FCDO Staffing

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend and predecessor for that point. Diplomacy and the nature of international relations are changing. We have to invest in future-facing resources, which means things like IT, most obviously, as well as ensuring that we have a network of experts across a wide range of fields, including commerce. In response to his former point, we already see a very close integration in London and around our overseas network of trade, development, aid and diplomacy. I can only assume that that will continue to be the case when it comes to our people.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for securing this urgent question. It is more than a year since my urgent question when the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development was announced. Despite what the Minister says about this being seamless, we are hearing lots of reports that it is not going well at all, and surely that must create a degree of inefficiencies. Although we have maintained the International Development Committee, we have seen further cuts to aid. In my urgent question last year, I sought an assurance that there would be no forced redundancies. The Minister may not be willing to give us a number or a percentage of cuts, but can he assure us that the review in the spring will not involve compulsory redundancies?

[James Cleverly]

As I have said a number of times, the decisions about the future structure, prioritisation and orientation of the Department will be made by Ministers in due course and the details will come out in the new year.

I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Lady’s point about the merger: some of the most successful ODA-donating countries have merged Foreign and Development Offices. Prior to the merger of the Departments, I was a Minister across both of them, and I have found it easier to work with one set of civil servants in one Department than I did working across two sets of civil servants across two Departments. Our commitment is to retain our standing as a top-tier donor country, in respect of not just the scale of what we give but the sophistication of how we do it, and that will be enhanced through the merged process.

British Council

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should send their speaking notes by email to [e-mail]. Similarly, officials should communicate electronically with Ministers.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered British Council closures.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The British Council is the oldest and, for a long time, one of the most important cultural institutions in the world. It has had and continues to have enormous influence. I am sure the Minister knows this, and I do not want to use my time to give him a history lesson. However, we are having this debate because the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office seems to have forgotten about the British Council’s value with its refusal to provide financial support, so I will briefly remind him of the British Council’s initial purpose.

Founded in 1934, the British Council was created in response to a changing global stage: the United Kingdom was losing its traditional forms of influence, extreme ideologies were on the rise around the world and there was a global economic crisis. Those problems may not sound unfamiliar to the Minister and others here today as he and his Cabinet colleagues seek to re-establish the UK as a global power outside the EU, respond to extreme ideologies at home and abroad, as we have devastatingly seen over the last few weeks, and tackle the economic and social implications of the pandemic and the climate crisis. Clearly, the British Council remains as relevant today as it has ever been. If the Minister disagrees, I will be interested in hearing him explain that later.

This Government like to talk about us being a global Britain. In fact, the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy earlier this year was named “Global Britain in a Competitive Age”. In the review, we were told the UK would become one of the most influential countries in the world, and a key aspect of this is our role as a soft superpower. The review explicitly highlighted the important work of none other than the British Council, noting that it

“operates in over 100 countries”.

The problem is that the British Council does not. It just cannot. Why? Because, frankly, the Government have prevented it from doing so.

Like many organisations, the British Council has suffered during the pandemic as its commercial operations, which usually provide most of its income, have been severely hit. As of July, teaching revenues were back to only about 50% of pre-pandemic levels, representing a loss of hundreds of millions of pounds over the course of the year. It is predicted that income from commercial operations will not be back to pre-pandemic levels until 2023. That is absolutely devastating.

In a usual year, the British Council can provide an income of several million pounds more than it needs to run its commercial activities, and that surplus is effectively used to subsidise its other work, which is otherwise funded by Government grants. Have the Government tried to help? Yes and no. An immediate shortfall in funding was met through an additional non-official development assistance grant of £26 million, which was very welcome. What was less welcome for the British Council was that most of the additional grant was counterbalanced by a cut in ODA grant funds of £80 million. It is quite literally giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Would she agree that, especially since the broken manifesto pledge on 0.7%, we are beginning to see that this Government’s actions do not match their words? When the Government say they want to be a world superpower, this example of the British Council funding is yet another proof point that what they say and mean is not what they do?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Yes, I agree. I would argue that the integrated review was published at the start of the year and that work was ongoing, but the decision on the Department for International Development was taken before that review was published. That, alongside the cuts to the British Council, demonstrates that the Government are not aligned with the view of global Britain seen by my hon Friend, myself and others.

A series of loans has also been agreed, but on commercial terms, requiring the British Council to submit business plans to be agreed by the FCDO. Ordinarily, as we know, the British Council is incredibly economically successful, but the reality is that the loans have been needed to fill a hole made by the pandemic. Business operations are not currently normal. None the less, business plans were submitted and in effect the loans became contingent on cost-saving measures that needed to be put in place. What do cost savings and less income mean? That does not promise a strong British Council presence in 100 countries. It is not a bolstering of our soft power presence. It means cuts to services and staffing—I met some staff online earlier this week—and cuts to Britain’s presence around the world.

Already we have seen office closures, with more to follow in coming years. Closures span the world from Belgium to the United States and from Australia to South Sudan. They include all the Five Eyes countries. In other countries, cuts mean there will be no staff, with operations happening remotely.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this crucial debate. I chair the all-party parliamentary groups on Kosovo, North Macedonia and Montenegro. All those countries face British Council closures. The programmes that they run are vital to those countries. The Prime Minister of Montenegro came here in July and met me in Parliament. We talked about the importance of the British Council in development work in Montenegro and about the bilateral exchange. Without that, and with the office moving to Belgrade, development and our work in vital Balkan countries that are in that phase of development will be severely impacted on. Britain will lose out in our relationship with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for his work with the all-party groups, which are important as they are cross-party. Criticisms of the Government’s British Council closures come not only from the Opposition Benches, but from across Parliament. In relation to the Balkans, the British Council is a part of how we demonstrate to our European friends and neighbours that we want to continue in a close partnership despite having left the EU, which I and many other Members disagree with.

Devastating cuts have already been made. The choices have been made by the Minister and his staff. The cuts are the result of cutting ODA spending, a policy hated across the country that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) referred to, and hated across this House, as I mentioned, including in the Minister’s own party. Perhaps, this is the inevitable outcome of merging the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is something we warned about last year. That was also done in the name of cost savings, but it is as yet unclear whether any savings have been made from that decision. Perhaps the Minister will let us know when information on the merger will be made available.

I understand there is also an expectation at the Treasury that all Departments will have to reduce their spending by 5% at the next review. The British Council has already gone through so much hardship, has already had to agree to a reduction in spending of more than £185 million over the next five years, and is already looking at making 20% of its staff redundant here in the UK and across the world. Further cuts will put pressure on the future of the British Council itself. Will the Minister provide reassurance that he will fight to maintain his Department’s budget, and will he consider ring-fencing the current level of grant funding that the British Council receives?

Our soft power is rooted in who we are as a country. It is central to our international identity, and its strength cannot be taken for granted. Those are not my words, but those of the Government’s own integrated review, published just months ago. It is absolutely remarkable that the Government pay lip service to the importance of the British Council while simultaneously undermining it. I urge the Minister to address that in his speech.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. She was in a meeting online this week with me and members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. I should refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Is she as concerned as I am that the business plan is going forward and the whole redundancy exercise is being done in secret? We really need a bit more disclosure, and we need more parliamentary scrutiny as to how the restructuring is being carried out.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I was pleased to join him earlier this week. One thing that struck me from the meeting was the longevity of some of the staff there, how long they had worked for the British Council, their passion and dedication and how the current actions and what was happening were undermining how they felt about their organisation. I agree that it is very important that we have a degree of transparency, particularly for a non-departmental public body such as the British Council.

Soft power is important. My colleagues and I see the benefits of the UK’s being trusted and respected around the world. Our education system is outstanding, and we want international students to come and benefit from it. I want students from around the world to come to the University of St Andrews in my North East Fife constituency. The British Council helps to support that aim, engaging with the Turing and Erasmus programmes, science, technology, engineering and mathematics scholarships, technical placements and assistance with applications.

Those students bring countless benefits to us at a local level, not only to our local economic circumstances, but with their experiences and knowledge. Speaking as a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, we should remember the importance that international students have in Scotland in particular, which we picked up in our inquiry. Their fees are no doubt part of that.

Tourism contributes £106 billion to the British economy and supports 2.6 million jobs. We cannot recover without it, particularly in North East Fife, so we need to encourage visitors to our shores. Despite current temperatures, I am yet to meet a tourist who says they came to the UK for the good weather. People come for our history and to experience our culture. They go to Stratford to learn about Shakespeare, they go to the pub just about anywhere, they want to experience our vibrant arts and theatres and, at least in North East Fife, they definitely want to have a round of golf. Of course, all those good things exist independently of the British Council, but its presence around the world, teaching English, sharing our culture and demonstrating that we are an open and welcoming nation, plays a significant role.

We also need trade deals. We need to export our goods and services, be it Scotch whisky or cutting-edge science, technology, engineering and maths knowledge, but what country is going to make a trade deal with a country it does not trust? What does it say to the countries we want to work and trade with if we turn our backs on them and withdraw our institutional presence? What does it say about our commitment to tackling climate change if, as reported today, this Government are considering doing away with agreements around climate change when they look at trade deals, such as that with Australia?

The biggest challenges we face today do not affect us alone and cannot be solved by us alone. We face a climate crisis; we face a growth in extreme ideologies around the world. The world is a less safe, less stable and less prosperous place, and retreating solves nothing. For better or worse, we have already retreated from the European Union—I firmly believe it is for the worse—but we still need to work together to respond to global health crises, to house and support refugees coming from Syria, Afghanistan and other places, to tackle cross-border crime and terrorism, and to make the shifts required to respond to the climate crisis.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I was approached by constituents concerned about the lack of clarity on plans for the evacuation of British Council employees from Afghanistan, and I wrote to the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. I received responses from the Home Office and the MOD but, despite the Foreign Office’s being the sponsoring Department for the British Council, I did not receive a response from it; I still have not. The clear advice from the MOD, however, was that British Council staff were not eligible for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme. In the main Chamber on Monday, the Foreign Secretary questioned whether that was really the case. Nobody has a clue what is going on. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is shoddy treatment of British Council employees in Afghanistan, and that the Government need to think again—and quickly?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I absolutely agree. To hear that British Council employees are not considered eligible for the ARAP programme is devastating. Not only that, but I understand that the MOD and Government guidance to those nationals who could not be evacuated from Kabul airport has been that they should make their way to third countries. We know that in Iran, for example, the British Council is a proscribed organisation. I am sure there will be contractors who have worked for the British Council making their way there who have no knowledge of that proscribed status and who could find themselves in very difficult circumstances, were they to make it across the border.

We need to restore our ties with countries in the EU, both for relations between ourselves and to act together elsewhere. Rebuilding trust, using our soft power and, in fact, doing all those things that the British Council does are key to that. It is staggering to hear the Prime Minister talk as he does of his “global Britain” ambitions. I am not sure whether he has read his own review, because again and again, be it on girls’ education, which has seen cuts of up to 40%, the BBC, which is continually undermined, or the British Council, it seems this Government are more concerned with eroding the sources of our soft power than with strengthening them. Global Britain needs the British Council. It is extremely short-sighted to require such drastic cuts to be made to it now, in response to an extreme event, when its long-term presence is so valuable to our standing in the world.

I would be remiss—I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald)—if I did not use this opportunity to acknowledge the work done by British Council staff in response to the situation in Afghanistan. I understand that all directly employed staff and contractors are now out of the country—that might be news to the hon. Member—but that a decision will shortly be made about previous contractors. I know that staff at the British Council have been working around the clock to provide assistance, and I thank them for that. Can the Minister, as previously requested, provide an update about the status of this group, their eligibility for ARAP—because if our understanding is correct, and they are not eligible, that is very concerning—and what assistance will be provided to them and others in reaching the UK via third countries?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams]

I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member here today to discuss the British Council. We discussed it in the main Chamber quite recently, and I am more than happy to do so again. Members are very welcome to come into the FCDO and meet me and our soft-power team, who work incredibly closely with the British Council. Clearly, changes such as staffing are operational matters for the council itself. We understand that it is working incredibly hard to restore its commercial operations and to maximise its revenues. It is a particularly difficult time.

While we have had to make difficult decisions across all Departments and in other areas, we are increasing the money we are providing to the British Council. Never has there been a clearer endorsement by the Government of the British Council and the important soft-power role it plays. However, the unprecedented impact of the pandemic has forced the Government to take tough but necessary decisions about the British Council’s global presence. It has reinforced the need for the council to do more to adapt to a changing world. As the interim chief executive of the British Council said at the time, the British Council will stop spending grant-in-aid funding in 11 countries and will deliver grant-in-aid programming through offices for a further nine countries.

Let me re-emphasise that decisions on presence were taken only after a thorough assessment alongside the British Council of how the council’s priorities link with the Government’s foreign policy objective, as set out in the IR, as well as how the British Council can achieve the greatest impact.

In the debate in the main Chamber, some said that the British Council can make a meaningful impact only with an office in-country. That, frankly, is incorrect. I said in June that it would be a strategic mistake to judge the impact of the British Council in a digital world by its physical presence. This crisis—the pandemic—has changed the way we all operate, and the British Council has done an excellent job.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

We returned to Westminster this week and to business as usual—in 2019, when I was elected as an MP, I did not really know what normal was—and I am sure everybody here has really benefitted from a physical presence. I absolutely understand that the British Council needs to look at different ways of delivering its services, but does the Minister agree that sometimes you absolutely cannot beat face-to-face contact and being there physically?

[Nigel Adams]

I do. In an ideal world, that is the case, but there are services that can be delivered digitally. Since the pandemic, the British Council has done a brilliant job of turning around its business model. It is rapidly expanding its digital services in response to the covid crisis. As an example, a year after the pandemic forced us into lockdown last March, there were over 80,000 students learning English online with the British Council. There were nearly 10 million visitors recorded across its online English language platforms, which is an incredibly impressive transformation in a short time.

The British Council has also continued to deliver its excellent cultural programmes and events digitally during the pandemic. It launched its Culture Connects Us programme—a digital online campaign about the value of culture for international connections and exchange. I personally had the pleasure of taking part in an online session with leading figures from the UK and Japanese cultural sectors as part of the UK and Japan season that the British Council headed up.

There is no doubt that the British Council can maintain impact through digital delivery. I understand what the hon. Member for North East Fife says, but we will continue to support the council to invest in this area. It has a proven track record now of maintaining impact through digital delivery. We are confident that investing further in that will serve to enhance its offer.

The changes to its presence are necessarily accompanied by further measures to streamline and enhance the council’s governance structures. We have agreed with the council a new set of key performance indicators and targets, and measures to update the council’s charitable objectives to focus on its core mission. I am delighted that Scott McDonald, who I met online prior to appointment and have since met physically, has now taken up his role as chief executive of the British Council. I have no doubt that he, alongside the exceptional chairman, Stevie Spring, will provide the strong leadership needed to put the British Council on a steady footing for the future.

I am conscious that we are nearly at the two-minute stage, Ms Rees. To summarise, we are absolutely committed to ensuring the future success of the British Council. We have provided a strong rescue and reform package to support it through the pandemic and to enhance its governance structure. It is important that the British Council can make the most impact in a changing world. It will continue to operate in over 100 countries and the FCDO will ensure that it can continue to play a leading role in promoting UK soft power and all our integrated objectives.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

Unfortunately, in 30-minute debates the Member in charge does not have two minutes at the end to respond. I am sorry for the disappointment.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

It is my first Westminster Hall debate.

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Lady could make a two-minute intervention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

AMR is one of the most pressing global challenges we face this century, and the UK is a global leader in taking action on AMR. We champion it as a priority on the international stage, including through our G7 presidency and the work of Professor Dame Sally Davies, the UK’s special envoy on AMR. Since 2014, we have invested more than £360 million in research and development on AMR.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]]

  I and many of my constituents are horrified by the increasing hostility and outright homophobia and transphobia shown by the Hungarian Government towards their LGBT+ citizens. It is shameful that the UK Government are treating Viktor Orbán like a close friend when we should be making clear that such discrimination is anathema to British values. Does the Secretary of State regret the decision to roll out the red carpet to Viktor Orbán and welcome him into No. 10 just a few weeks ago?

[Wendy Morton]

The Prime Minister did indeed meet Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán on 28 May. Co-operation with Hungary, as the incoming president of the Visegrad Group from 1 July, is important for the UK’s prosperity and security. As hon. Members would expect, the Prime Minister raised various values in his meeting, such as media freedom and issues of discrimination. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that where we have issues of concern, we do not shy away from raising them.

Human Rights Update

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to her for her eloquent and tenacious role as a champion for freedom of religion and belief, and as the Prime Minister’s special envoy. She is right that we should do this as a point of principle because it is the right thing to do, but she is also right to say that liberal democracies that respect, more or less, freedom of religion or belief, and other principles of open societies, are easier to trade with and resolve problems with, and that we are less likely to find ourselves in conflict or dispute with them.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is good to see action finally being taken with regard to the atrocities being perpetrated in Xinjiang. I urge the Foreign Secretary to take further steps regarding the situation in Hong Kong. Last week, it was reported that Lord Neuberger will remain on the Hong Kong court of final appeal for another three years. Does the Secretary of State accept that such decisions risk legitimising China’s failure to abide by its international commitments, and will he agree that it is no longer appropriate for UK judges to sit in Hong Kong courts?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising a really important point. I have had discussions about this not just with the Lord Chancellor, but with the President of the Supreme Court. We have agreed a common set of principles that should apply. The challenge is whether, by removing UK judges wholesale, we would actually be removing a moderating impact on the way in which the national security legislation is applied. I hope the hon. Lady will know that the Hong Kong Bar and other countries around the world have suggested to us that they would prefer those international judges to stay. With one narrow exception, I do not think that any other country has removed its judges. We are very much seized of the issue, and I hope that my answer demonstrates that.

Treatment of Uyghur Women: Xinjiang Detention Camps

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. If China has nothing to hide and claims again today that these allegations are false, there is absolutely no excuse for unfettered access not being granted to the UN human rights commissioner, and we have constantly called for that to happen.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this urgent question, but it is the third urgent question we have had on the treatment of Uyghurs, and indeed the Foreign Secretary made a statement on the issue not three weeks ago. I reiterate the comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) that thoughts and prayers are no longer sufficient. What else do the Government and their international partners require to take action?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are taking action. We have taken action with regard to Xinjiang. We have raised this directly with the Chinese authorities; the Foreign Secretary has raised it with his direct counterpart, and I have raised it with China’s ambassador—now the former ambassador—to the UK. We announced a series of measures in January, and we funded the research that helped build the evidence base for what is going on in Xinjiang. We will continue to work not just on our own but with our international partners to ensure that China is held to its international obligations.

Hong Kong: Sentencing of Pro-democracy Activists

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

We regularly raise our concerns directly with the Hong Kong authorities in this regard. We are very concerned about the arrest of Jimmy Lai and others. Normally, we do not provide consular assistance to dual nationals in the country of their other nationality. China does not recognise dual nationality. It is therefore impossible to be granted permission to provide consular assistance.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Joshua Wong has been imprisoned for over a year for participating in an unauthorised protest. Under the Government’s current immigration rules, that would bar him from being able to claim asylum. Will the Minister commit to following the Canadian Government and ensuring that such charges are not a barrier to vulnerable activists being able to claim asylum in the UK?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, one I think I answered earlier in response to the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who asked this urgent question. It would seem rather perverse if somebody involved in pro-democracy demonstrations were unable to claim asylum.

International Covid-19 Response: Innovation and Access to Treatment

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK Government’s role in ensuring innovation and equitable access to treatment within the international covid-19 response.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the time to have this debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who is in her place, for co-sponsoring the debate with me. We applied for the debate before the summer, but it arguably could not be more timely, given the encouraging news yesterday from the chief investigator of the University of Oxford covid vaccine trial. Results of the trial are due before the end of the year, and there is a small chance of a vaccine being available by then. I echo the comments of the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran): that is promising news, but we should not rely on a vaccine alone.

As has become increasingly clear over the course of this pandemic, a vaccine will not be a silver bullet, and for any vaccine to work effectively, we have to suppress the virus sufficiently within the general population in the first place. None the less, the production of a successful vaccine would be a landmark moment in the fight against covid-19; I recognise and commend that.

In that regard, the reality in the UK is that we are, in relative terms, fortunate. Our scientists and researchers are leading the battle through their ongoing work. We have deals in place in relation to six of the vaccine candidates currently being developed. The Government have now bought access to 340 million potential future doses of vaccine. That equates to five doses for each person in the UK. When a vaccine candidate’s efficacy is proven, we will be at the global forefront of rolling it out—with, I am sure, a particular focus on our healthcare workers and the most vulnerable in our society, many of whom, including in my constituency of North East Fife, have been shielding or taking extra precautions for some months.

As we consider our own situation, we also have to recognise that, as things stand, if a vaccine candidate is approved soon, billions of people—two thirds of the world’s population—are likely to have no access to such a vaccine until 2022 at the earliest. While we might live in hope that a vaccine will be with us in the next six months in the UK, for others, it is a matter of years. That is because, right now, access to covid vaccines is a zero-sum game. A limited number of candidates are being manufactured by a small handful of companies only, and between them, they do not have the capacity to produce dosages in the billions required at a global level.

When the world’s wealthy countries, representing about 13% of the world’s population, bought up access to 50% of future covid vaccine doses, it became very hard for the remaining 6.8 billion people on the planet to obtain the same protections. Almost inevitably, it is less affluent nations, and in particular the most vulnerable countries, that are crowded out. It is important to remember that this is not limited to vaccines, and we are not talking hypothetically about what might happen in the future. It is happening right now, because there are already huge inequalities in access to covid treatments that already exist.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is laying out clearly the inequalities in the world. I have been present in a number of debates this week in which Members have highlighted the inequalities faced by some ethnic groups and religious minorities. When it comes to receiving any covid help, they are at the end of the queue. When it comes to getting the vaccine, they will be at the very end of the end of the queue. Does she agree that those ethnic minorities and persecuted people must have an opportunity to get a vaccine?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I entirely agree with his sentiments. We have seen that those who are on the frontline, those who are marginalised in our society and those from minority backgrounds are often the most impacted, so it is even more important that we consider the treatments and vaccines that are available for them.

The two drugs that have been proven so far to help treat covid-19 are dexamethasone and remdesivir. The entire global stock of remdesivir was bought up by the United States Government during the summer, hence Donald Trump was in a position to receive the drug when he became unwell. What is left of the stock is currently accessible only at a very high price. The manufacturer, Gilead, sells it at almost £2,000 for a five-day course of treatment, yet it is believed that the cost to produce it is £7.

Fortunately, dexamethasone is widely available and a cheaply sourced steroid. If a patient suffering from covid requires ventilation, administering this drug reduces the chance of death by up to a third. That is great news and has greatly improved outcomes for patients who need to be ventilated. But for there to be a chance for that drug to be effective, there must be enough ventilators available for patients who need them, and there must be enough oxygen to supply those ventilators. Again, in some of the most vulnerable places globally, access to those things are very limited. In South Sudan, for example, a report earlier this year stated that there were only four ventilators available in the whole country—four.

This debate is not just about the cost of drugs or vaccines. It is also about the resources, technology and equipment needed to manage a pandemic successfully. Even with easily accessible and cheaper treatments, there is no equality of access internationally. As things stand, we run a serious risk that by 2022 we will inhabit a two-tier planet in terms of the pandemic response.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does she share my concern that those parts of the world where people do not have immediate access to healthcare systems also do not have furlough schemes, and people do not have the money to be able to isolate? The public health aspect is just as important as access to medicines.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I entirely agree. Dare I say it, but even the UK’s Prime Minister this week accepted that the isolate part of the test, trace and isolate system is not working. That is largely driven by the fact that people who have an economic need to continue to work will do so if the supports are not available, and that must be true in other parts of the world as well.

As I was saying, the most affluent countries will inevitably benefit, in terms of vaccines, access to treatment, some form of recovery and a return to aspects of day-to-day life, which we so miss in this place and beyond. For the majority of people in this world, that will, arguably, be a limited prospect; it would be a hollow victory indeed if we can get the virus under control while many people around the world continue to suffer. It would be a false victory, too. Let me go back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) that I mentioned at the start. In order for a vaccine to be effective, we need to suppress the virus both at home and abroad, because coronavirus does not respect national borders. No one is safe until everyone is safe. That approach has been endorsed by the UK Government. I thank them for recognising that covid-19 medical products need to be treated as global public goods and for making commitments to deliver on that.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate and apologise for the fact that we have not been able to field a Front-Bench spokesperson from the Scottish National party today. I endorse everything she is saying and the points she is making about the importance of global access to a vaccine, when it is developed. As she says, it should be treated as a common good. We have to seek assurances from the Minister that the UK Government will live up to that, given all the changes they have made to their foreign policy, with the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the risk to scrutiny from that, and the potential abolition of the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). We have to keep up that pressure on the Government, and I hope we will get a positive response from the Minister today.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

It is always good to find common ground with a fellow Scottish MP, and I absolutely endorse his comments. One reason my party was so opposed to that merger was exactly that: the UK is seen as a global leader in this regard and we do not want anything to risk the continuation of that.

I congratulate the Government on making commitments to deliver on covid medical products being treated as a public good, for example, by contributing to the covid-19 vaccine global access facility, which will help procure and equitably distribute vaccines for covid. I look forward to hearing from the Minister today, but I urge her that we must do more. We must ensure that what the Government are doing on behalf of their own citizens does not unintentionally undermine global efforts. There is simply not enough global co-ordination on equality of access, and the UK has a moral duty to engage further. It is the highest per capita buyer of future vaccine doses in the world; we have bought up 10% of potential doses, despite making up less than 1% of the global population. I wish to mention two steps—which I hope the Minister will consider and commit to—that will be vital in ensuring that equality of access for these treatments and technologies is delivered as they come to fruition.

First, the Government need to recognise that currently there are just a handful of vaccine candidates, which means that production capacity is limited. One important step the UK Government could take is to work through international institutions to help encourage reform of the patent system, given the exceptional circumstances of this pandemic. Currently, there are legal safeguards for members of the World Trade Organisation, which means that members can override patent monopolies if public health is at threat. Germany, Australia and Canada have already taken those steps. South Africa and India have also proposed at a recent WTO meeting that all intellectual property monopolies relating to covid-19 tools, medicines and vaccines should be waived. In these exceptional circumstances, the Government need to be engaging with those ideas.

It is also worth noting that many of the vaccine candidates are being produced or developed using public funds. According to the charity STOPAIDS, the cost of development of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, whose successful outcome we are all awaiting, is being covered by public money, from the UK Government and others. It is a public-funded exercise. Concerningly, STOPAIDS reports that from July next year AstraZeneca will have the ability to determine the future price of the vaccine. Given the timescales that I have outlined, as well as the ongoing uncertainty as we enter winter, with cases climbing again in many parts of the world—we are all too aware of that in this Chamber—clarity on this is essential. We cannot have nations crowded out during vaccine development and then priced out once the vaccine is available.

So much public money is being spent on covid-19 research and development, in all our interests, and it is therefore right that the Government ensure that the products created as a result of that spend are accessible to all. These reports give more weight to the idea of relaxing patents, and that leads me to my second point, which is transparency.

The Government should attach stringent conditions to future funding of covid research and development, to ensure that public money is not being invested into products that will go on to generate exorbitant profits for their owners who, as a result of public funding, have developed a vaccine at low or no cost or limited risk. Those steps will also help to speed up research and development, and will arguably make products more affordable, enabling generic competition, driving prices down and ensuring that people from all over the globe, from the wealthiest nations to the most disadvantaged, can access covid treatments in a swift and timely manner. I hope that the Minister will take those issues into consideration.

The developing situation of what is almost a vaccine nationalism must end. Let us start to engage even more fully with multilateral institutions and our allies. Let us work together to ensure that, this time next year, we are celebrating a pandemic in abeyance worldwide, rather than still being in the shadow of this deadly virus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank all Members who contributed to the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). A year ago, I was commencing a career break at the start of the general election campaign. On my election to this place—I dare say it was the same for all Members here—none of us foresaw what was coming in 2020.

I remember speaking in my former role as the Liberal Democrats’ International Development spokesperson about the real concern that covid-19 was going to rip through the global south. In some respects, we have not seen that, for a variety of reasons, including the younger populations in some of those countries. That is a positive thing. However, we do not understand the impact of things such as long covid or the mutations that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon talked about. Although the debate has rightly focused on the vaccine, we have to acknowledge that the public health infrastructure and access to other treatments is a real issue in developing countries and will make the delivery of vaccines more difficult.

The UK is a global leader in this area and has been for a number of years. I note the Minister’s commendable actions to date, but it is clear that there are still key steps to be taken. It is also clear that other countries are now taking those steps, on issues such as patents, waivers and support for the World Health Organisation’s C-TAP—covid-19 technology access pool—which, without UK support, risks being undermined. I thank the Minister, but it is clear that there is much still to do, rather than just giving assurances. We need key commitments and sign-ups, and it is clear that opposition Members will continue to press for those.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the UK Government’s role in ensuring innovation and equitable access to treatment within the international covid-19 response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does as one of the leading parliamentarians and Select Committee members, and indeed, Chairs. The normal position that the Government take is that Select Committees ought to shadow Departments, but having said that, the representation is ultimately for the House to decide. I welcome all the scrutiny; he will know that we have not only affirmed the role of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact in providing scrutiny and accountability on aid decisions, but I want to review it to make sure that it is focused on what adds the most value and that its critical analysis is followed by practical recommendations.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Government embarked on and rushed through an unnecessary and expensive merger of the FCO and DFID right at the time when UK aid is needed most overseas. Despite repeated requests from my office, it appears that the Government either do not know what the merger will cost or are not willing to say. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether or not any estimate of merger costs was made prior to the merger’s announcement in June?

[Dominic Raab]

First, on the issue of timing, covid has shown precisely why we need to integrate more in respect of our international endeavours. That was true in relation to the combination between research for a vaccine, the Gavi summit and the misinformation that was asked about earlier. On the cost of the merger, we would envisage that, notwithstanding our commitment to 0.7%, over the long term—over the course of the comprehensive spending review—we can make considerable savings on administrative costs as we streamline, fuse and synergise the various different aspects of the previous Departments.

Official Development Assistance

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate. I wonder whether the title of “estimates day debate” has ever been so appropriate, given the uncertainty around official development assistance over the next two years.

The Secretary of State for International Development said on Monday there would be £2 billion of cuts, but we do not know where they will fall, and I know from my engagement that there is huge concern across the sector about what criteria are being used to make the cuts. And this is playing out at a time when, according to the Secretary of State herself, coronavirus could undo 30 years of the UK’s international development work. We are only as covid-secure here in the UK as the most affected country globally. The failure to ring-fence the programmes that protect the most vulnerable in this moment of crisis should be a legacy that no member of the Government can take pride in.

I am afraid that this lack of clarity typifies the Government’s approach to this deeply misguided merger. There is so little consistency in their rhetoric. The Foreign Secretary tells us that we are committed to DAC rules, while the Prime Minister says we are giving too much aid to Tanzania and Zambia. We are told that poverty reduction will remain a central focus, but the Government will not rule out making changes to the primary legislation that underpins the direction of ODA spending. They make noises in favour of transparency yet will not commit to ICAI, and the hon. Member for Rotherham is informed that her Committee will shut down in September. My worry is that the Government’s manner in conducting the merger typifies how they will seek to direct ODA in the future: little transparency and no accountability, departments unable to articulate how their ODA spend is allocated, decisions taken by a tiny executive with no consultation.

This really matters. The 0.7%, enshrined in law by a Liberal Democrat private Member’s Bill, represents a huge commitment of taxpayers’ money, and it is vital that it is spent properly, because that means value for money for people in the UK, and it means that where our aid is delivered, we know it actually delivers. The Prime Minister chose to denigrate DFID as a “cashpoint in the sky”, but that talk is cheap and betrays a total lack of understanding of the expertise within DFID and of what Professor Myles Wickstead called

“the thought, effort and commitment that has gone into aid and development programmes”.

That expertise must be maintained.

Of course, ensuring our aid spending is effective is about more than just value for money; there are real concerns about safeguarding, and we have heard nothing about what that will look like. We are rightly appalled at the lapses in behaviour from senior people in NGOs, and we need to be reassured that such things will not reoccur. These are exactly the kind of things that disengage taxpayers from aid in the first place.

I have spoken about the frameworks that need to be in place in order to ensure that our aid spending is world leading—that it is transparent, subject to scrutiny, driven by expertise, and with safeguarding at its heart—but there is also the question of what we choose to prioritise within our aid budget. Poverty reduction is crucial. Will the Government commit to spending at least 50% of aid in the most vulnerable countries? As my recent urgent question made clear, I think this merger is totally unnecessary. There are a number of commitments that the Government have yet to make, and I hope that the Minister will offer some further assurances.

Xinjiang: Uyghurs

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue. I can confirm that, as I have said previously, we want to secure growth and investment for the UK, but upholding human rights and our values is not a zero-sum choice. We believe that political freedom and the rule of law are vital underpinnings for both long-run prosperity and stability. By having a strong relationship with China, we are able to have open discussions on a range of very difficult issues, including human rights.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Can the Minister outline what steps his Department is taking to help ensure that the United Nations Human Rights Council takes some decisive action, including setting up a special rapporteur or similar to better monitor and report on the Chinese Government’s treatment of the Uyghurs?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue. At the risk of repeating ourselves, we have been on the front foot and very active in playing a leading role on this issue at the UN. I suspect that the last communication we had via Lord Ahmad with regard to Xinjiang will not be the last conversation we have on the issue.