Deforestation in the Amazon

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered deforestation in the Amazon.

I called this debate because of what I see as a mounting crisis in the battle to protect the Amazon rainforest, which is one of the world’s most important biomes, if not the most important. The Amazon is thought to be home to 10% of known species on earth, including 16,000 species of tree, 3,000 species of fish and more species of primate than anywhere else on earth. It is one of the last refuges for jaguars, harpy eagles and pink river dolphins and is home to sloths, black spider monkeys and poison dart frogs. It is a really important part of our global ecosystem.

For decades, large swathes of the Amazon were cleared to make way for agriculture, but the Amazon was not only place affected in that part of the world: areas such as the Atlantic forest in Brazil have also largely disappeared, all too often to leave space for agriculture, and all too often agriculture that uses up the fertility of the land in a few years and leaves behind sparsely used and degraded land. In recent years, the impact of deforestation has become clearer and clearer, and international efforts to halt it have grown. I could speak for much longer than I have available today on the need to increase those efforts, to protect essential habitats and biomes, and to produce a global strategy to begin restoring some of the areas that have been lost, but that is not what the debate is about. It is about what is happening right now in Brazil, which in my view is tragic and cannot be accepted by the rest of the global community.

For many years, it seemed as if progress was being made in slowing the loss of the rainforest. Brazil committed to sharply reduce deforestation, introduced new legislation to strengthen environmental protections, and worked with soy traders to end the purchase of soy from illegally cleared areas. At the Paris climate change conference, it agreed to end illegal deforestation by 2030. However, the Brazilian Government have reversed that progress. I say that with great sorrow and dismay, because Brazil is a friend of this country, but we have to speak truth to friends, and the reality is that the Government in Brazil have reversed the process. Despite warm words to the international community, the situation is now going from bad to worse. The loss of rainforest in the Amazon is now acute, with 2019 and 2020 being disastrous years for the Amazon. In a 12-month period, an area the size of Israel was cleared. In 2020, the loss amounted to 4,281 square miles—and that is a Brazilian statistic. Despite the pandemic, the situation continues to look bleak. Current estimates are that deforestation has actually accelerated this year, with the loss of an area the size of the Isle of Man in just one month. Despite warm words internationally, this clearly has official sanction.

Instead of taking steps to halt deforestation, the Brazilian Government are now pushing legislation through the Congress that will have the opposite effect by regularising the rights of people who have cleared and occupied forest areas illegally. At the same time, a presidential decree has reduced the likelihood of environmental criminals being punished for past actions. I cannot think of any step more likely to encourage those who have been breaking the existing protections and clearing areas illegally than letting them off the punishments that they might have been expecting, or deciding to allow them to stay on those sites legally. What clearer message could there be that they will be allowed to get away with it if they try it again? It is no surprise that environmental groups are up in arms. They rightly see this as a clear route to further illegal forest clearances.

There are also plans to open up to commercial mining interests lands that enjoy existing protections—lands that are those of the indigenous peoples. I suspect that we will hear a bit more about that later from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who has been champion of indigenous peoples and the protections they need.

New environmental assessment rules for road building do not take deforestation into account, opening the way for large-scale road building through the Amazon, and the inevitable consequence of more clearances for mining and other uses, as remoter areas become more accessible. Those are not policies that come from a Government who are taking their environmental responsibilities seriously. The Brazilian Government claim that they are victims of misinformation, but I am afraid that simply is not true. The reason we know it is not true is because they told us themselves: at a recent meeting, the Brazilian Environment Minister was caught on video threatening to use the pandemic as a smokescreen to run the cattle herd through the Amazon, change all the rules and simplify standards. Heaven help the Amazon if that is the real policy of the Brazilian Environment Minister.

My message today, and the reason for calling the debate, is to say to our Government and the Minister that the international community really act on this issue, and the UK has to take a lead, along with other nations, in making that action happen. The reality is that other countries in that part of the world are working on this—for example, Colombia is starting to get to grips with the issue—but, sadly, the Brazilians are not. The first battleground has to be over trade, but it will not be easy. China has become a huge market for Brazilian exports and Brazil’s reliance on European and north American markets has been reduced, but that is not a reason for us to avoid action. It now looks unlikely that the provisional trade agreement reached between the European Union and the Mercosur trade bloc in South America will be able to go ahead in the agreed form because of what is happening in the Amazon. In the European Parliament, steps are already being taken to block the deal, and several EU Parliaments have voted to oppose it. It certainly gives the impression of being dead in the water.

As colleagues know, I do not always believe in following the example of the EU, but I definitely make an exception in this regard. The UK should not countenance even starting discussions with Brazil about a free trade agreement while the current situation continues. There must be no trade deals with Brazil while it continues to allow wholesale clearances in the Amazon, and we need a very clear message from our Ministers to their counterparts in Brasilia that this is the case. We cannot simply treat this as if it is not happening. Unless the situation changes quickly, I think we actually have to go further than that and deal with the issue in a very direct and robust way. Given the mood in Brussels and the changes in the United States, we can work internationally to tackle the issue directly.

It is very hard to work constantly to identify which products come from sustainable sources and which do not. For example, retailers in the UK tell me that it is hard to tell which soy used in their products has sustainable origins, given that the major dealers mix their supplies together in big batches. We now have to look very seriously at international action to impose tough tariffs on relevant Brazilian food exports unless and until there is clear evidence that the Government there are taking serious steps to protect the Amazon. That might seem strange coming from a strongly profree trade Conservative, but it is essential if we are to put the kind of pressure on Brazil that will stop this deforestation while we still have time. We cannot simply let the exports and imports flow if they are increasingly coming from more and more areas of the Amazon that have been cleared.

There is also a debate in the United States at the moment about whether President Biden and his climate change envoy, John Kerry, should even engage with the Brazilian Government, and in particular meet President Bolsonaro. I think they should, and I think our Government should be engaging as well: we should be having discussions and trying to strengthen relationships, but we have to be absolutely clear all along that future partnerships and future trade agreements are conditional on deforestation stopping. Of course, there is the issue that other countries are close trading partners with the Brazilians—the Chinese, for example. We should be clear with the Chinese Government that, as major importers of its produce, we need them to be part of putting the pressure on Brazil. Although the Chinese are making clear commitments themselves—they are chairing the COP on habitat and biodiversity later this year—they need to be putting that into practice and putting pressure on the Brazilian Government as well.

Protecting our natural ecosystems must become a central responsibility of all countries on Earth. Of course we need development, of course we need homes and jobs for a growing global population, and of course we understand the economic challenges that the Brazilian Government face, but none of the things that need to be done to remove poverty risks and improve the lives of citizens can be allowed to happen at the expense of key biomes and the habitats of endangered plant and animal life. A smart approach to land management and smart technology can help us to reverse the damage that has been done and start to rebuild the natural environment around us, but that work has to start quickly, and the loss of key habitats must stop now.

We, the United Kingdom, will be chairing the COP summit on climate change this autumn. We will, I hope, be the drivers of a new agreement on climate change and environmental improvements. This year, Ministers have already taken a lead role in the pre-discussions happening ahead of that meeting. As a Government, we have taken some really quite significant steps to address environmental challenges, both domestically and internationally, so I think we are as well placed as anyone to say, “We are willing to take a lead, but we need the help of others to follow.” In my view, there is no greater environmental need than this, both because the Amazon rainforest is key to dealing with the challenge of climate change and because it is such an important habitat—such an important home—for so many species and for indigenous people. It is a global asset, it is globally vital and it must be protected, but we are now facing a situation where a Government of a friendly nation is allowing policies and actions to go ahead that are accelerating the destruction of that global asset.

My message to the Minister today is very simple: the UK has to act on all of this. We have to be saying to Brazilian Ministers and others in Brazil, “We are your friends. We are going to carry on being your friends, but we cannot just stand idly by while this happens. We will take action. We will take action with the international community to put pressure on you if you do not listen and if you do not act.” It is in the interests of every Brazilian citizen, as it is in the interests of every citizen around the world, to deal with these environmental issues. Brazil has perhaps a bigger responsibility and a bigger burden than most, because it is home to such an important asset, but that responsibility has to be shouldered none the less, and this problem has to be addressed. As such, I say to the Minister and, through her, to colleagues in Government that this is something on which the UK Government have a duty to act. This year, we have a duty to lead, and if that means tough action and very tough words, we have to do it, because it is a historic responsibility that we cannot and must not shirk.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

We can probably get away without imposing a formal time limit if people confine themselves to about six minutes.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady is right that yesterday’s debate focused on more than simply the situation in Syria, but one of the reasons why we need to act against ISIL in Syria is the growing challenge we face from it around the middle east and in north Africa, and those issues were undoubtedly reflected in yesterday’s debate.

On the two-day debate issue, I simply repeat that we are providing an extended debate that is the equivalent of the amount of time that would have been available on a normal day’s business on Wednesday and Thursday, but we are doing it on one day over a very extended period to create a coherent single debate.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

If the Government genuinely want to build as broad a consensus as possible on what might be the most momentous decision of this Parliament, how are the public supposed to understand a time-limited debate on their specific motion to escalate bombing where fewer than perhaps a fifth of Members are able to take part?

[Chris Grayling]

What I would say to the public is that we in Parliament will have discussed these issues over a 20-hour period since Monday of last week. The Prime Minister has taken two extended sets of questions, has considered very carefully the issues raised by Members on both sides of the House, has produced a motion that in our view reflects those concerns and takes many of them into account, and then has provided a length of time for debate that is longer than any that has been provided for a similar decision in recent years. I think that is treating this House, and the public and their concern, in exactly the right way.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and in the case of steel we have worked hard to do that already. I am pleased that 97% of the contracts for steel for Crossrail, the biggest engineering project in Europe, have gone to British sources. It is important that we continue to focus our procurement policy, where we possibly can, on local sourcing and the support of local business. I commit absolutely to that being at the heart of what the Government are trying to do, particularly in what has happened to our steel industry.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Since the Leader of the House is so confident about his Government’s record on sustainable energy, may we have a debate on Government plans to cut energy feed-in tariffs and the reports that that will cost us 20,000 jobs, devastate the rooftop solar industry and lead to 1 million fewer solar panel installations by 2020? That is not very green or efficient.

[Chris Grayling]

We take decisions on the basis of what is workable and affordable, and we will see whether the impact of the policy is quite what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I will certainly make sure the Prime Minister is aware of those questions. The Prime Minister is here every week, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to raise that issue. He talks about the sustainable development goals. What has come across loud and clear in the past few days, with the difficulties that have been highlighted in the middle east, is that we have done the right thing in making sure we are providing our committed share of our national income towards providing aid. When we look at the refugee camps around Syria, we can see why that is so important and the aid is so valuable. If we were not there—and one or two countries are not there in the volume that we are—those people would be in a much more difficult position. That is why it is the right thing to do.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I have discovered, via a parliamentary question, that the Department for Work and Pensions claims it does not collect information on the number of applicants for personal independence payments who are also students diagnosed with cancer. May we have a debate on this? We do not know the scale and that means we do not know how many young people are being forced to cope simultaneously with cancer and penury as a direct result of Government policy. Surely that cannot be right.

[Chris Grayling]

The purpose of the personal independence payment, and its predecessor the disability living allowance, is to provide support to pay for some of the extra costs people with disabilities face in living their daily lives. Support for those people who are suffering from cancer is provided through the employment and support allowance system. The purpose of the PIP is to support disability. Cancer is a dreadful disease. Students and young people with cancer are a matter of particular distress and concern, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find they are separate issues.

[Steve McCabe]

That’s not what your Department says.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

In the last Parliament, the Government established, at considerable cost, the post of police and crime commissioner, which they argued was vital for democratic accountability. The post is now to be subsumed into the office of metro mayor, which will be imposed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with an additional precept, whether local people want it or not. May we have a debate on what the Government mean by democratic accountability?

[Chris Grayling]

I think that police and crime commissioners have made a real difference by providing a focal point for those who are concerned about local policing. Of course, the two posts are combined in London. I know that the Labour party has always been sceptical about police and crime commissioners, but that does not seem to have stopped a large number of former Labour Members of Parliament standing to be police and crime commissioners.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Next week’s business includes the European Union Referendum Bill on Tuesday and the Scotland Bill on Monday, and I think that the family test will feature less centrally in those Bills than it will in some other measures. However, the Chief Whip and I have noted what my hon. Friend has said, and Ministers in all Departments should do so as well. Getting things right for families is central to protecting the fabric of our society, and we should always work towards that end.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the Government’s decision, announced just hours after the general election, to limit access to the higher rate of work support for deaf people who earn more than £27,000? That is not a cap on benefits; it is a discriminatory cap on career opportunities for the deaf.

[Chris Grayling]

Changes in the welfare system will, of course, be included in legislation that will be laid before the House in the coming months. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his case when that time arrives, as will his party.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Has the Secretary of State looked at the damages awarded to triple killer Kevan Thakrar? Does he have any plans to change the rules so that serious offenders cannot profit from such compensation claims?

[Chris Grayling]

I regarded that as wholly unacceptable. It is a case that we defended in court, but, unfortunately, the judge reached a different view. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have made sure that there is no possibility of somebody in that position receiving legal aid to pursue such a case. I have also asked my officials to look at any other ways we have to make it more difficult for prisoners to pursue such a case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I feel strongly that we must take a tough approach to someone’s causing death and serious injury while disqualified from driving. Too often, it turns out that the people who commit such an offence have been disqualified again and again and do not have a licence when it happens. That is an area that I am keen to address.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s colleague at the Home Office, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), announced in Cambridge on 28 August that he had asked the Sentencing Council to review this very offence. Is this another request today? When exactly will the Sentencing Council review the offence and make a decision?

[Chris Grayling]

I put in the original request to the Sentencing Council some months ago. It intends to put this into its work stream for next year and will make recommendations. Separately, I am also looking at the current law. I feel that there is still scope for tightening and I will bring forward my thoughts in due course.

Transforming Legal Aid

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I entirely understand the concerns my hon. Friend raises. I obviously cannot comment on the specific case, but what I can say is that within our legal aid system both now and in the future discretionary funding will be available for the unexpected and unusual case that might not conform to the central rules of the scheme but where there is a clear need for support to be provided.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Can the Justice Secretary assure us that there is no connection between the original opposition to his proposals from Churches, charities and advocacy groups and the Government’s subsequent efforts to muzzle those organisations through the lobbying Bill?

[Chris Grayling]

That is a pretty absurd question, to which the answer is that that is complete nonsense.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Very agog, Sir. Will the Secretary of State say when he plans to end the scandal of making welfare benefit payments to prisoners serving a sentence?

[Chris Grayling]

That is a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions but I am absolutely of the view that benefit payments should not be made to serving prisoners. I hope and expect that the DWP will deal with that issue. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already taken steps to ensure that the system we inherited, in which that kind of thing could happen, comes to an end.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we have made no changes to the plans. We always listen carefully to outside bodies, but no changes have been made and we are not considering making any.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

In view of the Qatada decision, has the Secretary of State considered requiring courts to take into account the likely cost to the public purse of their bail decisions, particularly in serious and high-risk cases?

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to consider that matter further and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am very pleased to tell the House that since May 2010, the total number of people in this country on out-of-work benefits has fallen by 45,000.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Is the Minister familiar with the recent freedom of information request that revealed that 1,100 employment support allowance claimants died between January and August last year after being assessed as fit for work? What steps is he taking to investigate this rather large number of deaths, and how come so many of those people were assessed as fit for work?

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid that we cannot simply extrapolate one of those facts from the other. Sadly, we are all mortal, and circumstances arise that we do not expect. As I said to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), we always look very carefully at individual cases, but the Government are doing the right thing in trying to provide support to help people to get back into work. The worst thing for their health and well-being is for them to be on benefits for the rest of their lives if they do not need to be.

Youth Unemployment

Debate between Lord Grayling and Steve McCabe

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe]

I feel quite strongly that, so far, what we have seen from the Government is the cancellation of initiatives. I hope that during this debate we might hear something about a fresh initiative. However, I personally think that the wrong time to withdraw support is when we are in the depths of a recession and youth unemployment is rising. That is patently wrong.

I am not alone in expressing my concern about youth unemployment. The CBI has recently voiced its concerns about the rising trend of youth unemployment, a trend that it fears. There are about 31,000 more young people chasing work now than there were last summer. Youth unemployment is hovering around the 1 million mark. That means that one in five of our young people are without work, which is an awful lot of talent and potential for any country to write off.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope he will forgive me for intervening so early in the debate, but I want to ask him to place on the record something that I think is material to the overall headlines, if not to the issue of youth unemployment itself, which we all agree is very serious. Will he accept that of the number of young people who are unemployed—a number that went close to 1 million and then came back down again—277,000 are full-time students who are looking for a part-time job alongside their studies? Those students are not “unemployed” as we would understand that word in its conventional sense.

[Steve McCabe]

I have acknowledged that students are part of the figures that we are discussing, and I am happy to accept that point. I will say a little more about both students and those who are not in education, employment or training later. However, I am happy to accept the Minister’s point that there are some students in the youth unemployment figures. Of course that is true.

In Birmingham, the youth unemployment figure is now about 13,000, which is quite a high figure for that city. OECD data show that Britain compares poorly with its competitors in terms of youth unemployment initiatives. NEETs are also part of that problem. That predicament not only has an effect on young people themselves, but is bad for the country, adding to the Government’s borrowing at the very time when they are concerned to reduce it. Over time, we will pay the price of this lack of activity. It has been estimated that the young people themselves suffer a long-term wage scar, earning between 8% and 15% less during their working lives than they might have done. The CBI tells us that youth unemployment costs the country about £3.6 billion per year, which is not a sum of money to be trifled with. A failure to provide initiatives or opportunities can lead to some young people disengaging completely, which clearly has a long-term impact on their employability. Persistently high unemployment, especially among younger and less skilled workers, leads to the problem that the Minister is now trying to grapple with. That problem involves people who are out of the labour market for so long that their potential to rejoin it reduces with each passing month, which explains, at least in part, some of the long-term benefit problems that he is attempting to deal with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I have issues generally with the way some of the ILO’s data are collected. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or some of his colleagues would like to request another debate, and we can consider the question at length. What pleased me most fundamentally about the last set of figures was that the drop occurred not in the group of those in full-time education, looking for a part-time job, but in the group of those not in full-time education or employment. That is a welcome development.

There is a big challenge for us.

[Steve McCabe]

I do not want the debate to get bogged down in the question of figures, but I am not quite sure I understood that last point. I thought that the Office for National Statistics said that 61,000 of the 88,000 drop was accounted for by students becoming economically inactive because they are in full-time study. It is not true in that case to say that the bulk of the drop could be attributed to non-students. The reverse would be true.