments to tackle debt crises, and there is a role for government to play in regulating the private finance sector to prevent vulture finance, effectively, from preying on countries in that way. There is a key need for international co-operation to address that issue, because the lenders are from all over the world. If a country has debt relief through one process, it is crucial that it does not then find itself stuck in a debt crisis in relation to another lender. I would be glad to hear the Minister’s proposals on debt relief.

My third point is that it is essential that international climate finance comes largely in the form of grants, not loans. The UK Government generally have a good record: roughly 85% of the climate finance we have committed has been through the form of grants, and I believe that commitment is in place until 2026. Will the Minister commit to that figure remaining a floor? Will she seek to increase it, so that the vast majority of climate finance is provided in such a way that it does not build up debt repayment problems for the future?

International Engagement

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks and, above all, for her work with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Indeed, I commend all Members across the House who are engaged with that very important organisation, which brings parliamentarians together.

The Prime Minister’s resolution to support the Commonwealth could not be clearer. He is the first sitting UK Prime Minister to visit a Pacific island country. That is something we should all celebrate, rather than criticise. That commitment is very clear indeed. I had the absolute privilege of meeting the Prime Minister of Samoa when I was in New York for the UN General Assembly. I was very excited then to hear her talk about how the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was likely to run. It was a very successful meeting. We commend her and the whole Commonwealth family on it. I know the Prime Minister is very much of the same mind.

I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s remarks in thanking Baroness Scotland for her leadership, and in commending the wise words of His Majesty, which are always imbued with wisdom. That approach is the one the new UK Government are taking. We believe it is important to focus on the future. That is why, as I said a few moments ago, we prioritised focusing on economic development, young people’s employment, women’s economic empowerment, which is so often the key to growth, and action on the climate and nature crisis. That is what our Commonwealth friends are saying that they want to see in the future. We will stand with them on that, because it is to the mutual benefit of us all.

The hon. Lady asked about the Budget. The UK Government’s position is very clear: we do not want a return to the kind of turbulence that we saw over the past 14 years. Very sadly, we saw in-donor refugee costs in particular rising in a way that was completely uncontrolled, with programmes cut in half. That is not the current UK Government’s approach. We will ensure we have a properly planned approach to international development, because failing to do that is to let down our international partners.

The hon. Lady asked about our position on the UN Security Council. We have been very clear that we need to ensure there is better representation of global south partners, but we will always take our leadership responsibilities on the UNSC very, very seriously indeed. We have been doing that since coming into government.

The hon. Lady asked about Myanmar and abuses of human rights. Again, we have been very clear on the need for action to be taken. We have communicated that many times. We are very concerned about the position of those who have been impacted.

The hon. Lady asked specifically about language in the communiqué that was agreed at the conference about reparative justice. Just to be crystal clear, I am sure everyone in the House would agree that the slave trade was abhorrent. We condemn it, just as previous Labour Governments have done. As the Prime Minister made clear in Samoa, it is important that we start from there, but it is also important that we are just as clear that there has been no change in our policy on reparations. The UK does not pay reparations—I really could not say that more emphatically—and I know she is aware that that is the position of the UK Government.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about IDA. I will finish on that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The previous Government were not clear about their approach to IDA replenishment. The new Government have been clear. The Prime Minister said at the UN General Assembly that the UK will increase its contribution and we urge other countries to do the same.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. She touched on IDA. IDA needs a minimum of $27 billion from donor countries to help countries at higher risk of debt distress. Can she further elaborate on the discussions she had with international counterparts on IDA replenishment, ahead of IDA21 in early December this year?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. IDA is a critical part of the World Bank’s architecture. It is the fund that is focused on the very poorest countries that are most in need of support, but also those which can grow very quickly when they receive that support economically. It is extremely good value: every $1 invested in it results in $3 to $4 for those in the poorest countries. The UK has been clear, as I mentioned, that we will increase our contribution. We are urging others to do the same. Denmark and Spain said that they would do just that, which I think is a vote of confidence in IDA.

World Immunisation Week

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who is a fellow member of the all-party group on vaccinations for all.

Let me start by giving some context. Vaccinations have been around for a long time, with evidence showing that the first form of vaccination for smallpox occurred in China approximately 500 years ago, but it was not until 1796, when English physician Edward Jenner published evidence showing that his smallpox vaccine was effective, that vaccinations in the west really took off. Since that time, vaccinations have been hugely successful in preventing numerous infectious diseases. In the past 100 years, we have seen vaccinations successfully prevent diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, anthrax, cholera, plague and typhoid, and more recently polio, measles, mumps and rubella.

Many of us will remember receiving vaccinations at school and thinking nothing of it, but the diseases that those vaccinations prevented could have killed us had we been born decades previously. It is safe to say that immunisation has stood the test of time as one of public health’s most cost-effective interventions, saving up to 3 million lives every year. It is estimated that between 2011 and 2020, vaccines will avert an estimated 20 million deaths and 500 million cases of illness.

Since its inception in 2000, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, has contributed to the immunisation of more than 690 million children and helped to prevent more than 10 million deaths by virtue of its ability to acquire vaccines in bulk and to enable access to those vaccines by the world’s poorest countries. The United Kingdom is one of Gavi’s global partners, and through it UK funding has helped to immunise 76 million children against vaccine-preventable diseases, saving 1.4 million lives over the past 19 years.

There is no doubt that without sustained access to vaccines, disease outbreaks and pandemics would be inevitable. With the annual global cost of a severe pandemic being roughly $570 billion, or approximately 0.7% of global income, vaccinations are the best financial option available for fighting pandemics. The World Health Organisation has estimated that between 2001 and 2020 the economic benefits of vaccination could reach up to $820 billion.

On top of the distribution of and process of providing vaccines, and as well as the benefit of patients’ physical immunity to various diseases, there is also a long-term benefit in the establishment of strong primary and public healthcare systems in places where vaccinations are a new introduction in the fight against diseases. With my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), I was recently part of a delegation to Ethiopia organised by RESULTS UK to look into how Ethiopia is tackling the prevention of tuberculosis. I was impressed by the health system there, in particular the excellent health extension workers, who provide immunisation in the more rural parts of Ethiopia, such as Bishoftu. They store vaccinations in solar-panelled refrigerators. The public health message conveyed by these dedicated health extension workers and community health workers was clearly working well, as were the distribution hubs that delivered the medicines to the outposts in the most efficient manner possible. The people of Ethiopia can be very proud of how they have reduced infectious diseases, and I am sure that they will strive to eradicate infectious diseases altogether.

Huge progress has been made in the virtual eradication of certain diseases through immunisation. For example, cases of wild polio have been reduced by 99.9% since 1988, down from 350,000 cases in 125 countries to just 33 cases in just two countries in 2018. Despite that, millions of children still miss out on basic vaccines, and one in 10 children around the world still receive no vaccines at all. According to figures from the advocacy organisation RESULTS UK, only 7% of children in the poorest 73 countries receive all 11 of the WHO-recommended vaccines, and almost 40% of unvaccinated children—approximately 8 million of them—live in fragile humanitarian settings.

The success of the prevention of infectious diseases through vaccinations has meant that the world has become a healthier, more prosperous place to live. As infant mortality decreases, there is a risk in presuming that immunisation is a done deal and that political and financial investments could be put to better uses. We must make sure that we are not complacent in assuming that the problem has been solved, as complacency would be incredibly detrimental and risks putting millions of lives at risk. We are already seeing immunisation rates fall across many countries, as they reduce the funding for immunisation once they reach a certain level of reduction of infectious diseases, only to see rates then rise and so have to start again from the beginning.

We have the knowledge, resources and expertise to prevent millions of unnecessary deaths every year, yet in Africa alone more than 30 million children under five suffer from vaccine-preventable diseases every year, and more than half a million of those cases result in death. Disparities in immunisation coverage and equity across and within countries mean that children from the poorest families, from the most remote areas and from marginalised groups continue to be left behind, with only 7% of children in the poorest 73 countries receiving all 11 of the WHO vaccines.

For example, there is still a problem in getting vaccines to children who belong to pastoral, rural communities, because despite some of the best and most ingenious refrigeration techniques, it proves difficult over the last mile to keep the vaccinations at the right temperature so that they do not degrade. It is now essential that global immunisation efforts prioritise reaching those who are left behind and currently receive no vaccines at all. These children must be reached with vaccines and other health interventions to ensure that we meet the sustainable development goals and that the UK meets its “leave no one behind” targets.

A changing world means that a large proportion of under-immunised children are located in middle-income countries or fragile and conflict-affected states. We must ensure that our aid investments are fit for purpose and can reach these children, no matter where they are. The UK should be focused on reaching the poorest children, not the poorest countries. We must also not forget that malnourished children do not respond as well to vaccinations.

To ensure that vaccines are most effective, investment in infrastructure is vital. Strong and functioning health systems are required to deliver vaccines. It is essential that at the same time as investing in immunisation systems, we invest in strengthening health systems. This will enable more vaccines to reach more children and allow for the easier introduction of new vaccines. Gavi must continue and increase its investment in its work to strengthen health systems, which must be tailored to meet countries’ needs, and the UK must ensure that its bilateral work on health systems strengthening complements Gavi’s work. Investing in immunisation delivers on impact beyond immunisation to the whole health system, because reaching every child with free vaccines requires multiple points of contact with a health system and offers the opportunity to increase access to multiple health services, such as nutrition, making vaccines excellent value for money and central to achieving universal healthcare.

Polio funding has had a far-reaching impact by, for example, supporting 70% of global surveillance systems and funding health workers who deliver other essential vaccines and health interventions. But polio eradication efforts could be compromised as countries struggle to mainstream polio essential functions into weak health systems. Domestic resource mobilisation and country ownership are key to managing the transition, yet in the 16 polio-priority countries, the average Government expenditure on routine immunisation within immunisation budgets is just 31%.

The UK must continue to prioritise polio transition as an issue to ensure not only a polio-free world, but that it is working with countries to help them understand and plan for a transition away from polio funding. I ask the Government to redouble their commitments to vaccinations and to make ambitious commitments to financing Gavi and the GPEI in their upcoming replenishments over the next 18 months and remain a leader in the global immunisation efforts.

I also ask the Government to ensure that the focus of global immunisation efforts is on reaching those left behind who currently receive no vaccines at all. We need to ensure that all investment in immunisations is focused on strengthening immunisation systems so that every child receives the full schedule of recommended vaccines.

Great progress has been made in eradicating infectious diseases, but we must not be complacent and we need to ensure that we keep our eye on the ball and do all we can to help those in the hardest to reach and poorest areas to get the vaccinations that they need.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your indulgence and seek the forgiveness of Members present for this extremely worthy debate this afternoon for barging in mid-way through it with this point of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that earlier today the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister for the Cabinet Office responded on behalf of the Government to an urgent question concerning leaks from the National Security Council. The Minister said several times from the Dispatch Box that the Government would co-operate with any police investigation, but during those proceedings the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, made a public statement in which she said that the police could start proceedings of an investigation only if they were requested to do so by the Cabinet Office, the Minister for which was on his feet at that time. He must have known when he was on his feet responding to Parliament’s questions that that was the case—that there could be no co-operation with a police investigation if the Government had no intention of asking the police to proceed with one.

Given that there is a degree of being casual with the facts, shall we say, may I ask you whether the Minister could come back to the House to clarify exactly what the Government’s position is and what their role might be in getting what many in this place believe to be pivotal, which is the police to investigate the entire sorry affair?