Bambos Charalambous
MP for Southgate and Wood Green · Labour · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The current model for our water service is not working for customers and has not been working for quite some time.”
“Thames Water is in approximately £19 billion of debt, but the rescue deal on the table is a market-led recapitalisation by its creditors that will keep the failing private ownership model intact in exchange for environmental leniency.”
“We must restore public confidence and end the era of profiting from pollution and prioritising shareholder returns over taxpayers. Our water services are too essential to be treated simply as another commercial asset.”
“I support my hon. Friend 100%. We urgently need the infrastructure, because we have seen the impact of drought and the need for hosepipe bans as a result of not having the infrastructure in place.”
“The right hon. Gentleman has talked about stretched budgets. Does he agree that we also need to address debt, because private debt is a big factor in preventing some low-income countries from investing in their health and education systems?”
“From the Boohoo scandal, involving the exploitation of workers paid £3.50 an hour in a factory in Leicester, to the Bangladesh sweatshops making our clothes, to state-imposed forced labour for the Uyghur community in China, we have never been more aware of the need to ensure that our supply chains do not involve human rights violations an…”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Bambos Charalambous, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“The right hon. Gentleman has talked about stretched budgets. Does he agree that we also need to address debt, because private debt is a big factor in preventing some low-income countries from investing in their health and education systems? It should form part of the Government’s strategy to leverage more money into debt-distressed, low-income countries.”
“For breakfast, she eats a banana grown by workers facing union-busting in Costa Rica. She checks her smartphone, built with cobalt mined by children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She makes her journey to work in a car fuelled by petrol from companies linked to threats against environmental defenders and indigenous communities in Nigeria. At hospital, she puts on gloves made in a union-busting factory in Sri Lanka, under lights powered by solar panels made with Uyghur forced labour in China, and uses surgical tools linked to child labour in Pakistan. On her break, she gets a cup of tea with a biscuit containing palm oil from Indonesia, where communities and forests have been swept away to be replaced with palm oil plantations.”
“From the Boohoo scandal, involving the exploitation of workers paid £3.50 an hour in a factory in Leicester, to the Bangladesh sweatshops making our clothes, to state-imposed forced labour for the Uyghur community in China, we have never been more aware of the need to ensure that our supply chains do not involve human rights violations and the exploitation of workers at home and abroad. Supply chains run our daily lives, but the uncertainty over where many of our daily products originate and whether they have been produced through forced labour and in inhumane conditions has wide-ranging ethical and national security implications. Here is an example to illustrate the point. This morning, a nurse in the UK woke up to prepare for her NHS shift. She wears a cotton uniform, the fibres of which were produced with Uyghur forced labour.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of safeguarding human rights in supply chains. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, particularly as you had such short notice. Globalisation and technological advances over the last few years have given us the ability to better connect across the world and improved our ability to trade globally. With increased connectivity comes increased awareness of issues and events around the world, and one issue that that increased awareness has brought into sharp focus is human rights in our country’s supply chains.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I am sure many colleagues in the Chamber will focus on the Uyghurs in their contributions, but he is right to highlight the abuse in China and the need to address it. That is the reality in UK supply chains: these products, which we use every day, are integrated into our lives. We need legislation to fix that, to prevent the abuse of human rights and the degradation of the environment.”
“With 50 million people trapped in modern slavery globally—a number that is growing every year—and labour rights under threat almost everywhere, it has never been more critical to tackle this issue head on. Without those freedoms, workers have no power to challenge inhumane conditions that exacerbate inequality and poverty, particularly for women and children. The UK was once a leader on safeguarding human rights and supply chains, but we are now falling behind. Currently, we have a patchwork of narrow legislation and guidelines on businesses and human rights that are not enforcing our moral duty to ensure that our supply chains are free from human rights abuses.”
“Our freedoms of association and collective bargaining—some of the most important rights we have—allow workers to have representation in the face of unfair treatment and to advocate for fair pay and protections against dismissal, discrimination and other unfair and inhumane conditions. The same cannot be said for workers around the world. Workers in 75% of countries are denied the right to freedom of association. In many countries, it is illegal to be a trade unionist. Coupled with attacks on freedom of speech, we have countless reports of human rights activists and environmental defenders being threatened, or even killed, when challenging or opposing abuses by large corporations.”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The lack of trade union rights globally is seriously worrying. I am a proud trade unionist, and we need to ensure that trade union rights are respected in our UK supply chains. I will come on to that shortly in my speech. Our country is the birthplace of the trade union movement. We pride ourselves on championing workers’ rights, human rights and our democratic values. Our Labour Government recently passed the Employment Rights Act 2025, the biggest reform of workers’ rights in a generation, bringing more security to millions of workers and making work pay.”
“Introducing the human rights and environmental safeguards to UK supply chains set out in my speech is not just the right thing to do economically; it is our ethical and moral duty to ensure that the protections that we enjoy in the UK are shared across the world.”
“Given the interconnectedness of human rights, labour rights and environmental harm, can she confirm that the Government will engage in meaningful action to address this issue by adopting a thorough and holistic, rather than narrow, approach to responsible business conduct? Do the Government agree that we need cross-cutting and holistic legislation to provide clarity and certainty to UK businesses, rather than a patchwork approach that burdens businesses that act responsibly while enabling irresponsible businesses to undercut them? Failure to act on human rights abuses and environmental harm will damage the resilience of our supply chains and our economy.”
“Consumers in the UK could be sure that they were shopping responsibly and not contributing to abuses around the world, and businesses could have the clarity they need in order to do the right thing. I have a few asks of the Government. Parliament continues to await the publication of two reviews set out in the trade strategy last year. Can the Minister confirm when the responsible business conduct review and the national baseline assessment will be published, the key outcomes that should be expected from those reviews, and a timeline for moving from review to action on the recommendations of each report?”
“The biggest culprit is corned beef from Brazilian companies such as JBS, which have been linked to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, the lungs of the earth. When communities lose vital access to clean water because of corporate contamination, when indigenous communities lose access to ancestral lands or when environmental defenders are threatened or killed for speaking out against mega-projects that destroy our environment, it becomes a human rights issue. New legislation must address all human rights and environmental harms in a way that provides clarity to businesses in ensuring that they are conducting themselves responsibly. The legislation needed to address those issues would protect the workers, communities and vital environments involved in producing our everyday goods.”
“We must ensure that, with new legislation on Great British Energy, home-grown energy is produced through ethical means, so that in producing energy to heat our homes, we do not contribute to the inhumane treatment of workers and communities around the world. In addressing those challenges, we cannot overlook the unbreakable link between safeguarding human rights and protecting the environment in supply chains; when there is a failure to protect one, the other suffers. UK imports of beef, soya, cocoa, rubber and palm oil—also known as forest risk commodities—have wiped out forests the size of our major cities. The UK’s deforestation footprint linked to those imports has increased to 39,000 hectares in the last few years and is likely to be higher.”
“The resilience of our economy goes hand in hand with our energy security. The conflict in the middle east and the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war, which have significantly contributed to the cost of living crisis for our constituents, have shown more clearly than ever that the UK must become energy independent and continue focusing on renewable sources of energy. However, the security of home-grown energy is exposed when we look further into its supply chain. An estimated 98% of solar panels in the UK are produced in China, predominantly in the Xinjiang region, with forced labour from the Uyghur community. Therefore, the UK is at risk of being a dumping ground for slave labour-produced solar panels.”
“The strategy also launched the responsible business conduct review—the UK’s implementation of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. A year later, Parliament is still waiting for the review to be published and scrutinised, although I very much welcome yesterday’s publication of the action plan for the supply chain centre. The trade strategy rightly recognised that strengthening responsible business conduct “is not only a moral imperative”, but “a positive part of the Government’s mission to grow the economy.” Supply chains and the need to ensure that they are free of abuses and harm are embedded in our growth mission. With modern slavery costing the UK economy £60 billion every year, we urgently need to ensure that we do not lose out on more growth, and we can do that by simply introducing new legislation.”
“By failing to update the current patchwork of legislation and guidelines, and delaying the introduction of human rights and environmental due diligence laws, we are failing workers, communities and environments integrated into our supply chains, failing UK businesses that want to do the right thing and ultimately risking the complicity of the UK economy, as well as our national security. The Government have already made it clear that supply chain resilience is critical to the UK’s economic security. In June last year, the trade strategy committed to a new supply chain centre within the Department for Business and Trade, which will play a role in supporting businesses to address the risks of forced labour in supply chains.”
“With the UK seeking a closer relationship and alignment with the EU, we must catch up. Businesses themselves have also spoken up. In the last few years, more than 150 businesses and investors, representing more than £4.5 trillion in UK assets, have publicly demanded mandatory standards. The Trades Union Congress, the Ethical Trading Initiative, the British Retail Consortium and the Corporate Justice Coalition, which collectively represent more than 350 high street brands with £800 billion in turnover, have called on the Government to introduce mandatory due diligence laws. Public support shows that people value companies that responsibly source and produce products we use every day, with four in five adults supporting new laws.”
“We can address that by introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation to hold all businesses, across all sectors, including financial institutions and the public sector, legally accountable for preventing human rights abuses and environmental harm in their supply chains. Mandatory due diligence would compel corporations to undertake proactive processes to minimise and manage the risk of violations within their operations by, for example, conducting risk assessments, requiring their suppliers to fulfil certain conditions or carrying out unannounced audits. Internationally, we are far behind our allies and partners. All other G7 nations have introduced or plan to introduce mandatory due diligence laws or import bans on goods made by forced labour. The EU is doing both.”
“Corporate giants with big money are given a free pass to escape their moral responsibilities by not even looking for any abuses present in their supply chains. At present, businesses are able to voluntarily identify, mitigate or prevent any forced labour risks found in their supply chains. Many responsible businesses in the UK want to do the right thing, but are being undercut by corporate giants and less responsible companies. Clear and enforceable rules are needed in order to provide the right guidance for businesses and level the playing field for all.”
“However, the current transparency and supply chain reporting, as set out in section 54 of the Act, is wholly inadequate, applying only to organisations with a turnover of more than £36 million, and excluding public bodies, meaning many businesses and organisations fall through the cracks. The exclusion of public bodies from the duty to report on transparency in their supply chains can leave our country’s most important agencies vulnerable to being complicit in horrific human rights abuses, which affect not only the welfare of workers globally, but the stability and growth of our economy. In addition, the transparency reporting duty can be met by an organisation simply declaring that it has taken no steps to address forced labour in its supply chains; that is simply not good enough.”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will come to in just a moment. I strongly support the strengthening of section 54 and its application. With the UK importing £20 billion-worth of high-risk goods every year, our current framework is not effective enough in preventing goods made with forced labour from entering the UK market, despite the Government’s stated position that no company operating in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chains. The Modern Slavery Act was considered world-leading legislation, as the UK was the first country in the world to introduce such legislation.”
“I hope you have a very happy birthday as well. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the matter of safeguarding human rights in supply chains.”
“We have had a great debate. There has been lots of agreement in the room, and I am sure the Minister heard the strength of feeling about what needs to be done. We would very much welcome the responsible business conduct review happening as quickly as possible. I know that it is not in the Minister’s direct brief and I know that she is a champion of international labour rights, but we need it to happen as quickly as possible. We also need to ensure that section 54 is strengthened. That has cross-party support and I am sure that we will get there eventually, but it needs to happen quickly. I look forward to having a more detailed response from the Department in due course. Mr Dowd, thank you again for stepping into the breach at the last minute and allowing this debate to proceed. We could not have done it without you.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech. Our high streets are more than just places to shop. They are at the heart of our communities; they are places where people meet, local businesses grow and neighbourhoods come to life. That is why illicit activity on our high streets not only undermines the honest businesses that work hard to serve the community but makes people feel unsafe in their communities. They see illicit activity go unchecked and feel powerless.”
“To do so, we need to use all the weapons at our disposal to cut out once and for all the cancer of illicit and criminal activity.”
“As we work to tackle the criminality on some of our high streets, we must ask how we can prevent it from taking root in the first place. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government are considering giving greater powers to local authorities and trading standards officers to tackle illicit activity on our streets? What steps she is taking to ensure that there is greater co-ordination in Government and at local level? I welcome all the changes that the Government are making to protect our high streets from illicit activity, including the extension of closure order powers. However, more needs to be done to tackle this challenging issue. We must restore public confidence and more vibrant and thriving high streets.”
“We desperately need more investment in trading standards, including more trading standards officers. Specialist financial investigators are also urgently needed to address money laundering, and I am pleased that the Treasury has promised to invest in them. We must do more at the pace that this challenge demands. However, although the Government’s efforts to tackle illicit activity are welcome, enforcement alone cannot close an already widening gap. Criminal networks are often hidden behind front operators with no obvious criminal record, making it difficult for local authorities to identify risks before damage is done. Colleagues have already referred to the Bibob Act in the Netherlands, which focuses on prevention and tackling the issue before it can come to life on high streets. I would very much welcome powers like those in that Act.”
“The recent Home Office and Treasury announcements are a good start, but we need a co-ordinated approach, with one Department taking the lead in solving this problem, which cuts across Departments. If we are to crack the problem, co-ordination and information-sharing at local government and national Government levels will be key. That is why I welcome the Government’s new national high street organised crime unit, which has been established to co-ordinate across Government, policing and enforcement agencies. That is, alongside the £30 million for combating high street criminality, a welcome step forward. However, to act as fast as possible, we must also give authorities more power to tackle crime head-on. As is the case in my constituency, trading standards teams are already stretched.”
“The hon. Member makes an excellent point. People sometimes feel intimidated by those who congregate around shops, and that makes them feel unsafe. Southgate and Wood Green constituents have told me that, aside from the sale of counterfeit vapes and tobacco, they have witnessed drug dealing openly taking place outside cafés and other premises. They have witnessed phoenix shops—which open for a few weeks, close and then reopen under a different name—dodging tax and business rates and contributing nothing to the local area. It is clear that organised crime is behind that, as many hon. Members have said. Serious and organised crime is estimated to cost the UK Government at least £47 billion annually. Investing in the protection of our high streets should be at the top of our priorities.”
“My hon. Friend has made an excellent start to his speech. Does he agree that if the other place has the ability to block private Members’ Bills, that totally undermines the concept of such Bills going forward?”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to provide greater enforcement powers for local authorities to crack down on shops being used for illegal activities, to support the work of trading standards officers and specialist financial investigators, and to enable a framework for greater communication between trading standards officers and the police. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003193]”
“The petition states: The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to provide greater enforcement powers for local authorities to crack down on shops being used for illegal activities, to support the work of trading standards officers and specialist financial investigators, and to enable a framework for greater communication between trading standards officers and the police. And the petitioners remain, etc. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Southgate and Wood Green, Declares that there needs to be an increased and coordinated effort to crack down on shops being used for illegal activities.”
“I present a petition on behalf of residents of my constituency of Southgate and Wood Green who are concerned about illegal activities in shops on local high streets. It has been well documented in both national and local media that shops are being used for illegal activities, including in my constituency, and that is causing harm to the local community. Residents have expressed to me their concerns that the local authority has limited power to tackle the illegality, and that efforts to do so are not always co-ordinated with the police.”
“Five years ago, my constituent Nadine tragically lost her brother Trevor to epilepsy. An inquest into Trevor’s death ruled that his healthcare team and prison staff at the prison that he was in had not carried out their duties, which led directly to his death. Trevor’s death, sadly, is one of many that highlight a clear unresolved gap in epilepsy care in custodial settings. Does hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to prevent epilepsy deaths in prison is through education and training, to ensure that no life is lost to epilepsy due to lack of awareness or understanding?”
“Its role in dealing with the aftermath of the hidden credit liabilities debacle has fallen well short of the standards we expect, so I urge the Minister to ask the FCA to look again at the redress scheme and allow excluded businesses to get the justice they deserve. I also ask the Minister to ensure that the FCA is a truly independent and transparent regulator, and that it restores the trust and confidence that we all expect from it.”
“In its very thorough report on hidden credit lines, BankConfidential noted that “the FCA announced publicly: ‘The FCA also found no evidence that RBS artificially distressed and transferred otherwise viable SME businesses to GRG to profit from their restructuring or insolvency.’…‘The independent review did not find that RBS had deliberately made businesses worse off so that it could profit from GRG selling them off’”. My constituent would beg to differ. The FCA should inspire confidence and act with integrity and robustness. The FCA’s decision making and perceived closeness to the banks undermines that.”
“The 2012 FSA-operated redress scheme that followed, which differentiated between “sophisticated” and “non-sophisticated” customers, was criticised not only by the Treasury Committee but by John Swift, who was appointed by the Financial Conduct Authority in response to the Treasury Committee’s report. Despite that, the Financial Conduct Authority chose to ignore the findings of the review that it had commissioned. It refused to budge, saying that “the decision to treat sophisticated and non-sophisticated customers differently in the case of IRHPs was justified” while acknowledging that “there were shortfalls” in its decision-making processes, governance and recordkeeping.”
“As a result of the hidden credit liabilities that came with the interest rate swaps and fixed-rate loans sold to Chris, the business he spent 20 years building was destroyed in just three. Chris is not alone in having had his business ruined as a result of hidden credit liabilities: hundreds of other small businesses suffered. As the House of Commons Library briefing for this debate states, the 2012 Financial Services Authority review concluded that lenders, “did not adequately disclose to borrowers the cost of exiting an IRHP…failed to ascertain borrowers’ understanding of risk…sold products which unsuitably ‘over-hedged’ borrowers (overexposed borrowers to risk)”.”
“The prohibitive break fees and high credit liabilities locked him in and prevented substantial refinancing, as no other bank would take him on without incurring additional liabilities. As a result of Chris’s financial situation, his property portfolios were transferred to RBS’s global restructuring group, where exorbitant penalty charges and demands for revaluations made trading impossible for Chris. The GRG then took over the management of the properties, charging 10% plus monthly management fees. All 51 properties were eventually repossessed and sold at auction below their value, leaving substantial shortfalls. Chris was then pursued by RBS, which brought bankruptcy proceedings against him.”
“No assessment was carried out to see whether the products were appropriate for his business; no risks were explained and he was never warned about the hidden credit liabilities and break costs that could run into hundreds of thousands—or, as he would later find out in his case, millions—of pounds. In 2009, as interest rates collapsed on the interest rate swaps, the hidden credit liabilities ballooned, and Chris was now liable for between 20% and 25% of the loan value secured under the bank’s standard commercial charges. That caused Chris huge financial difficulty in repaying the loans. He was also tied in because of the costs on the break clauses, which were also eye-wateringly high.”
“In 2005, Chris decided to refinance the borrowing for his properties with the Royal Bank of Scotland. Chris was sold £3 million in interest rate swaps and £13.4 million in hedging products as part of the refinancing arrangement. Chris states he was not told about any credit risk or commission on the products sold to him, or about the large penalties to exit those credit facilities. In the interest rate hedging products review carried out by the NatWest Group, Chris was assessed as a non-sophisticated customer and has accepted that he had no previous experience of derivatives and relied entirely on RBS’s information and advice. Chris was told that the bank was fixing the interest rate to protect him from inevitable rate increases.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this very important debate and on his excellent speech to start it off. I will illustrate the failings of the Financial Conduct Authority in dealing with complaints from businesses who were mis-sold products with high credit liabilities, by using the experience of one of my constituents, Chris, who is in the Public Gallery. In the late 1990s Chris decided to venture into the property market. He secured loans from Nationwide, Birmingham Midshires and other lenders and made a success of his business—so much so that by 2005, he had a property portfolio of 51 properties across north London.”
“Over 220 million children worldwide are not in education. The UN sustainable development goal 4 is unlikely to be met by 2030. What investment is the UK making to support global efforts to help those children?”
“In his statement, the Prime Minister mentioned the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the UK’s support for the security of friends and partners in Cyprus. How is the UK co-ordinating efforts with the Cyprus Government to ensure the safety of the whole island, including the bases?”
“Let us step forward once again and work together to invest in teachers, systems and safe and inclusive classrooms. Let us ensure that every child can learn and thrive, because when we invest in education we build not just schools but futures.”
“We fought for foundational learning when the world’s attention risked drifting elsewhere, and we played a defining role in the creation of the Global Partnership for Education and Education Cannot Wait, which are some of the most effective engines for transforming education systems around the world. With a smaller aid budget it is essential that the UK makes its money go further. As we mark the UN International Day of Education, let us celebrate the huge strides we have made in progressing access to education across the globe, but also be honest about the scale of the challenge that we face. We find ourselves at a crossroads: the Government can choose to continue their efforts in fighting for education for those who need it most, or they can abandon decades of hard work on the international stage.”
“When countries emerge from conflict and climate emergencies they need help to get themselves re-established, so can the Minister tell me whether the Government intend to support countries to transition from the emergency education provision to national education systems, particularly if support mechanisms such as the Global Partnership for Education are reduced? Will the Government ensure that the ODA budget will be focused on foundational learning where every lesson has the most transformative impact on a child’s life chances? Will education feature in the Future of Development conference being hosted by the UK in May? The UK has always understood the importance of education. We championed girls’ education before others.”
“That is why it is crucial that the Government provide adequate funding for education aid and support for organisations, such as Education Cannot Wait, that are on the frontlines delivering education in emergencies. I have a few questions for the Minister. The first relates to the Government’s commitments to education in emergencies. Does he agree that it is vital that as part of our humanitarian assistance we support the provision of education in areas of conflict and climate emergencies?”
“ECW funding provides tailored support to vulnerable girls, supports the distribution of dignity kits, strengthens school-based child protection systems and expands safe learning spaces where girls feel protected and welcomed. However, we are in a situation where there have been minimal funding commitments by the Government for the upcoming replenishment of both GPE and ECW. According to UNICEF, planned funding cuts for education in emergencies will mean that crisis-hit countries in Africa and the middle east will lose over 10% of their national education budget. This will also impact teacher development and data systems and will have a lasting impact on education due to a loss of skilled educators and gaps in data, making a recovery less likely even if funding returns in future.”
“Education Cannot Wait is a global fund dedicated to financing education in the world’s most severe humanitarian crises, working in places such as Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and Nigeria. It invests in safe learning spaces, sustaining minimum education pathways and acting as a frontline protection measure for violence against women and girls. In South Sudan, Education Cannot Wait worked with the Minister of general education to expand equitable access to education and reduce the number of out-of-school children. Through its multi-year resilience programme, more than 190,000 learners—46% of them girls—have gained access to formal and alternative education systems such as accelerated learning programmes.”