Bambos Charalambous MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 6 Feb 2025 · Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The lack of investment as a result of debt servicing leads to people seeking opportunities that are not available in their own country, so I totally agree with my hon. Friend on that point. Before I conclude, I thank CAFOD, Christian Aid, Debt Justice, UNICEF and Save the Children for their excellent briefings ahead of this debate, and for their support in relation to debt cancellation. I conclude with these questions for the Minister. Will the Government support my ten-minute rule Bill to prevent private creditors from being able to sue for enforcement in the UK courts for more than has been agreed in relation to debt relief with bilateral and multilateral lenders? Does the Minister agree that there should be comparable treatment for all creditors? Also, do the Government support a public global debt register for transparency? Does the Minister support the reform of the governance of the institutions, such as the IMF, that set the terms and conditions of bail-outs? The UK has a unique position in being able to use its global reputation to bring about change on the international stage in relation to debt cancellation, as it did 25 years ago. We led the way then, and it is time to do so again. We cannot afford not to. The global south is looking to us for action, and it is time for us to act.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come to that later in my speech, but she is absolutely right. We need to treat private creditors in the same way we treat bilateral and multilateral creditors. Private credit schemes are proving to be very lucrative deals for private creditors. In 2023 alone, private creditors received $68 billion more in interest and repayments from low-income countries than they had actually lent to them. That in itself is bad enough; what is worse is that when a defaulting country seeks debt relief there is nothing to compel private creditors to agree to be bound by any agreement reached by multilateral and bilateral creditors. In fact, there is no obligation to compel them to act in good faith or at all. One stark example is the case of Sri Lanka. In 2022, Sri Lanka defaulted on its sovereign debt, which led to the most serious economic crisis in the country’s history. Sri Lanka sought debt relief from its creditors, with 47% of it owned by private creditors. Despite reaching an agreement with its bilateral creditors, the private creditors refused to accept any debt relief and sued Sri Lanka in the US courts to prioritise their debts. As a result, the private creditors will receive 30% more in debt repayments than the bilateral creditors, while Sri Lanka had to seek a bailout from the IMF. Sri Lanka will have to slash its public sector spending and spend 30% of its Government revenue on debt repayments, which the IMF regards as unsustainable. It is morally repugnant that private creditors behave in such a way, deliberately hampering the ability of a low-income country to get back on its feet at a time of crisis. Sri Lanka is not alone in its experience at the hands of private lenders. Following the covid pandemic the G20, realising that international debt needed to be urgently dealt with, set up its common framework for debt treatments as the main global framework for dealing with resolving debt crises. The expectation was that all creditors would co-operate in collectively agreeing debt relief for countries that sought relief under the framework. Despite progress being made with bilateral and multilateral creditors, Chad and Zambia, which both sought debt relief under the framework, found that their private creditors would either drag negotiations out or offer debt relief that was significantly less than what was agreed with the bilateral or multilateral creditors. Chad failed to get any debt relief from its main private creditor, the UK-based company Glencore, and Glencore will be repaid 50% more than Government creditors. Zambia had been negotiating a debt relief agreement for more than four years when it finally reached agreement with bondholders. One of the private companies was paid 13% more than Governments, including the UK, while other private lenders, including UK-based Standard Chartered and Investec, are still to agree debt relief with Zambia. Ethiopia and Ghana have experienced similar behaviour from private creditors. The behaviour of private creditors is contrary to the spirit of the framework and has resulted in a loss of confidence in the framework’s efficacy among other debtor countries. To date, only four countries have sought relief under the framework. The truth is that private creditors have no incentive to agree to debt relief, because if they hold out, they get the interest payments and principal repayments as agreed. If there is a default, they can sue in the UK or US courts for enforcement action against the defaulting country, which will also be lucrative for them. For private creditors, it is a win-win situation; for low-income countries, it is lose-lose. Expecting private creditors to voluntarily enter into debt relief arrangements is like telling an alcoholic not to have a drink. Urgent legislation is required to compel private creditors to enter into and be bound by debt relief agreements. I have talked a lot so far about sums of money, but we must remember the human cost of investment not going to low-income countries as a result of debt re-servicing—for example, the rise in infant mortality due to cuts in health spending. UNICEF has stated that if a country has defaulted on debt repayments that remain unresolved for more than three years, the infant mortality level rises by 11.4% over that same period. Chronic under-investment in education leads to a less skilled, less healthy and less productive workforce, resulting in a lost generation, making it harder for them to escape poverty. So what needs to be done to resolve the debt crisis? In its excellent 2023 report entitled “Debt relief in low-income countries”, the International Development Committee came up with some recommendations. The first such measure would be the reform of the governance of financial institutions that control international debt, such as the IMF. The conditions imposed by the IMF on debt bail-outs often have dire effects and make things worse for the debtor country by placing more emphasis on the short-term repayment of debt, rather than on the long-term infrastructure development of a country that could provide it with lasting security and protection from indebtedness. Secondly, there is a need to create a level playing field by passing legislation to compel private creditors to actively participate in the debt relief process by preventing them from suing for more money than they would get if they accepted debt relief on the same terms as other lenders. In 2010, the Labour Government passed the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act, which did exactly that for debt that was owed prior to 2004. My ten-minute rule Bill is an updated version of the 2010 Act. As more than 90% of bonds owed by countries eligible for debt relief are issued in the UK, it would have a significant impact on low-income countries and could be transformative in allowing money spent on servicing debt to go into health and education systems and to be spent on the environment. It would cost the Treasury nothing and, at a time when aid spending is seeing little if any increase, it would be a sure way of getting money to the most vulnerable countries. There is no justification for treating private creditors differently from other lenders. Thirdly, there needs to be a public global debt register to record the details of all global sovereign debt. The need for transparency is urgent, and it would help populations in debtor countries to hold their Governments to account over entering agreements with predatory private creditors. Fourthly, there should be a framework for the automatic cancellation of debt servicing when highly indebted countries are hit by catastrophic events such as climate-related disasters like Storm Beryl. It cannot be right that while a climate-vulnerable country is struggling to get back on its feet, it is forced to make debt-servicing payments. Instead of making these countries apply to international institutions for debt cancellation, debt cancellation should be automatic. Given that in 2024 the total external debt serviced by all African countries was $104 billion, of which $47 billion was owed to private creditors, and the entire UK aid budget to Africa was £993 million, something needs to change; otherwise we are just servicing the debt owed to private creditors.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Dr Ward and Professor Hoyano, we heard yesterday evidence about the interplay between assisted dying, the Equality Act 2010 and the European convention on human rights. Should amendments be made to the Bill to deal with those issues? What are your thoughts about the interaction between those pieces of legislation and the Bill? Dr Ward: I heard the session yesterday and would agree with the comments that were made there, particularly around proportionality. Article 2 is an absolute right —the right to life—whereas article 8 is a qualified right. Again, it is about that balancing act. The courts have been very clear that we need to protect vulnerable people, and I feel strongly that the Bill straddles that very well by giving choice but in a very limited set of circumstances. On the Equality Act, there have been some claims made—this happened in Scotland—that the definition of disability in the Equality Act would cover people who are terminally ill. That that is not my reading of it, and that position is widely shared by the people advising us in Scotland on the legal capacity. That is all I have to say. Professor Hoyano: I would only point out to the Committee that the common law entrenched the human rights of the patient a long time before the Human Rights Act 1998. We must remember that we do not just have to look at the European convention and Strasbourg. The common law has been very active in entrenching fundamental principles of the rights of the patient, particularly their autonomy in decision making regarding their own body, since long before the HRA.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Following on from what Mr Porter said about the provision of hospices, we are blessed with some wonderful hospices in north London that provide fantastic facilities. I agree with Mr Royston about the need for an assessment of palliative care funding right now; that is important. The fact about the funding is quite shocking. One of the local hospices has something that has been nicknamed a “death café”, where people get to discuss the end of life in a setting with friends and family members. On the issue of ethnic minorities not accessing services, what are your thoughts on being able to have settings where they can discuss different options at the end of care, get the support they need and make properly informed choices about the end of life? That question is to the whole panel.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This is a question to Professor House. I know you are opposed to the Bill, but if it were to pass, what role do you see for psychiatrists in a multidisciplinary approach? Professor House: It is a difficult question, isn’t it? I have already said that there is an element of assessment that is needed here—that is not currently acknowledged very much in the Bill—of somebody’s psychological state. I say “psychological state”, which has these elements to it, one of which is the presence of diagnosable mental disorder—the top of the list of importance is depression, which is well known, particularly in the elderly, not to be that easy. Older people do not express distress necessarily as openly and obviously as younger people do. There is an element of the psychological bit of assessment, which you could call psychiatric assessment, that attempts to identify and diagnose mental disorders, particularly depressive disorders. That is particularly difficult in the elderly because they are sometimes what is called “masked”. There is then the element, which is mentioned in the Bill, of the difficulty at times of judging somebody’s mental capacity. The trouble with the ideas of incapacity and coercion, both of which float around a lot, is that they suggest a very high threshold. There is this middle ground, which we have just been hearing about, with a degree of impairment of judgment, or bias in judgment because of what is going on. Those are the sorts of areas where you would want a mental health professional and probably a psychiatrist, but a psychiatrist with a particular interest in this sort of area.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question is about how the legislation is going and how you have implemented it. What changes have you made since it began? What teething problems did you find as you were going along? What adjustments have you made to your process? Dr Spielvogel: The original version was called the End of Life Option Act. It legalised assisted dying in California when it went into effect in 2016. It was then amended in 2021, I believe; the effect of the main amendment was to shorten the waiting period. There was a 14-day mandatory waiting period between two verbal requests that a patient would give directly to their physician. What we found when we were studying it was that approximately 30% of people died during the waiting period. There were many conversations with patients. The thought process behind the waiting period is that somebody is making a persistent, well-thought-out and non-capricious decision when they are asking for this, but there is a false premise there— [ Interruption. ]

• 28 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  May I put the same question to Dr Kaan? Dr Kaan: You will know that throughout the United States there are a variety of aid in dying laws, all of them slightly different across jurisdictions. I practise in both the state of Oregon and the state of Washington, so I have to keep track of two slightly different laws. In the state of Washington, where I am the medical director for End of Life Washington, we updated our law in 2023, mostly because we were trying to increase access to it for people who lived in rural communities or for people in underserved communities. Any healthcare system in the world right now has experienced a shortage of physicians, so the requirement for two physicians to do the certification was a barrier for people in those communities that did not have access to two physicians. One of the things we did to increase access in 2023 was to make it so that one of the two providers could be a non-physician: a physician assistant or a nurse practitioner with advanced training. One of the providers still needs to be a qualified physician, but that has increased access for those in rural communities and underserved communities. We are very proud of the fact that we have done that. Additionally, we shortened our waiting period for similar reasons, from 15 days down to seven days. In Oregon, they shortened their waiting period. Well, they still have a 15-day waiting period, which has been stable since the start in 1997, but they also now have a provision whereby, if a patient is expected to die within those 15 days—if they are at the very end of their life and are not expected to be able to survive those 15 days—they can bypass the waiting period. I really like that provision, because there are patients who come very late in their process to this decision. It may not seem like much to us, who are healthy and relatively well, but 15 days for a dying person who is suffering and really wants this option is an incredibly long time.

• 23 Jan 2025 · International Day of Education · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a very positive debate, and it is great that there is cross-party support on this important issue. I thank all Members for their contributions and the Minister for her positive response. I look forward to how that investment from the Government is taken forward to build on the previous Government’s commitment to education. The Minister is obviously a passionate advocate for education, and will want to see the fruits of the investments and steps the Government are taking to achieve SDG4 as soon as possible. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the International Day of Education.

• 23 Jan 2025 · International Day of Education · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. SDG4 should not be seen in isolation. We need to target a number of SDG goals to make sure children receive the education they need. Water and sanitation is clearly one of the top ones that we need to target. I thank my hon. Friend for making such an excellent point. I conclude by saying that education is a beacon of hope in the darkest of times. It is the key to breaking cycles of poverty, fostering peace and building resilient societies. As we mark the UN International Day of Education, let us reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that every child, regardless of their circumstances, has access to quality education. The challenges are immense, but with a collective will and concerted action, we can turn the tide. The UK has both the responsibility and the capacity to lead in this endeavour. Let us seize the moment to make a lasting difference in the lives of millions of children worldwide.

• 23 Jan 2025 · International Day of Education · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the International Day of Education. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Tomorrow, Friday 24 January, we mark the United Nations International Day of Education. As we do so, we will be reminded of the transformative power of education. It is the cornerstone upon which societies are built, economies are strengthened and individuals are empowered. Education is not merely a privilege; it is a fundamental human right. Article 28 of the UN convention on the rights of the child enshrines that right. However, as we reflect on our global commitments, particularly sustainable development goal 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and to promote lifelong learning opportunities for all, we must confront the stark reality that progress has been uneven and significant challenges remain if we are to reach SDG 4 targets. In considering the progress towards some of the SDG 4 targets, I will focus first on target 4.1: “By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.” Since the adoption of the 2030 agenda, strides have been made in expanding access to education, and enrolment rates in primary education have increased globally. According to the UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report 2024, 110 million more children and youths have entered school since SDG 4 was adopted in 2015, and there is a growing recognition of the importance of quality education, with 40 million more young people completing secondary education today than in 2015. However, those achievements mask deep disparities. According to UNESCO, approximately 251 million children and youths are still out of school worldwide, which means that since 2015 the out-of-school population has reduced by only 1%. Some 33% of out-of-school children and youths are from low-income countries, in contrast to only 3% from high-income countries, and over half of all out-of-school children and youths are in sub-Saharan Africa. We have also seen the terrible impact of the policies of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which have deprived girls of their right to education. Urgent action must be taken by the international community to ensure that these regional disparities are urgently addressed if we are to meet the SDG 4.1 target. Crises such as conflicts, natural disasters and public health emergencies pose formidable barriers to education. In 2016, 75 million children did not have access to quality education due to forced displacement, humanitarian crises and climate change events. Nine years later, that figure has trebled to 224 million. Even children who do have access to school are not learning the basics, with over half those children—127 million—not meeting the minimum standards of literacy and numeracy. There has been a regression in meeting both SDG 4.5, which is about eliminating all discrimination in education including for children in vulnerable education settings, and SDG 4.6, which is about ensuring all youths achieve a minimum standard of literacy and numeracy. That is deeply worrying, with UNICEF reporting that 70% of children in low and middle-income countries are unable to read a simple story by the age of 10. The root cause of these crises, which disrupt education, needs to be tackled by the international community. UNICEF estimates that climate change alone disrupts the education of nearly 40 million children every year. In countries affected by emergencies, children lose access to safe drinking water, healthcare and food, alongside their education. Schools, which should be sanctuaries of learning, are often the targets of attacks. Between 2015 and 2019, attacks on education were reported in 93 countries. More recently, in Gaza ongoing conflicts have devastated educational infrastructure and left more than 1 million children in Gaza in dire need of educational support. In Sudan, more than 17 million children are not in education, and schools are often used to house displaced children. In the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, more than 1.3 million children are out of school because of an escalation of violence, and children also risk being killed, maimed, abducted, abandoned and recruited into armed groups. Closer to home, the impact of the war in Ukraine has also had a devastating effect on children’s education. Organisations such as Education Cannot Wait have been instrumental in addressing those challenges. As the global fund dedicated to education in emergencies, Education Cannot Wait works to ensure that children in crisis settings receive uninterrupted education. Its multi-year resilience programme and emergency first responses have reached millions of children worldwide. Adequate financing is pivotal to achieving SDG4, yet education often receives less than 3% of humanitarian aid. According to research by UNICEF, children-focused overseas development aid fell by 56% from 2016 to 2022; in the UK, it fell from 11% to a shocking 4% over the same period. The International Parliamentary Network for Education estimates that the annual financing gap for achieving SDG4 is £100 billion. The funding gap is exacerbated by the debt burdens of low and middle-income countries; in some cases, the interest owed to private creditors is more than those countries’ entire education budgets. Christian Aid’s report “Between life and debt” found that 25 African countries spend more on repaying debt than they do on their education budgets, including in Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Zambia and Malawi. Unless there are international structural changes to tackle unsustainable debt, education in low-income countries will never get fixed, and that will hamper efforts to provide quality education, particularly in low-income countries and crisis-affected regions. Education is one of the most underfunded areas of humanitarian law, receiving only approximately 3% of international humanitarian funding. That is clearly not enough. One of the central tenets of achieving SDG4 is teachers. There is a global shortage of teachers: the National Education Union estimates that roughly 44 million additional teachers will be required, 15 million of those in sub-Saharan Africa, to meet sustainable development goals for education. To achieve that ambition, we need a new global teacher strategy to train, recruit and retain qualified teachers in the global south. In many low-income countries, there are huge pressures on teachers, including with regard to working conditions, class sizes and equipment. Teachers are also often the victims of attacks, and in some instances they are denied regular pay. The UN has recognised this as an important issue, especially in low-income countries with fragile economies. A key recommendation of the UN high-level panel on the teaching profession was the creation of a global fund for teachers’ salaries, so that children can continue to receive education during crises. I have a number of questions for the Minister before I conclude. The first relates to international education aid. Will the Government bolster their financial contributions to global education initiatives and ensure that funds are directed towards the most marginalised and crisis-affected children? That would include supporting organisations such as Education Cannot Wait and UNICEF, which are on the frontlines of delivering education in emergencies. Breaking down barriers to opportunity was one of the Labour party’s key missions. Will the Minister confirm that as aid funding for education aligns with that mission, education will receive the priority it deserves? I also want to ask the Minister about advocacy for safe schools. As I mentioned earlier, a significant factor in children’s not receiving education is conflict. Can the Minister advise me whether the Government will champion the protection of educational institutions in conflict zones? By supporting the safe schools declaration and advocating for the adherence to international humanitarian law, we can work towards ending attacks on education. As I mentioned earlier, teachers are the backbone of education systems. Providing them with adequate training, resources and support, especially in emergency contexts, is crucial, as is ensuring they are paid for the work they do in very difficult circumstances. Do the Government support the creation of a global fund for teachers’ salaries to help pay for teachers in conflict areas? Finally, on the promotion of inclusive education, children with disabilities are doubly disadvantaged in receiving education in crises. Can the Minister advise whether the Government will support programmes that target providing education for children with disabilities in crises?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Hospice and Palliative Care · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) on securing this important and timely debate. The provision of hospices and palliative care is an essential part of our nation’s health service, playing a unique and vital role in our communities and often providing services that the NHS simply cannot cater for. We are very fortunate in north London to be served by two amazing hospices. North London hospice and Noah’s Ark children’s hospice provide extraordinary end of life care, comfort and dignity for individuals and their families in Enfield, Barnet and Haringey. I have had the pleasure of visiting both, and I have seen at first hand the exceptional services they provide. North London hospice supports over 4,000 people each year. Its services range from in-patient care to community-based support that allows people to die at home, if that is their wish. It also provides counselling, support and wellbeing therapies. Its community engagement is excellent, and I had the pleasure of attending its compassionate neighbours event in December. Through the programme, community volunteers befriend and support individuals at the end of their life, providing friendship and help with chores on a regular basis. Similarly, Noah’s Ark children’s hospice, which I visited on Friday, provides a lifeline for children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions. Its hospice at home service allows children to receive care in familiar surroundings, which is often invaluable for families. I doubt that the services and facilities it provides can be bettered. These organisations are models of good practice, but they are indicative of the challenges faced by hospices in England. Both face financial challenges to keep going, and the extraordinary work done by their fundraising teams should be highly commended. North London hospice has £16 million of running costs every year and could not provide its current services without donations and fundraising. It was an honour to raise funds for that hospice when I ran the London marathon in April last year, as did many other people to raise money. My time was five hours, 51 minutes. Noah’s Ark children’s hospice has to find a staggering £6.5 million a year to keep going and has even talked me into doing some fundraising, although I politely declined the skydiving option, as fun runs are more my choice of activity for fundraising. The additional £100 million of capital investment for hospices announced by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is very welcome, as is the £26 million for children and young people’s hospices. However, demand for palliative care is expected to rise by 25% over the next 25 years so the funding model for hospices needs to be resolved for the long term. Although the NHS provides some financial support, that typically accounts for only a fraction of their costs. Moreover, the process of accessing public funding through integrated care boards is fraught with challenges. Hospices must navigate a labyrinth of bureaucracy to secure funding that has often already been allocated to them. Delays, inconsistencies and a lack of transparency in decision making can leave hospices in financial limbo. We have all seen the extraordinary fundraising efforts undertaken by hospices, but while those activities are inspiring, they also highlight a stark reality: hospices are being asked to do too much with too little. The current funding model creates a sense of perpetual precarity, where even a slight downturn in donations could have devastating consequences for patients and families. The question we must ask ourselves is this: do we, as a society, truly value the care that hospices provide? If the answer is yes, we must reflect that value in our policies and funding structures. That means increasing NHS funding for hospices so they are not forced to depend so heavily on charity; streamlining the process of accessing funds through ICBs, with clear timelines and accountability; and recognising the unique challenges faced by children’s hospices by providing them with the additional support that they need. In conclusion, hospices such as the North London hospice and Noah’s Ark children’s hospice exemplify the best of what we can achieve as a society. They are places of compassion, expertise and hope, but they cannot continue to operate under the current financial and bureaucratic pressures. We owe it to them—and to the people they serve—to provide the support that they need to thrive. Let us ensure that hospices have the resources they need to continue their vital work—not just today, but for generations to come.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The year 2025 is a jubilee year, which is a motivation for many Christian organisations and others to campaign to cancel the debts of global south countries and tackle the root causes of the endless debt crisis. More than 3.3 billion people live in countries where more is spent on servicing debt than on health and education combined, so might we have a debate in Government time on debt relief for low-income and debt-distressed countries?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Impact of Conflict on Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on her excellent speech. One of the consequences of war and conflict is disruption to education. The educational void is catastrophic, not just for girls themselves but for their families, communities and nations, too. A lack of education for girls also undermines peacebuilding. Studies show that educated women are key to rebuilding post-conflict societies, participating in governance, and preventing the resurgence of violence. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must champion the protection of education in conflict zones and hold Governments and militias to account when they attack schools or use them for military purposes?