Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to visit St Helena—as have I in the past. It is one of the most remarkable places on Earth. On the issue of cleaning up the ocean and plastics, I can tell him that the UK is a founding member of the high ambition coalition to end plastic pollution, which is a group of 60 countries whose central aim is to stop plastic flowing into the environment by 2040. The overseas territories are not suppliers of plastic but they are receivers of a lot of it, and that is why this is so important.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The recent Environmental Audit Committee reports—on the Arctic and the current one on the Antarctic, both of which I chair—have called attention to the excellent blue belt programme and how very important it is in the Arctic and the Southern ocean. One of our recommendations was that the programme would work properly only if all the Ministers responsible for the Arctic in different Departments got together on a reasonably regular basis to discuss it. Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary please advise on whether that committee has met or what plans he has to call the meeting?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am advised that the meeting is, I think, today.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

We did support setting up the loss and damage fund at COP28 and we contributed specifically towards it. However, it is important that loss and damage does not draw from the same donors and the same official development assistance budgets as other development. It has to be different. It was because the UAE, as a non-traditional donor, put in $100 million to that fund that Britain was willing to support it, but we need new and different donors and new and different sources of funds.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I welcome the extremely important work the Government are doing in protecting vulnerable communities around the world. Will the Minister confirm to me that the £3 billion that the Government have committed for saving nature will be used on some of the very vulnerable habitat sites and animals around the world, such as those Environmental Audit Committee saw on a recent visit to Antarctica? Will he particularly think about whales, fur seals and of course the emperor penguin?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will think about all the mammals my hon. Friend has mentioned. I can assure him that our commitment is to biodiversity and to nature. We recognise the great importance of the work being done in the Antarctic, and indeed the contribution that he makes to that.

Situation in the Red Sea

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Today the House was set to debate the full sweep of defence and international affairs until the change of business yesterday, which gave this debate its focus on the Red sea. I know that Members on all sides will welcome the opportunity to debate and to question the Government on the UK’s presence and the tensions in this part of the middle east, and I look forward to the contributions from all sides to the debate. Nevertheless, I hope Ministers will ensure that we get the opportunity soon to debate the broader aspects of defence, especially on Ukraine, as the Defence Secretary indicated in his remarks he is keen to do.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

In the old days—I have been here a long time—we had debates in Government time on defence, as we do this afternoon, but in recent times we have not done so and the debates have been down to the Backbench Business Committee. I very much welcome the Committee, which is a great organisation, but none the less we ought to have defence debates in Government time on a Tuesday or Wednesday, set by the Government. I hope the Secretary of State will ensure that that happens in future.

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has great experience and he is right to say that Government time signals the importance that the Government give to the business they bring to this House. While the Backbench Business Committee does an important and useful job, it is Government time that matters. Since the Defence Secretary has been in post, we have not had that general debate on defence, and we should. We have not had a debate on Ukraine for four months, and we should, certainly ahead of the bloody two-year anniversary next month of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on a very wide-ranging speech, albeit somewhat remote from the situation in the Red sea, as you correctly pointed out, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the new Defence Secretary, who is not in his place, and the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who both spoke with great care, diplomacy and sense. They fulfilled precisely what this place ought to be about, namely His Majesty’s Government laying out their views and the loyal Opposition scrutinising what they have done.

Before I say anything else, I make it clear that I strongly support the strikes in the Red sea and all the remarks made by my hon. Friends, most of whom are much better informed on these matters than me. I strongly support the strikes, the way they were carried out and the reasoning for them.

If I may, I will take a slightly different approach—rather than simply the diplomatic, foreign affairs and military approaches—and look at the way in which the strikes were ordered. Particularly after the first strike, a great many people, including a number of people in this House—perhaps we will hear from the Liberal Democrats later on—were of the view that it was quite wrong. “The House should be recalled,” they said. “We should have a vote in this House on whether the strikes were justified,” it was said. “It was quite wrong that Parliament should not have the opportunity to express our views on the most important matter facing us all, namely warfare,” it was said. I am glad to say that the Government resisted those calls, and the way in which the strikes were ordered seemed—I will come back to precisely why in a moment—to be absolutely right.

I have been talking about this subject for some time. Indeed, I wrote a book about it, which, if I may say so, is available in all good bookshops. When I expressed the view in a debate some 15 or 20 years ago that it was wrong that the House of Commons should vote on going to war, it was greeted widely with scorn. Everybody said, “That’s absurd; that’s a ridiculous thing to say.” We can check Hansard for that. Indeed, when Lord Hague wrote an extensive article on the matter, he said very straightforwardly and simply, “When we go to war, the House of Commons and the House of Lords must decide on it. It must be done by a vote.” I am glad to say that last week the noble Lord Hague went through a damascene conversion. He has changed his mind on the matter and now entirely supports my view. Equally in my view, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which wrote a report on these matters, got it wrong. It said that it thought the House of Commons should have a vote before deployment. I take a stringently different view, because there is a large number of very important reasons why that should not be the case.

First, all pretence of secrecy would of course be destroyed. We would have a debate in this place, and the enemy would know precisely what we were planning to do. Secondly, we could not take that kind of decision without consulting our neighbours. The decision might well be part of a NATO strike or, in this case, a joint UK-US strike. Are we ready to ask NATO, the United Nations or the US to wait while we discuss the matter here? What happens if we vote against it here, but those wherever else vote in favour?

Thirdly, we are galloping down a very dangerous road if we ask the Prime Minister to come to this House and share with us the secret intelligence, legal advice and strategic knowledge on which he makes these difficult decisions, as he would be exposing many of our professional supporters to criticism or, indeed, to attack one way or another. It would be quite wrong if he did so. I do not want to know the secret intelligence. I do not want to know the legal advice. I want the right to scrutinise what the Government have done after they have done it.

It is also extremely important that warfare should not be politicised. If we vote in this House either to go to war or not to do so, we as MPs are taking a view of it. We are sending people to war while squabbling among ourselves about whether the war is right, wrong or indifferent. That seems to me quite wrong from the point of view of the families, particularly of those who are killed, who would then say, “Well, one party or the other took a strongly different view from you.”

Before I come to the final reason for my strong views on this matter, I must point out to the House that, of the 274 wars that England has taken part in since 1750, we have voted in this House on only two. Only twice in all those years have we voted prior to deployment. The first time was in 2003, when Tony Blair asked this House to vote on Iraq and whipped the Labour party into supporting the war. The Conservative party was also whipped; I am glad to say I rebelled against the Whip, but none the less we were whipped into supporting the war, and what a bad decision that was—quite the wrong decision.

The second time in all that 300-year to 400-year history that we had a vote in this House on going to war was before a potential Syria strike in 2013, which did not then occur. The House voted against it, and very much of the bloodshed, the corruption and the disaster that we see in Syria to this day comes about as a result of those votes. America followed us the next day and equally did not strike against the use of chemical weapons. That was a wrong decision made by this House, as in my view was the Iraq decision of 2003, and those are the only two occasions when, prior to deployment, we have voted.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

[James Gray]

My right hon. Friend disagrees with me.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am afraid I do. I agree with my hon. Friend’s main thrust, that there is no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Executive have the right to take initial action and seek support afterwards. Having said that, the case of Syria in particular has become a byword for a wrong and terrible decision, because the ghastly Assad remained in power, but the alternative would have been another Islamist swamp such as we saw in Libya. It was because there was a strong feeling in the House that Syria would have been another Iraq or another Libya that there was such pressure to have a vote. For my part, I think the result was absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point: he thinks we should not have had strikes against Syria, and therefore he thinks we should have had a vote on the matter, because the vote went against the strikes. However, let us imagine there was some other very important or essential war, in the moment before a general election, with a very small majority on one side or the other. That war would then become political. He might well find under those circumstances that a war that he strongly believed in and wanted to support was voted down by this House, rather than by the generals or the Prime Minister.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

Perhaps both my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will agree that, while it can be risky and dangerous to intervene, it can also be risky and dangerous not to intervene. Perhaps they would both agree on that point.

[James Gray]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Incidentally, I forgot to mention that I very much welcome him to the Front Bench. He is doing a good job standing in for the Foreign Secretary. I hope he will take note of the Procedure Committee’s report this afternoon on how a Secretary of State who is in the House of Lords should or should not be questioned by this House, and that the Government will accept the Procedure Committee’s proposal, namely that the Foreign Secretary should be called to the Bar of the House to take questions.

[Bob Seely]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Gray]

We must not get too far off the subject, but of course.

[Bob Seely]

I think I support what my hon. Friend says. Of the two times we voted on military action, the first time we were misled and the second time we were stung by having been misled, so we went the wrong way. As someone who was quite close to the Libyan conflict, as I saw it play out with ISIS in northern Iraq, I think we should have taken military action in principle over the use of chemical weapons. By not doing so, regardless of the outcome of the Syrian war, we weakened the idea of western resolve. I know it can be a bit of a cliché, but if we have a red line and dictators ignore it, we end up in a world of pain.

[James Gray]

Both my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) are seeking to involve me in a debate about a matter that happened some 10 or 15 years ago and is well beyond the scope of the debate. My point is not about whether or not striking against Syria was right, wrong or indifferent, but about the fact that we in this House chose not to do so. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), was absolutely right to say that not doing something is often as bad as doing something.

We in this House had a shortage of information—my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) knows a lot about these things, and I am ready to admit that I do not—of briefings, of secret intelligence and of legal advice, but we chose to take that decision. It seems to me that, in the extremely dangerous world that we live in, we will see an awful lot of these decisions taken in the months and years to come. The way in which matters were handled this time shows that the pendulum, which had swung from the divine right of Kings in the middle ages, whereby the King decided on his own, to the time in 2003 and 2013 when we allowed this House to vote, albeit not necessarily sensibly, has swung back to precisely where it ought to be—namely, that if this House votes on something, it is, by that means, diminished. We cannot then hold the Government to account; we cannot come back and say, “You, Mr Government, have got that wrong,” because we voted for it. And if we had voted for it, the Secretary of State would surely say, “But you voted for it!”

Our whole purpose in this House and this Chamber is to scrutinise what the Government have done, hold them to account and, if necessary, remove them when they do the wrong thing.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Gray]

Well, I am trying to wind up, but yes, of course.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend mentioned the world becoming a more dangerous place. We have known throughout the history of the NATO alliance that deterrence is one of the best ways to keep the peace. That is why we have the continuous at-sea deterrence: nobody knows where or when it may be used. To further his argument, if we want to keep the peace, is there not far greater deterrence in a decision being taken immediately rather than with 24 or 48 hours’ notice?

[James Gray]

I am not certain that my right hon. Friend, whom, incidentally, I congratulate on his knighthood, has quite grasped the subtlety of the point that I was trying to make, which was not so much about the substance of defence but about the way in which we take decisions in this House.

The point I was making was that if we vote on something, as happened to the Labour party over Iraq in 2003, it then becomes extremely difficult to criticise the Government for what they do subsequently. It is right that we should scrutinise the Government, but we should not vote on these matters. We should have huge debates, statements and votes after deployment, but the moment that we allow ourselves to be forced into whipped votes before deployment, we are, by definition, emasculating this House. It is quite wrong from the point of view of defence and from the point of view of parliamentary scrutiny. We demand the right to scrutinise the Government, and we can do that only if we do not vote on the wars.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Government for granting the debate, and to the Defence Secretary for setting out at the beginning of the debate the reasons for British military action in the Red sea region. He is right that this action was indeed limited, necessary and proportionate; in self-defence; using minimal necessary force; and for the freedom of navigation. I agree with all that, and it is good that it was set out in that way. Where I take issue with the Defence Secretary is that there is no vote associated with the debate. I know that a couple other right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the business of whether there should be prerogative powers or parliamentary approval for military action, and that is what I want to make the focus of my contribution.

I think it was the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) who talked about how only twice in 200 years has Parliament had a say before military action took place. I am not advocating for military action to take place following a vote. I recognise that there are plenty of occasions when parliamentary approval needs to happen retrospectively, after the event. Those scenarios include reasons of operational security and the deployment of special forces, which are definitely within the domain of the Executive and not necessarily the business of the legislature, and our international treaty obligations, as he said.

We can think of many scenarios and emergencies where there needs to be a decision by the Executive and the Government need to say what is going to happen, without consultation in advance. In those scenarios, however, there is no reason why we cannot then come back to the House and have a retrospective vote on that action. If that were happening today, I would very happily vote in support of the military action that has now taken place twice in the Red sea.

[James Gray]

There are two problems with retrospective votes. The first is that the action would already have happened, so if the House has voted against it, what would we do about it? The second is that they emasculate this House, because if we voted for military action, how could we then criticise it? Only if we do not vote for it can we do what we are doing today and scrutinise what the Government are doing.

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I intend to set out in my contributions the answers to both, so I hope he will listen out for them. He is very welcome to intervene at the end if he does not feel that I have answered them sufficiently.

If the Government are confident in their case, what is there to fear? Why can we not have a vote on military action if the Government are confident in their case and make that case in front of Parliament?

My particular concern is that this action sets a precedent for the future. We have gone over many times in this debate why it is the bread and butter of the Royal Navy. Freedom of navigation is something we can be very proud that the Royal Navy has secured for us for hundreds of years, but this could set a precedent for future military action where there is no prior vote or indeed retrospective vote.

I think that can be explained in part by the Foreign Secretary’s experience, which others have talked about, of seeking parliamentary support for military action against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria but failing to get it. I think the opposition of some MPs in 2013 was reflective of the concerns of their constituents, who at the time felt a reticence due to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. We could see the 2013 vote as an overreaction or perhaps over-reticence.

Under this Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, we now risk overreacting in the other direction, by looking back at that 2013 vote and deciding that we are not going to have retrospective approval at all. Surely the lesson from the 2013 vote is that Governments must do better at explaining the necessity of military action, not only to MPs, many of whom are not experts in this area and would rather defer to people with more expertise, but, crucially, to their constituents. We need to convince the British public that military action is necessary. That is particularly the case after the debacle of 2003 and Britain’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq.

I appreciate that there are situations, which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire spoke about, in which we do not have sight of secret intelligence and therefore the Executive need to make a decision without consultation. I appreciate that, but I think there is still a scepticism amongst the British public about the notion of secret intelligence and saying, “You can’t know; you need to trust us.” Again, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has created a very cynical public on that subject.

The counter-insurgencies of the early part of this century have damaged trust. To restore that trust, we need this House to be able to vote retrospectively on military action.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Foord]

I will give way at the end, if I may.

What sets the UK and our western allies apart is that we practice democratic control of our armed forces. This is all about setting us apart from our adversaries, but we also need to demonstrate to our own service personnel not just that they can be assured of the support of their Prime Minister and their Executive, but that they have the British public behind them. It is not just about support for the troops—we all support the troops—but about support for the cause, which is so important too.

We need to guard against a future scenario—one that Members might be able to imagine—in which the Prime Minister is threatened by dissent on his own Back Benches. Imagine a future Prime Minister who seeks to distract from domestic challenges by exercising military force abroad. We might call it “domestic distraction”. I have no confidence that every Prime Minister will operate with the foresight to anticipate what escalation British military action might trigger.

As Clausewitz said, war is a dialectic. In 21st century terms, the enemy gets a vote. This is not just about the Houthi militia; it is about the Iranian sponsors of the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah, and about Iran’s partner and customer, Russia. We must be cognisant of all that context when we take military action. For that reason, we must return to the House and get parliamentary scrutiny and approval.

[James Gray]

Let us imagine that the strikes have happened—as they did last week and earlier this week—and that the House had a vote on the matter today and voted against them. What would then happen?

[Richard Foord]

The point of a retrospective vote is that it gives guidance to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on what action the British people think should be taken in future. That is very relevant in this case because, as we have already heard, these two occasions of military strikes are not likely to be isolated, and we are likely to see future British military action in the Red sea.

When we talk about future British military action, the Defence Secretary needs to think carefully about speaking softly and carrying a big stick. At this stage, as we have heard from Conservative Members, he risks having armed forces that are too small, and misplacing the stick and shouting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

We have had an excellent debate. It is true that it has been wide-ranging on occasions, but it has also been thoughtful, frank and, at times, passionate. I certainly hope that the Defence Secretary will take the trouble to read Hansard tomorrow to at least be aware of the excellent contributions that have been made.

It has been interesting to listen to the contributions about whether Parliament should have a say on military action beforehand or retrospectively, and I am sure that we will return to that debate in earnest. I give a commitment to read what I am sure is an excellent book by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray).

[James Gray]

I shall send you one.

[Wayne David]

Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

This has been a thoughtful debate and, I think, a united one, and I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points made as I can in the time I have.

As my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made clear at the start of the debate, the Houthis’ illegal attacks on commercial shipping and British and American warships in the Red sea are completely unacceptable. Despite repeated warnings from the international community, they have carried out more than 30 attacks since 19 November. As I think all hon. and right hon. Members across the House have said, this is unacceptable, illegal and dangerous, and it cannot stand. That is why, amid the ongoing and imminent threat to British commercial and military vessels and those of our partners in the Red sea, the Prime Minister ordered the Royal Air Force to carry out targeted strikes against military facilities used by the Houthis, first on 11 January and then again on Monday. We acted alongside our US allies and with support from the Netherlands, Canada, Australia and Bahrain. The strikes were limited, necessary, proportionate and legal. We acted in self-defence, consistent with the UN charter and in line with international law to uphold the freedom of navigation.

On the specific issues raised in the debate, let me try to respond to the speeches we heard, starting with that by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). He mentioned his agreement with and support for what the Government are seeking to do, and we are most grateful for that. He also called for a wider defence debate, and I completely take his point. However, he will also accept that, under the changes that took place, the Government basically gave that time to the Backbench Business Committee, so the Backbench Business Committee itself is the most likely target, in addition to the Government, to provide that extra time.

[James Gray]

Does my right hon. Friend not accept that His Majesty’s Government have an absolute duty to provide debates in this House in Government time to discuss defence? Just to say that the Backbench Business Committee may or may not provide it if someone applies for a debate is not enough. We want proper debates here in Government time.

[Mr Mitchell]

No, no—I completely accept what my hon. Friend is saying. I am just pointing out that the reform made in relation to the Backbench Business Committee has eaten into that time.

I very much thank the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne for his support for the Government’s strategy on Ukraine. It is a great strength, I think, that there is full and total unity across the House on that matter. He asked me about the two landing platform docks Albion and Bulwark, and asked for an undertaking that they will not be scrapped. I am able, on behalf of the Government, to give him the undertaking that neither of them will be scrapped. I know that will come as a relief to the great friend of many of us, particularly on this side of the House: Lord Llewellyn, His Majesty’s ambassador to Italy, who is the honorary ship’s captain of HMS Albion.

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands: Marine Protected Area

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of strengthening the Marine Protected Area around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. Those are words that I have not said for a long time in Westminster Hall, so it is a pleasure to be here. I am delighted to be joined by not only the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), but other colleagues from across the House, some of whom are themselves returning to Westminster Hall after a bit of an absence in Government.

I am delighted to open this important debate on an issue that, perhaps surprisingly, is close to my heart, mainly because of the penguin—I will come back to that in a moment. First, I want to talk about great British wildlife. If we are asked to think about it, what actually comes to mind? We might think of the barn owl, the red squirrel, or—rightly, I think—the humble hedgehog, or even the newly reintroduced Eurasian beaver. But I think first of all of the Rock of Gibraltar and the Barbary macaque climbing those fabled pillars of Hercules. I think of the critically endangered mountain chicken frog on the island of Montserrat. I think of the world’s smallest flightless bird, the Inaccessible Island rail. Inaccessible Island is just off Tristan da Cunha. Most importantly, I think of the great British penguin.

Why are all these things linked? It is because of the British overseas territories. Through our overseas territories, we are responsible for not only chicken frogs and Inaccessible Island rails; we are responsible for one third of the world’s penguins. That is a staggering statistic—but it is only one statistic, because it does not stop there. Over 90% of the UK’s biodiversity is found in the British overseas territories, which also hold over 94% of the UK’s endemic species. Sometimes there is an attitude that perhaps prevails that the overseas territories are just a few rocks with no real importance to the UK and only of interest from a financial services perspective. But that is not true: it is not true from a historical perspective, it is not true from a strategic perspective, and it is certainly not true from an environmental perspective.

Spread across five of the seven seas, and with environments ranging from tropical to polar, the overseas territories are invaluable to our nature conservation and restoration work. We can be very proud that, over the past decade, the Government have taken firm action to conserve these precious ecosystems. For a start, the Darwin Plus scheme has seen over £32 million of funding go to 162 environmental projects in the OTs, including 33 projects in South Georgia alone.

I want to talk about the Government’s other vital initiative with the overseas territories: the blue belt programme. Successive Conservative Governments have grown and strengthened this network of marine protected areas, working with 10 overseas territory Governments to do so. As a result, we have now protected over 4.3 million sq km of ocean. That is 1% of the world’s ocean—an area the size of India. According to the Government, the managing, monitoring and surveyance of the blue belts has come at a cost to taxpayers of only £10 per square kilometre of ocean.

One of these 10 overseas territories is the focus of our debate today—South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, a remote archipelago in the South Atlantic ocean, perhaps made famous in the minds of many of us by the events of 1982. It is said in this context to be more biodiverse than the fabled Galápagos islands immortalised by the journeys and travels of Charles Darwin. This uninhabited overseas territory first joined the blue belt programme back in 2013, with a commitment to review the marine protected area every five years. Having last been reviewed, and subsequently strengthened, back in 2018 after valiant campaigning by the then Back-Bench MPs, the noble Lords Benyon and Goldsmith, the time has come again for the Department and the SGSSI Government to decide whether to strengthen those marine protections further. It will come as no surprise that I believe we should.

South Georgia is a spectacular island. It is the size of Cornwall, and has over a dozen peaks that rise higher than Ben Nevis. Its wildlife is as spectacular as its geography. It is home to 3 million penguins of four different species; as I previously mentioned, one third of the world’s penguins are British and nearly half of them live in South Georgia. The island is also home to most of the world’s Antarctic fur seals, half of the world’s southern elephant seals and four species of albatross, which we know from Samuel Taylor Coleridge and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” are the world’s largest flying birds. I resist the temptation to quote reams of that noble Romantic verse—many of us have studied English to a very high level.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I give way to my hon. Friend and neighbour.

[James Gray]

I wanted to mark in passing that, although South Georgia is indeed the home of a vast quantity of penguins, fur seals and elephant seals, they are currently being very badly affected by avian flu. Officials are extremely concerned that the numbers will be severely depleted in the months to come.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to issue an alert about the danger that those important populations face from pervasive infections such as avian flu and how quickly we can go from a situation of abundance to one of endangerment. That is why this debate is even more timely.

We must not forget the South Sandwich Islands. That chain of volcanic islands is also home to millions of penguins, including a colony of over 2 million on Zavodovski island alone—the largest penguin colony on earth. What albatross, seals and penguins share is the ocean: they are all reliant on the sea. The marine environment of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is what gives life to them, and when the ocean suffers from the impacts of climate change and over-exploitation, so do the islands.

The threat that I will focus on is the exploitation of krill populations. Human-led demand for krill is growing significantly. The Chinese industrial fishing fleet that operates in the region needs more krill to fuel the ever-growing demand for aquaculture. However, krill is also the vital first link of the food chain on which the penguins, whales and other charismatic creatures of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands depend. As this threat increases, so too does the need to protect more of the waters from it. The UK Government and the local SGSSI Government have recognised that, and they deserve praise for the work that they have done to protect the waters. The marine protected area around the territory currently fully protects over 283,000 sq km, which is 23% of the overseas territory’s exclusive economic zone. That is well enforced, at relatively low cost, by the local Government.

But as the risk from industrial fishing in these waters grows, so does the need to act to fully protect more of the waters around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. With that in mind, this year’s review of the MPA creates an opportunity to put in place various new measures to protect ecosystems across the territory. In particular, I urge the Government to take the bold step of designating all 400,000 sq km of ocean around the South Sandwich Islands as a no-take zone. Unlike South Georgia, which has a scientific presence and is visited by tens of thousands of tourists every year on cruise ships, the South Sandwich Islands are virtually untouched by humanity. If there is any part of Britain’s global maritime estate that should be protected in this way, this is it.

I should stress that I am not calling for a full no-take zone in the waters around South Georgia. I am cognisant of the fact that fishing licences are a vital source of income for the SGSSI Government, and sustainable, limited and effectively managed fishing has a role to play in the future of South Georgia’s maritime zone. However, around the South Sandwich Islands, where only a small amount of fishing happens at present, we have to be bold.

[James Gray]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend twice, but I want to pick him up on one matter, which is his indication that the Chinese are mass fishing in those waters. They are not. He may not be aware of this, but there has been no commercial fishing of any kind in the waters around the South Sandwich Islands in the last 30 years. Two ships go there once a year; they take in 50 or 60 tonnes, and that is all. There is no fishing around the South Sandwich Islands because it is too far away, and therefore bringing in a no-catch zone of the kind that my right hon. and learned Friend describes would not achieve anything.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am afraid that that is not the information that I have received. Even if my hon. Friend is right, there is nothing to be lost from confirming the reality that he asserts that there is little or no fishing or fishing take in that area.

I was going to go on to talk about the existing large no-take zones in both the Tristan da Cunha and the Pitcairn Islands MPAs, both of which have human populations. It would therefore make complete sense to have one around the SSIs. Together with additional targeted extensions to protections around key areas in South Georgia’s waters, that would bring substantial benefits to the territory.

Scientists have been clear on the risks to the marine environment in the region, and with krill stocks being damaged by climate change, we cannot afford for them to be also threatened by any industrial fishing. With last month’s worrying news about bird flu, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, it is incumbent on us all to do everything we can to protect the avian life of the islands. That would start by protecting its food source. Thirty leading marine biologists and polar scientists have called for the Government to upgrade the MPA and I urge the Government to listen to that evidence-based argument.

Some may argue that the best way to strengthen the MPA is through the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the multilateral body for the Antarctic region. However, the frankly meddling activities of Russia in the process make any positive action, whether environmental or otherwise, seemingly impossible, certainly for the foreseeable future. Thanks to unilateral action by our Government in 2018 at the last MPA review, a precedent has been set for the UK to act unilaterally to strengthen protections for the waters of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Given that SGSSI is our sovereign territory, we should be able to act to do what we see as best for protecting the biodiversity that it holds. We know that marine protected areas work. Scientists have recently seen some positive signs within the territory’s albatross and whale populations, which they link to the existing MPA. Ministers have a real opportunity this year to go further with those protections and give the territory’s endangered species the best chance of recovery.

Before I wrap up, and at the risk of being slightly tangential, I want to touch on one other overseas territory, which is the world’s largest marine reserve around the Chagos islands, with 640,000 sq km of protected ocean. I am not going to talk today about the strategic considerations the Government should make in their negotiations with Mauritius, but I ask that the Government allow Parliament to have proper time to discuss those matters. I want to stress the importance of the environmental considerations that the Government must bear in mind. The tropical environment of the British Indian Ocean Territory is very different from that of South Georgia but is of equal global importance. Having led for the United Kingdom in the International Court of Justice case against Mauritius, frankly, it is a mystery to me why we are negotiating with Mauritius in the first place. I view that judgment as advisory only and the sovereignty of the UK is inviolable. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations might be, we cannot let the environmental protections around the Chagos islands be compromised.

Coming back finally to South Georgia, if we were to visit Grytviken just 60 years ago, we would have stood among the carcases of whales as the bay was stained red with blood from industrial whaling. The transformation in the past few decades has been incredible. In the first half of the 20th century, 175,000 whales were killed, leading them to almost vanish from the area, but in recent years, sperm, humpback and, crucially, blue whales are returning in ever-increasing numbers to those waters. We have much, therefore, to be proud of.

It makes complete sense to me that we continue this vital work and create as safe an environment as possible for the millions of fish, birds and mammals who are dependent on the waters of this territory. It is time to show that the UK is not just a world leader but the world leader in Antarctic and sub-Antarctic conservation.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, and next-door neighbour, the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for calling this extremely important debate. It is a very important moment in the consideration of these matters as they are being considered by the Foreign Office and by DEFRA. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on her four magnificent years in DEFRA. It has been a superb operation. We are sorry she is no longer there, but we are glad to see how active she has been on the Back Benches in the week or so since she was—dethroned, I nearly said.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) made some extremely important points from a position of great knowledge. I will just pick him up slightly on one point: all those things he described and on which we violently agree—about the vital importance of preserving biodiversity in both South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands—are largely unconnected, with a question of a no-take zone around the South Sandwich Islands. The two things are not necessarily cause and effect,

I would like to declare an interest. I had the good fortune to visit South Georgia as a guest of the commissioner about four or five years ago, after which we had a debate in Westminster Hall on 19 December 2017. Many of these matters were discussed, and those keenly interested might like to consult Hansard. I am also taking a team from the Environmental Audit Committee to Antarctica over the Christmas recess. It is obviously being paid for, as it is Select Committee activity. I have some interest in these matters as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the polar regions.

I think we were in danger of violently agreeing. No one would disagree that biodiversity is supremely important as are these creatures—including penguins, which I have had the very good fortune to mix with four or five years ago, magnificent elephant seals and the fur seals. It is superb—a heaven on Earth. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon was virtually poetic in describing it. He is absolutely right in his description—it is the most superb and wonderful place in the world.

I therefore strongly support the notion of the establishment of marine protect areas across the whole of the Southern ocean. There are two so far that are acknowledged by CCAMLR: one on the South Orkney Islands, and the other at Ross sea. Both were established under CCAMLR some years ago. CCAMLR is currently considering two or three others—east Antarctica, the Weddell sea and the Antarctic peninsula. We would like to see MPAs established there, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon correctly said, political influences in CCAMLR are making that impossible. The Russians and the Chinese in particular will not allow MPAs to be established around Antarctica. We think that is a great shame, and that they should be, but they are not.

By contrast, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands have an extremely active and very well-monitored MPA, and has done for now for some 10 or so years. Fishing around the South Sandwich Islands is very carefully monitored by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. As I mentioned to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon a moment ago, there is very little fishing. Two vessels go there for one month a year and catch between 50 and 60 tonnes of krill. I think I am right in saying that the valuable Patagonian toothfish are not caught at all, or only in very small quantities. The waters around South Georgia are carefully monitored by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. They have a very good, sustainable MPA that allows us to catch fish, thereby supporting local communities, particularly in the Falklands, and at the same time preserve these wonderful wild creatures.

I can understand why from a PR standpoint it sounds good to say, “Let’s ban all fishing! Isn’t that great? Aren’t we great? Britain is leading the world in banning all fishing.” There are two problems with that. The first is that there is no fishing there anyhow. Banning something that does not exist does not have any great moral standing. The only boats that fish in the South Sandwich Islands every year are two scientific vessels that look into the krill around there. They pick out 50 or 60 tonnes purely for scientific reasons, and that is entirely licensed by the Falkland Islands. Bringing in a no-take zone would not prevent any fishing that happens there at the moment. I do not believe there are illegal fisheries there at the moment, but if the Chinese or Russians were fishing there, they would still do so even if there were an MPA recognised by the world. Someone cannot be stopped from breaking the law simply by our changing the designation of the waters.

If we were to turn the very well-managed SGSSI MPA into a no-take zone, it would have two very significant consequences that we should be very careful about. First, we would no longer control the waters. At the moment, they are controlled by the Falkland Islands and SGSSI. Therefore, they are effectively British waters. If we were not licensing the very small number of vessels that do go there, we would no longer control those waters. They would become part of CCAMLR and would be subject to the Russians, Chinese and, in particular the Argentinians, who are members of CCAMLR. It might well be that the scientific research vessels that are allowed to go there very occasionally would suddenly become Argentinian vessels or Russian vessels or Chinese vessels. We do not know what the consequences would be, so there is quite a big geopolitical problem that would come with that.

Under CCAMLR, the South Sandwich Islands have some 15% of the allowable krill. If we were to say, “No, there must be no krill fished off the South Sandwich Islands”—none is fished, but we are none the less allowed to catch 15%—that would mean that the 85% that is around Antarctica would become 100%. In other words, we would be taking more krill from the Southern ocean by banning it from SGSSI. The consequence of our bringing in this ban would not be saving krill but catching more of it. We would be increasing the catch by 15%. To those environmentalists who are very concerned about the krill—quite right too, they should be—I would simply say that if we bring in a no-take zone around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, we will increase the Russian and Chinese take by some 15% and will further damage the krill population.

We must be very careful about how we approach these things. Of course, we are all determined to find a way of preserving the environment and the very delicate biodiversity—the superb biodiversity—that exists down there, but the relatively easy “Let’s ban everything” line, which I am afraid my right hon. Friends have all rather easily adopted, ignores some of the very significant geopolitical difficulties that would arise from that. In particular, the long-term battle between the Falklands and the Argentine would rear its ugly head again, because Argentina would say that it has a right to fish those waters.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Gray]

I am so sorry, I have run out of time. We must therefore be extremely careful what we wish for. The consequences may well be worse than what is happening at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Huq. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for securing this very important debate. This area has long been of interest to me. Of course, my constituency has connections with the South Atlantic, with the Terra Nova expedition having left in 1910 from Cardiff bay, where it is commemorated. There was also the Welsh involvement in the Falklands conflict; the first I heard of South Georgia was in relation to the terrible events in 1982. I am a fan of Shackleton—as I am sure many others in the room are—and have read his diaries, “South”, and “The Voyage of the James Caird”. The arrival at South Georgia and his incredible efforts along with Crean and Worsley has never left my mind.

I take a deep interest in the overseas territories, large and small. I was delighted to meet the previous chief Ministers and representatives of the overseas territories last week as they visited London for the Joint Ministerial Council. On my visit to the Falklands in November last year—I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to that, as a shadow Minister—I had the pleasure of meeting Laura Sinclair Willis, the chief executive officer of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and Alison Blake, who, as well as being the Governor of the Falkland Islands, serves as His Majesty’s Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. We discussed these issues in great detail. Indeed, at Mount Pleasant in the Falklands, I was privileged to meet RAF pilots who had conducted some of the patrol missions over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and they showed me the incredible footage they had taken from their A400M the week before. That was a truly special occasion.

Before I go into some of the detail, I reiterate Labour’s unwavering commitment to the UK’s overseas territories in the South Atlantic and across the world. In particular, I want to make clear our cast-iron commitment to the economic, physical and environmental security of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and indeed every territory that makes up the global British family. We will defend their sovereignty. It is non-negotiable—end of—particularly given some comments that we have heard in the media in recent weeks.

My visit to the region underscored to me not only the relevance of the South Atlantic as a crucial area for global environmental diversity, but the competing geopolitical and economic interests in the region, which are growing only more prominent. That is why I am thankful for this debate. I am also familiar with the wildlife in the South Atlantic and, indeed, the very, very cold waters. I had the pleasure of swimming at Yorke bay with the noble Lord Hannan as the gulls watched on, and I swam with penguins at Bluff cove. I have had some very direct experiences of the incredible environment in the South Atlantic.

Very important points have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members today about a range of issues, from avian flu to the importance of krill. We have also heard about the situation facing other overseas territories in relation to their marine resources, including from the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon. I refer to my comments about the Chagos islands and the importance of the environmental and marine sustainability in the debate we had in this place a few months ago.

Of course, the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands marine protected area is one of the world’s largest MPAs. The full protection now covers 283,000 km and is supported by the Government there, with the aim of conserving the rich marine biodiversity while allowing sustainable fisheries. Indeed, as we have heard, the MPA harbours a quarter of the world’s penguins and breeding colonies of several species of albatross, along with Antarctic fur seals and southern elephant seals.

The UK overseas territories’ marine environments are of global significance, from Antarctica to the Caribbean, and from the Pacific to the Atlantic. They contain 94% of the unique species that the UK is responsible for and have marine areas that extend over 2% of the world’s ocean surface. Although they are negligible contributors to climate change and global warming, their unique environments are particularly vulnerable to the effects of not only rising sea levels, but climate change, rising temperatures in waters and the loss of biodiversity that comes with that. They must also be integral to the solutions we find going forward.

However, we also see the clear focus on the region by many global powers; China and Russia have been mentioned. I saw evidence of that in the presence of Chinese fishing vessels off the economic exclusion zones of the Falkland Islands—I am talking about the jiggers that pull up squid from the ocean. There were 300 Chinese vessels stationed there, operating on an industrial scale with little data sharing or other co-operation because of the wider disputes in the region, despite the very important efforts made by fisheries scientists, many of whom are based in the Falklands, and of course the excellent work of organisations such as the British Antarctic Survey.

[James Gray]

Just to clarify, the fishing vessels that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are outside the marine protected area, within which they cannot fish.

[Stephen Doughty]

Yes, absolutely, but the point that I am making is that the ambitions of, and indeed, the attempts by global powers to operate in these environments are increasing. We have seen that with the Chinese application for—

UK’s Relationship with Mexico

James Gray Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. As the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) has only just arrived in the Chamber, I am not sure that that would be appropriate. If the Minister would like to continue—

[David Rutley]

On this occasion, given that this is a former Foreign Secretary, I think, with your permission, Mr Gray—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

No, I do not think so at all. The right hon. Gentleman may be a former Foreign Secretary, but he was not here for the debate; he has just arrived in the Chamber. He may not intervene, and the Minister will continue his winding-up speech.

[David Rutley]

I bow to your judgment, Mr Gray.

Another key thing in the relationship is about building capacity and building strength on both sides of the relationship. We are absolutely committed to doing that to create a sense of genuine partnership. With existing free trade agreements with 46 countries, and others on the way, Mexico is without a doubt a titan of free trade; and with the second largest economy in Latin America, Mexico’s demand for imports is only set to grow. We look forward to using our bilateral relationship to give fresh opportunities to British businesses across multiple sectors.

I did not agree with absolutely everything that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, but she said many wise things. She may already know this stat, but last year alone, whisky exports were up by 22%. I have to say that, for a teetotaller, I know a lot about the flow of spirits that sees whisky going from one side and tequila the other way. I know that Members here appreciate that.

As we look to this mature trade relationship, there are of course opportunities, particularly in offshore wind and particularly in north-east Scotland. There are huge opportunities across the region, including in north-east Brazil, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) knows as the trade envoy for Brazil, and in Costa Rica and the US. Wherever I go, we talk about this relationship and these opportunities.

The recently signed comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—known as the CPTPP to its friends—presents us with significant opportunities. British businesses will benefit from enhanced access to the Mexican and other markets. Our exporters will enjoy reduced tariffs when selling to Mexico, including on our high-quality beef, pork and apples, and UK consumers will pay less for Mexican products such as honey and chocolate. I say gently to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, because I know that she cares about this, that animal welfare protections are and will continue to be in place. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers have set that out, as I did when I served several years ago as the Minister with responsibility for food.

British businesses will benefit from enhanced market access without a doubt. Our friends in Mexico know how keen I am for them to ratify the UK’s accession to the CPTPP soon. It was the clear focus of my recent visit. Also during that visit, we talked a lot about the third round of negotiations on the UK-Mexico free trade agreement. That will be an important pillar of our relationship, and the opportunities that it will present to develop exports in both directions are huge. We have had three productive rounds of FTA negotiations so far. Both countries are united in their objective to build a bilateral agreement to complement the CPTPP and provide a solid framework in which our bilateral trade relationship can flourish, including by strengthening commitments to support small and medium-sized enterprises, innovation, trade and gender equality. Together with colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, I am determined to ensure that the new deal adds value to the UK economy and brings benefits across the country, as well as to our friends in Mexico.

I very much hope that more UK companies will take up the trade opportunities that anybody who goes to Mexico will see. When I was in Guadalajara, I was able to understand more about the benefits that Diageo and AstraZeneca see in that great city. With Mexico’s increasing expertise in advanced manufacturing, the opportunities for friendshoring and closer relationships should be clear to all. We need to ensure that those opportunities are made fully available to UK companies and bring them to Mexico.

There were a few references to a potential trade envoy to Mexico. I know that that issue has been raised on a few occasions. The Government continue to review countries where such an appointment would be of greatest benefit. Obviously, the ultimate decision is for the Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North does an outstanding job in Brazil, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) does an amazing job in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Peru. The comments made today have been fully noted, and I am sure that the work that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton has done will be noted in any conversations or decisions about this particular opportunity.

We recognise that in a debate about Mexico it is important to address and acknowledge the complex issues of human rights. That has been a concern in the country for many years, and it continues to be an area of focus. I recognise the important work of our ambassador, Jon Benjamin, who has been referenced by many people in this debate. He has a principled, patient and passionate stance, which is exemplary, and he is seeking to engage at the appropriate levels in Mexico. There is no question but that it is a dangerous country in which to be an environmental activist or a journalist.

UK-Mongolian Relations

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

May I announce a rather unusual change to normal procedure? I intend to take part in the debate, but I am also a member of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen, and it has been agreed by all parties that in the absence of the regular Chairman, I shall chair the debate until Sir Roger Gale comes to relieve me, which should be in a few minutes. I hope that that is acceptable to the House.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK-Mongolian relations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, during this important debate on Anglo-Mongolian relations. It was a tremendous privilege for me to be appointed as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Mongolia some two and a half years ago. I come from an exports background: before becoming a Member of Parliament, I spent my formative career after university in exports, and I fundamentally believe that the future prosperity of our nation is predicated on our ability to have the same strength in exports that we have in our indigenous economy. The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world, but not the fifth largest exporter. We have a target of £1 trillion of exports by 2030, and the role that the trade envoys play in promoting British exports is very important.

In January, we celebrated the 60th anniversary of our bilateral diplomatic relations with Mongolia, and 60 is an important number for Mongolians, so they held a large reception at the Dorchester hotel. I was pleased to speak at the event, together with the Deputy Prime Minister of Mongolia, to highlight the fact that the UK was the first European country formally to recognise Mongolia as an independent sovereign nation.

During my visits to Mongolia, the country’s geopolitical significance has become ingrained in my thinking. There are tremendous opportunities for bilateral co-operation, which I shall set out in the debate, but before outlining our goals and aspirations in Mongolia and the far east, let me describe the wasted decades of our obsession with the European Union.

Post Suez, we lost confidence as a nation. Suez was such a jolt for us—this is a subject I have studied extensively—that our mindset as a nation changed. We went through a period of economic and political malaise. Certainly, I believe, we went through a period of significant retrenchment, and we pulled away from many of our commercial and military interests in the far east. It was the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew—as you will remember, Mr Gray—who remonstrated with us for pulling away from our bases there. We tended to focus purely on our own continent and the European Economic Community. At that time, civil servants and others peddled the narrative, “The empire has gone. We are too small to navigate the world stage, and we need the crutch of the EEC.”

There then ensued decades of political, economic and constitutional enslavement to the process of the supranational state. We watched the constant EU summits and the constant debates in which people tried to thrash into one policy the views and aspirations of 28 countries. We left the EU and, despite all the bullying from Brussels, we have kept our course to freedom and independence.

This Government have achieved two extraordinarily important goals during their tenure of office: entry into the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the world’s largest and fastest-growing trading bloc; and membership of AUKUS, the new naval agreement between Britain, Australia and America. If protected, those two extraordinary achievements will have a profound impact not only on the British economy, but on world security and peace. The CPTPP is the world’s largest trading bloc and contains some of the fastest-growing countries in the world, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam—in fact, the whole of the far east. Those countries are growing extraordinarily. The United Kingdom is the only European country that has been invited to join, and my understanding is that we will be signing the treaties to enter this month or next month—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I thank the Chairman of Ways and Means for kindly allowing me to take part in this debate after having opened it in the Chair. It is an unusual thing to have done, and I am glad to have set a new record.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), whose speech was wide-ranging, geopolitical and extremely interesting. He is a true master in the development of our relationship with Mongolia, and I thank him for the work that he does as our trade envoy. The way he has made a real presence in Mongolia, and a real presence for Mongolia here in London, is superb. The work he has done is outstanding. His speech today will go down in the history of UK-Mongolia relations as being extremely important in laying out the significance of our trade relations with Mongolia.

I hope the House will forgive me if I am a little more parochial than my hon. Friend and deal with the country of Mongolia rather than elsewhere in world—that is more my level. I want to let the House know that I am a bit of a fraud; the reason for my interest in Mongolia is that throughout my entire childhood my father used to threaten to send me there if I was naughty. I had no idea where Mongolia was; I thought it was somewhere extremely remote, very strange and unusual, and pretty awful. When I came to Parliament 27 years ago and had the opportunity to visit Mongolia, I thought I had better find out what it really was like. I am delighted to say that my late father could not have been more wrong in his description of what an awful place it was; I am delighted to have had my relations with Mongolia develop ever since.

Mongolia is a very interesting place. It is a huge country—something like 10 times the size of the United Kingdom. There are only 3 million people, more than half of whom live in Ulaanbaatar. There are a very small number of people, largely herdsmen, elsewhere across the country. They preserve their magnificent traditions, which stretch back to earliest times, encompassing Genghis Khan and the great Mongol empire in the 13th century—the largest empire the world has ever known.

Incidentally, the Mongol empire of Genghis Khan was largely dependent on the fact that he invented stirrups. For that reason, he was able to have his warriors charging with swords and bows and arrows and fighting from horseback, while the enemy could not. The same applied when the Saxons lost in 1066; they rode down to Hastings and then got off their horses—they did not have stirrups. Genghis Khan did have stirrups, and that accounts for the greatest empire the world has ever known.

It is important that Mongolia maintains those traditions. When one goes there, one stays in a ger—it is not a yurt, which is a Russian word. One must ride a Mongolian horse, as I have done many times. Although given my height, I can actually run along the ground as I ride because the horse is so small. It is quite an experience. One must buy some Mongolian traditional dress—people wear it to this day, particularly in the countryside, but also in Ulaanbaatar—and take part in all the magnificent and important cultural events there. It is a great way to remember the past.

The Mongol derby happens next week. My friend Philip Atkins is taking part in the 1,000-mile race across the steppes on Mongolian horses—what a magnificent way to commemorate the great postal runs across Mongolia. My best wishes to Philip for what lies ahead. I would not do it for all the tea in China—or in Mongolia, come to that—so well done to him for doing it. Those kinds of tradition, and the history and culture of Mongolia, are of huge significance.

One of the main reasons I am in love with Mongolia is that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham mentioned—it is a little beacon of democracy. The little Parliament, the State Great Khural, operates in a region that is not at all friendly towards democracy. Mongolia is surrounded on one side by Russia, and on the other by China—both are hostile, and the Mongolians dislike both equally. The country is reliant on both to some degree, but is certainly not friendly to either, and for good reason.

There, in the middle of nowhere, Mongolia maintains proper democracy, based on our system in Westminster, which is to be encouraged. It is therefore important that we find ways of assisting Mongolia in the constitutional changes coming up—it is just about to change the way the Parliament is elected. We should assist it in every possible way to make those changes and to continue to develop that important democratic beacon in the middle of an anti-democratic desert.

With that in mind, I am very glad that I have often visited Mongolia with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The IPU do great work in encouraging democracy in Mongolia. It is disappointing that we were not able to be there this year, which is the 60th anniversary of our recognition of Mongolia, but I hope we will be there soon none the less. The all-party parliamentary group for Mongolia might organise a trip, if we can find some funding to do that, and I hope the IPU might reconsider the decision not to visit this year and find time do so shortly. It is terribly important that we here, with 1,000 years of democracy in this building, make use of our knowledge and experience in countries such as Mongolia, which are desperately trying to hang on to democracy.

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the new ambassador, Fiona Blyth, to her place in Mongolia. She is a great woman—I have met her many times—and she will do a superb job in representing Britain’s interests. I also thank the outgoing ambassador, Philip Malone, who did the job with great distinction indeed. We do wonderful work in supporting democracy in Mongolia and we must make sure that we continue to do so.

In passing, may I refer to the all-party parliamentary group, which is very active in this place? We see a lot of Mongolians coming through Parliament, and I am most grateful to a member of my office staff, Oscar Harrison, who runs the group for me. He does a first-class job. This is an important APPG. This Parliament has far too many APPGs, and I only run those that are very active and do things. The Mongolia APPG does a great deal, and I am most grateful for it.

In my 25 years of visiting Mongolia, I am delighted to say that I have seen huge changes. I remember going there shortly after the Soviets had withdrawn. Ulaanbaatar, or UB, was a pretty rundown little Soviet-type place with one major hotel, which had one thing on the menu, namely mutton. If guests did not like mutton, they did not get anything to eat.

All those years ago, Mongolia was a pretty rundown ex-Soviet country, but the changes I have seen since then are extraordinary. UB has doubled in size—with some environmental consequences, as my hon. Friend mentioned—and some worthwhile modern technologies and industries are developing there, particularly with regard to the Oyu Tolgoi mine and other mining and mineral interests.

I have also been glad to see the cashmere industry develop over the years. Some 30 years ago, the Gobi Cashmere factory in Mongolia was extremely basic and grey cardigans were all that was available. Today, the cashmere industry is fairly modern and widely advertised, and the industry exports to the UK, which I am glad about, although more could be done. I think I am right in saying that the company is still owned by the state, and if it were privatised it might become even better. None the less, some of those new industries—

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[James Gray]

I do not have much time. My hon. Friend spoke for 45 minutes—[Interruption.] Let us not bother with that for now. I hope we will see Gobi developing further in the years to come.

We in this country have an enormous amount to contribute to Mongolia. I have already mentioned democracy and the free-market economy, both of which we can lead on for Mongolia and the rest of the world, and we can contribute a huge amount with regard to commerce and industry, as my hon. Friend has described. I am glad that there is, for example, a big relationship between the London stock exchange and the Mongolian stock exchange, and the Mongolian stock exchange can learn an awful lot from us.

In a variety of other economic and trade aspects, we are developing our relationship with Mongolia, and we can also do a lot with regard to education and science. English is now the second language of Mongolia, which I am glad about, and we can do a huge amount to promote industry, science and education there. I am pleased that there is also a defence relationship with Mongolia, and 6,000 Mongolian troops served in Afghanistan alongside us. Those troops made a useful contribution to the defence of the world.

Mongolia is no longer the outer extremity of the world, which is how my father described it to me all those years ago. It has a great distance to go before it becomes a fully integrated, fully modern and fully democratic nation state. We all want that to happen, but the changes I have seen in 25 years of going to Mongolia are quite extraordinary and very worth while.

I send the Mongolians every good wish, and I hope Mongolia keeps on its steady track of movement towards democracy and a free-market economy. I hope Mongolia maintains its fine old traditions as it does that. We must remember the country’s culture, language and education. If it continues in such a way, people in 60 years will be able to look back from the 120th anniversary of our recognition of the country and be proud of the contribution Britain has made to Mongolia.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The hon. Lady is quite right: David Attenborough’s championing of all things in the natural world gives us as policymakers around the world, and all those in the next generation who are passionate about ensuring that Governments get this right, the enthusiasm and the energy that are required. As I have said, at the moment the policy is not to sponsor or support the issuing of any exploitation licences, precisely because we want to ensure that, using the International Seabed Authority—the organisation that brings all state parties together—we are working together to come up with a policy that will protect and assure the deep seabed.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

One of the seas that may become most vulnerable to deep-sea mining is the Arctic ocean, as the ice retreats and it opens up. We are extremely concerned about what the consequences may be for the environment there, and that is why the Government agreed to a moratorium on fishing in the central Arctic ocean. If they can agree to a moratorium on fishing in the central Arctic ocean, why can they not agree to a temporary “no digging” agreement in respect of deep-sea mining?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

My hon. Friend is, of course, a great champion for and expert on all things to do with the Arctic. If I may, I will ask the Minister, Lord Goldsmith, to get back to my hon. Friend with more detail on that. As I say, the UK continues to take the very firm position that we will engage through the ISA Council to ensure that we get a global position that protects the seabed.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

We have always been at the centre of scientific innovation. I will not give the House a running commentary on the negotiations, but we do have optimism. We are confident that we will be able to secure that fair deal for researchers, businesses and taxpayers, with the kind of important research that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Britain’s outstanding contribution to Arctic and, indeed, Antarctic science has been greatly aided over the years by Horizon Europe. Can the Minister reassure me that our huge contribution to the High North will be replicated, and soon, and can he tell me when the negotiations will finally end?

[Leo Docherty]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the High North will be at the centre of all our scientific work, and I acknowledge and praise his important role in that region.

Hunger: East Africa and the Horn of Africa

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered hunger in the East and Horn of Africa.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir James.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I am not Sir James—I am Mr Gray. Unless the hon. Gentleman knows something I don’t, “Mr” is fine.

[Patrick Grady]

Well, that must be rectified in the near future, Mr Gray. [Laughter.] It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, especially given your family’s heritage in Glasgow North. I am grateful to all the Members who have come today and to all those who sponsored the bid at the Backbench Business Committee—not all of them are able to be present, but I am grateful for the cross-party support for the debate.

The Backbench Business Committee has granted 90 minutes for this debate. Hunger and malnutrition kill people in the east and horn of Africa at the rate of one person every 36 seconds. In the time we have for today’s debate, 150 people in the region will lose their lives because their basic right to food has been denied them for entirely preventable reasons. One of the most important things we can do today is make sure that this scandal no longer goes unnoticed.

Christian Aid’s research has found that only 23% of the UK public are aware of the hunger crisis in the horn of Africa, compared with 91% who say they are aware of the crisis in Ukraine. The presence of so many Members here today, the correspondence we have received from constituents and the discussions we have had with those who have come to see us at our surgeries or at the mass lobby in February sponsored by the right hon. Members for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), show that when members of the public do develop an awareness and understanding of the situation, they demand urgent action to deal with the acute crisis on the ground and long-term action to build resilience and prevent future crises.

Countries in the horn and east of Africa, including Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, South Sudan and Eritrea, are entering their sixth consecutive season of below-average rainfall. The worsening food security situation also extends to Djibouti and Uganda. The World Health Organisation estimates that around 46 million people in the region currently face what the integrated food security phase classification system describes as crisis levels or worse, meaning households have

“food consumption gaps that are reflected by high or above-usual acute malnutrition”.

Within that number, many now face catastrophe or famine levels where there is

“an extreme lack of food and/or other basic needs… Starvation, death, destitution and extremely critical acute malnutrition are evident.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Yes, absolutely. I am wearing the Scotland-Malawi tartan tie today. In Malawi, a common phrase is “water is life”, and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for water, sanitation and hygiene, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), is with us today as well. Water is absolutely crucial in all this, and even more important than access to food in some ways—a human being can survive for many days without food, but for barely any time at all without clean, safe water. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

That goes back to how we make the limited resources we have work effectively. That is particularly difficult to do when official development assistance funds are being spent by the Home Office. If the Home Secretary does not want people to come here on small boats from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan or Somalia, rather than spend taxpayers’ money on housing people in hotels or trying to deport them to Rwanda, we should spend it wisely and effectively on avoiding conflicts and ensuring that there is food security in the first place. People would then perhaps be less likely to flee their home countries. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

There was wide cross-party support for this debate to be granted time by the Backbench Business Committee, and that is evident from the number of Members present and the interventions so far. Many of those hoping to contribute have had the privilege of visiting countries in the horn of Africa in recent months, and I look forward to hearing their testimonies. We all represent constituents who are passionate about achieving global justice and ending hunger—entirely preventable, totally unnecessary hunger—once and for all. Action is needed now, otherwise we will be back here again. The costs in terms of money and, more importantly, human lives will only be higher.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that we have 40 minutes and eight speakers. Taking roughly five minutes each would be a courtesy. I call Sir Gavin Williamson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On that point, will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the many hundreds of church and faith groups that do the type of thing he has outlined? Some do it on a small, localised scale, while others, through Tearfund and other organisations, do so on a significant, regional basis. Does he agree that that tribute is well deserved and should be supported by Government?

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Jim Shannon, briefly.

[Jim Shannon]

I totally agree with that. I conclude by urging the Minister to take on board the opinions of long-term NGOs that have been working in communities for years and understand what works and what does not. Some 500 humanitarian organisations have swiftly responded to reports of the evolving drought. The issues are clear. They have provided humanitarian assistance in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, reaching 56%, 36% and 85% of the target populations in those countries respectively. We need to work in partnership with NGOs that have experience and passion for their people. I believe that we can and must do more. I urge the Minister to increase our engagement with those NGOs. They know the stories on the ground, and those must be built upon.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the friends of CAFOD, I appreciate immensely the opportunity to discuss this issue today. It is a topic that we must shout about, because we stand on the precipice of an unprecedented sixth consecutive failed rainy season.

The lethal combination of the global cost of living crisis, local conflict and climate change-induced drought has led to a humanitarian disaster. We have heard the figures mentioned a number of times, but standing in this Chamber today, we really cannot comprehend that one person is likely to die every 36 seconds in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya because of acute food insecurity. The UN predicts that half a million children are at immediate risk of death because of catastrophic hunger.

This is a humanitarian crisis that could have been avoided. In 2011, when famine was last declared in Somalia, the UN said that the warning signs of famine must never again be ignored, but the reality is that those warning signs, which we were told would be acted on, are being ignored once again.

Last year, the UK gave just one fifth of the aid provided to east Africa during the previous hunger crisis in 2017-18. The action then helped to prevent the spread of famine and undoubtedly saved lives, yet last week we heard that the aid budget for east and central African countries is being cut by a further £25 million in 2023-24. There are already 3.3 million internally displaced people across Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia as a direct result of the current crisis. As it persists, more people will look to take that treacherous journey north and will risk falling into the hands of people smugglers. Water scarcity is linked to around 10% of the global rise in migration, and global migration from drought and famine is also set to rise, which means that it is not just the lives of those directly affected and who are making these perilous journeys that will become less secure, but our whole world.

That is why the decision to spend three times more international aid in Britain than across the entire continent of Africa is baffling. In practice, that translates to the propping up of our ailing asylum system. Close to 30% of the money spent under Britain’s overseas aid budget goes on projects here in the UK. We are spending increasing amounts of money dealing with the consequences of global insecurity, rather than targeting those precious resources on the causes. The international aid budget has also been cut for the past three years, which is a short-sighted approach.

I want also to focus on what more can be done. Next month’s horn of Africa conference, which is being co-convened by the UK, offers us a real opportunity to advocate practical, targeted measures to make a meaningful, long-term difference to the region. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the aid must be targeted at local, resilient food systems. Local aid organisations know the needs in their areas best, and empowering them directly with international aid is a win not just in the short term but in the long term. We can also use the UK’s £11.6 billion international climate fund to ensure sustainable, resilient food systems that are better equipped to support local people, as climate change is also being caused by the global north.

Countries in east Africa are saddled with unpayable debts. The G20 debt service suspension is still hampered by the predominance of private creditors that are able to hold out from suspending debt. The UK is well positioned to help: 90% of affected countries’ bonds are governed by English law. There is more that we can do to enable these countries to focus their precious, scarce resources on relieving hunger rather than paying unpayable debt.

This crisis has not sprung out of the blue. It has been a long, slow-developing catastrophe, and the Government must make up time by sticking to their previous commitments and spending their aid—our aid—wisely. If once again the rains do not come, more people will die. It is that simple. In this cold, hard reality, the urgency of this cry must be heard.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

There are nine minutes and two speakers. I call Hilary Benn.

Sudan

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady will know that we were, along with the Americans, the first to intervene in terms of any extraction whatever. She asks how many civil servants are engaged. The crisis centre has 200 staff working there. They are working on shift, but they have been working throughout the night and day, every day, more or less since this started a week ago.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

May I ask a particular question that might have a more general application? My young constituent, aged 24, has taken refuge in a central official building in Khartoum, along with a great many others, but her passport has been locked up in the building of her non-governmental organisation, which is now locked and sealed. Will the Minister therefore ensure that when any evacuation eventually occurs, some kind of official travel documents are available for those who do not have theirs with them?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, it is essential that his constituent does their best to contact the Foreign Office team so that we are able to make a note of what he says. I thank him very much for informing us about that specific problem.