Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
There are no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The principle remains that drugs are dangerous and need to be controlled appropriately.
Chris Law
I am not surprised by the reply we have just heard from the Minister. However, in Germany, the incoming Government have agreed to join Canada and many US states in legalising cannabis, while across Europe drug consumption rooms are operating with positive results. As countries around us move forward, what message does the Minister think it sends to the rest of the world to see the UK stuck in the last century on drugs policy?
Kit Malthouse
I refute the claim that we are stuck in the last century. In fact, we launched a world-beating strategy just last week, if the hon. Gentleman was paying attention, that proposes a three-pronged approach on drugs, which we believe will have some success over the next decade. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues often push for the legalisation of cannabis, but I point him to the mixed experience of various parts of the world that have done so, not least California, where it is widely agreed to have been a disaster.
Afghanistan
Chris Law Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister’s handling of the planned departure from Afghanistan is, for those of us who are old enough to remember, akin to one of the farcical characters in “Carry on up the Khyber”. The Foreign Secretary was on a beach as the Taliban advanced on Kabul, unknown numbers of British nationals remain left behind, and the Taliban, and most probably ISIS, have been allowed to plunder military hardware and intelligence. Does the Prime Minister accept any personal responsibility for the mess left in Afghanistan, and does he agree that any notion of global Britain is in complete crisis?
The Prime Minister
No, and the hon. Gentleman is wrong in every respect, including what he says about military hardware because that was decommissioned.
International Aid: Treasury Update
Chris Law ExcerptsTuesday 13th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 July 2021 - (13 Jul 2021)
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
There is not a single nation on the planet that has escaped the devastation of this global pandemic, and there is not a single person who is pretending that the challenge of recovery from covid is easy. We also know that it has been the poorest of our own society who have been hit the hardest over the past 18 months. Tragically, that has been replicated across the globe. Inequality has widened. Millions have been pushed into poverty. Development gains have been reversed, and it is the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies who are dying.
We therefore need a global recovery that builds forward better, creates a fairer, more inclusive and more sustainable world and ultimately honours the millions who have lost or are losing their lives to this terrible pandemic. In order to do that, the wealthiest countries in the world, of which the UK is one, must step up to tackle the great challenges facing humanity, not step away. However, it is with the deepest regret that this UK Government’s callous cut to the aid budget is not only jeopardising those efforts, but will mean that the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world will pay the ultimate price. Make no mistake: these cuts will cost lives.
The UK Government are making a desperate effort to stress the economic necessity of cutting aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. They are desperate to talk about fiscal tests, borrowing levels and tax receipts, but they do not want to address the questions that put them to shame. How many children will go without an education? How many girls will be forced into unwanted marriages and teenage pregnancies? Ultimately, how many individuals will die needlessly because of this Government’s decision? Those are questions that the Government have run away from, just as they have run away from this debate and this vote for the past six months.
It should simply never have come to this. This Parliament should have had a vote on the aid cut before it was implemented, but instead the Government pressed ahead with international austerity on the backs of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Without consultation with those most in need, without any impact assessment and without any debate in this Parliament, the Government made their decision based on a Treasury spreadsheet. With a stroke of a pen, they signed the death sentence—a policy that will lead to 1 million children’s excess deaths.
Those who are considering voting in favour of the motion should reflect on these questions. Are they building forward and leaving no one behind in a global strategy against covid? Are they honouring the millions who are losing their lives and the many more millions who will lose their livelihoods as a result of the pandemic? Are they happy to sign that death sentence?
Let us look at a few examples of the life-saving aid programmes that have been curtailed or cancelled, with horrifying consequences right now. Yemen is the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, where 20 million people are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. Many of them face famine after years of war. Despite that, the UK Government have slashed their humanitarian funding to the country by more than 60%. The UN Secretary-General put it bluntly:
“Millions of Yemeni children, women and men desperately need aid to live. Cutting aid is a death sentence.”
Given that 400,000 children under five might starve to death in Yemen alone this year, how on earth can this Government defend themselves?
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about Yemen, although it should be acknowledged that the UK gave aid to Yemen well in excess of what we had budgeted for, and that we have a very generous record. Does he agree that it is not only a question of emergency aid? If we are to find peace in that country, we will need to give aid for its reconstruction to keep it out of civil war and famine again, so it is entirely the wrong time not to step up with the money necessary for a lasting peace.
Chris Law
I agree with every point that the hon. Member makes. It is important for our national security and in our national interest to be stepping up at this point, not stepping away.
The UK Government’s funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which provides contraceptives and reproductive health supplies globally, is being cut by a staggering 85%. Yes, Mr Speaker, you heard that correctly: 85%. The UNFPA has stated:
“These cuts will be devastating for women and girls and their families across the world.”
The money being withheld by this Government would have helped to prevent a quarter of a million child and maternal deaths, nearly 15 million unintended pregnancies and more than 4 million unsafe abortions.
A third example, which just shows how ridiculous the cuts are, is that tens of thousands of people are likely to die needlessly because nearly 300 million doses of medicine for the treatment of neglected diseases in Africa are at risk of expiring following the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s announcement that it is almost entirely withdrawing its allocated funding. So far, the UK Government have not confirmed that the expiring medicines will be distributed urgently rather than destroyed. What an utter folly—an absence of simple human decency. Hon. Members voting on the motion must tell their constituents that, because these are the simple facts.
Those are just three examples that cover women’s reproductive rights, disease prevention and urgent humanitarian assistance, but cuts are happening across the board. Programmes to eradicate poverty, to prevent conflict or even to combat climate change—in the year that we will host COP26 in Glasgow—are all suffering a similar fate. Each budget reduced, each project scaled back and each programme cancelled results in a loss of hard-fought progress, a loss of expertise and, fundamentally, a loss of trust. This so-called temporary measure will inflict long-term damage and long-term pain and suffering, which is why the cut must be urgently reversed. The Government are pretending that there is no other option than to cut from 0.7% to 0.5%, but we know that that is not the case. In fact, it is blatantly not the case.
It must have been a complete humiliation for the UK Government when they hosted the G7 summit in Cornwall last month, which should have been a moment of pride in demonstrating our shared collective values. This House may ask why. It is because every other G7 country has recognised the necessity of helping those in urgent need at this time of unprecedented volatility and increased aid spending.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, but would he acknowledge that those countries may have raised spending from a much lower level and that we shall still be the third highest in the G7?
Chris Law
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. This is not a question of pride that we are still giving very generously—that we will be the third most generous. We are the sixth wealthiest nation. We keep talking about global Britain, but we are actually a shrinking Britain with these cuts. We are actually losing our soft power. You are going against national security. You are going against our collective national interest right across this House, with every party that is here today.
Sadly, because of these brutal cuts by the UK Government, the massive increase in spending—to come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point— by Germany was effectively cancelled out. Within these islands, I should also add, the Scottish Government have increased their international aid budget by 50%. That puts this House, frankly, at shame with this motion.
It is simply a matter of political priorities, and this Chancellor and this Prime Minister have shown where their priorities lie. Let us not kid ourselves that this is being spent on health, welfare and education at home because it clearly is not. The Chancellor chose to take money away from preventing famine and malnutrition, conflict prevention, and protecting our planet and marginalised communities from the devastating effects of climate change. Instead—I am glad to see the Chancellor in his place—he chose to spend the money on enhanced cyberweapons, AI-enabled drones and, the biggest folly of all, increased stockpiles of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, after he delivered a windfall for the defence budget—in the very same month the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was announced.
If that is not an act of national shame, let us look at the icing on the cake. The Prime Minister, who is no longer in his place—he should be embarrassed when I read this—believes that spending upwards of £200 million on a shiny brand new royal yacht, Britannia 2.0, is more important than using lifesaving aid to deliver a more just, peaceful and secure world. That is despite the fact of the royal family’s complete displeasure. Mr Speaker, how un-British could that be?
Mr Speaker
Order. Normally, we do not bring the royal family into our debates. They are outside our debates. Those are the rules of the House.
Chris Law
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I raised it only because it is on the record elsewhere.
Even every former living Prime Minister has opposed this cut and continues to do so. The simple fact is that aid spending has always been in the Prime Minister’s sights, ever since he described it as
“spending huge sums of British taxpayers’ money as though we were some independent Scandinavian NGO”
and
“shovelling money out the door”.
He has now chosen to go against a decades-long cross-party consensus, breaking his own manifesto promise and that of all his Conservative colleagues as he is dragged far right by the UK Independence party and the Brexit party, and implementing their promises to cut aid instead.
This will likely herald a new decade of austerity. Let us call it austerity 2.0. We all know what the first decade was like. There is nothing temporary about this motion. This is not global Britain; this is a nasty, short, poor, brutish and, most of all, very little Britain. Across this House, we all stood on a manifesto commitment to protect the 0.7% spend on international development. That is, for those who are not very good at maths, 7p in every £10. When I describe that to children in primary schools I visit and to young people in my constituency, they are surprised at how little we spend as the sixth wealthiest nation in the world and they are right to be so.
Today, we have an opportunity to reaffirm our values, rather than be led into voting to balance the imaginary books on the backs of the world’s poorest. We must all keep to our word to deliver on our promises to our fellow global citizens who are the most marginalised and vulnerable people on earth. If covid has taught us anything, it is that we all share in the same struggles and challenges, but also the hopes and dreams of a better future, working together as one planet and one community. Now more than ever before we must step up to support our global community, not step away. There is no honour for those who have suffered as a result of this pandemic in stepping away. There is no meaning in the phrase “building back better” if we turn our backs. For those who decide to vote for this immoral motion today, there is no place for you to hide. When asked the question, “Why did you vote for this?” by your own children, friends and family and, equally importantly, constituents, it will be an indelible mark against your opportunity to do the right thing here today and you will have to live with it for the rest of your time in this House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
It is very difficult to follow that, Mr Speaker.
We recognise that newspapers are the lifeblood of communities, and we have negotiated an unprecedented partnership with the newspaper industry. Since 1 January, paid advertising has appeared in up to 600 newspapers across the UK, including 60 titles predominantly directed towards ethnic minority communities. We have also supported 105 Scottish titles that reach 3.3 million people—over half the population of Scotland.
Regional and local newspapers received at least 60% of the funding allocated from January to March 2021. All the titles in the press partnership have been selected independently by the media planning and buying agency OmniGov. We publish spending on gov.uk monthly as part of routine Government transparency arrangements, and we regularly review the cost-effectiveness of that spend against audience surveys, focus groups and operational data.
Chris Law [V]
Good morning, Mr Speaker, and I also hope that the same press hold the UK Government to account. Does the Minister not agree that the fact that the UK Government need to buy news stories to promote Brexit, rather than relying on companies to share their success themselves, is a sign that Brexit is an utterly failing project?
Michael Gove
No, I would not say that. I have a great deal of respect and affection for the hon. Member, and that is why the work that we do in advertising in these titles is work that we do in conjunction with the devolved Administrations. We work with them in order to make sure that we are placing content appropriately, not least of course to help people keep safe during the covid pandemic. The Scottish Government of course also devote money themselves to advertising and supporting newspapers—quite right too; that is something that is appropriate at this time. Of course, he and I will disagree on certain policy questions, but on the broad point about keeping our media live and vital, I know that on that at least we are at one.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Baroness Sugg leads in the Department in meeting the CSOs, and there are regular meetings ongoing. The integrated review is working over the summer to pull together the key issues, and development is an absolutely critical strand within that.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
Last week I asked the Secretary of State what partner organisations and non-governmental organisations were consulted prior to the announcement of the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She said that the statement on the merger was first made to Parliament and that there has been ongoing consultation since then. This stands in stark contradiction to what the Prime Minister said previously when he told this House that there had been
“massive consultation over a long period.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 678.]
Therefore, was the Prime Minister aware he had taken a decision without any evidence to support it, or did he mislead Parliament to create an illusion of legitimacy for this ideologically driven, disastrous merger?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As set out in previous answers, the Prime Minister made the announcement of the new departmental framework to Parliament first, and there are ongoing discussions led by Baroness Sugg and the permanent secretary with the CSOs and the NGOs.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will indeed think about what we can do. As he knows, these are matters for the honours committees, which are independent of Government, and I urge him strongly to make his representations to them.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I know that we have done a number of growth deals in Scotland recently and that we intend to do more. The best I think I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will write to him with an answer about the Tay cities deal.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
The Department’s work in funding the development of a vaccine for covid-19 is just one of many projects that help to protect some of the most vulnerable people in the developing world, but we cannot take our eye off the ball on the need to continuously tackle global poverty. Can the Secretary of State confirm reports that there is a rapid ministerial review happening of the aid budget and that the vast majority of new projects have been paused, and can she explain why these life-saving projects are being quietly put on hold without informing Parliament or engaging with the International Development Committee?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Our aid spending is linked to the growth of our economy. The challenge this year, in which gross national income will go down, means that the economy is likely to shrink. We are working closely with the Treasury to understand the likely forecasts and to ensure that we can meet our 0.7% commitment. We are working across Departments to ensure that we continue to drive UK aid spending and commit our official development assistance to the most vulnerable and poorest.
Covid-19: Strategy
Chris Law Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, we have invested £3.2 billion extra in supporting local councils. I will take away what she says about Liverpool City Council and Knowsley Council and take it up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said yesterday:
“Stay alert will mean stay alert by staying home as much as possible”.
However, this morning, the Prime Minister’s deputy, the Foreign Secretary, said that people can travel as far as they want for exercise and can meet other people in public places if they use some common sense. Can the Prime Minister tell me what “stay alert” actually means? Where is the common sense in no longer keeping our families and communities safe by staying at home, protecting the NHS and saving lives?
The Prime Minister
I think it will be perfectly obvious to the House what we are trying to do and what we are saying by “stay alert”. We are emphasising the importance of those who cannot work from home going to work, provided that their workplaces are covid secure and that they observe the rules of social distancing on public transport or however they go to work. That is what staying alert means. It is going to be absolutely vital. Staying alert is going to be absolutely vital to our continued success in beating this virus. I think the British public understand exactly what we are trying to do, and I know that they can rise again to this challenge.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Adams
I certainly can. My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are working with African countries to promote mutual prosperity. This incorporates a range of initiatives to increase trade and investment, including a new growth gateway, which will enable businesses to access the UK Government’s trade, investment and finance offer for Africa all in one place.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
All of us should be truly proud of our contributions to international development, yet the opening questions demonstrate the dangerous direction in which many in the Tory party are looking to take aid spending. The Department for International Development does not exist to increase the size of our business abroad, and nor is it part of the Department for International Trade. Indeed, the public good will and trust in the Department has been because every penny spent has been on helping the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. As the Government undertake their integrated review, will the Secretary of State reaffirm the Government’s commitment to a fully independent Department, with Cabinet-level representation, and does she agree that this should not be compromised for quid pro quo deals made to facilitate aid for trade?
Nigel Adams
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department has Cabinet representation. I just make the point that trade can be and is a key driver for economic growth. It triggers positive changes in a country’s economy, which helps raise incomes in the poorest countries, creates job, lifts people out of poverty and helps countries to move beyond trade dependency.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alok Sharma
I commend my hon. Friend’s support for entrepreneurship in his constituency and more widely. The UK is absolutely committed to increasing women’s role in trade, recognising the importance of trade as a lever for equality. That is why we recently announced an extension to the Commonwealth SheTrades programme, which provides training and mentoring to female entrepreneurs and connects them to international markets and investment opportunities.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
In 2013, Australia merged its aid and trade departments, resulting in worse-performing aid programmes and a mass exodus of development experts and even leading to DFID downgrading the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to third-tier status for staff exchanges. Is that the future that the Secretary of State wants for his own Department, or does he agree that a standalone Department remains the best way for the UK to deliver world-leading international development projects?
Alok Sharma
Machinery of government changes are a matter for the Prime Minister, but the UK is and will continue to be a superpower when it comes to international development. He will have seen in our manifesto the commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Douglas Ross
To prove what will happen, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to wait for question 8 from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which is about exactly that. I will answer that point then, and I hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) will be encouraged by the response.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I will answer these questions together. There is no independence of thought in the questions.
The Prime Minister has received the First Minister’s correspondence, which contains the Scottish Government publication, and he will respond in due course.
Chris Law
The Secretary of State repeatedly said to the people of Scotland during the general election campaign that every vote for the Conservatives is a vote to “say no to indyref2”. That went well for them, didn’t it? It saw them lose over half their seats and left them with barely a rump of MPs. Will the Secretary of State now listen to the people of Scotland, as reflected by the 80% of seats won by the SNP, and support their expressed democratic will to choose their own future?
Mr Jack
Some 45% of Scots voted for the SNP in the 2019 election, and 45% of Scots voted for independence in 2014. The numbers simply have not changed. Further, in 2014 the independence referendum came on the back of something called the Edinburgh agreement, which was signed by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, the then deputy leader. The Edinburgh agreement stated that both parties would respect the outcome of the referendum, and that has not happened.