Global Human Security

Debate between Christopher Chope and Anna McMorrin

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher, and I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this important debate on global human security. The world has entered a period of rapidly accelerating insecurities. From the climate emergency to infectious diseases, and from conflict to the subversion of human rights and persisted poverty, catastrophic crises now occur simultaneously, putting at grave risk the health, wellbeing and security of people around our interconnected world.

The hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made an incredibly strong argument focused on dignity. He challenged his own Government on their appalling cuts to the aid budget, and on observing our duty to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, rather than turning away from the provision of desperately needed leadership. Multiple crises across the world combine at catastrophic human cost. From climate and conflict to covid, those crises all need action. There has never been a more important time to think strategically about how we approach them.

The hon. Member for Bath spoke of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. I am proud to have been instrumental in introducing that ground-breaking Act in Wales when I was a special adviser to the Welsh Labour Government. We introduced the Act to focus on the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of Wales. In delivering the Act, I saw at first hand how it can help to bring about the changes we need. It puts in place seven wellbeing goals, and forces decision makers and organisations to think more about the long term; work better with people, communities and each other; look to prevent problems; and take a much more joined-up approach, which is desperately needed across the UK. The Act helps us to create the country that we all want to live in, now and in the future.

Unfortunately, the cornerstones of human security—freedom from fear, want and indignity—are being chipped away, and there appears to be little appetite in this Government to change course. The gap between the Government’s rhetoric and their actions is large and growing. We do not have to delve far into the catalogue of Government errors to find the cut of a third in the aid budget. Aid is our first responder to crises and our last line of defence, so the cut is dangerous and costly. Instead of the Government’s hasty retreat, we must shoulder responsibility and pool resource, knowledge, expertise and finance if we are successfully to reverse the drivers of those crises and chart a course to a sustainable and restorative future that protects the health of people and planet, and reduces the inequalities and insecurities that threaten us all.

In recent months, I have spoken to Rose and Eva, remarkable women from Uganda who shared with me their horrifying experiences of devastating extreme weather, with families uprooted from homes and their livelihoods lost. Just last year, I had similar conversations with constituents of mine who had been affected by flooding. Climate change affects the most vulnerable, wherever they are in the world.

As we have seen with covid, what happens in even the most distant communities reverberates back to our shores; what happens in Kampala is felt in Cardiff. That means confronting the challenges of our time, abandoning outdated assumptions about security and playing a responsive role in the world—unlike this Government’s approach, exemplified by the “Competitive Age” integrated review.

Labour is aligned with President Biden, but we cannot afford a strategy focused only on competition. When the threats to our world are felt equally, we are either all winners or all losers. It is a zero-sum game. As covid has taught us, only through co-operation in science, research and development, and data sharing have we been able to get a grip on this virus, to develop a vaccine and now, we hope, to be on our way to defeating it. Collaboration not competition—that highlights the nonsensical, ridiculous £250-million cut in aid to vital UK and global health research amid a pandemic.

When we talk about security, that must include climate, food and health. As the Secretary-General of NATO said recently, we need a “broader, more integrated approach” to security and resilience to keep people safe. The challenges that we must overcome are existential threats to humanity. Our approach must be more human-centred and holistic. We are all less safe as health and climate challenges aggravate existing forms of insecurity and as new forms of insecurity are created. They require different forms of action that this Government are failing to meet and which, with the aid budget, in effect they are abandoning.

Climate breakdown, with devastating drought and scarcity, drives conflict and is central to the humanitarian crisis in places such as Nigeria and Lake Chad. According to research conducted by the International Red Cross, the planet has witnessed a 35% increase in the number of climate-related disasters since the 1990s. There is also health breakdown, where biodiversity loss threatens not only the species with which we share the planet but our own health, forcing parasites to look for alternative hosts—75% of emerging infections in human populations come from animals. Professor Peter Piot from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine warned of an “era of pandemics”, brought about by humanity’s treatment of the natural world. That is what makes this Government’s cuts to aid, their abandonment of principles and alliances in their willingness to break international law, and their shocking lack of political will to foster long-term strategic thinking in policy making so very dangerous.

Do not take it just from me. Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, said that the Government’s current approach to security fails to acknowledge fully the depth of challenges—economic, political and military—that will face the UK in the coming years. Christiana Figueres, the former UN climate chief, who was instrumental in the Paris climate agreement, warned:

“There are raised eyebrows among world leaders watching the UK.”

Achim Steiner of the UN Development Programme said that the cut to aid “does not enhance” confidence in the UK internationally.

I therefore hope that the Minister can explain what the Government are doing to ensure that long-term thinking is taken into account. Will his Government consider introducing, as in Wales, a measure similar to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015? What assessment have his Government made of the short-term impacts of aid cuts on immediate crisis response and associated threats and of the long-term impact of that failure to prevent future risks or build resilience? Crises overlap and combine to drive poverty, and health and climate insecurity. They cannot be solved in isolation, so will the Minister explain how the Government concluded that structuring the UK’s development response into seven siloed core priorities will tackle overlapping crises?

Finally, Labour would introduce statutory duties to plan, audit and invest in pandemic responses. Will the Government confirm whether they will introduce a more human-focused and holistic health security policy to ensure that we address all those challenges? We are experiencing an abundance of shattering threats, but a shocking scarcity of necessary action from the UK Government. We must maintain our commitment to holistic forms of security, which protect people at home and abroad, and tackle insecurity and injustice at their root.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. As this debate has to finish by 10.55 am, we have plenty of time for the Minister.

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Anna McMorrin

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies). I lack his knowledge about capital markets as indeed I lack the knowledge exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) on financial instruments, of which this might be one. I will nevertheless try to contribute to the debate by encouraging the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) to have another go next Session. The Bill has a lot in it that is worthwhile, but, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is not there quite yet.

I have been a regular attender on Fridays for many years and participated in the debates around the 2014 Act, steered through with a lot of skill by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). My recollection is that that Bill was an iterative process: it did not get through in the first Session in which it was put forward because there were difficulties in definition and all the rest of it. The hon. Member for Cardiff North should recognise that, for example, one the most famous private Members’ Bills ever, the Abortion Act 1967, was on its fifth or sixth iteration before it actually got on to the statute book because it was gradually amended and lobbied about so that, when it came to a final decision, everybody felt confident that they were doing the right thing. I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward the Bill and on the way in which she opened the debate.

One of the things I looked up in preparation was what James Wright, the policy officer at Co-operatives UK, said in a press release—I think in February—soon after the hon. Lady announced her intention of bringing forward a private Member’s Bill with this subject matter. Speaking for the co-operatives, he said:

“When it comes to legal reform, our top priority is for co-operative societies to have the option of legally guaranteeing that their ‘common capital’ will remain ‘indivisible’, over the life of the business and after. Right now, they can’t do this and it’s becoming a problem.”

He goes on to say that

“having some kind of statutory ‘asset lock’ which commits capital surplus to mutual and social purpose is increasingly a must in many parts of our social economy. So it’s a damaging anomaly that co-operative societies can’t give their common capital statutory status.”

Nowhere in those remarks did Mr Wright say anything about limiting this problem to environmentally sustainable investment issues. I suspect that the hon. Lady, because of her passion for environmental issues, has decided that it would be better to work the two ideas together. I suggest to her that the case put at that early stage by the Co-operatives UK policy officer was obviously a very strong case for one thing—she referred earlier to the limit on being able to raise capital of more than £100,000 and the way this was inhibiting the expansion of the co-operative movement—but if the main aim of the Bill is to remedy the problem identified by Mr Wright in the quote I have just used, there is no need for the Bill to go into issues of environmentally sustainable investment.

I would ask the hon. Lady to think about why she has narrowed the Bill in such a way. She said in answer to an intervention that the Bill was wide enough to cover the whole co-operative movement, but that is not what it says in the long title of the Bill, which, to remind her, says:

“A Bill to enable co-operative and community benefit societies to raise external share capital for the purpose of making environmentally sustainable investment”.

[Anna McMorrin]

The hon. Member is making some important points that we have discussed throughout the development of the Bill. Environmentally sustainable projects are just that—it needs that definition—but can he point to any projects within the co-operative movement that do not meet a sustainable objective? It is in the very values of the co-operative movement. Also, does he not see that we are facing a climate emergency and that unless we take drastic action now, on the ground, and radically transform our economies, we will not succeed?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will not engage with the hon. Lady on the climate crisis, because I think there is far too much scaremongering going on in relation to that and a lack of realism about the ability of our country, individually, to change the course of the global climate. That is apparent now. We have heard this week that despite the substantial reduction in the global economy the global CO² emissions continue to increase and climate change is not being remedied as a result.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I accept that. Interestingly, proposed new section 27A(5)(b) talks about

“the capacity to adapt to change”.

That is where I am very much with the hon. Member for Cardiff North, because I think we should be concentrating our resources in this country on adapting to climate change, rather than trying to put our heads in the sand and say, “We’re going to make it go away.”

On the issue of the definition, if environmentally sustainable investment is basically the be-all and end-all of everything that the co-operative movement is involved in, why do we need to use language about green shares? Why do we not make it much more general? If the hon. Lady is so confident about her definition of “environmentally sustainable investment”, why has she included a Henry VIII clause in proposed new section 27A(6)? It states that

“The Treasury may by regulations revise subsections (4) and (5)”,

which contain the definitions. Why do we need to do that? Surely, if it is so obvious, it should be on the face of the Bill and we do not need to give the Treasury even more power than it already has. I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary replies, he will say how eagerly he looks forward to being able to exercise these additional powers.

I ask that as a slightly rhetorical question. However, sometimes Members are tempted to make their Bills complicated, and whenever they encounter a bit of difficulty with the Government, they say, “We’ll appease the Government by giving them a power to amend the Bill”—thereby, in a sense, negating the whole purpose of the Bill. If the hon. Lady ever redrafts the Bill in a way that gets the support of the House on Second Reading, I suggest that she leaves out the Henry VIII clause and has the confidence to say, “That’s what I’m putting in the Bill. That’s what we’re going to keep in the Bill, and that’s what it means.”

I looked at the explanatory notes. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for producing explanatory notes on the Bill, which often does not happen with private Members’ Bills. She says in those explanatory notes that the environmental goals in the Bill are based upon those in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, to which she referred earlier. In that case, why do the environmental sustainability goals set out in proposed new section 27A(5)(a) not include the whole wording of those in the 2015 Act? It states that the goals are:

“to create an innovative, productive and low carbon society which recognises the limits of the global environment and therefore uses resources efficiently and proportionately (including acting on climate change)”.

If she looks at the relevant section of the 2015 Act, she will find that it goes on to say:

“and which develops a skilled and well-educated population in an economy which generates wealth and provides employment opportunities”.

She is nodding, but why is that not included? Why was that excluded? Why did the explanatory notes imply that everything set out in this Bill came word for word from the 2015 Act?

I think that the whole issue about the greenness of this may have been included in order to seduce members of co-ops into signing up to changes in their rules that they would not otherwise wish to do, were they aware of the full implications of so doing. This echoes one of the points that some of my hon. Friends have made. A non-green co-op—the hon. Lady seems to say that all co-ops are green—can only become a green co-op under the Bill, and thereby issue green shares, if authorised to do so by its rules. It is obviously possible for a co-operative to change its rules. One can see how easy it would be for a co-operative to say to its members, “Look, we are planning to change our rules so we can issue green shares and do all these wonderful environmental things.” Who would be bold enough to cause a problem in that co-operative society, I don’t know, but would the people who were being seduced into supporting that be aware of the fact that by enabling the society to have a green share, it was then triggering clause 29A(1), which requires that

“The Treasury must by regulations make provision—

enabling the rules of a society with a green share to permanently prohibit the distribution of a capital surplus”?

That would mean that people who had invested in a co-operative society in which the normal investment rules applied—where they would be able to withdraw their investment, but not trade it—would find themselves in a completely different regime where the shares would be transferable but not withdrawable; not only that, they would also find they were prohibited from being able to benefit from the success of that co-op by perhaps wanting to make it into a corporate body, thereby redeeming the additional value which had accrued to their shares as a result of its activities, going back to the point about the 2015 Act in Wales, so that people in the co-op could generate wealth and prosperity, and with it employment opportunities.

So why, as soon as the co-op became green in name as well as in substance, should it result in those restrictions on members of the co-op? They might perhaps, by definition, be in a minority in opposing the change in the rules of the co-op, but why should they be penalised by that change in the rules so that a completely different regime applies retrospectively? Is the hon. Lady not concerned about minority rights being ridden over? I suspect that that is one of the problems that has come to light in the co-operative movement and that is why it has turned out to be a lot more controversial than she thought it would be at the beginning.

As will be apparent, I have some quite serious issues with the Bill. I would like to see a much more concise Bill, without all this stuff about green shares, which is a distraction from the core. What the hon. Lady really wants is to change the fundamental structure of co-ops so that they can attract investments greater than £100,000, and so that members of those co-ops cannot de-mutualise. Those are very serious issues. If that is what she thinks the whole of the co-operative movement should be doing, so be it.

I suspect that what the hon. Lady really wants to do is to enable a different sort of co-op with those objectives to be established. In so doing, however, instead of saying, “From now on you can start a completely new green co-op,” she is enabling existing co-ops to be changed, against the wishes of a minority of their members, into a different vehicle from that in which they made their original investment, thereby preventing them from withdrawing that investment, as they can at present. That is a very serious issue that goes to the root of it. It may be an attractive notion, and we heard that there are precedents for it elsewhere in the world, but because of the importance of the co-operative and community benefit movement, it is absolutely imperative that, if we are to change the rules, we do so in a clear, unambiguous way, and certainly do not allow the spectre of further changes by stealth through Government regulations that are not subject to proper consultation.

I fear that, when the hon. Member for Cardiff North responded to an intervention on the fact that the objectives could be changed but already covered all co-operatives, she was showing the lack of—how can I put it?—intellectual rigour applied to these principles.

[Anna McMorrin]

indicated dissent.