Ms Abena Oppong-Asare
MP for Erith and Thamesmead · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank the Secretary of State and her team for their work on this matter, but I want to understand better how the Government will look at social media companies to make sure that there is transparency in the algorithms they are using and that they are not continuing to target children.”
“I speak to so many women and girls who have been let down and whose mental and physical health have been damaged. This must stop. The upcoming women’s health strategy must be more than a document; it must be a manifesto for revolutionary change—what is the point of it otherwise?”
“We need every employer to be aware of menstrual health, to have proper systems of support in place in the workplace, to have period products available for free, and to recognise that if a woman needs time off because of their blinding pain, they are not making it up. I welcome the work of the TUC and the trade unions in this area.”
“For women who menstruate, their experience of asking for advice or even medical treatment is routinely dismal—ask any woman from their school days onwards. It is a nightmare of stigma, shame and a failure of the NHS to help.”
“The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists further noted: “There is an immense societal pressure on women and girls to conceal their periods due to beliefs that menstruation is unhygienic or unclean, and talking openly about periods is often not considered as a social norm.” We live in a modern-day society with an openness to a…”
“We might wonder, “Why are women of colour waiting longer?” Well, I am afraid to say that we suffer discrimination in the health system. Our pain is dismissed and our concerns are ignored.”
The complete record
Every one of 605 lines we hold for Ms Abena Oppong-Asare, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 13.
“With COP27, a climate conference that the Prime Minister had to be shamed into attending, ending just days ago, it is clear that there is still a way to go to ensure that our country’s emissions reach the targets enshrined in international law. I have to be honest: the Prime Minister does not get it. He is a fossil-fuel Prime Minister in a renewable age. His is a record of tax breaks for oil and gas giants and blocks on wind and solar power. It has left our energy bills higher and our country less secure. The UK Infrastructure Bank sets out to invest in projects that lower emissions, while the Government undermine those ambitions. It will be unsurprising to the Committee that Labour has no confidence that the Government will deliver the long-term investment that the country needs. I also welcome the bank’s second objective.”
“Inflation is at its highest point, but I do not want to be drawn into a discussion about that. I want to focus on the Bill and I want us all to have a mature conversation about it. Clause 2 sets out the objectives and activities of the UK Infrastructure Bank. This is probably the meatiest part of the Bill, and I can see that we have several amendments to get through, so I want to make a start on that. Subsection (3) lays out the bank’s two objectives, which are to “tackle climate change, including by supporting efforts to meet the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008” and “to support regional and local economic growth.” I welcome the bank’s first objective.”
“I thank the hon. Member for South Ribble for her comments, but I do not fully agree with her, because I feel that the Government have not done enough. There has also been a cancellation of Northern Powerhouse Rail and a dismal failure to invest properly in renewable energy and to take decisions on nuclear; there has been a lack of strategy and planning. That has happened under this Tory Government in the last 12 years. The Government’s track record does not provide much confidence. The Government set up the Green Investment Bank 10 years ago and sold it to a private equity group five years ago, with the Public Accounts Committee concluding that the Government had focused on “how much money could be gained from the sale over the continued delivery of GIB’s green objective.” We would not want to encourage a similar short-lived path—”
“Yes. I am just going to wrap up, Mr Davies; thank you. We would not want to encourage a similar short-lived path for the UK Infrastructure Bank. To achieve its objectives, it needs to be a long-lasting institution that supports businesses and improves investor confidence. We have a different third objective in mind for the bank, and I will explain that in Committee later today.”
“I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert— “(c) to reduce economic inequalities within and between regions of the United Kingdom, and (d) to improve productivity, pay, jobs, and living standards.” This amendment clarifies that the Bank’s objective to support regional and local economic growth includes reducing economic inequalities within and between regions and improving productivity, pay, jobs, and living standards.”
“Labour has called for a strategic approach to infrastructure, and presented an industrial strategy that is based on evidence from around the world. Supported by the creation of a publicly owned Great British energy company, we would deliver self-sufficient renewable energy by doubling onshore wind, trebling solar and quadrupling offshore wind. We would create half a million jobs in renewable energy, and an additional half a million jobs by insulating 19 million homes over 10 years. The importance of supply chain resilience has become particularly clear in the wake of the pandemic, and as concerns over energy security have come to the fore through the war in Ukraine. We are all concerned about it. We have an industrial strategy, and want the UK infrastructure bank to support and champion it.”
“The amendment would bring the Bill back into alignment with their stated objectives. Amendment 18 would add a third objective for the bank: “to support supply chain resilience and the United Kingdom’s industrial strategy”. That seems reasonable. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the bank will have no effect on growth. With assets of 0.1% of GDP a year, the bank is dwarfed by its French and German counterparts, and the £12 billion of funding allocated over five years falls short of the £20 billion recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission. With their cancellation of Northern Powerhouse Rail and failed record on nuclear energy, the Government’s record on infrastructure is abysmal.”
“I note that in his letter yesterday, the Minister’s justification for Government amendment 2 was that “with regards to the economic disparities component of” clause 2(6), “it could be overly restrictive where the Bank looks to invest in a deprived part of a relatively affluent region for example, as there are difficulties in drawing distinct boundaries on this issue.” Before the Minister uses that as a reason to vote against our amendment 17, I hope that he will notice that the amendment has been worded specifically to avoid such restrictions: by addressing “economic inequalities within and between regions of the United Kingdom”, the bank will retain the freedom to target at any level. If their commitment still stands, I am sure that Conservatives will not oppose Labour’s efforts to put that in the Bill.”
“That all seems correct, and we can see it repeated near verbatim in clause 2(3)(a). However, in describing the second objective, the then Chancellor said that the bank should “support regional and local economic growth through better connectedness, opportunities for new jobs and higher levels of productivity.” That wording is not in the Bill. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have abandoned those commitments? Why does the Bill include a watered-down version of that objective?”
“It relies on the tired Conservative assumption that growth and prosperity will trickle down and be spread evenly, which we know is not true. Amendment 17 is crucial to targeting the bank’s investments and ensuring that it creates lasting change. The Prime Minister, then Chancellor, argued in his strategic steer to the bank in March that it should support the Government’s ambition of addressing “the deep spatial disparities across and within UK regions”. Those are his words. I find it strange that when he outlined the bank’s objectives in the strategic steer, his description of the climate objective matched that in the Bill, but his description of the economic objective did not. He said that the bank’s objectives are to “help tackle climate change, particularly meeting the government’s net zero emissions target by 2050”.”
“Our amendment 17 would make it clear that the bank should support regional and local economic growth, both to reduce economic inequalities within and between the regions of the UK, and to improve productivity, pay, jobs, and living standards. In our constituencies we see the disparities between the regions. As it stands, the bank does not have to focus its investment on disadvantaged areas of the country that would most benefit from its support. The Prime Minister has boasted about moving money away from disadvantaged areas, and so-called levelling-up funds have so far funnelled money into Conservative constituencies, rather than focusing on areas that most need the support. On its own, therefore, clause 2(3)(b) is not a sufficient objective for the bank.”
“As I have hinted, Labour Members believe that the bank’s objectives need expanding. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North will speak later about the bank’s climate objective and the ways in which it might achieve it. I will talk about the economic objective of the bank, which is to support regional and local economic growth. After a mini-Budget that crashed our economy and an autumn statement last week that papers over the cracks, the importance of that objective is as clear as day; but we believe in growth not for growth’s sake, but because it creates jobs and improves living standards. As a result of fairer choices, we could see our economy growing again, powered by the talent and effort of millions of working people and thousands of businesses.”
“Thank you, Mr Davies, for allowing me to speak on this matter. I fundamentally disagree with the Minister’s comments. The amendments that Labour put forward are reasonable. In this climate, given the situation with covid and Russia, we know that things are different, particularly in terms of regional inequalities. The Prime Minister also talked about regional inequalities. We have all seen the speech he gave in Tunbridge Wells.”
“I thank the Minister for his comments. We agree that the legislation needs to be clear, but I think our approach is very different. I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but I want to highlight that addressing economic inequalities, particularly between regions, is really important,. We think the amendments would help the bank retain its freedom while reaching targets at any level. For this reason, we will push the amendments to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“I thank the Minister for his explanation of the amendments. Clause 2(4) describes the activities of the bank, as the Minister explained, and sets out that in addition to funding private infrastructure projects, it can provide financial support to local government. Government amendment 8 seeks to clarify that the bank can provide loans to public authorities other than local authorities and Northern Ireland Departments. Amendment 9 to clause 10 would achieve the same purpose. It would clarify that the Bill considers public authorities to be local authorities, Northern Ireland Departments and any other person exercising functions of a public nature. I am grateful to the Minister for his letter of yesterday that set out the reasons for the Government amendments, which we will not oppose. Amendment 8 agreed to.”
“I appreciate that the Minister has made comments about competency and capability with respect to particular investments, but it is important that at this stage—while we can—we look at how we can clarify the legal status of the various documents that interact with the Bill.”
“However, if that is the case, will they put them in the Bill, as they did with energy efficiency? If they are firm commitments then they should be in the legislation itself. We are here to scrutinise the Bill, but so many key elements of it seem to be relegated to documents that are not amendable and are legally ambiguous. Labour does not oppose clause 3, but it would be useful if the Minister could clarify the legal status of the various documents that interact with the Bill. I want to echo some of the comments made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. In terms of the skills required, I too am worried about the bank being spread thin.”
“The Chancellor stated in the March strategic steer that “I’d encourage you to prioritise opportunities that align with the government’s renewed focus on energy security. Examples of relevant opportunities may include helping to bring forward low carbon energy projects that accelerate the UK’s transition to clean energy and improve the energy efficiency of buildings and homes.” It was rightly pointed out in the other place that the Bill did not include energy efficiency measures. In recognition of that, the Government introduced an amendment on energy efficiency, which Labour welcomed. I anticipate that in much of the Committee’s proceedings, the Government will assure us that many of our asks are covered by the strategic steer or the framework document.”
“I thank the Minister for his explanation of the clause, which lays out the bank’s strategic priorities and plans. It is largely administrative and requires the Treasury to prepare a statement of strategic priorities for the bank, which must be laid before Parliament and can be revised or replaced. As the Minister said, the Chancellor—the now Prime Minister—put the strategic steer in place on 18 March. As I have already highlighted, the strategic steer included some plans that Labour do not oppose; indeed, we want to see some of them in the Bill, rather than in policy documents with ambiguous legal status. The Government must recognise that point, which is evidenced by the energy efficiency amendment that they introduced in the Lords.”
“I appreciate the time that the Minister has given me to intervene on this point. He said that we do not always put things down in legislation, but that has been done already with the energy efficiency measures. All I am saying is that if these are firm commitments, then I do not understand why they cannot be laid down in the Bill. That would avoid confusion at a later stage, and it is important that we get this right.”
“As the Minister highlighted, clause 5 concerns financial assistance to the bank and clause 6 concerns the bank’s annual accounts and reports. The Minister has already provided a detailed summary, so I am not going to repeat what he has said. As he mentioned, clause 5 allows for the Treasury to provide financial assistance to the bank for the purpose of helping the bank deliver its objectives. Clause 6 requires the bank’s directors to comply with section 441 of the Companies Act 2006, delivering the Treasury a copy of its accounts and reports each financial year. As the Minister has outlined already, such clauses are commonly used. These are clearly technical and administrative requirements, and we will not object to them. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“I am sure I do not need to reveal to Committee members that we think the current proposed frequencies are inadequate. Amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, would add a third element to the reports: the independent person would have to consider the effectiveness and scale of private and other third-party capital attracted to investments by the bank. We have already discussed the concept of additionality—the idea that the bank should be adding value and crowding in private sector investment. Clause 9(1)(b) already makes reference to additional investment, so I am confident that that is already covered by the Bill.”
“In particular, it states: “The Chancellor must appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of…the effectiveness of the Bank in delivering its objectives, and…its impact in relation to climate change and regional and local economic growth (including the extent to which its investments in particular projects or types of projects have encouraged additional investment in those projects or types of project by the private sector).” The independent person must share those reports with the Treasury, which must then publish the reports and lay a copy before Parliament. I welcome that there will be performance reviews of the bank. Given the importance of its objectives, it is right that its ability to meet its aims is evaluated. We will get to the frequency of the reports later.”
“It is a pleasure, Mr Bone, to serve under your chairship. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. As he has highlighted, we have come to a substantial and key clause. As the hon. Gentleman briefly stated, the clause sets out requirements for reviews of the bank’s effectiveness and impact.”
“We have a world-leading offshore wind industry in Scotland and on the east coast, hydrogen in the north-west and Teesside, nuclear power in the south-east, and solar power in the south and midlands. That can only be realised if investment stays here in the UK. A lack of domestic champions has compromised our security and stalled progress.”
“I was concerned to read research by Open Democracy that found that the bank has so far pledged nearly all its cash to firms with offshore owners, including some linked to tax havens and repressive regimes. That was an independent report, not carried out by my party, but by Open Democracy. We want the benefits of the UK Infrastructure Bank to be seen here in the UK, with home-grown renewables such as offshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen and tidal power. We want to work with businesses to crowd in private funding and work with unions to ensure high-quality jobs. I am sure the whole Committee can agree on that. We know that this could be a national enterprise.”
“I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 9, page 4, line 14, at end insert— “(c) the geographic spread of the businesses and bodies the Bank invests in, and (d) the ownership of the businesses and bodies the Bank invests in.”. This amendment requires reviews of the Bank’s effectiveness and impact to consider the location and ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in . It might be helpful if I give the background to the amendment. Labour wants to strengthen British industry, supply chains and our industrial strategy. That is why we have proposed amendment 23, which would require reviews of the bank to consider the geographic spread of the businesses and bodies that the bank invests in, and their ownership.”
“The hon. Member asks an important question. I am sure that we agree that it is important to look at the geographical element of investments. This is not just a concern of Labour’s; the report I mentioned is by Open Democracy. Brilliant projects are taking place; I do not want to take anything away from them, but I want us to ensure that we are supporting businesses in the UK. That is really important. We all know from talking to our constituents that great investment could be used. That needs to be acknowledged, and that is why we tabled the amendment, which would ensure that reviews of the bank consider the geographic spread of the businesses that the bank invests in and their ownership.”
“Open Democracy has done the research that the Government have not done to get that data. It spent significant time getting that data. It should not be left to organisations such as Open Democracy to get that information. That information should be easily accessible to us. This is taxpayers’ money, and I do not see how the amendment is unreasonable.”
“I have no further comments, other than to urge Members to support our sensible amendment, which I think would benefit all our constituents across the country. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“Amendment 21 would provide that the initial review would be published within four years of the Bill coming into force, while amendment 22 would see subsequent reviews published every five years. That would enable the bank to grow, improve and ensure that it is meeting its objectives. I noted that the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire may not press his amendments, so hopefully he finds ours to be more appropriate.”
“I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire for his comments. I will speak briefly to amendments 21 and 22. I share the hon. Member’s concerns, because the initial review of the bank will be published within seven years of the Bill coming into force, and subsequent reviews will be published at intervals of no more than seven years. Those timeframes are shocking, particularly given that the Government’s original intention was for the initial report to be published in 10 years’ time. I point out to the Minister that the levelling up missions are due to be met by 2030 and the net zero target by 2050, so a review in seven years’ time would miss the first of those targets. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how, without that review, those targets will be met.”
“I thank the Minister for pointing out that we have come up with different intervals, but I remind him that, obviously, the Government did that as well. Initially, they were looking to do the review every 10 years, but they have changed it to seven years, so there is scope to adapt and change, as under our amendments.”
“The Minister is being generous with his time. I appreciate that he will take this matter away, but I remind him of the bank’s core function: to help us to meet our climate change targets by 2050. Several Back Benchers have already mentioned that. I urge the Minister to review the situation, because if we are going to meet the targets, particularly the 2030 targets, seven years will be far too long. Our proposal seems reasonable, so it would be helpful if the Minister would consider it and write to me about it.”
“We have spoken about this topic at length today, so we will not oppose clause 9. Question put and agreed to. Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Amendments made: 6, in clause 10, page 4, line 32, at end insert— ““appropriate national authority” means— (a) the Scottish Ministers, (b) the Welsh Ministers, or (c) the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland.” This amendment would define “appropriate national authority”. Amendment 9, in clause 10, page 5, line 4, leave out the definition of “relevant public authorities” and insert— ““public authorities” means local authorities, Northern Ireland departments and any other person exercising functions of a public nature.”—(Andrew Griffith.) See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.”
“I am disappointed that the measures to strengthen clause 9 were not adopted. However, I welcome the fact that there will be reviews of the bank. Here and in the other place, concerns have been raised about the projects that the bank is financing, from their location to the level of additionality they provide. Reviews of the bank will certainly clear up the issues that need to resolved. I hope that there will be opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and discussion following report publications. I have noted—and I am sure the Minister is aware—that the Public Accounts Committee is currently conducting a review of the establishment of the UK Infrastructure Bank. It is a shame that the recommendations may not come early enough to influence the Bill, but its work demonstrates that the importance of evaluation.”
“As I said earlier, we do not believe in growth for growth’s sake. We believe in growth because it creates jobs and improves living standards. With fairer choices, we see our economy growing again, powered by the talent and effort of millions of working people and thousands of our businesses. Our new clause would ensure that the bank plays its part in its mission, creating new industries across the country and working hand in hand with businesses to create jobs for the future. Before the Committee concludes, I want to take the opportunity to make some closing remarks and thank some people.”
“Before the Minister objects, I will say that the wording might be familiar to members of the Committee, particularly Conservative members, because it is the same wording they voted to remove from the Bill earlier in Committee. The wording will be familiar to Conservative Committee members because it is the first mission of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Given their voting record in this Committee so far, I am not sure it is something they are committed to any more, but I am sure they can agree that they want the UK Infrastructure Bank to create highly-skilled, well-paid jobs in their constituencies and across the country. I know that constituents in Erith and Thamesmead want to see better job opportunities, whether for young people or older people who are looking to reskill and retrain.”
“I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time. New clause 1 supports amendment 23. It would require the bank to publish an annual report setting out the geographical spread of the businesses and bodies it invests in, and their ownership. To be clear, amendment 23 required the independent review, conducted over longer time frames, to consider those points. Our new clause requires the bank to report annually on those matters. Subsection (2) of new clause 1 would require the bank to publish and invest in a good jobs plan for all businesses and bodies, which requires the business or body to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.”
“The Minister says that it is open to individuals to put in freedom of information requests. I do not understand why the Minister would encourage that when our new clause would make things a lot easier and more transparent. It takes a lot of time to do the paperwork associated with FOI requests, so the new clause would save staff from having to do that extra admin work. In setting up the bank, why does the Minister want it to take on those extra responsibilities? It makes no sense.”
“I am afraid that I will not be withdrawing the new clause. It is a sensible new clause and I urge all members of the Committee to support it, so I wish to push it to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“At times, you have been very firm, but rightly so. I thank the Clerks, Amna Bokhari and Bethan Harding, who have been invaluable. I thank colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North and our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, and look forward to seeing what comes out of this next.”
“On a point of order, Mr Bone. I thank all members of the Committee for our robust debate. I am sure that we agree through our different channels that we want the best for this Bill and for our constituents. I hope people take on board the fact that we have been making recommendations that we feel are best for the country. I thank the Minister for answering our questions. I am disappointed that some of our amendments have been voted against, but I accept that the Minister is going to look at some of our recommendations on some clauses, in terms of the annual review. That is very important. Seven years is a very long time. I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire for his detailed analysis and his amendments. I thank the Chairs of both sittings, Mr Davies and Mr Bone, who have guided the Committee with skill.”
“The Government allow offshore wind but are still banning onshore wind. Ending the ban would give us a vital tool to reach net zero, make Britain a clean energy superpower, and open up new investment and growth opportunities. Keeping the onshore wind ban will make energy bills £16 billion higher between now and 2030. Why on earth are Ministers undermining green growth and cheaper energy by maintaining the self-defeating ban on onshore wind?”
“I hope the Minister will address those points in his response. I realise that time is pressing, and I want to give the Minister the opportunity to respond to all the issues raised today. In conclusion, although Labour Members support the Bill, which will enable the UK to tailor financial services regulation to meet the needs of our economy, we will be pushing for bolder, more radical action in a number of areas including green finance, financial inclusion and economic crime, to make Brexit work for our financial services and the wider economy.”
“Friend’s important points, the Bill does nothing to address the poverty premium—the extra costs that poorer people pay for essential services such as insurance, loans or credit cards—and right now, those people will be feeling the impact of that. Labour believes that everyone should have access to the financial services they need, whether that is saving schemes or insurance, and regardless of their income or circumstances. All too often, the most vulnerable in our society are unable to afford or are denied access to financial products and services that meet their needs. If the Government are serious about building a strong future for our financial services outside the EU, they should recognise that the Bill is an opportunity to rethink how financial resilience, inclusion and wellbeing issues are tackled in the UK.”
“Finally, how do the Government foresee the regulated stablecoins interacting with the future of central bank digital currency? Let me express the disappointment felt on the Opposition Benches that the Bill has failed adequately to address financial exclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn has already touched on the need to address digital exclusion by protecting access to essential face-to-face banking services, and the Bill has failed to promote financial diversity and resilience by removing the regulatory barriers faced by mutuals, building societies and co-operatives. In addition to my hon.”
“For example, the EU just agreed to a comprehensive regime for regulating the entire cryptocurrency industry, while the UK will not even consult on a comprehensive regime until later this year. In the absence of a comprehensive regulatory regime, the UK has become a centre for illicit crypto activity. According to Chainalysis, a global leader in blockchain research, cryptocurrency-based crime, such as terrorist financing, money laundering, fraud and scams, hit a new all-time high in 2021, with illicit activity in the UK estimated to be worth more than £500 million. Meanwhile, misleading advertising and marketing of cryptocurrency projects is on the rise. In the absence of a comprehensive regulatory regime, how will the Government crackdown on illicit activity and misleading advertising and promotions, beyond the regulated stablecoins?”
“He and I discussed this in Westminster Hall this morning, but the recent collapse in the value of cryptoassets, including several stablecoins, has put millions of UK consumers’ savings at risk. The crypto trading platform Gemini has estimated that as many as one in five people in the UK could have lost money in the crash. Does the Minister agree that the crisis in crypto demonstrates that so-called stablecoins are not necessarily stable? How did the recent collapse in the value of cryptocurrencies inform the Treasury’s approach to clauses 21 and 22 of the Bill? Will the Minister explain why the Government have opted to bring only stablecoins within the regulations?”
“The wishy-washy intervention planned for 2023 will just be far too late. We need swift action right now, and my hon. Friend pointed out that there is a lack of strong will from the Government in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke passionately about the closure of bank branches in her constituency and the impact this is having on elderly and disabled constituents. All the contributions from across the House were really valuable, but I want to raise a number of additional issues, such as cryptocurrencies. First, clauses 21 and 22 will bring stablecoins, a type of cryptoasset, into the scope of regulation when used as a form of payment, which as the Minister has said, will pave the way for their use in the UK as a recognised form of payment.”