Persecution of Ahmadis

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I commend my friend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this Adjournment debate. He is making a powerful speech. I am shocked not only by the deaths and murders he describes, but at the fact that the Ahmadi people are denied the right to call themselves Muslims and to call their place of worship a mosque, and that they are denied the vote. Does he agree that this is a shocking suppression and persecution of a people?

[Imran Ahmad Khan]

The right of people everywhere to live, work and worship as they choose is the most fundamental and universal right that we have. It makes no sense, either to an individual or to a state, to inhibit, stamp on or impede that right, because that means that the very blossom and flower of the state and of the children of the state is trampled on. We in this venerable place should not think, “Why would they do such a thing?” because what is happening is of no purpose and of no sense—it is senseless and deeply upsetting because of that.

Freedom of religious belief, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and other values that we in the United Kingdom hold dearly, such as tolerance and celebration of pluralism, are not just ideals to be debated in this House, discussed in lecture halls or written about by academics; they have, as we have discussed, very real consequences for the lives of people everywhere.

My own family understand this only too well. I could place on the record the numerous attacks against my immediate family, my larger family and myself. For example, my first cousin’s Syrian husband, Dr Mousallam Al-Droubi, left Damascus and was worshipping at an Ahmadi mosque in Lahore in May 2010 when gunmen stormed in, massacred 87 supplicants around him and left him and over 120 other worshippers with grave injuries, all on account of their belief. Their crime? To worship as Muslims.

Pakistan is the world’s leading exporter of hate across the globe, which it fabricates on an industrial scale. This dangerous extremism and religiously inspired violence has been broadcast, transmitted and normalised in communities around the world, who ape this hideous behaviour.

For example, anti-Ahmadi hate speech has been broadcast through television and radio in the United Kingdom. Channel 44, an Urdu language current affairs satellite channel, was fined £45,000 by Ofcom for airing two episodes of a discussion programme which featured a participant making serious and unsubstantiated claims against the Ahmadiyya community. That was not the first such case. In 2013, Takbeer TV, a free-to-air Islamic channel, was fined £25,000 after broadcasting statements describing Ahmadis as having “monstrous intentions” and being “lying monsters”.

There is a direct connection and correlation between that sort of hate speech and violence perpetrated against members of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat. Freedom of speech certainly is a vital pillar of our way of life, but incitement to murder and violence is not, and never has been, freedom of speech. Hatred preached in Pakistan does indeed result in violence on the streets of the UK and around the world.

The 2016 murder of Scottish Ahmadi shopkeeper Asad Shah, while working peacefully in his shop in Glasgow, evidences that truth. His crime? Sending out Easter greetings to his Christian neighbours and friends. Like all Ahmadis, he felt a part of that community, and they a part of his. Here we see the Ahmadis’ belief in love for all and hatred for none juxtaposed against the peddlers of hate.

A report by the all-party parliamentary group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community entitled “Suffocation of the Faithful” has raised concerns that the deliberate targeting of members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat in the United Kingdom originates from Pakistan—a result of the filthy reservoir of hate that Pakistan permits and enables. Worse, there is evidence, as outlined in the APPG’s report, that aid money given by Her Majesty’s Government is spent on supporting Government-run schools in Pakistan that encourage intolerance and hatred.

Professor Javaid Rehman provided damning evidence on nationalised schools in Pakistan when he spoke at the second session of the APPG inquiry, which the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) so ably chaired. He said:

“I was just horrified to see what is being taught to our young children, for example this word ‘Kafir’ non-believer or infidel is openly said about Ahmadiyya but also about other communities, it’s part of our teaching system”.

I fear that the international aid provided to Pakistan by Her Majesty’s Government for the purpose of helping education is, on occasion, unwittingly fuelling hatred and prejudice in a new generation of Pakistanis. In order to ensure that that never happens again, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can provide assurances from the Dispatch Box on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government that UK aid and development funding will not go to groups, individuals or programmes that are engaged in the promotion of hate, whether that be directed against Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis or others.

I have briefly outlined the nature of some of the outrages suffered by Ahmadis and their Jamaat, but what effect does the persecution and discrimination of the Ahmadi community have on Ahmadis and on Pakistan itself? Thousands of Pakistanis have sought refuge in freedom-loving western nations. Even the global Ahmadiyya headquarters was moved to the United Kingdom in 1984. Others, having escaped from Pakistan, find themselves in third countries where they are unwelcome and face again the horrors of persecution, predicated upon their faith.

I urge Her Majesty’s Government to employ their influence and create a coalition of our friends and allies to pressure the Government of Pakistan to reverse the abhorrent constitutional vandalism that has been engineered on the freedom of religious belief, and to release all Pakistani citizens from the bondage of zealous tyranny and the fear of persecution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams]

The right hon. Gentleman is bang on; of course we should be calling out this behaviour. Many of these activities take place on social media. We will be bringing forward an online harms Bill, and we hope some of these issues will be addressed. In this country, we pride ourselves on people’s ability to practise freedom of religion or belief. He makes an incredibly important point.

We have heard about recent incidents of discrimination, including violence, against the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan. Its constitution does not allow Ahmadiyya Muslims to call themselves Muslims. Ahmadiyya Muslims face violence, killings and attacks on their places of worship and, as I have said, social media hate campaigns and discrimination in employment and education. There have been recent horrifying examples of this discrimination. Lord Ahmad publicly condemned the murder of Mr Mahboob Ahmad Khan in Peshawar in November. Everything points to Mr Khan having been murdered for his faith, as an Ahmadiyya Muslim. We have heard from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) about the tragic killing of an Ahmadiyya Muslim, Dr Tahir Ahmad, in Nankana Sahib in Pakistan during Friday prayers last week. I extend my personal condolences to the families of Mr Khan and Dr Ahmad, and to members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community.

Those are not isolated incidents; as we have heard, there have been other abhorrent murders in Pakistan of Ahmadiyya Muslims and other apparently religiously motivated killings. We condemn all these murders in the strongest possible terms. My ministerial colleague Lord Ahmad also raised the UK Government’s concern about these murders with Pakistan’s human rights Minister, Dr Shireen Mazari, as recently as 16 November. We have pressed for full, transparent investigations into these killings that result in the identification and prosecution of those responsible.

[Matt Western]

I am interested in these points. The Minister was saying that the Government are working tirelessly. I appreciate that and I welcome it, as everyone else does. Given that the Prime Minister of Pakistan was formerly of this country—he lived here for many years—do we not have a special relationship with him? Is there some way of encouraging, through that special relationship and good understanding, a repeal of those laws, so that the Ahmadiyya people can be reinstated as citizens and be able to practise their faith, like any other in Pakistan?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. We regularly communicate our concern about these issues. People should be able to practise their religion and belief freely, without persecution. We regularly raise this matter with the Pakistan authorities. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knows the Ahmadiyya community well and knows his holiness Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the spiritual head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. The Prime Minister made it clear in this House, on 11 November, that we frequently raise our concerns about freedom of region or belief in relation to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community with the Pakistan Government.

I can also attest to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield’s love for all, hatred for none maxim by which the Ahmadiyya community lives. In my constituency, we had horrendous floods in 2015. The town of Tadcaster had its bridge destroyed and the town was separated. Many people came to support that community, not least members of the Ahmadiyya community, who came all the way up from London, at their own expense, and provided a fantastic resource for the community in bringing succour and support to families who had been flooded. I am incredibly grateful for all the support that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association provided to the people of my constituency, and I was more than happy to visit them at their mosque in south London shortly afterwards.

Earlier this month, officials from the British high commission in Islamabad visited Rabwah in Punjab province to meet representatives of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. They were able to hear at first hand about the community’s experiences and challenges, as well as the concerning rise of persecution and the tragic rise of killings of members of that community. We also provide support to civil society organisations working on freedom of religion or belief issues in Pakistan. Our Aawaz II inclusion, accountability and reducing modern slavery programme will spend £39.5 million over five years in the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It is worth pointing out that followers of other religions, including Christians and Shi’a Muslims, also suffer discrimination and violence in Pakistan.

Let me take this opportunity to underline the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s due diligence in providing funding. We ensure that all organisations that receive funding have procedures in place to tackle any discrimination, including against religious minorities such as Ahmadi Muslims. We continue to urge the Pakistani Government to guarantee the fundamental rights of all their citizens and strengthen the protection of minorities in accordance with international standards. As part of that, we continue to raise our concerns about the implementation of blasphemy legislation and the misuse of anti-terror laws to discriminate.

My hon. Friend rightly raised the issue of trade. The EU’s generalised scheme of preferences plus tier includes provisions that make preferential market access conditional on compliance with human and labour rights, environmental standards and good governance. On 1 January 2021, the UK will introduce its own generalised scheme of preferences. We are committed to securing Pakistani businesses’ ability to trade freely with the UK through an independent unilateral preferences scheme that will offer the same level of tariff-free access as the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences plus. The UK’s trade preferences scheme will replicate the EU conditions for the enhanced framework, similar to the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences plus tier, of which Pakistan is a beneficiary.

We work closely with United Nations agencies and civil society organisations to ensure that the immediate needs of any displaced refugees are met. We raise issues of Ahmadi Muslim persecution regularly with other Governments, including in Algeria, Thailand and Malaysia, and we engage with representatives in those countries.

My hon. Friend raised sanctions. Our global human rights sanctions regime is a powerful tool to hold to account those involved in serious human rights violations and abuses. That could potentially include those who target individuals on the grounds of their religion or belief. As he will understand, we do not speculate on who may be designated, as to do so might reduce the impact of those designations. To return to the issue of aid, our relationship with any Government is based on an assessment of commitment to our partnership principles, including human rights.

I turn to our counter-extremism work at home. We are committed to tackling those who sow hatred and division against any community in this country. Our counter-extremism strategy seeks to address all forms of extremism by challenging those who spread extremist propaganda. We need to strengthen communities and disrupt the most dangerous extremists. As the House will be aware, policy on this issue is being led by the Home Office.

My hon. Friend mentioned the media and how they can play a negative role in propagating harmful views, as can social media. Propaganda also finds its way into more traditional channels. We are working to tackle that by using existing legislation, and we are countering those damaging narratives with a range of civil society groups, including overseas groups. We are working with tech companies, law enforcement and our international partners to tackle the abhorrent exploitation of online platforms. As I said earlier, our online harms White Paper sets out plans for world-leading legislation to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. It will also introduce a new duty of care on companies and will be overseen by an independent regulator.

This has been a timely debate on an incredibly important issue, and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it to the House.

Jonathan Taylor: SBM Offshore

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I thank my hon. Friend very much; alas, due to covid restrictions, I cannot share my cake with anyone, so I will eat it all myself. On his more serious point, my hon. Friend raises a very important question, and the simple answer is yes. That is why, if there is any evidence that Mr Taylor has been charged because of his whistleblowing, we will urgently consider what action to take.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The Minister says that the Government are following due process, but it has now been 100 days since Mr Taylor was arrested. There has been a request from the Croatian Supreme Court for information, but the Government do not appear to have responded. What signal does that send out, not just to him but to other whistleblowers in the future?

[Wendy Morton]

I do not accept that we have done nothing. As I have repeatedly set out, we have made it clear that if we receive evidence that Mr Taylor’s arrest is linked to his whistleblowing activities or that due process is not being followed, we will consider what further steps we can take to support him. Rest assured we are providing consular support, and we are in contact with Mr Taylor and his family.

Occupied Palestinian Territories

Matt Western Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful, balanced and considered speech. On that point about the international response, could the accords that have been struck with the UAE and Bahrain provide an opportunity for the UK Government to work with them and with Europe to gain extra leverage to bring about some sort of change in Israeli policy?

[Stephen Kinnock]

That is absolutely a step in the right direction, although I think it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, for the reasons that I have set out. The reality is that as long as the basis for the talks is the so-called Trump-Netanyahu plan, it is a non-starter, because that plan violates international law.

We should explore the potential for the International Criminal Court to play a role. The Israeli Attorney General’s office has already warned the Israeli Prime Minister that annexation could trigger an investigation of

“senior Army officers, civil service officials and heads of regional councils of West Bank settlements”.

It is essential that the UK condemns any further creeping annexation, but condemnation alone will never be enough. To this end, the UK Government must take the following steps with urgency. First, they must immediately recognise the state of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 lines. The UK Government argue that recognition should follow successful negotiations, but the logic of this argument is deeply flawed and partisan. It suggests that we are happy to see a 53-year-old occupation persist, legitimising the illegal actions of the Israeli Government and contributing to the brutality and violence that shame us all.

Secondly, the Government must ban all products that originate from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Profiting from such products is tantamount to profiting from the proceeds of crime, and it must stop. When we trade with these settlements, we are essentially telling the world that international law does not matter, and such trade legitimises and facilitates the existence and expansion of the settlements. In 2014, it was right that the UK, as part of the European Union, prohibited trade with Crimea following its illegal annexation by Russia. It is crucial that we are consistent in our application of international law.

Thirdly, the Government must act to end the involvement of UK-based companies within the illegal settlements. In March, the UN published a list of companies that are involved in the settlements, which included JCB, Opodo and Greenkote PLC. Charities actively involved in illegal settlement projects should not be eligible for the privileges of charitable status, including tax exemption. What steps will our Government now take to hold these companies and charities to account? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on these points. These measures must be put in place immediately: no more excuses, and no more obfuscation from this Government.

Standing here in the Chamber today, it is easy to forget the human cost of this conflict. Visiting the west bank and East Jerusalem with Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East and the Council for Arab-British Understanding in 2014, I saw how the settlements touched the lives of those in the occupied territories. I think of the father from Gaza I met in Makassed hospital who was nursing his four-year-old double-amputee son and worrying about his wife in another hospital 20 miles away, who had also had both her legs amputated. I think of the Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar, whose residents live in perpetual fear of military demolitions and harassment. I think of the quarter of a million children across the Palestinian territories who the UN identifies as in need of psychosocial support and child protection interventions. What future can these children look forward to? What hope can we offer them? A 10-year-old child in Gaza will already have witnessed three wars and nothing but the siege.

I therefore rise today to convey this simple message to the Minister: act now. Act now to show that Britain is still a country that will give voice to the voiceless and stand up for the rights of the oppressed. Act now to show that Britain is still a beacon of hope and a country that stands tall in the world and strives relentlessly for peace and justice. Act now to help us to believe that yours is a Government who still believe in the rule of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate, and I endorse the principles outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) in his excellent introductory speech. Like him, I consider myself a friend of Israel and a supporter of the Palestinian cause and Palestinian statehood, and I think a two-state solution is the only way to get a lasting peaceful outcome.

I visited the west bank in February—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—for the first time in many years. Until that visit, I had not appreciated just how seriously these settlements threaten that two-state solution, how complex the situation is on the ground in terms of the settlements’ locations—they are increasingly further east of the green line into the west bank, including parts of the Jordan valley—or how the nature of the settlements complicates the situation. These are permanently established towns and villages with strong and complex infrastructure. We heard reference earlier to land swaps as a potential solution, but the nature of the settlements would make that much more difficult and complicated than I had appreciated. I do not think anybody is arguing that settlements are the only obstacle to a peaceful solution, but they are a very significant one, and increasingly so, as encouraged by the Netanyahu Government and now, unfortunately, by the Trump plan for annexation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) pointed out, it is a plan for annexation: it will not lead to a lasting peace.

Like others, I welcome the accords with the UAE and Bahrain. There has to be a pragmatic approach to relations in the region, but let us not forget—to issue another reminder—that has led only to a suspension of the plans. Netanyahu has said that the plans for annexation remain on the table, and many of us fear that his Government could still bring those plans into practice.

The single message that I took away from a visit to the west bank—the one thing that came from many human rights groups and a range of people on the ground including diplomats and strong supporters of Israel—is that unless there are consequences for their actions, this Israeli Government will continue on their current path. That means, ultimately, moves towards further annexation and the end of a two-state solution.

[Matt Western]

On that very point, the whole issue about the consequences is to do with the role of the United States, and in President Trump we no longer see a global policeman: we actually see a global thug.

[Jeff Smith]

I do not disagree. I might phrase it differently, but my hon. Friend makes an important point.

We need to think about how we can practically influence the Israeli Government to abandon the plans. We have talked in this House about sanctions against Governments that break international law, and Crimea was mentioned earlier. We were talking a couple of hours ago about sanctions on Belarus, and we seriously need to consider how this country, as a friend of Israel and with a historical responsibility, can use our influence to stop the Israeli Government going down the line of permanent annexation. I think we do have to be clear that there must be consequences, whether that is banning settlement goods or considering other forms of sanctions, because words have not been enough.

Even if the current plan were abandoned, that would certainly not be the end of the issue. There are some right-wing representatives in the Israeli Government who actually prefer creeping annexation, because it means that that kind of de facto annexation does not have to accommodate any agreement with the Palestinians. We need to be very wary of that, and we need to look beyond the immediate issue of the Trump plan and make it clear that creeping annexation is equally problematic and needs to cease.

I just repeat one or two of the requests to the Minister made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon. I strongly support recognition of the state of Palestine and confirmation that the UK will not recognise any annexation and that we will consider actions against the Israeli Government if it goes ahead. As several of us have said, words have not been enough.

I will just make one final related point. The humanitarian situation in the west bank and Gaza is, as we all know, very difficult, and I would welcome an assurance that our support for our aid to the occupied territories will not be cut as a result of the cuts in the aid budget.

Covid-19: Repatriation of UK Nationals

Matt Western Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend makes a very sensible point. Every day, we learn the lessons from such a huge operation. This is something that we have never faced before. The nearest that we have come to it is the Thomas Cook repatriation, which was not too long ago—this is a point that a previous questioner asked that I did not get round to answering—so we will learn lessons from that. However, this is on an unimaginable scale. Never before have we had to repatriate this many people. More than 1.3 million people have been brought home on a commercial route. We have been working very closely with the commercial sector. A number of airlines have signed a memorandum of understanding with Government so that we can ask them to bid for charter flights. My hon. Friend raises a very good point and, no doubt, this will be something that we look at in the cold light of day.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

May I add my congratulations to the Prime Minister and Carrie Symonds on the birth of their child?

On 24 March here in the Chamber, I asked the Foreign Secretary about the situation of my constituents stuck in India and elsewhere around the world. Forty are still stuck in India, including Lashkar and Surinder Jhutti, who have been resident in the UK for almost 50 years. She is a specialist neuro care worker who needs to get back to work. There seem to be echoes here of the Windrush scandal in that they have been told that they are not eligible for consular support. She is needed back at work, as I said. Will the Minister intervene and help them, and all other UK residents, to be returned and repatriated to the UK?

[Nigel Adams]

Let me answer the hon. Gentleman by referring to a previous answer. We are prioritising British nationals. These flights are paid for by the British taxpayer, so our initial priority is with British nationals. Of course those who have indefinite leave to remain should not be discriminated against in any way. The priority initially was British nationals. We are certainly not in the business of breaking up family groups. We want to ensure that families are kept together. I would very much appreciate it if he could flag up that particular case with my office and we will see if we can drill down and get those people home.

British Citizens Abroad: FCO Help to Return Home

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

That is a plight that quite a few people have found themselves in. When we have talked to the Peruvian authorities, we have been clear that we will bring back UK nationals and any foreign national dependants who are with them. We have had excellent co-operation with the Irish authorities. I have spoken to Simon Coveney in the last few days. We are always willing to share the burden of getting UK nationals, Irish nationals and European nationals back home, including their dependants, who may not be of the same nationality. I will look into that case.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

This morning I received a couple of emails. One was from Lucy Kelly, who is stuck in Australia facing a 140% hike in air fares to get back to the UK. The other was from Kamaljit Dhesi, who, like many families from Warwick and Leamington, is stuck in India due to the lockdown there. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must either introduce some sort of price cap for these carriers or exercise some sort of requisitioning powers to get our people back?

[Dominic Raab]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions, and the spirit in which he makes them. In relation to India, if there is a full lockdown we will need to negotiate with the Indian Government to facilitate access for commercial or charter flights. In relation to the other situation, we are working closely with the airlines, and that is work that the Secretary of State for Transport is taking forward. We want to get to a situation, given the huge pressure that the airlines are under, where we can provide stability but also the reassurance that repatriation or return flights can take place. This is an urgent priority for the FCO, and we are working closely with the Department for Transport to secure it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

We continue to work with regional organisations, including the European Union, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the Commonwealth, to strengthen their democracy work. Most recently we have offered support for election monitoring in North Macedonia and Serbia, and we are supportive of the work that human rights defenders do across the world by promoting and protecting democratic values as well as human rights.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

7. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Trade on the development of new trade routes across the Arctic ocean.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Wendy Morton)]

Climate change is the greatest threat facing the Arctic, and it is driving other changes there too. The reduction in summer sea ice cover in the Arctic has the potential to increase international shipping activity in the Arctic; however, hostile conditions and the lack of infrastructure will make commercial operations difficult for a considerable time. The UK cross-Government Arctic network met in January and discussed issues related to shipping and environmental protection in the Arctic ocean.

[Matt Western]

There are huge economic advantages, particularly for the far east, in these lanes opening up, but that will come at huge environmental cost. Will the Minister explain what discussions have been had through the United Nations about how we ensure the protection and preservation of such an important pristine natural environment?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is vital that the world comes together to take renewed action to limit global warming to 1.5°. There are 70-plus UK institutions engaged in Arctic research. The UK’s research station at Svalbard in Norway celebrates its 30th anniversary in 2020. We are doing a huge amount of work in this area.

UK Telecommunications

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I suspect that my right hon. Friend has had many conversations with our American partners and friends. We are starting in a different place from the US, which does not have Huawei in its existing networks and can use different suppliers, but I can reassure him of two things.

First, we considered all those aspects during the telecoms supply chain review, which constitutes the most detailed and broad analysis that has ever been done in the world. Secondly, on a number of occasions during the decision-making process we asked the United States whether it had an alternative to the use of Huawei that would work for the United Kingdom, and none of our conversations in Silicon valley or anywhere else identified a solution that would work for the UK.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that many countries, such as the United States, Australia, India and, I think, Japan, have banned Huawei, but is he also aware that Vietnam is developing its own network? How is it that this country cannot do the same?

[Dominic Raab]

I do not think there is any reason why we cannot, but we must provide the necessary investment and the right market structure and level playing field. We must also engage in some of the international relations, networks and partnerships that can assure us of either a home-grown alternative for the future, or one that is worked out with our most highly trusted partners.

Britain in the World

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

Indeed, that is the case. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have seen that, when one visits certain missions abroad, there is a good policy understanding among our diplomats. However, that is sometimes not necessarily reflected in this House, and we must work much harder to ensure that we have our Ministers talking about the subject and promoting it much more themselves.

Secondly, good foreign policy relies on a vibrant domestic economy and a realistic trade policy, providing a positive financial context in which to play a leadership role abroad. Instead, Brexit provides years of uncertainty, which will harm long-term economic growth and a sense of buoyancy in our economy while consigning our economic importance to that of a middling nation.

The past decade has already seen anaemic growth in the domestic economy as a result of the disastrous policy of austerity and the self-inflicted wounds of Brexit. Just today, in the financial pages, there is much discussion about another rate cap by the Bank of England because of fears of another dip in our economy. Households are worse off now than they were in 2010—10 years ago. Simultaneously, there is a real risk that UK trade policy could erode standards on our trade in goods and lead to a diminishing of the ease of trading in services owing to the ridiculously short adjustment period that the Government have given themselves to achieve equivalence in financial services. The amount of political capital in energy required to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU and the unrealistic timeframe of 11 months will mean that the UK is likely to reduce its influence in other crucial international relations issues.

Finally, membership of the European Union has, to date, provided a strong front to promote values and norms in international relations, including a robust approach to promoting human rights. The UK was instrumental in designing a strong framework of protecting human rights, as it was the first nation to ratify the Council of Europe’s convention on human rights in war-ravaged Europe in 1949. The convention commits each signatory—each nation that signs up to it—to abide by certain standards of behaviour and protect the basic rights and freedoms of ordinary people. The treaty aims to protect the rule of law and promote democracy. The EU institutions in practice have performed an important function to maintain human rights dialogue with large trade partners, such as China, Japan and Turkey. Let us take, for example, trade relationships with Turkey. How will the UK be able to hold Turkey to account on its treatment, for example, of the Kurdish and Alevi communities, when trying at the same time to forge a trade deal and possibly to selling them even more arms than we do now? On the case of China, how can we have those honest discussions with that giant nation around the issues of Xinjiang province, Hong Kong and Taiwan, when, at the same time, we desperately want to promote our trade arrangements with them?

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making such an important point. Was she as perturbed as I was last week by reports that No. 10 adviser Tim Montgomerie suggested that there was a spiritual connection between this current Government and the country of Viktor Orbán? This direction of illiberalism will cut very much into the heart of the human rights that she has described.

[Catherine West]

Indeed. The shadow Foreign Secretary made the point that the Queen’s Speech is sufficiently vague in its wording that anything is possible. I think that is perhaps where some of us have a concern. We need to hear the exact detail of the policy proposals so that we can better understand what direction we are actually travelling in.

After Brexit, the UK will lose much of its leverage during trade talks, as concessions will need to be made now that we are not part of the EU. Britain’s role in a post-Brexit world is yet to be determined, and the Queen’s Speech does not go into nearly enough detail in setting that out. There are of course opportunities in an ever-evolving world, where emerging markets may present light at the end of a Brexit tunnel, but there are real risks in fragmenting our long-term defence and security relationships with the European member states—that basis of friendship. The trade picture is one of uncertainty and promises of jam tomorrow, against a backdrop of a coasting domestic economy. Leaving the predictable family of the European Union will make the promotion of human rights and ethical foreign policy doubly difficult, and in my view will go down in history as a gross mistake and an act of national self-harm.

Turkish Incursion into Northern Syria

Matt Western Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, in that I share his concerns. I was in Washington recently, not just to meet members of the US Administration but to talk to congressional members about the whole gamut of foreign policy issues. We are as closely engaged as possible with our US and, indeed, our EU partners. What we need to do now is bring back some unity and some resolve in NATO, among all its partners, and obviously that must include Turkey.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is quite clear that the Kurdish people feel abandoned. A great many of my constituents are of Kurdish origin. This has left a vacuum, but, according to reports, the Pentagon was not even involved: it was a unilateral decision made by the President. In the wake of the revelations that are emerging about Ukraine, President Zelensky and Donald Trump, does the Foreign Secretary believe that the motives behind that decision with the Turkish President could indeed be personal?

[Dominic Raab]

No, I have no reason to believe that that is the case.

Amazon Deforestation

Matt Western Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sheerman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much; I will revisit my level of activity in the group.

When I speak to clever Brazilians, they say to me, “But look what you’ve done to the world. You’ve deforested Europe. At present you are probably despoiling the quality of soil right across Europe and in the UK. You are doing dreadful things that are awful for the environment as well.” When we look at the facts of the matter, we are exporting some of the worst chemicals for people all over the world to put on their land. Indeed, in my own constituency, Syngenta makes weed-killers that it cannot sell in Europe, but it exports them beyond Europe. We should have a conscience about what we are exporting, the soil degradation that we are causing and the fact that we must prove to the Brazilians that we are concerned about climate change worldwide.

I have been inspired by the young people. I have 12 grandchildren. Four of them live in Cambridge and a couple of them have been leaders in the climate change campaign. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge brought one of my granddaughters, Lola, up to meet the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). That shows how active we are on a cross-party basis.

I am inspired because young people have got it. Greta Thunberg, who we invited to this place, has galvanised the level of activity and interest. On the other side, I am inspired by the young people coming out. In Huddersfield the other day, we had a wonderful event in St George’s Square with great speakers. They were young people. It is young people who excite me, because they have got it, and things are changing.

Young people are changing what they eat, so there are more vegans. Two or three years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) got me to join the all-party parliamentary group on vegetarianism and veganism. I do not know that I am as good at pursuing that as she is, but I helped the group to be quorate on a particular day. The fact of the matter is that young people’s habits—what they eat, what they do, their impact on the environment—are changing fast.

My other inspiration is Professor Steve Jones of University College London, who has produced a book that I have just finished reviewing, “Here Comes the Sun”. If people want to know the real science, he is a Reith lecturer and one of the leading experts in the world. I say to hon. Members, “Read it. It is a hard read, but it tells the unvarnished truth about how we are destroying the climate.” This is not just about the species and the wonderful flora and fauna of the Amazon, but about the fact that the Amazon rainforest helps to regulate the weather globally. When are people going to wake up to the fact that these changes—these fires, these droughts, these floods—are related to climate change?

Of course, if we want to pick on anyone big and say, “It’s your fault, mate,” we should not pick just on the Brazilian leadership. We should look at north America and President Trump. If we want to know what has changed a lot of the attitudes in South America, it is the attitude of the President of the United States, which has changed dramatically from Obama to the present President.

Let us, first, recognise that our delicate, fragile planet is desperately in trouble, and that we will not hand on anything to our children and grandchildren if we do not act now, and act positively. That means sharing technology, science and innovation—including giving it to the Chinese. We do not do anything about the Chinese. The Chinese no longer have any bees. Their agriculture has been so intensive that they have to hand-pollinate, because they have killed all the bees in China. In north America they have killed most of the songbirds.

We must wake up to the urgency of what we face, but not then despair and say, “Oh, it’s all too difficult for us, we can’t tackle this.” We need good science, good technology, sharing of information, sharing of new methods of agriculture and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said powerfully, new ways of consuming.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Sheerman]

I was just going to finish, but I will give way.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful speech. Had I appreciated that he was coming to the end of it, I would have backed off. He made the point about how informed young people are about consumption. He was talking about his grandchildren, and I am sure he is struck by how knowledgeable they are and how that knowledge and information is informing the decisions and choices that they make. That should be inspirational to all of us, as he suggests. Visiting various primary schools, I was amazed that so many children said, “We don’t eat those biscuits, because they have so much palm oil.” We are talking about Brazil and the impact on the rainforests there, but if we look at the rainforest fires in Indonesia, where there is widespread devastation and clearance for palm oil, which goes into so many of our foodstuffs, does he agree that this is a massive, global issue? Obviously we are talking about Brazil, but it is a wider thing across our globe.

[Mr Sheerman]

I am grateful for that helpful intervention. I will reiterate that my Bible has become Professor Steve Jones. Interestingly enough, he has been almost banned by the BBC. He told me that the trouble is that we cannot get a decent debate on climate change on radio or television, because the BBC has this daft idea of balance. Steve cannot get on, as a leading professor and scientist, because apparently they cannot find anyone better qualified than Nigel Lawson to provide balance. He is almost banned from the BBC because he knows too much. What a crazy world! The fact of the matter is that we know what is happening, we know about the science and we know that we have the keys if we share information.

We as parliamentarians are too often lazy. We should not be getting on planes. There is a group of us who are working together on how, deep into the 21st century, we can communicate with other legislators around the world in a positive and supportive way. If anyone would like to join that group with me, I will be holding a meeting this coming Wednesday.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the more than 100,000 signatories to this petition, because it seems that more and more it is the people outside who bring the most pertinent discussions to this House.

We are having a good discussion. I am happy to acknowledge what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), and his enthusiasm, which I share, that if we put our mind to it, there are solutions to the climate crisis and we must not be gloomy. We hear increasingly about people who get really depressed about the future, especially young people. That, on top of the challenge that we have, will be devastating if we allow it to continue. The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) is leaving the Chamber, but it was a particular pleasure to listen to what he was saying.

One of my favourite films is “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”. Hon. Members may remember how, at the end of the film, the committee is still debating and Brian is already on the cross. That is what we often do: we debate and debate, and we do not acknowledge the emergency that is actually before us. I share the impatience of everybody who has been demonstrating today and who will continue to demonstrate outside with Extinction Rebellion.

Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), I became a member of Greenpeace—more than 30 years ago, in Germany. This is not a new thing. We knew about it, yet what have we done about it? If anything, we will have to justify to future generations the fact that we knew about this. The chair of the Committee on Climate Change said that we have a “moral duty”, because we know what to do about it, so let us do it.

That is the impetus, and that is the response that I would like to see from the Government. There is an emergency. We know what to do about it. Let us not just say, “Well, we have already done quite a lot.” We have definitely not done enough. That is what these debates are all about. I hope that we can find a cross-party consensus on the fact that it an emergency and that we need to do a lot more. It is a massive challenge; young people are reminding us how big the challenge is. We do not want to be depressed about it, but we need to do a lot more.

I must say that I take a slightly grim view of the Brazilian Government. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, deforestation actually slowed down between 2004 and 2014, or 2013—I cannot quite remember the figures—but it is increasing again, which is disappointing. If we could do that between 2004 and 2012, we need to look at why it has gone backwards. These are the questions that we have to ask ourselves.

Deforestation in the Amazon is a global crisis. The Amazon is the largest carbon dioxide sink in the world; it captures and stores a huge amount of CO₂, doing the heavy lifting for all of us in the fight to stop the looming climate crisis. During the summer, reports emerged about the huge expansion of Amazon rainforest fires. Although wildfires are seasonal and play a role in regenerating wildlife, the fires raging in the Amazon rainforest were much larger than usual. If the Brazilian Government continue to ignore the extent of the damage, those fires will pose a serious threat to the Amazon biome.

I understand the argument that it is a bit rich for us to pontificate if we have, in the past, also deforested and if our economies ultimately profit from what is happening elsewhere in the world. However, responsible Governments see that there has to be something like a carrot and a stick, and I think we need to apply a bit of a stick, not just a carrot. We need global co-operation if we are to have any chance of keeping the rise in global temperatures below 1.5° C. If we continue on this trajectory, global temperatures are currently predicted to rise by about 3° C. That is just not acceptable, and we cannot be complacent. If we fail, we will face an irreversible climate crisis, which evidence suggests will destroy ecosystems, cause the extinction of thousands of species and displace much of the world’s population.

This is one of the wider political problems. The climate crisis and catastrophe will affect the world disproportionately. Some countries, particularly in the northern hemisphere, will be okay—Britain will probably be one of them—but what about Africa and the southern hemisphere? If we think globally, and if we believe that we cannot just let other countries sink into the ocean or have intolerable temperatures so that they cannot sustain human life, our response has to be urgent. It is our global moral responsibility to act, and so far I do not think that the Government have really woken up to this emergency.

The only way we can stop this is by everyone, on every level, doing their bit, from individuals to international bodies that represent groups of nations. Brazilian President Bolsonaro, it seems, has so far shown no interest in averting the climate catastrophe or in putting forward some climate action. I will be very political here: he is a populist leader who uses environmental chaos, social instability and economic disruption for his own political gain. He has no regard for the long-term implications of rainforest destruction. It would be naive to think that Bolsonaro turns a blind eye only for short-term financial success. Burning down the rainforests and literally fuelling the climate crisis is consistent with his disruptive political agenda. It matters that we stand up to these populist leaders who seek to divide people, not only for the people of this world but for the planet.

I fully agree with the petition, signed by 122,578 people across the UK. We cannot afford to sit on the fence and let other countries do the work. If the Government are serious about reaching net zero and about preserving our environment for future generations, we must do more now. Liberal Democrat MEPs have been playing a central role within the EU in challenging Mr Bolsonaro’s policy and in working with other EU partners to figure out how to challenge his destructive agenda. I take the point of the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) that it is no good only to impose sanctions. However, the European Union, which is usually very good on international co-operation, has proposed this path, and I believe that the British Government should fall in line and do the same and really put some stick into their actions towards the Brazilian Government.

International pressure is the way to build incentives for Brazil to protect its rainforest and step up in the fight against the climate crisis. This is where our membership of the EU is central, allowing us to lead the fight against populism and climate destruction. By promising to leave the EU on 31 October, the Government are recklessly putting the UK out into the cold, where our power and influence will be much diminished. The fight to reach net zero and save our planet for future generations will be the biggest challenge we have ever faced. We owe it to future generations to act and do something now.

[Matt Western]

The hon. Lady makes some powerful points. Does she agree—the point was made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—that this is almost like a double whammy? It is not just the fact that we depend on these international organisations to oversee and to show responsibility for these challenges, which are multinational, not national, and that leaving the EU will make things so much tougher for us. To underline the point, as the hon. Member for Winchester was saying, it is also about where we see ourselves, and the opportunities and challenges, and perhaps the threats, of doing global trade deals and free trade agreements with countries such as Brazil when we are in a weaker position. There will be a hint of desperation about our trying to strike an early deal with them. We may seek to get exports to them, but are we prepared to take more beef from them, which of course comes at the expense of the rainforest? Does she agree that it is not simply about international organisations but also our future trade arrangements and the power we have or do not have in them?

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Again, who do we see ourselves to be in the world? Will we support nationalist Governments who, ultimately, when it really becomes difficult, will put up fences, pull up the drawbridge and not let people in anymore, saying, “Well, we are okay; sod everybody else”? Sorry, Mrs Moon.

International solidarity and our humanity demand of us to act globally and not just to do things in our national interest. I have always believed that being a member of the European Union is part of that attitude of being global and thinking co-operatively, not only in our own national interest. Of course, national interest matters, and everybody can discover their national interest at some point, but it is very dangerous to think in that way. We have to solve global challenges globally and be a good global player, and wow, hasn’t Britain been leading the way internationally for so many decades? I have become a proud British citizen because I believe in that sort of Britain, not in a small-minded, narrow Britain.

We cannot get there without global action, and we must respond with one voice when a leader like Bolsonaro fails to take the climate crisis seriously. I hope that the Minister will take on board what has been said so far this afternoon.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. As we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Winchester (Steve Brine), we have a real crisis on our hands.

Although Parliament did declare a climate emergency, “emergency” seems to have slipped from the lexicon, so it is really important that we in the debate ensure that the Government hear very clearly their responsibility not just for our generation but for future generations, and not just for our nation but as a global partner, to ensure that we get this right. After all, it is only a fleeting time that we are on this planet, and we therefore carry such a huge responsibility, not least in being elected to this place, to ensure that we do absolutely everything within our power to make sure that we address the climate injustice that we see at this time.

As has already been described, the Amazon basin sits there as home and habitat to unique biospheres, and the accelerating pace at which it is being degraded, under the leadership of Mr Bolsonaro, is of real concern. I therefore believe that we in Parliament have a responsibility to put pressure on leaderships where they fail. We speak so much about how we have such global influence—I have heard it in debate after debate since being in the House—but unless we use it, it is futile.

We recognise the progress that Brazil has made in setting stringent targets for itself and moving towards those. However, if it is now regressing, as seems to be the case, all of that is tokenistic and we therefore have a serious responsibility not only to get to grips with the issues before us, but to ensure that other countries do likewise, in solidarity with us, and to apply the appropriate pressure—leverage—and put our power in the right place to ensure that Brazil falls into line. The same applies to many other countries where we are also seeing deforestation.

We must remind ourselves that of the 7 million sq km of the Amazon basin, 5.5 million sq km are covered by rainforest, of which 60% is in Brazil, so Brazil is significant in this debate. One in 10 species lives in the Amazon, and a quarter of terrestrial species. It accounts for half the world’s tropical forest area. Thirty-four million people also live there, and 385 indigenous groups depend on its resources. We have not heard about the people in this debate, but it is vital that we protect their environment, the environment in which they live, as opposed to seeing them moved out of places where for generations they have respected and treated with such kindness and diligence their local environment.

Of course, South America is such an incredible carbon store but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, we are seeing the loss of the equivalent of 5.7 football pitches every minute. That must wake us up. It is worth repeating until they are etched on our minds the statistics for the scale of devastation that we are seeing.

That is why Brazil’s commitment at COP 24 was so significant. It stated that carbon emissions were to decrease by 37% by 2025 and 43% by 2030. It is extremely alarming that we have heard that President Bolsonaro wants to withdraw from the Paris agreement. At COP 24, it was stated that 94 million more hectares in the key biomes would be protected; that was on top of the 335 already protected areas.

We are seeing regression. We are seeing Bolsonaro looking the other way. The first part of 2019 has seen an 88% rise in the rate of deforestation. The New Scientist reported that in July alone—just one month; 31 days— 3,700 sq km were lost. And there has been an 84% increase in fires compared with the same period just one year previously—77,000 fires have been recorded in satellite data.

We have not taken our eye off the ball, but we cannot do nothing at this time and just comment, as we are doing today in this Chamber; we have to act. The facts can no longer be hidden. We see the propaganda machines come out to challenge the figures, but technology itself is telling the story for us.

We have seen the rise in agricultural activity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East highlighted. I am referring to the beef industry, soy, logging, mining, land speculation—the buying up of this vital habitat—and urban development on core sites. Of course, this is driven not just by internal politics, but by international trade, financing and political determinations. And it is all happening at a time when enforcement agencies in Brazil are being stripped of their funding and their ability to act.

[Matt Western]

May I intervene on the point about international agencies and enforcement? My hon. Friend mentioned logging. Does she share my concern and my belief that at this time there is an opportunity through the United Nations and CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species—to ensure that there are greater controls over not just the logging, but the markets and the opportunities to sell the timber products around the world? We are seeing rosewood, teak and so on being lost, for all sorts of things—garden furniture and other products—which is really unnecessary in this era. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and my belief that through the UN and CITES we should be putting an absolute stop to that, so that there is no market?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He said he will not speak in prose, but I will speak in plain verse: it is for Britain to decide what its trade policy and the models it applies in free trade agreements will be. That is a future decision for the Government to take. I am sure there will be debate on the matter across the House and through Government.

[Matt Western]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will give way on that point, and then I really have to get into my speech, otherwise we will be here until 7.30 pm.

[Matt Western]

I thank the Minister for giving way specifically on that point. He will know, as will others in the Chamber, that a Trade Bill has been sat on the shelf waiting for more than a year. I sat on the Trade Bill Committee. That Bill included certain protections, certain measures and certain bodies that would have had some say in how we should be constructing our trade deals, whether that was on an ethical basis or through such bodies as the trade remedies authority. Those sorts of things would have come into play. The concern that most people in this Chamber, in Parliament and across the country will have is that those sorts of protections will not be available because the Trade Bill will no longer exist.

[Christopher Pincher]

Assuming that Prorogation takes place tomorrow, the hon. Gentleman is right, but there will be a trade Bill or trade Bills in the future, where I am sure those issues can be re-addressed.

The fires that ravaged the Amazon rainforest over the summer were not only heartbreaking for the people of the region—we have heard some of the stories this afternoon—but were and are a concern for all of us who care about biodiversity and climate. In some places, the devastating surge in fires has followed a sharp rise in deforestation rates this year. As has been pointed out already, deforestation has been on the increase not since 2015, which is what I said in the Chamber—I must correct the record—but since 2012, which of course predates the Bolsonaro Government. It is clear that although the recent fires may have been exacerbated by low rainfall and in some cases by strong winds, a key cause remains the use of fire to clear the rainforest for agriculture.

In Brazil, as we have heard, record numbers of fires have occurred during this year’s dry season, prompting international concern and prompting President Bolsonaro to send more than 40,000 military personnel to the Amazon to bring the fires under control, but the effect remains unclear. It is worth pointing out something that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) alluded to: Bolivia has suffered a similar fate this summer.

Fires since August have destroyed nearly two million hectares of Bolivian forest, including in the Chiquitania, the largest dry forest on Earth. In response, President Morales and opposition parties suspended campaigning activities for their October presidential elections and the Government set up an emergency environmental cabinet in the affected area. Europe, the United States, Russia and Bolivia’s neighbours have provided the most help to bring the fires under control. British experts were among the first to offer assistance and to be deployed. Rains in the past week have begun to extinguish the fires. I mention Bolivia simply to remind all hon. Members that the problem is not simply a Brazilian one, so we cannot lay the blame at the door of the Brazilian Government and President. There are other reasons for the problems that the rainforest faces.

We respect absolutely the sovereignty of the countries of the region over the rainforest, but that sovereignty comes with a responsibility to protect and preserve that precious resource. Although it is regrettable that some Governments initially sought to play down the extent of the problem, we welcome the current and historic leadership shown by the region to address the fires: for example, the creation of the forest codes in Brazil, which legally require landowners in the Brazilian Amazon to maintain 80% of the land as forest. It is also worth pointing out that on 27 August, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, who made it clear that anyone setting fires in the rainforest will be prosecuted. In fact, prosecutions are under way and the penalties for such fires include imprisonment.

Last month at the regional summit hosted by President Duque of Colombia, seven regional leaders signed the Leticia pact for the Amazon. Leaders pledged to improve co-ordination to prevent and manage forest fires, share best practice, and develop initiatives to accelerate reforestation and build sustainable forest economies. We fully support that regionally-led initiative and stand ready to help. The United Kingdom Government are committed to working with Amazon countries to support efforts to protect and restore the Amazon rainforest. Over many years we have partnered with communities, businesses and state and national Governments in Brazil and the wider Amazon region to preserve and restore rainforests for the benefit of people and nature, and for our collective effort to tackle the threat of climate change. Since 2012—this is another point I made in the Chamber during Foreign Office questions—the United Kingdom Government have committed £120 million in international climate finance programmes operating to reduce deforestation in Brazil and a further £70 million in Colombia. That suggests we are doing a lot more than nothing. That investment generates benefits for the local environment, for local communities and for the global climate.

At the G7, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—helpfully trailed by the hon. Member for Cambridge —pledged a further £10 million for our international climate finance work to support the longer-term efforts to tackle deforestation in Brazil. That will expand an existing programme that supports the protection and restoration of Brazil’s rainforests, including areas affected by the recent fires.