Afghanistan Humanitarian Crisis: UK Response

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

I completely agree. This is a complex situation, but we are pressing the World Bank. We are also working with it and the UN to find solutions to allow international non-governmental organisations to access currency in Afghanistan, which is another issue.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Successive Governments have committed United Kingdom forces to Afghanistan and we have spent billions of pounds. We now have a situation where millions of people are starving, and we must cut through the bureaucracy and get food to people, because otherwise they will starve to death. We sit here in a country where we can feed ourselves and we do our very best to feed our whole population. For goodness’ sake, Minister, please, we have to get more food into Afghanistan and get it there now.

[Vicky Ford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an incredibly concerning humanitarian situation. We have pledged our funding, and it is going through and getting through to those we are supporting, but it is important that the rest of the world also steps up. I understand that some countries— the European Union and United States—have also made announcements such as we have since the UN launched its appeal. We are absolutely supporting that UN appeal, because the momentum needs to continue. This is a very urgent situation.

Deforestation in the Amazon

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. My argument with the Brazilians is twofold: not only is there deforestation, but, as my right hon. Friend was just saying, they are not actually making good use of the land when they farm it. Basically, they farm all of the fertility out of the land, then leave it and move on to other land. It is bad in all respects, not only for the environment, but for agriculture.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing the debate.

I will concentrate on Brazil and the deforestation that has been going on there. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we are a critical friend of Brazil, but we need to be critical when an area twice the size of Devon was deforested last year alone. While the Brazilians are making good noises about COP26 and the environment, in practice that is not reflected on the ground.

Between 1990 and 2016, the world lost some 502,000 square miles of rainforest—an area larger than South Africa. In 2020 alone, over 11,000 sq km of the Amazon was lost to deforestation, which is the largest area in 12 years. As I said, that is twice the size of Devon. Between 2001 and 2018, Brazil lost almost 55 million hectares of tree cover, at a rate of 5.7 football pitches per minute. Deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon are at their highest in 15 years, and over the past 50 years forest coverage across the Amazon biome has declined by some 20%. There may be warm words, but the actions in Brazil do not show them.

In July 2021, scientists confirmed that the Amazon is a net producer of CO₂, emitting more carbon dioxide than it absorbs, as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said. We can all work on a cross-party basis to bring about pressure to correct the situation in Brazil.

The importance of the Amazon has been stated before. The Amazon alone contains some 90 billion to 140 billion metric tonnes of carbon. It is significantly more effective to maintain the current tree cover than to replant forests retrospectively. A tree in the Amazon rainforest probably holds as much carbon as two or three trees in this country just because of the rate of growth.

Forests hold 80% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity. They support complex ecosystems such as plant life, animals, soils, bacteria and fungi. They also support our food supply system by ensuring that we have enough pollinators as well as providing pest control. The Amazon holds at least 10% of the world’s biodiversity and accounts for 15% of total river discharge into the oceans. Forest degradation can lead to catastrophic impacts, including increased soil erosion, disruption of water cycles, loss of habitat for endangered animals and increased greenhouse gases. Because the Amazon carries around 15% of the world’s freshwater into the sea, it probably has an impact on the salt in the sea overall.

Forests are home to communities and indigenous people. The Amazon is home to some 34 million people, including almost 3 million indigenous people. Half the Amazon basin is covered by protected areas and indigenous territories. Over 100 communities live in voluntary isolation. Illegal deforestation destroys communities, homes, livelihoods, culture and a way of life. Land that is the ancestral and sovereign right of indigenous communities is being taken by violent force, driven by consumer demand for widely used commodities. A Global Witness report entitled “Last Line of Defence” stated that 227 lethal attacks were carried out on land defenders in 2020—an average of more than four people a week—making this

“the most dangerous year on record for people defending their homes, land and livelihoods, and the ecosystems vital for biodiversity and the climate.”

I welcome the action taken by the UK Government in the Environment Act 2021. The Government have introduced a law that prohibits the use of certain commodities associated with illegal deforestation, and they have placed a requirement on large companies to undertake due diligence and reporting on their supply chains. That will prohibit the use of forest risk commodities within the UK market and encourage other nations to carry out proper due diligence when sourcing materials. We need only look at major importers of cereal into this country, such as Cargill, to know that much of the soya comes from Brazil. We need to question exactly where it has come from. Has it come from land that has been illegally deforested? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is carrying out a consultation on secondary provisions that will run until March this year, which is an opportunity to strengthen the Environment Act to ensure that institutions cannot profit from illegal deforestation.

Agrifood expansion continues to drive deforestation in the Amazon. It is the main driver of deforestation, forest degradation and the associated loss of biodiversity. Large-scale commercial agriculture, primarily cattle ranching and the cultivation of soya bean and palm oil, accounted for 40% of tropical deforestation between 2000 and 2010, and local subsistence accounted for another 33%. A Global Witness report from October 2020, entitled “Beef, Banks and the Brazilian Amazon”, found that Brazil’s three largest beef companies were linked to tens of thousands of hectares of illegal deforestation, despite auditors saying otherwise. Over three years,

“beef giants JBS, Marfrig and Minerva bought cattle from a combined 379 ranches containing 20,000 football fields worth of illegal deforestation”.

A study in the Science journal states that

“roughly 20% of soya exports and at least 17% of beef exports”

from Brazil

“may be contaminated with illegal deforestation.”

The Bolsonaro Administration are in the process of implementing legislation that will legalise deforestation on public land for agricultural practices that has taken place since 2017. If granted a land title, businesses that have invaded land will be allowed to deforest public land and sell it for high profits. I say to the Brazilian Government that if they are really mindful that they will stop deforestation, such laws go completely in the opposite direction.

Financial institutions continue to hold the purse strings for illegal deforesting activity. The 2019 Global Witness report entitled “Money to Burn” found that more than 300 banks and investors had provided some $44 billion of finance to six of the world’s worst deforesters over the previous six years. It found that major financial institutions, such as HSBC, Santander and Barclays, have investments in agribusinesses that continue to carry out large-scale illegal deforestation. The investments and pensions of UK consumers may well be being used to fund deforestation.

A further 2021 Global Witness report, “Deforestation Dividends”, has found that financial institutions are bankrolling and profiting from agribusinesses that are destroying rainforest and forest habitats across the globe. Banks and asset management companies based in the EU, UK, US and China have invested $157 billion into firms accused of destroying rainforests in Brazil, south-east Asia and Africa since the Paris climate agreement. Global financial institutions including Deutsche Bank, J.P. Morgan, BNP Paribas, Rabobank and Bank of China have profited by some $1.74 billion in interest, dividends and fees from financing agribusinesses that carry out the most deforestation.

At a recent sitting of the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister stated that more than 40 banks have signed up to the voluntary Glasgow declaration on forests and land use at COP26, which he said included Barclays and Aviva. However, no high street bank has, as yet, signed up to the agreement. I urge the Minister and the Government to put pressure on our banks to stop funding illegal deforestation. There is much we can do. If we can starve these major companies of credit, we can stop much of the deforestation.

Finally, I repeat that as we talk and trade with Brazil in the future, we must be absolutely certain that it has put its house in order. There must be no illegal deforestation, and the indigenous populations must not face having their land destroyed or taken from them, or, even worse, being killed. This debate is timely. I have used some strong language today, but I think it is important to highlight the current situation. I hope that it will improve in future, not only for the environment and agriculture, but for those indigenous people who are suffering.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I add my words of thanks and gratefulness to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing a second debate on this important topic. I thank my predecessor as Minister responsible for Latin America, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), for all her work on protecting the Amazon. I particularly thank her for the important work in the run-up to and during the COP26 meetings.

The importance of protecting the Amazon cannot be overstated, and we must tackle both climate change and biodiversity loss. Tackling deforestation is critical to both those issues, which is why it was at the heart of the UK’s COP26 presidency. In doing so, we must protect the natural environment and respect the rights of indigenous people. The Amazon, as the world’s largest rainforest, has to be at the centre of that effort. The Amazon is not only home to more than 10% of the world’s known plant and animal species but stores up to 200 billion tonnes of carbon—roughly a decade’s worth of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Around 17% of the Amazon has already been lost. If deforestation continues, it will reach a tipping point, potentially in the next decade. Unchecked deforestation will turn the Amazon from a carbon sink to a source of emissions, and the hope of keeping the 1.5° C target alive would slip from our grasp. Most of the emissions are caused by fires, many started deliberately to clear land for agriculture, particularly beef, as has been mentioned, and soy production. Even without fires, hotter temperatures and droughts mean that the south-eastern Amazon has already become a source of CO₂ rather than a sink.

In this critical decade, protecting the Amazon while supporting a sustainable economic transition in the region is one of the most urgent challenges that we face. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell discussed Brazil, whose Government control two thirds of the Amazon as public lands. We must also remember the countries that are home to the other third of the Amazon. At COP26, much progress was made. As has been mentioned, more than 140 leaders from countries that together host over 90% of the world’s forests pledged to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. That pledge included Amazon countries, such as Brazil, Colombia and Peru.

We know that to turn that promise into a reality will require funding. That is why at COP26 the UK mobilised 12 donor countries to pledge $12 billion of public climate finance through to 2025 in a new global forest finance pledge. The UK is contributing £1.5 billion—approximately $2 billion—to that pledge. We also committed to invest up to £300 million of climate finance towards tackling deforestation and delivering green growth in the Amazon by 2025.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned the importance of working with the financial sector. At COP26, 30 financial institutions, with more than $8.7 trillion of global assets, committed to eliminate investment in activities linked to deforestation. I know that that did not include all the banks that have been mentioned in the debate, and I call on other financial institutions to raise their ambitions. Nevertheless, the contribution from the private sector is deeply impressive. Although COP26 mobilised billions to support public sector investment in climate finance, it will be our efforts to mobilise trillions through deforestation-free supply chains that will deliver the substantive impact that we seek to achieve.

[Neil Parish]

I welcome the fact that financial institutions have made that commitment to stop funding deforestation, but many of our own, homegrown banks are still funding it. Please may I ask the Government to put real pressure on those banks? We all deal with them, and they have many good parts to them, but they must not put money into companies that are deforesting. If we take away the financial blood, they will not be able to carry on doing such damage.

[Vicky Ford]

The importance of private sector investment and the transparency of the supply chains, which I will come to, are key to unlocking those trillions in investment that will come through the supply chain and investment. That $8.7 trillion announced at COP was deeply impressive, but others should step up to the mark, because their own customers will expect them to do so.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell also mentioned the importance of trade. I reassure him that any future bilateral trade agreements with Mercosur member countries, including Brazil, will be in line with international obligations, including our commitment to a high level of protection for the environment.

At COP26, 12 of the world’s largest companies, which manage half of all global trade in commodities linked to deforestation, announced that they would lay out a road map for action by COP27, which is due to take place in Egypt. Eight financial institutions and agribusiness companies also announced commitments worth $3 billion to support soy and cattle production in the Amazon without the need for deforestation or land conversion.

The UK is also working on other projects with global partners to help protect the Amazon. Last February, for example, together with Indonesia, we established the forest, agriculture and commodity trade dialogue, known as FACT, which brings together countries that are major producers and consumers of agricultural commodities, including in the Amazon region, to protect forests while promoting sustainable development and trade. At COP26, 28 participants, including us, Brazil, Peru and Colombia, launched the FACT road map.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and the hon. Member for Bristol East also mentioned the importance of sustainable agriculture. Since 2012, the UK has invested more than £60 million to promote sustainable agriculture in Brazil through the low-carbon agriculture programme known as Rural Sustentável, which promotes agricultural technologies such as integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems. Phase 1, which ended in 2019, reached more than 18,500 beneficiaries in the Amazon and Atlantic forest biomes, and delivered a sevenfold increase in livestock productivity, bringing more than 46,000 hectares of land under sustainable management and reducing carbon emissions by 52% compared with the baseline scenario. By the end of phase 2 in 2024, we expect to have prevented another 132,000 hectares of deforestation across the Cerrado, Caatinga and Amazon biomes.

Official Development Assistance and the British Council

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I welcome the chance to speak on the estimates for spending on official development assistance. I wish to take the opportunity, as other hon. Members have done, to question the Government’s decision to cut the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. I understand the points raised by the Treasury about the need to make savings, given the financial strain caused by covid-19, and I understand that difficult decisions must be made. However, as has been said in this House, the cut of approximately £4 billion in aid is worth only about 1% of what the Chancellor has borrowed to protect us from covid.

I take issue with any cut to our aid budget, but I take even more issue with where the cuts appear to be falling. If we absolutely must cut aid, we need to investigate very carefully where savings can be made. I question whether the Government should have done more to manage the reduction of the budget without slashing funding for lifesaving programmes. The cut from £15 billion to £10.7 billion is a cut of about 30%, so why have we cut 60% of the UNICEF budget, 85% of the United Nations Population Fund’s, and 80% of our funding for water projects? Clean water is life itself.

[Anthony Mangnall]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. One of the bigger issues is the speed at which the cuts were announced, which did not give time for any of the organisations that saw those cuts to be able to prepare for them—to be able to put in mitigating circumstances to allow them to run programmes on a skeleton staff, or whatever it may have been. We have not given the right amount of lead time for these businesses and organisations to be able to prepare for the cuts. If we wanted to make the cuts, we should have delayed doing it and put them into another year altogether.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend; he is right. There seems to have been very little planning generally in both the speed of the cuts and where they have fallen.

Why have we not looked at the administration costs in this budget? Why have water projects and UNICEF projects, in particular, been cut so drastically? We need to pause and think for a moment. Let us try to rectify much of the damage that has been done, because these things can be brought back into place. I have given just a few examples, but it seems that the most vital programmes have taken a disproportionate hit. Cutting the budget for the UN Population Fund from £154 million to £23 million will have a devastating impact on the ground. Likewise, our commitments to water and sanitation projects will be cut from £176 million to about £35 million. We are not talking about billions of pounds. These are relatively small amounts of cash, especially in the grand scheme of £400 billion that we have borrowed to battle covid-19 and save lives in this country—which I very much support. I therefore question whether the money for these programmes could have been cut in other areas instead.

I have been to Bangladesh and seen for myself the needs of people there. They are people with very little or nothing who cannot rely on a generous welfare state when things go wrong as we can here in the UK. It is easy to forget, as we live in a prosperous country, that there are people in the world who do not have access to clean water. As I said, water is life itself, and so slashing our capacity to provide clean water to the poorest will cost lives. We must ask ourselves what we would do if our children and grandchildren were in that position and reliant on the generosity of foreign Governments to provide clean water. Would we actually stand by and see our children and grandchildren dying for lack of clean water? We would not.

For better or worse, we have a colonial past, and in many cases the poorest nations are former colonies. We cannot turn our back on them now. We must help people in these countries and others who need it who are reliant on aid. This would be true at any time, but in the midst of a pandemic depriving people of clean water when it may be their only defence against the virus is catastrophic. Some people may say that we are doing our bit by supplying vaccines to the developing world as part of COVAX and other schemes, which is true, but mass vaccination programmes are not delivered overnight, and humans need clean water every day to survive. Likewise, cutting funding for family planning is counterproductive when the population in the poorest countries is already greater than their resources, including food and clean water. Preventing access to contraception will cause families to spiral into even greater poverty, putting thousands of lives at risk.

There is a broader problem of the signal that this decision sends to the rest of the world on climate action. The cuts will diminish the ability of the world’s poorest to cope with climate change, and those people are often the hardest hit by it. Taking the water cuts, for example, there is the context of increasing droughts. We need to strengthen the resilience to drought of communities in poor countries, not weaken it. This aid budget cut also means a cut to the UK’s highly effective programme to prevent deforestation in Indonesia. The green economic growth programme focused on providing sustainable livelihoods for local populations who often end up working in harmful environmental practices such as deforestation due to the lack of alternative ways to make a living. The UK programme was changing that; now it has abruptly been cancelled, despite its success.

The Environment Bill is currently going through the Lords, and promises to be world leading on climate change and deforestation. It will be completely undermined if we are cutting funding to tackle deforestation abroad at the same time as making commitments in legislation. There does not appear to be any joined-up thinking—dare I say it—across Government. We are taking strong domestic action on the environment, but these cuts signal that we are not serious enough about tackling the issue globally.

I regret any cuts to our overseas aid budget and cannot see how they deliver tangible benefits to our national finances. I therefore hope that the Government come forward with a method of restoring the budget, whether that is very quickly or more gradually over a longer period of time. In the meantime, these cuts have landed disproportionately and hit the most needed humanitarian programmes. Whatever path the Government choose to take, those programmes must be the first to be restored. I hope that our Ministers can soon bring forward exactly the way in which we are going to reinstate the 0.7% of GNI in the very near future.

Deforestation in the Amazon

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr McCabe. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for bringing the debate to Westminster Hall. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) who is a very able member of the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which I chair.

Talking about the deforestation of the Amazon and, in particular, about what is happening in Brazil is a good reason for us to be here this afternoon. The Environment Bill is now in Committee in the Lords and offers a welcome opportunity for the UK to show global leadership in protecting the Amazon. The due diligence obligations will see companies that play a role in producing key commodities such as soya and palm oil held accountable for the illegal deforestation in their supply chains.

Although those due diligence obligations are welcome, they do not go far enough to protect the Amazon and other crucial, natural ecosystems, or to meet the UK’s global goals on climate and nature. The deforestation amendments I tabled unsuccessfully in the House of Commons were targeted towards ensuring that big businesses are not bankrolled. Those big businesses in Brazil that carry out cattle ranching, driving the cattle towards the Amazon, and ploughing up the savannah to grow soya, removing the rights of indigenous people, are being bankrolled by major UK institutions, such as HSBC, Santander and Barclays, which have investments in those big agribusinesses.

The Global Witness “Money to Burn” report shows that UK banks invested £5 billion between 2013 and 2019 in companies that are illegally deforesting land, such as those in the Amazon. We may not be conscious of it but our own pension funds in the House of Commons may well contribute to that by having investments in those institutions.

In a capitalist system, if those businesses are starved of capital they are brought to some recognition of the huge damage that they are doing. They are causing huge environmental damage; if we did them financial damage they would listen more carefully.

That is why I am so keen for this to happen, and I shall be interested to hear what our Minister has to say.

In December 2020, Global Witness, in “Beef, Banks and the Brazilian Amazon”, found that Brazil’s three largest beef companies are linked to tens of thousands of hectares of illegal deforestation, despite auditors saying otherwise. In just one state, over three years, beef giants JBS, Marfrig and Minerva brought cattle from a combined 379 ranches, containing 20,000 football fields-worth of illegal deforestation. In this year alone, an area twice the size of Devon has been deforested. While we stand here and speak, deforestation is going on at an alarming rate.

We have to remember that, although trees are valuable in every country in which they are grown, we would need to grow three trees here to hold the amount of carbon that a tree in the rainforest holds. We need to wake up to that. I understand that Brazil is a sovereign country and that it needs to make its decisions, but it cannot make decisions that are seriously damaging—literally—the health and sometimes the lives of indigenous people in Brazil and are causing so much degradation to our global climate. As we move forward as a country towards ensuring we have a much greener environment, we have to look to the rest of the world to deliver on that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell made a point about the Chinese, who are very hungry for minerals and all sorts of commodities, including soya for feeding their cattle and their people, but they too must be very conscious of where this is coming from. We can all work together to deliver on this. Overall, the people of Brazil would benefit from a regime that did not deforest.

Finally, to put my farming hat on, one of the problems that I have with what they do in Brazil is that they basically burn down the rainforest and plough it up, using all the fertility in the soil, and then move on to some more rainforest, abandoning the land after taking the fertility that has probably taken hundreds of thousands of years to deliver. Even from a farming perspective, it is ruinous. That is why I say bluntly that we need to listen to this debate very clearly. I look forward to the Minister taking the points that we are making very seriously. This is very much a cross-party issue, and is very much for the good of this country. In this case, we have to give clear guidance to the Brazilians about the impact of the policies of the present President of Brazil and where they are leading the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman is right; Iran’s human rights record remains a matter of serious concern. On 17 December, the UK co-sponsored a UN resolution on human rights in Iran, highlighting its failure to meet a whole range of international obligations in that area.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

T4. Newly elected President Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe is not restoring good governance and human rights or rooting out corruption in the country. What more can we do as a soft power superpower to ensure that the Zimbabwean Government root out corruption, recognise human rights and bring in inward investment, to return prosperity to that great country?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question and reassure him that we are doing everything we can. We summoned the Zimbabwean ambassador to the UK to register our concerns about the human rights violations and abuses that were noted in the January fuel protests. I travelled to southern Africa and met a range of neighbours to encourage them to send the same message as Commonwealth countries to the Government of Zimbabwe. If the Government of Zimbabwe would only follow through with the things they have said they will do, we would not be in this situation.

Cyclone Idai

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman is so right to point to the long-term nature of this work. Although we need to put in place a short-term response, there also needs to be a long-term strategic response. Some of the very poorest countries in the world are also some of the most vulnerable to climate change—I think Malawi is estimated to be the third poorest country in the world, and Mozambique the seventh—so those of us paying in through international climate finance have a special responsibility to do whatever we can to encourage countries such as those affected in this instance to bid successfully for those funds. That is why we had the African Energy Ministers event. As part of our new approach to Africa, we are also hiring a further 20 climate specialists across our African network to help deploy some of that finance into these particularly vulnerable countries.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Our heartfelt sympathy goes out to the people of Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe. As has been said, this is not only about feeding and saving people now; it is also about feeding them into the future, and I am sure that the British farming community can help to get cattle and other things back into the region. One particular point that I want to raise with the Minister is about Zimbabwe, which is naturally suspended from the Commonwealth because of corruption, bad governance and a lack of democracy. It is quite right to suspend the country, but it is not the fault of the Zimbabwean people that they have such a corrupt Government. What more help can we give Zimbabwe, given that the country is very weak due to its lack of good governance and democracy?

[Harriett Baldwin]

We have always been a steadfast friend of the people of Zimbabwe. This year alone, we will have put some £84 million-worth of programming through the Department for International Development—none of which money, I must emphasise, goes through the Government of Zimbabwe but is designed to help the most vulnerable people with education, access to healthcare and some of the agricultural resilience work that I have alluded to. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put on record the steadfast friendship between the people of the UK and the people of Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am happy to be answerable at the Dispatch Box for the actions of the UK Government, and I can assure the hon. Lady that the UK continues to support this important work and, in fact, to do more on things such as access to safe family planning around the world.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

2. What steps the Government are taking with international partners to tackle the illegal wildlife trade.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

9. What steps the Government are taking with international partners to tackle the illegal wildlife trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

Earlier this month, London hosted the largest ever illegal wildlife trade conference, with representation from more than 70 countries and 400 organisations. Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for International Development announced additional support for developing countries to tackle IWT. I pay tribute my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for all the work that they have done and continue to do to advance this agenda.

[Neil Parish]

Many of the countries where there is wildlife crime involving iconic species such as elephant and rhino are war-torn. That is a huge problem that makes it dangerous for the rangers and others who try to protect the wildlife. What more can we do to help war-torn countries? It is essential that we do so.

[Mark Field]

I am sure my hon. Friend is grateful that the London conference highlighted the links he has pointed out between human conflict and IWT. DFID has committed to spend at least 50% of its annual budget in fragile and conflict-afflicted states. Although that does not impact directly on IWT, it should help to reduce it. The IWT challenge fund and the Darwin fund have also supported projects in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan and Sudan. Trophy hunting occurs in a few countries with well-developed tourist industries, but it is unlikely to be a major feature of war-torn countries.

Zimbabwe

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I am grateful for that question. I am fixed to talk to the vice-president of South Africa at the earliest possible opportunity, but I must regretfully inform the House that I have not had much time to talk to any others. As I said to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), the South Africans will be crucial in this.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I was an election observer in Zimbabwe in 2000, when Mugabe stole the election from the Movement for Democratic Change through persecution and brutality, and for my sins I have been banned from Zimbabwe.

Not only have the farms of black and white farmers been destroyed in Zimbabwe, but corporate governance across the piece has been destroyed. There will be a stage when we need to re-engage to rebuild that country, because Zimbabwe should be feeding most of Africa; it cannot even feed itself now. There will be a time to engage, but it probably is not yet. We have to be ready to get in there and put the situation right, because Zimbabwe is a beautiful country with lovely people, and it has been absolutely destroyed by a madman.

[Boris Johnson]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has been to Zimbabwe, and he is right in his analysis of what went wrong. I remember seeing how fantastic farms were ruined, with irrigation systems melted down to make saucepans, or whatever. It was an economic catastrophe, for which the people of Zimbabwe are now paying.

The best way forward is through free and fair elections. As my hon. Friend has experience as an election monitor in Zimbabwe, I wonder whether it is too much to hope that he might volunteer to go back next year to monitor the free and fair elections we hope to see.

Budget Resolutions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. It is interesting that the Opposition keep telling us that we must spend more, when of course we inherited a deficit of £150 billion from them, so every year we were borrowing £150 billion more than we were earning. Now we are finally getting that down to £50 billion, but we still have a £50 billion deficit. It is right that the Chancellor takes strong action to get down our deficit. Until we remove our deficit, we will not get debt down—debt will rise. The Opposition will then start saying, “Debt’s going up.” Of course it is—because we inherited such as basket case of an economy from them.

I very much welcome taking many of the lower paid out of tax altogether, and I welcome the fact that work actually pays. I have some concern, however, when we look at the self-employed. This Government have rightly reduced corporation tax so that large businesses can come to this country and existing businesses can do well from lower corporation tax. Many small businesses and companies in my constituency and across the country are not, however, incorporated, so trying to tax the self-employed more is not the right way forward.

I look forward to the Taylor report. There may be some abuses where people set up bogus businesses and act as self-employed, but the genuinely self-employed who have set up their businesses and struggled to start them without earning much money do not get all the benefits of the employed, so they need to be helped through that situation.

As we move into Brexit and away from the European Union—whether or not we are in the single market—the one thing this country will need is a lot of good businesses, and we have got them. We have seen a reduction in the value of the pound. We might not necessarily have engineered that as a Government, but after the Brexit vote the pound dropped by about 18%, which has created a huge stimulus to the economy. We must make sure that we benefit from it by allowing these businesses to develop. As these self-employed businesses develop, they will create employment, which is what we need. It is another great success of this Government. Millions of jobs, we were told, were going to be lost when the coalition Government came into power in 2010. Instead of that, we have created millions of jobs—something that seems to be lost in the forecast of Opposition Members.

Let me deal in my remaining three minutes with the situation in my constituency. It is great to see that, on the basis of previous Budgets and this one, we are still very much looking at infrastructure. What has happened on the A303 and the A30 is a great innovation, but we must make sure that we do not stop at Ilminster, but get through to Honiton, because there is a bit of a gap at the moment. I have been talking about this matter for some time.

When it comes to social care and our hospitals, I very much welcome the little bit of extra money in the Budget, but many Members always have little local difficulties, which is the case for me, too. At the moment, we have hospital beds both in Honiton and in Seaton, but there is a proposal to remove those hospital beds from both of those places. That will create an area of approximately 100 square miles without any hospital beds. The administrations of the health service need to realise the size of Devon and the distance people have to travel in order to get to hospital, including those who want to visit their loved ones. The cottage hospitals have a great advantage in reducing some of the pressures on the acute hospitals, so we need to ensure that we find some funding for them. We need to care for people more in their homes, but we also need to care for people in hospital.

There was a little mention of more funding for schools and education. Devon has been able to educate its children across the county with a very low budget. Over the years, we have had a poor share of the overall budget. Now we have seen an increase in that share, which is welcome, but as always we need some more cash. Although this is not down to the Chancellor, we also need a little more flexibility when it comes to how Devon spends its cash. If we had that flexibility, we could make the money go further.

Great education for our children is what we will need when we move into this brave new world. I voted to remain, but I am now very much committed to the fact that our economy is strong and that this country will be great—in or out of the European Union, and in or out of the single market. We must make sure that we get our trade deals, look after our farmers and have great food, as we do these Brexit deals. The one thing we must do is always talk up this country—never down.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

George Howarth: follow that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the likelihood of EU sanctions against Russia being renewed as a result of that country’s recent actions in Crimea and the Donbas.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

15. What assessment he has made of the likelihood of EU sanctions against Russia being renewed as a result of that country’s recent actions in Crimea and the Donbas.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Russia is failing to fulfil its commitments under the Minsk agreements. Ceasefire violations in the Donbas continue, and these must end. Russia must stop supporting and directing the separatists. Last year, the European Council decided sanctions should be clearly linked to the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. We strongly support the continued application of this robust approach, and we expect that the European Union will extend tier 3 sanctions for a further six months this summer. There are separate sanctions in place relating specifically to Crimea, and our strong view is that they must remain in place while Russia’s illegal annexation continues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I regret that I have to say to my hon. Friend that it is a long haul of maintaining pressure on Russia—through isolation from the international community and through maintaining the EU sanctions that are in place. At the moment, we have no other tools that are likely to prove effective.

[Neil Parish]

I very much understand the need for sanctions because of Russia’s aggression towards the Ukraine, but one problem is that milk and other dairy products are very much involved in those sanctions, and that is having a dramatic effect in terms of the downward price of dairy products. Is there any way that the food and dairy side of these sanctions can be taken away?

[Mr Hammond]

The sanctions my hon. Friend refers to are in fact Russian counter-sanctions that have been imposed against EU producers. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, despite the sanctions measures Russia has taken in retaliation against EU agricultural producers, agricultural exports from the European Union in 2015 were up by 6%, showing that our producers—Europe-wide producers—are able to address the challenge of Russian sanctions and to find alternative markets elsewhere.