Climate Change, the Environment and Global Development

Debate between Stephen Kerr and Chris Law

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. This is fundamental: if we want to change public behaviour, we have to put the carrots and sticks in place. Things have happened since 2015. For example, the cancellation of the carbon capture and storage project at Peterhead and the removal of tariffs for on-land wind generation are two other factors that should be reconsidered.

I am pleased to say that my own city of Dundee has the highest proportion of electric vehicles in its council fleet in Scotland and one of the largest electric taxi fleets in the UK. As a result, people now feel that the electric charging points across the city are not novel but normal to use.

I have to correct something. I keep hearing that the UK was the first country to declare a climate emergency, but in fact Scotland was. We understand that we will need to go even further. Progress to date has been achieved with little impact on most people; few of us have had to make any real radical lifestyle changes.

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman is moving on to discuss the broader issue of the environment, I think. A report last week from Zero Waste Scotland suggested that Scottish households spend £600 million a year just on packaging. We can do a lot in that direction. The Scottish Government have rightly taken a lead with the deposit return scheme. However, would it not be more sensible if all parts of the United Kingdom got together with a co-ordinated approach to a deposit return scheme that covered the length and breadth of these islands?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law]

The hon. Gentleman is making a lot of very valuable points here. I wonder if he would support the UK Government setting up a national energy company with all its energy coming from renewables, as the Scottish Government are doing. Not only will that company take energy from renewables and boost the renewable energy sector, but it will also tackle fuel poverty head-on if it is done as close to cost as possible.

[Stephen Kerr]

I understand the motivation, but, in good Scots tongue, “I hae ma doots” about whether that is a workable solution. I know the hon. Gentleman says that the Scottish Government are going to do it, but we will see what happens, and I do have concerns about that as there are other ways to get to where we want to get to without setting up some kind of state retailer for energy.

I am nearing the end of my remarks, but I want to mention the fact that we need to consider new electrical infrastructure. We need to consider whether the national wiring has the capabilities it is going to need. I really do not see, any time soon, there being a plethora of charge points around the country where we can recharge our electric vehicle in a few minutes, because we just do not have the wiring to support that kind of recharging network. Also, I know the Minister will be disappointed if I do not mention smart meters. A lot of money is being spent on advertising smart meters. This is an individual step to be taken by households across the country to attack the issue of climate change. I support that, because smart meters are a vital component of the creation of a smart grid, but I really think that the Government should explain to the House how we are getting on with our target of rolling out smart meters to all premises by 2020. From what I know of the facts as they stand, that target seems a long way off.

Department for International Development

Debate between Stephen Kerr and Chris Law

Monday 1st July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

I thank all those who have made such huge and valuable contributions today.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who is my esteemed colleague on the International Development Committee, from the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), and not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who is not in his place at the moment, back in 1970 the UN General Assembly adopted the 0.7% GNI aid target for donor countries to contribute to overseas development assistance. The original proposal envisaged that the target would be met by 1980 at the latest, and that the need for such aid would no longer be required by the end of the century. Sadly, as we know, that was not to be the case: only a handful of countries have ever met and maintained that level of aid spending. The UK is one of those countries, having first endorsed the target in 1974, having met it for the first time in 2013, and having enshrined it in law in 2015. The UK has taken great strides ever since, as we have heard from many great examples, not least from the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup).

I reiterate the obvious: the Scottish National party’s support for the 0.7% spending commitment is absolutely resolute and clear. Although a number of questions have been asked today about how the money is spent, what concerns me the most is the legally binding commitment, which seems highly likely to come under threat. All Members present are here for one reason, which is to support 0.7% spending on aid, but that is not the case for every Member in this House, as I shall come to later. It is imperative that we use this opportunity to defend the 0.7% target vigorously; to highlight the need for the spending to be part of a focused strategy, aligned with Departments across Government to achieve the sustainable development goals; and to stress that we cannot allow the commitment to be put in jeopardy by the hard right of the Conservative party and to be compounded by the desire for a disastrous Brexit.

The SNP has always been clear that development spending must be focused on helping the poorest and most vulnerable, and on alleviating global poverty. In addition to maintaining the 0.7% ODA spending commitment, we want the entirety of that amount to be spent by the Department for International Development, not spread among other Departments. The proportion of aid spending in other Departments has been steadily increasing over recent years. Currently, some 27.5% of ODA funds is spent in other Departments, such as the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence—a 9.2% increase since 2016. This is worrying, because other Departments do not report their aid spending with the same level of detail and do not necessarily have poverty reduction as their main focus. A recent National Audit Office report concluded that aid spending outside DFID was not transparent enough.

Let me give just one example of how spending in other Departments brings the system into disrepute. The International Development Committee heard that in 2016 some £46.9 million of UK ODA allocated funds had been spent by the Foreign Office on diplomatic activities in China. That is absurd; such abuse of funds must end. Similarly, the Select Committee’s subsequent report found that aid delivered through the cross-Government prosperity fund was

“insufficiently focused on the poorest”.

This appears to be common in other instances of ODA funds being spread across several Departments. For example, just last month the Independent Commission for Aid Impact’s report on the current state of UK aid suggested that the UK needed

“a stronger strategic direction for its conflict-reduction work, and a more integrated approach across humanitarian, peacebuilding, development and international influencing efforts, especially in protracted crises.”

At the same time, the estimates show that DFID’s allocation from the cross-Government conflict stability and security fund will see a reduction of 45% from last year. The current situation is clearly not working. How on earth can we expect to meet the objectives of strengthening peace, responding to crises and helping the world’s most vulnerable when the Department that is meant to be responsible is not taking the lead and being held to account on ODA spending?

DFID’s strategic ability to deliver on its aims is further threatened and undermined by the Brexit shambles that is unfolding. Public money has already been taken away from Departments and public services to prepare the country for the disastrous prospect of leaving the EU, and the Department for International Development has been unable to avoid this. DFID has already sent more than 50 staff to other Government Departments in preparation for a no-deal Brexit, and could deploy another 170, according to a letter to the International Development Committee from the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), in March. It has since been reported that officials at DFID were told that up to 600 of just 3,000—that is, 20% of their numbers—may have to be redeployed to Departments that are suffering from staff shortages because of their Brexit workloads.

It is unacceptable that public money that is committed to vital priorities that the UK has subscribed to under international agreements is already being used to pay DFID staff to manage the chaos of a hard Tory Brexit. Let us not forget that this money saves people’s lives and alleviates the worst aspects of poverty, vulnerability and chaos in some of the most hard-pressed countries in the world.

In two weeks, the UK will present its voluntary national review of the sustainable development goals to the UN at the high-level political forum on sustainable development. At a time when we should be using our aid funding and resources to ensure high-quality education around the world, reduce inequality and tackle the climate emergency, it beggars belief that the UK Government are wasting resources attempting to manage and mitigate the needless damage of Brexit. It is something we simply cannot allow to happen, so I am pleased to have added my name on behalf of the SNP in support of the amendment, tabled by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), that would have stopped the mobilisation of departmental spending to facilitate a no-deal Brexit.

Worryingly, it is not just Brexit that threatens the UK’s international development work. The commitment to 0.7% ODA spending is under threat from the right wing of the Tory party, which believes that aid spending should be slashed, and would heartlessly endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman misjudges the whole debate with the speech he is delivering. How would it help the world’s poorest people to block any further spending on international development, as that amendment would suggest? Both candidates for the leadership of my party are committed to honouring the 0.7% target, so the hon. Gentleman is presenting a wholly spurious argument and ruining the tone of the debate.

[Chris Law]

The hon. Gentleman is misinformed: the amendment was not about blocking spending on development. Furthermore, I shall develop the point—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Stephen Kerr and Chris Law

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was about to say that the SNP is like a collection of 35 carbon copies of the famous Rikki Fulton creation, the Rev. I. M. Jolly. SNP Members sit there on the Benches, depressing the nation and bringing their grim worldview to the people of Scotland. Being so cheerful keeps them going. They talk themselves and Scotland down, and they imply that our Scottish entrepreneurs, our businesses and our communities will be unable to cope with any change and unable to take advantage of the opportunities that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts mentioned and that will undoubtedly arise as we leave the European Union.

[Chris Law]

The Fraser of Allander Institute predicts that not 80,000, but 139,000 jobs are at stake. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not talking Scotland down; those are the facts of the matter when it comes to Brexit? We are just about at a cliff edge now.

[Stephen Kerr]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the Fraser of Allander Institute to the attention of the Committee, because the institute also points out that the perpetual threat of a second independence referendum is having a dragging effect on the Scottish economy.