Global Ocean Treaty

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Ms Vaz, to serve with you in the Chair for this debate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing this debate. I know how passionate he is about this issue and he has already referred to my commitment to making sure that we get the treaty ratified as soon as possible. That is why I was happy to support his private Member’s Bill. Although I appreciate why it might not be possible to use that Bill as a vehicle for other things—I am sure the Minister will explain in more detail later—it is important that we continue to ensure that the Government, including our good friends at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, are as speedy as possible in sorting out the issues, so that we can get the treaty ratified.

I should also pay credit not only to Lord Benyon but to Lord Goldsmith, who has done a lot of work on this issue. Gosh—the first time I was a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I really got the bug for marine. I think that is not only because my constituency is Suffolk Coastal but because I grew up in a village just north of Liverpool. The sea has always mattered to me in many ways. As I say, I now represent Suffolk Coastal, where I look out at the north Sea, which is a lot colder.

The amount of biodiversity in the North sea, and the importance of the oceans, was brought home to me in my time working on coral reefs, which face the threat of ocean acidification. I also learned about the amazing science that we have in this country. The National Oceanography Centre is no longer formally a Government body, but is still very close to the work that the Government are trying to do. Indeed, it is still leading the United Kingdom’s National Decade Committee on the ocean and the chief scientist from DEFRA was at its conference just a couple of weeks ago in Barcelona.

The world and this Parliament are united in wanting to ensure that we take better care of our oceans, recognising how much the oceans have taken care of us and our planet for millennia, although we will never really properly compensate for some of the harm that we have done there.

However, the opportunity is now. That is why we have done the work in creating many marine conservation zones and marine protected areas, while continuing to try to strengthen the protections that exist, despite people like the European Union taking us to court on protecting areas such as the Dogger Bank—the extra controls that we have put in recently, to protect the sand eels that are the food for the puffins and kittiwakes. Those are the sorts of things that might not matter to every person in the street, whose greatest worries will understandably be about the cost of living and similar matters, but they are long-term strategic issues. That is why it is good to have such cross-party support and focus on tackling them.

It is less than a year ago that the final agreement was adopted in New York, back in June. When the treaty was opened up for signatures during the United Nations General Assembly on 20 September, it was my privilege to be alongside Lord Ahmad when he signed it formally on behalf of the UK Government. There was an interesting debate that day on whether the United States would sign it or not, so I was very pleased that President Biden gave the go-ahead because it matters that we have people sign up to these treaties. I will always give huge credit to the United States for a number of its activities, but they have never signed up to the convention on biodiversity. It is not a shame—they have done that for certain reasons—but the most powerful global treaty we have ever had is the Montreal protocol, signed back in 1987. The United States being a part of that really made a massive difference in ensuring that it was a priority for them in their activities around the world.

The threat to the ocean is so widespread, even from things like illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. That sort of harm is very difficult and challenging. In my time at DEFRA, I was proud of working to ensure that oceans became a very prominent part, while recognising the special relationship within Government, where the Foreign Office takes the lead on UN treaties and the like, and the importance of collective working. The creation of the blue planet fund is probably one of the most significant things we will have done on environmental improvement.

While we have been celebrating Earth Day this week, the focus was on plastics, because of the plastics treaty. The oceans have become a sink for carbon and all sorts of different things; they have literally become a sink for our rubbish. We need to continue to work on improving the state of our oceans. An amazing thing happened down in the south Atlantic when a marine protected area was established for the South Sandwich Islands. I recently took part in a debate here on penguins, and it might surprise people to know that through our overseas territories, the United Kingdom is responsible for 30% of the world’s penguins.

We must think about the impact on the building blocks of life itself and how the United Kingdom can, not with pride—pride comes before a fall, or a sin—but with determination lead by example. That is why so many parliamentarians and activists have been keen to ensure that we are leading the pack in getting the ratification done, given all the consequences that come as a result.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I am hugely enjoying my right hon. Friend’s speech. She mentioned the overseas territories, which fall under the remit of the FCDO. Bermuda is one of those, and is a champion for the Sargasso sea, which is a huge carbon store and increasingly a rubbish dump. Through its hydrographic service, the Royal Navy has mapped the world’s oceans more than any other country in the world. Surely, this is a golden opportunity for this country to show an international lead.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When UNESCO was considering doing the decade of ocean science, we were right behind it, supporting it and putting people forward from the plethora of excellence we have in this country. My hon. Friend points out the Royal Navy, but there is also the funding we give. As we move forward with this, we need to ensure that it is led by science and expertise, rather than solely ambition, in order to save the oceans that have done so much to save us. My hon. Friend is right that we need to be able to deliver for it to have credibility.

At COP26, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador and Panama came together to create the first significant cross-boundary marine protected area, the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor. We helped on that journey and are still financially supporting it; there are good ambitions there. They were well placed to trigger the race, and I hope they succeed, but I have a suggestion for the Minister about what we can do to get into the race. Between Ecuador and the Galápagos Islands, which are obviously part of Ecuador, there is a gap, and I think we should use our resources to accelerate its designation as the first ever biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction zone. We could also get a run-on by working with Namibia and creating a BBNJ zone between it and Tristan da Cunha, which might be simpler. The ambition is there, and I encourage the Minister to discuss that with her officials.

On the treaty, the Foreign Office reply contained various articles and stated that we need legislation. I have to say that it was not particularly detailed. I know we are not supposed to use props, but I have the document, which was circulated to a number of MPs, in my hand; I am happy to share it with anyone who is interested. If the Minister cannot give us a full answer today, it would be helpful if she gave a more substantive answer, perhaps by writing to the Members who attended the debate or by putting a response in the Library.

Will the Minister set out what primary legislation, secondary legislation and other agreements are needed? We want this to happen, and officials said that they should have it ready before the end of this calendar year. I wonder what, with a bit of a heave and a shove, good will and the wash-up, we can do to get it through so that we are not waiting for it. No disrespect to whoever forms the next Government, but quite often priorities change and things take time. We have been leading the pack—we have at least been co-leaders—so let us stay there and ensure this gets delivered properly.

Freedom of Religion and Belief

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate can last until 11 o’clock. I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespersons at no later than 10.27 am, and the guideline limits are 10 minutes each for the Scottish National party, for His Majesty’s Opposition and for the Minister. We should then have a couple of minutes at the end for the mover of the motion to sum up the debate. There will be a five-minute limit so that everybody can get in, and Jim Shannon will lead by example.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

That will be difficult, Mr Hollobone, but I will try my best. I thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for setting the scene so very well. I commend her sterling work in this House for freedom of religion or belief, and for Our Lord and Saviour. It is important work, and I thank her for it.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I want to raise two issues: India and Pakistan. This debate is not to attack friends, but to share a lesson from our history. The UK has learned enough through its long history to know that when religious minorities are denied rights, it harms the rest of society. When they have been granted equal rights, the UK has thrived.

I am concerned about the ongoing violations of religious liberty that have been allowed to continue in the Manipur region of north-east India. Between 3 and 6 May this year, a short, sharp episode of extreme violence occurred. Eye-watering numbers of people were displaced from their homes; some reports state that 26,000 people were displaced and 50,000 were forced to relocate. A shocking video of two Kuki women who were graphically assaulted went viral a few weeks ago, opening up the world to the plight of the thousands of people who have been suffering.

The events in Manipur might be classed as originating in tribal or ethnic tensions, but the Manipur violence has silently been an attack on Christians in India. It is striking that local police and state government sat by as arson destroyed the properties, homes and lives of minority and religious groups. The religious aspect of the violence has not been widely reported. The perpetrators of the violence are understood to be from Hindu extremist backgrounds, whereas the victims are predominantly Christians. Some 230 churches were destroyed over a four-day period. Many perpetrators of the violence did not act in a random manner; their violence was deliberately targeted at Christians, and they wanted them to flee their lands.

International reports have made an explicit link to the violations of freedom of religion or belief in Manipur. The European Parliament has urged the Indian Government to

“take urgent steps to restore calm”

and

“to tackle the impunity enjoyed by mobs perpetrating the violence and respond to stem the violence in line with their international human rights obligations”.

The United Nations Human Rights Council declared that the violence had “reached a breaking point” and appealed to the Government of India to address the ethnic, tribal and religious crisis.

I am incredibly saddened to say that the situation in Manipur has escalated even further, with 60,000 people now displaced and 360 churches damaged. In the five minutes that I have, I have many questions for the Minister, but one of the most urgent is whether the violence in Manipur was mentioned in any formal discussion when our Prime Minister was in India. I know that the Minister is not responsible for what the PM says, but I am sure that discussions have taken place, so let us find out whether the Prime Minister brought these things to the attention of the Indian Government and whether those issues were raised. Journalists are still being prevented from doing fact-finding investigations. Will the Minister make representations to her Indian counterparts to find a way for journalists and human rights reporters to access the region?

I have been twice to Pakistan; we were there in February. The abuse of women and children in Pakistan concerns me. Members of Christian, Hindu, Sikh and other communities have suffered for decades under the weight of an oppressive system under which FORB is guaranteed by law but often disregarded in reality. Some 150 Christian families were evacuated due to persecution in the last month alone.

There is some positive news: caretaker Prime Minister Kakar has declared the state’s dedication to protecting religious minorities. However, 1,000 young Hindu girls and women are abducted each year, as are Christians. One young girl, Chanda Maharaj, was 15 when she was kidnapped. What happened to Chanda is unimaginable. Will the Minister join me in condemning such brutal and unjust governance?

Some 57 blasphemy cases have been registered—more than in the previous year—and some 79 people have been murdered in the name of blasphemy laws. The attacks on Ahmadiyya Muslims have been well publicised in a previous debate, but there is something wrong when 4 million Ahmadiyya who live in Pakistan do not have the freedom that they should have.

This year, foreign aid to Pakistan totalled £41.54 million. As I and others have long said, let us have that aid tied to freedom of religion or belief, human rights and equality issues, and ensure that the freedom that we all wish to see actually happens. At the moment, it does not.

I have three final questions for the Minister. Was the issue of Manipur raised at the G20 meeting? Has the Minister raised the issue of access to Manipur for journalists and human rights monitors and their counterparts? And—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Theresa Villiers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I put the Question, I ask Members leaving the debate to do so quickly and quietly, because we have an important debate coming up on South West Water, which we will go straight into.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered freedom of religion and belief.

Situation in Russia

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is a long-standing convention in the House that we do not discuss intelligence matters at the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What is the Foreign Secretary’s estimate of the number of Wagner troops deployed in the Ukrainian theatre, and what is his estimate of the proportion of those who will agree to come under Russian military command on 1 July?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. The figures are of course now massively less predictable than they were just 72 hours ago. We will keep a close eye on which troops might transfer to the Russian Ministry of Defence and which troops might desire to remain independent, and Russia’s reaction to them. This is a continually evolving situation. We will keep a close eye on it, and we will ensure that throughout, we remain committed to supporting Ukraine in its counter-offensive.

Hazaras in Afghanistan

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

This debate can run until 4.57 pm.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation of Hazaras in Afghanistan.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I am also grateful to my constituents who have come to join me today. Hazaras from not just Peterborough but across the country are sitting in the Gallery, listening to the debate—the first, I think, in the Palace of Westminster devoted purely to the Hazaras and their situation in Afghanistan.

The Hazaras are one of Afghanistan’s largest ethnic groups. Exact numbers are unknown, as there has been no accurate census of the Hazara population, but some estimate it to be between 20% and 30% of Afghanistan’s population. They are predominantly, but not exclusively, Shi’a. The number is often disputed by the Hazara community themselves, who believe that they are underrepresented in order to be denied adequate funding and political representation.

For over a century, the Hazara community has suffered from targeted discrimination, persecution and massacres because of their ethnicity and religious sect. Identifiable by distinctive features, Hazaras cannot hide their ethnicity from aggressors. As early as the 1890s, about 60% of the Hazara population were slaughtered during genocidal campaigns. Those who survived were dispossessed of their land, displaced from their homes, with some even being sold as slaves. Oppression continued throughout the 20th century, as Hazaras were denied access to education and political rights. To this day, Hazara areas in Afghanistan remain some of the poorest parts of the country.

I am proud to be chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hazaras. As I say, I have a number of Hazara constituents in the great city of Peterborough. The community there is growing, with over 140 Hazara families living in my city. They have an amazing community centre called the Peterborough Afghan Shia Association —or PASA—to help residents with numerous issues. They are a real asset to my city. That is why this debate is so important to me personally. It is paramount that we raise awareness of and stand up for minorities such as the Hazaras in Afghanistan.

The Hazara community in Peterborough are not just any community; they are our neighbours, our co-workers and our friends. They have been targeted in Afghanistan in places of worship, over cultural festivals, in sports clubs, at wedding ceremonies, at hospitals and schools, during peaceful protests, on public transportation and in the streets. For example, on 8 May 2021, a Hazara girls high school was attacked in Kabul, killing over 100 students and injuring over 160 others. On 19 April 2021, two other Hazara schools were attacked in Kabul, again killing 126 students and injuring 60. Two days later a Hazara mosque was attacked in northern Afghanistan, killing more than 50 worshipers and injuring hundreds more. On 30 September 2022, at attack at an education centre killed more than 60 female Hazara students and injured over 100. Those are just a few examples of attacks against Hazaras in Afghanistan over the last few years. Unfortunately, that is the tip of the iceberg, and it is something that the Hazara community have to live with each and every day in Afghanistan.

The persecution of the Hazaras has continued into the Taliban era, but it has been around for a lot longer than that. Thousands of Hazaras were killed in massacres during the civil war, as they were under the Taliban Government. Since the takeover of Afghanistan, again by the Taliban, in August 2021, the plight of the Hazaras has only increased.

Lachin Corridor and Nagorno-Karabakh

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate can last until 4 o’clock. Eight Members are seeking to contribute, and I want to get everybody in. We will start off with a time limit of four and a half minutes without interventions, so that we stand a fair chance. The recommended time limits are 10 minutes for the Scottish National party, 10 minutes for His Majesty’s Opposition, and 10 minutes for the Minister. Tim Loughton will have two or three minutes at the end to sum up the debate.

[Tim Loughton]

Mr Hollobone, I give back my right to reply, to add to the time for other speakers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

You are characteristically generous, and that is noted.

Global Vaccine Disparities

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Welcome to the coolest place in the building on this very hot day.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered disparities in the global distribution of vaccines.

I submitted a request for this morning’s debate because I want to draw attention to the grotesque inequalities in the distribution of vaccines to tackle the covid crisis. When we convene for these debates, often it is to seek more information from the Government or to make a request for changes in policy. Now that there will be a change of Prime Minister and potentially a rearrangement of the Government, including of Ministers responsible for this area in particular, this is a particularly opportune moment to place all the issues on the agenda and hopefully see some change. It is also worth using these debates to record one’s position, because when our children and grandchildren look back in decades to come on the Government’s performance, I think they will ask why we did so little to intervene effectively when there was such a huge scale of human suffering across the globe.

The global vaccine story is one of gross inequality. I heard the Prime Minister when he made the statement that it was greed that brought us the vaccine. It was not greed; it was public money. Very significant public resources went into all the vaccines. However, greed was certainly responsible for the obscene inequality that followed.

Over the last year, the richer an economy was, the more likely that country was to have vaccines. At the top end, it would likely have had far more than it needed, and at the bottom of the scale, many countries had almost none at all. Still today, just under 20% of people across the African continent as a whole are fully vaccinated, and only 16% of people in low-income and poor countries are vaccinated. The Prime Minister has talked about vaccine hesitancy being the main factor accounting for that. That is simply untrue. Studies have shown that there is far more vaccine hesitancy in the United States than in most African countries. However, the way that the giant pharmaceutical corporations—big pharma—and richer countries have behaved has certainly fuelled that scepticism, which should worry us all.

The problem is not simply a lack of solidarity or generosity, although that is shocking in itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), the shadow Minister for international development, recently uncovered, a year ago the Prime Minister promised to share 100 million surplus vaccines with the world’s poorest countries. That is a very small amount, but at least it is something; yet a year later, barely a third have been delivered.

Those are the doses that we had already bought and were otherwise going spare. They would have been thrown away if they had not been distributed, yet they counted against the aid budget. In fact, it gets worse: we charged the aid budget double what the UK was widely reported to have paid for those doses. The Government had charged around £4.50 per dose versus the £2.30 per dose that they paid, as reported by The British Medical Journal. Yesterday, we discovered that over 1 billion doses are believed to have been wasted around the world. That would have been sufficient to vaccinate everyone in the poorer countries.

World Press Freedom Day

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate may last until 11 o’clock. I am obliged to call the Front-Bench speakers no later than 10.27 am, and the guideline limits are 10 minutes for the Scottish National party, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, and 10 minutes for the Minister. Damian Collins will have two or three minutes at the end to sum up the debate. Until 10.27 am, we are in Back-Bench time. Five very distinguished Back Benchers are seeking to contribute. I do not wish to impose a time limit, but if everybody keeps themselves to about eight minutes, everybody will have an equal share of the debate. The individual who will lead by example is Kenny MacAskill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this crucial debate. It is always a pleasure to follow a speech by such an assiduous Member of Parliament as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

I will confine my comments to the particular case raised in detail by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), and referred to by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). It is the case of a journalist who, as we hold this debate, is in Belmarsh maximum security prison, in our country, and who has been languishing there for a number of years: Julian Assange. On World Press Freedom Day, it would be strange not to reflect on a journalist who is in prison in our country—a political prisoner—when the Home Secretary has signed a warrant for his extradition to the United States of America where, because of his journalism, he could be incarcerated with sentence of up to 175 years.

Julian Assange exposed war crimes and human rights abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay that were carried out in our name. It is precisely because, as a journalist, he exposed those crimes, carried out in our name, that he is being extradited to the United States. That has a chilling effect, not only on Julian Assange, whose human rights have been abused—he has languished in Belmarsh prison, alongside convicted terrorists and dangerous people who have been convicted of very serious crimes—and his family, but on other journalists, because by choosing this course of action, powerful politicians in the United States and our own Home Secretary have sent a warning to journalists in our country and around the world. They have made an example of Julian Assange, so journalists who may come into possession of information, such as that revealed by Julian Assange about Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, may think, “If I reveal this as a journalist, what will happen to me? Will my fate be the same as the horrific fate of Julian Assange?” It is an act of intimidation by the US Government and our own Government, not only against Julian Assange but against other journalists, including budding journalists in our society and people growing up with the ambition to be journalists.

Julian Assange worked with The New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El País. He was invited to our country by The Guardian newspaper. What he revealed was in the best traditions of journalism and whistleblowing, because it is really important that we know what is done in our name. That is part of the democratic function of journalism. Reporters Without Borders, the International Federation of Journalists, the National Union of Journalists and Amnesty International have spoken out against the action taken against Julian Assange as a journalist. John Simpson, famous for his fantastic work over so many decades with the BBC, said:

“Journalists in Britain and elsewhere will be very worried by the decision to extradite Julian Assange to the US—both for his own well-being & for the precedent it creates for journalism worldwide.”

I am known for being on the left of this Parliament, but this is not an issue that is confined to concerns among those on the left. For example, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has spoken in detail about the case and said recently:

“Sadly I do not believe Mr Assange will get a fair trial. This extradition treaty needs to be rewritten to give British and American citizens identical rights, unlike now.”

Others from the world of journalism who do not share my politics—people such as Andrew Neil and Peter Hitchens—have spoken out against the decision, which should concern us all.

It is important to reflect upon the fact that Amnesty International has not raised concerns about this issue lightly. The secretary-general of Amnesty International has labelled the case “Politically motivated and unjustified” and said that it

“undermines press freedom, the rule of law, and the prohibition of torture.”

Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists, to which I referred earlier, along with press freedom groups Article 19, Index On Censorship and the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, as well as our very own National Union of Journalists, issued a joint declaration, stating that Julian Assange

“is being prosecuted for exposing US rendition, unlawful killing and the subversion of the judiciary. And the UK government is allowing extradition proceedings to continue.”

The declaration makes the point that

“The prosecution of Julian Assange was a political decision taken by the Trump administration”,

and that it

“creates a dangerous legal precedent, allowing any journalist in Britain to be prosecuted and extradited.”

Even the executive editor of The Washington Post has felt compelled to comment on the case, saying that it is

“criminalising common practices in journalism that have long served the public interest.”

That should concern us all.

When we look at the extradition treaty that has been used to sign off the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, we should be concerned about the fact that when it was brought to Parliament in the first place, assurances were given that the intention was to exclude extradition for political matters or for so-called political crimes. It was made clear in this place that that was the intention, so it seems to me and to others, including the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, that the spirit of that extradition treaty and the intention behind it have not been honoured by the Home Secretary’s decision to extradite Julian Assange.

At the end of the day, people have different views on Julian Assange as an individual—I view him as a hero who has exposed war crimes committed in our name; others take a different view—but people’s view of Julian Assange should not matter in relation to this issue. What matters is the implication for his human rights and the message that it sends to journalists around the world. If we believe in press freedom—as we do—and if we believe that journalism is not a crime and that exposing war crimes is not a crime, and if we want journalists to be able to practise their honourable trade without fear or favour, we should speak out against the extradition and speak out in favour of Julian Assange.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We now come to the speeches from the Front Benchers. I call Steven Bonnar for the Scottish National party.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am taking a constructive approach to these negotiations. I was in Brussels yesterday meeting Maroš Šefčovič, and I do believe there is a deal to be done that helps protect peace and political stability in Northern Ireland and enables the free flow of goods between GB and Northern Ireland. Our officials are negotiating all this week, and I will be seeing Maroš Šefčovič again next week to make positive progress.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s constructive approach to the negotiations, but two years on from Brexit, can she confirm that disputes cannot go unresolved forever and that this situation has to be brought to an end sooner rather than later?

Global Vaccine Access

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Navendu Mishra]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. We do not have time for an intervention, I am afraid. Wendy Chamberlain has to sum up. The Minister will draw her remarks to a close.

[Vicky Ford]

I will. I hope I have answered as many as possible of the questions that have been raised. That is what I have tried to do. The goal to vaccinate the world is monumental, and it is one that the UK is firmly committed to supporting. We have taken global leadership on that, especially during our G7 presidency. The points raised about manufacturing and distribution are live issues that we are tackling now. We will continue to champion the collaborative approach through CEPI, including on producing new vaccines for covid-19.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am pleased to have you in the Chair for the conclusion of the debate, Mr Hollobone. With Thursday afternoon Westminster Hall debates, there is always the pressure to get back to our constituencies, and the fact that this debate was so well subscribed shows how important it is to many Members. I thank them for their attendance.

Let us think first about what we have agreed on. We are very proud of those who are involved in the development of vaccines, and those in our NHS who are involved in the supply and delivery of vaccines within the UK. We are also all proud of the UK’s previous record as a global leader in international development.

However, our differences of opinion, which became clear in the Minister’s concluding remarks, are about whether the UK is doing enough, whether it should be doing more and how it should be doing it. In relation to the TRIPS waiver, I absolutely get the intellectual property considerations, but why do 130 countries feel differently from the UK in that regard?

I say to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) that I looked at the IPU bits, and unfortunately it felt a little bit like COP26; where we have got to is the equivalent of moving from “phase out” to “phase down”, and there is clearly more to be done there. On Valneva, which the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) and for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) raised, if we can develop a vaccine that does not have those storage requirements, I do not know why we are not looking at that.

There was a degree of disquiet on this side of the Chamber when the Minister talked about donations. I saw somebody on Twitter say, in response to the debate, that our current approach is a bit like clearing the pantry of food that is about to expire, donating it to a food bank and feeling like a philanthropist.

Finally, there were lots of stats in the debate, and I thank the Members who raised them. As we have seen over the past few days, statistics are loved ones—they are people.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady has run out of time.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Deforestation in the Amazon

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I have some notices that Mr Speaker requires me to read out. I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered deforestation in the Amazon.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. One or two Members present will know that this is not the first debate that we have had on this subject in recent months, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to bring the issue back to the House. It was six months ago that we last debated the future of the Amazon here in Westminster Hall, so why bring the same issue back so quickly? The simple answer is that nothing shows any signs of changing. If anything, the situation is showing signs of worsening, despite the warm words at COP26.

We all know that the Amazon is one of the world’s most important ecosystems, if not the most important. It has been a vital carbon sink and is home to large numbers of indigenous people. Step by step, however, it is being destroyed. It is not the only place in the world where there is a major issue around deforestation, and Brazil is not the only country that faces similar challenges, that is taking controversial decisions or that faces illegal activity, but the reality is that the Amazon is the flagship of forests around the world, and it must be protected for the future.

For many years, it looked as though progress was being made. When I went to Brazil as a Minister and met Ministers there seven years ago, the level of deforestation was at its lowest for decades. It really did seem as though things were moving in the right direction, but I am afraid all that has now changed. Last year, deforestation was at its highest level for 20 years. Despite the Brazilian Government’s commitments at COP26 and the warm words, there is no sign of that ending. Land is being cleared every day for beef production, illegal logging, mining and urban development. Large areas continue to be burned each year to make way for land speculation, and vast numbers of the rarest species on Earth are being endangered as a result.

Why is it time for this House to debate this issue again, and for legislators here to send the strongest possible message to the Brazilians that deforestation must stop? The answer lies in two separate measures that are before the Brazilian Senate and due to be debated there again either later next month or in March. Both would have a further disastrous effect on the Amazon, and it is crucial that the Brazilian Senate steps in to take action to avoid the worst impacts of the legislation. The first measure would further legalise what have been illegal land grabs in the publicly owned part of the Amazon rainforest. The Brazilian Government control an area of the rainforest that is more than twice the size of France. Under Brazilian law, where logging is permitted on this land, it has to be carried out in a sustainable way. However, the reality is that over the years, there have been numerous illegal seizures and invasions of parts of that land, with huge areas being cleared for agriculture.

Brazilian law previously permitted the regularisation of such invasions that took place before 2011. Any subsequent invasion has been a criminal act, and the obligation is to restore the land to forest management, but the measures before the Brazilian Parliament are close to moving that deadline forward, from 2011 to 2017—six years later. That will effectively except a huge number of further illegal activities, and it will expose forest areas that are illegally occupied to further clearance. This will have the real-world effect of exposing of millions of hectares of forest to further clearance. The measure being considered also reduces the checks and balances on such occupation. In reality, this means that someone can claim responsibility for and ownership of an area without even being in that area. Environmental groups and researchers are warning that, in total, the measure could lead to the deforestation of up to 16,000 sq km of the Amazon over the next five years.

The second measure before the Brazilian Senate changes the country’s laws on environmental impact assessments, so that it will no longer be a requirement to analyse and mitigate indirect environmental impacts of a new project—the result being to make it much easier to build new roads through some of the most important areas of the Amazon. That leads to further deforestation, as it opens up previously inaccessible areas to illegal logging, mining and other activity that creates forest clearance. The evidence to support this looks incontrovertible to me; the research has demonstrated a clear link between road building and deforestation, with almost all previous deforestation taking place within 5.5 km of an official or unofficial road.

More worrying still, the measure creates an automatic self-licensing system, which allows applicants to self-declare that they will follow environmental standards, without any checks and balances to make sure that they do. There is a lot of support for small projects—that is probably reasonable—but not for big projects. They are the ones that lead to big impacts on the Amazon. For those major projects, it matters enormously. Taken together, these measures represent a clear and present danger to the future of the Amazon rainforest and its biodiversity.

COP26 may not have delivered all of the Government’s ambitions for tackling climate change, but it was notable for the general agreement to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. Some 141 countries, including Brazil, signed a declaration to work collectively to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030, and over £20 billion of public and private funding was pledged to achieve that. The real question is whether those 141 countries, which control almost all of the world’s forests, will deliver on that commitment. The biggest question of all is whether the Brazilians, who control most of the world’s most important forest—the Amazon—will change course and act to prevent it from disappearing.

It is all very well countries having a commitment to end illegal deforestation by 2028 if they get there, but it is pretty pointless if it is preceded by five years of slash and burn—a wave of further deforestation that destroys tens of thousands more square miles of what is the world’s most important ecosystem. The evidence shows that clearing land for agriculture often only brings temporary benefits to agriculture anyway. Land in the Atlantic forest, which was Brazil’s other major forest, is now often degraded and of poor agricultural quality, so cutting down trees does not always create fertile land for the future.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and he knows very well the world of agriculture. Smart land management could give Brazil a higher quality agricultural resource without chopping down the Amazon. That is what it needs to achieve.

This is an important moment for Parliament to send a message to our counterparts in the Brazilian Senate and the Chamber of Deputies on this issue. I hope the Chamber of Deputies will adopt any amendments that the Senate pushes through next month, and I hope the Senate, when looking at these issues in the next couple of months, will put in place safeguards to stop deforestation. Parliament can send a message to the Brazilian Government, who I know will be following this debate and will get a report back on it. We are a friendly nation and a friend that is not afraid to criticise when it is appropriate to do so, but there is a very strong view in this Parliament that this has to stop. The Brazilians need to be good citizens of the world. They have an asset they need to protect, and they need to do the right thing.

It is in the Brazilian Government’s interests to do so, because more and more countries and people around the world now see environmental protection as crucial for the future of the planet. What that means is that more and more decisions will be taken by consumers, investors and Governments that underline that necessity. A country that chooses not to follow the same path will, step by step, acquire pariah status. The UK has already legislated to ban forest risk products from illegal sources. Other countries are strengthening their legislation, too, and I think there will be more change on that front.

Major buyers of agricultural products are also having to review their supply chains to ensure that the purchases they make come from sustainable sources. Major retailers use earth observation data from satellites to track the origins of their purchases. Sustainable food labelling—something that I have championed in this House—will inevitably come, either through regulation or simply by the choice of the retailers themselves. Customers will choose not to buy products that come from unsustainable sources.

Then there is the investment issue. International investment institutions are under increased pressure from their investors to provide green investment routes and to walk away from those that are not sustainable. A number of pressure groups have highlighted major financial institutions that continue to fund projects in places such as the Amazon that damage the environment, and their investors are not going to put up with this for much longer. They are already under intense pressure to stop doing that. That pressure will grow and grow, and they will have to walk away from those projects. The reality is that countries that simply ignore international pressure to protect their own ecosystems will lose investment in the future.

Then there are trade agreements, which will increasingly require commitments on environmental improvements. I expect, and strongly support and urge the Government to consider, the introduction of punitive tariffs on forest risk products from countries that ignore international pressures and continue to destroy vital ecosystems. I say to Ministers: there can be no question of this Parliament backing a trade agreement with Brazil while extensive forest clearances in the Amazon continue. I urge them and the international community to set out detailed plans for how they will impose punitive tariffs on those forest risk products if countries where the risk of forest clearance is great do not take action to stop it happening. The commitments made in Glasgow must be met.

There will of course be those who argue that taking this kind of action in the western world will be pointless if the huge and growing Chinese market for agricultural produce remains in place and if the Chinese do not participate with similar measures. However, that is not a reason for us to stand aside, or not to send those messages and take the action we need to protect the world’s vital ecosystems. We all know, understand and deal with the economic issues and challenges that our nations face, but all countries, in all parts of the world, have to face up to the reality that over the next years we all have a duty to protect our ecosystems and our natural world.

My message to our Brazilians counterparts, in the Senate, the Chamber of Deputies and the Brazilian Government, is this. We know it is tough. We know there are economic challenges. We know that the easiest option is often the most straightforward one to take politically. But in the end, if we destroy ecosystems around the planet, humanity will all pay a terrible price, whether we are Brazilian, British, American, Chinese or whatever. The Amazon is probably the jewel in the crown among all our most important ecosystems. Our friends in Brazil have a historic duty to protect it. Too much of it has already been lost, but in the end Brazil will suffer if it is not protected, because there is a tide of opinion around the world that will punish any country that no longer protects its natural resources.

Brazil is a great country. It is a long-standing friend of the United Kingdom, and good friends are not afraid to tell the truth. I urge the Minister, her colleagues and the Foreign Secretary to do just that in their interactions. The deforestation of the Amazon is wrong and it must stop. There will be a dreadful price to pay, for Brazilians and all of us, if it does not stop.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate will last until 1 pm. I am obliged to call the Front Benchers no later than 12.27 pm, and the guideline limits are 10 minutes for the Scottish National party, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Then Chris Grayling will have three minutes at the end of the debate to sum it up. Until 12.27 pm, it is time for Back-Bench contributions, and there are four very distinguished Back Benchers seeking to contribute, starting with Kerry McCarthy.