Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Debate between Sarah Champion and Noah Law(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion
I thank the right hon. Member, my fellow Committee member, and I share his sentiment. For those who do not know, BII is our development bank. The FCDO is its sole stakeholder, and it does seem very short-sighted and out of line with other international development banks that we do not have a seat on the board, even if it is a non-voting seat. I urge the Minister to consider that report of the Committee and its recommendations. I recognise the truly excellent work that BII does, but it is a strategy—
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Noah Law
I declare an interest as a former employee of BII. Might I gently share my disagreement with the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and my hon. Friend the Chair on this point? Although it is incredibly important that our development finance institutions adhere to the FCDO’s strategy, my personal experience is that politicisation of some of these state-backed financial institutions can end up with them lurching to and fro. Does my hon. Friend share some of my concerns about the potential for that kind of political influence over some of these institutions?
Sarah Champion
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. I do not agree with him on the board point, but if we look at the countries that BII was asked to focus on under the last Government, it is clear that political interference—if we want to call it that—is alive and well. I agree that when we invest in organisations, we should trust them to do their job, but that requires scrutiny, so again, I will be very concerned if ICAI is cut. I will move away from BII now.
Today’s debate gives Members a crucial and timely opportunity to influence the Government’s approach to funding for the FCDO and overseas aid. We face a combination of a diminished budget and a change of strategic direction, all happening at a time of unprecedented global need. Parliament must insist on clarity about where cuts will fall. We must also insist on reassurance that development expertise will be protected and confidence that the United Kingdom’s aid spending remains focused on reducing poverty, supporting development, humanitarian need and contributing to global stability. This House rightly places a premium on transparency, accountability and value for money. Every pound now matters more than ever, and let us be reminded—as I frequently am—that it is the taxpayer’s pound that we are overseeing. Although our formal powers to amend the FCDO’s spending limits are limited, debates such as this allow us to exert influence and have our say at a pivotal moment in the UK’s foreign policy. I know that my colleagues in the House will use this moment wisely.
Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility
Debate between Sarah Champion and Noah Law(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
The glass sector has always supported the principle behind EPR. It lobbied, on sound environmental and safety grounds, against inclusion in the deposit return scheme, knowing and accepting that that would mean the inclusion of all glass products in EPR. Yet the terms of EPR have seemingly been deliberately stacked against the sector.
It is not only glass manufacturers who will be hit hard by this change. Indeed, since being granted this debate I have been inundated with messages from organisations worried about the impact of EPR.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to ensure that the implementation of EPR avoids unintended consequences for businesses such as pubs, which are already facing huge headwinds? In many cases, pubs already manage their packaging waste through commercial contracts, so they would face double the levy.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend makes a sound point, which I will reinforce.
Let me go through some—I emphasise “some”—of the organisations that have been in touch with me about this issue. They include Vinarchy, one of the world’s largest wine companies; the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates; the Campaign for Real Ale, CAMRA; the British Beer and Pub Association; the Wine and Spirit Trade Association; UKHospitality; the Foodservice Packaging Association; the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association; the Scotch Whisky Association; the Irish Whiskey Association; the English Whisky Guild; the Brewing, Food and Beverage Industry Suppliers’ Association; the National Association of Cider Makers; and WineGB. All these organisations have spoken out against EPR and their criticisms of the approach being taken by the Government have been surprisingly—indeed, strikingly—similar. Minister, they cannot all be wrong.
Other assessments of EPR plans have been similarly damning. The Office for Budget Responsibility has concluded that EPR is a tax. It will not improve recycling rates and it will damage businesses. The Bank of England and the British Retail Consortium have recently stated that the impact of this policy on businesses will be similar to that of the increased national insurance costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said, all this is coming at a time of rising economic uncertainty, which is the result of the Trump tariffs. Pubs face an estimated £8 million hike in their costs, which will equate to an extra £2,000 per year for a large pub.