Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response: International Agreement

Steve Brine Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly the case that the best aspects of the British Government’s response were those that we were able to undertake using our own sovereignty.

The WHO’s powers will potentially extend to ordering countries to close borders; to travel restrictions; to the tracing of contacts; to refusal of entry; to forced quarantining; to medical examinations, including requirements for proof of vaccination; and even to the forced medication of individuals. It is not just when a pandemic has already been declared that those powers might be invoked: the WHO claims these powers when there is simply the potential for such an emergency.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I am puzzled by this debate. I cannot understand whether it is actually a debate about constitutional procedure in the House of Commons and whether we want more referenda—I would have thought we had had enough of those. The UK is the second-largest contributor to the WHO. It is a member-led process. It is not an organisation that we are bit-part players in, or one where we are going to be directed and overrun. We cede sovereignty through membership of organisations. We cede the sovereignty to go to war by being a member of NATO. It is a member-led process which, as I understand it, is to ensure that we are at the heart of preventing, better preparing for and designing how we respond to, future disease outbreaks. To me, that seems perfectly logical.

As the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, I say that we want to be at the heart of scrutinising any future treaty that we negotiated as a member state through the WHO. It would then go through the processes of this House before any ratification took place. Is that not the point of the House of Commons?

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend makes an important suggestion with which I absolutely agree. He is not totally right about the way the WHO works, of course. A simple majority of member states can approve the new regulations, and a two-thirds majority can approve the treaty. Even if we objected to it, it could still go ahead. We would then have the opportunity to opt out, which is what I suggest we do.

I will come to why we absolutely should opt out. I am challenging the proposed regulations and treaty, because they are wholly and fundamentally wrong, and they represent an assault on our freedoms. We should object. I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) is absolutely right: fundamentally, Parliament needs to exercise its own responsibility and duty to oversee what we are going to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Brine]

As a former health Minister with responsibility for the WHO, I worked with the organisation. It is supranational, but it is 100% driven by its members and we, as the second largest donor and one of its founding members, are one of the most respected members round the table, so we are designing the process. We should be proud of that. We are at the heart of that and we should submit it to scrutiny by us in this House. Does the hon. Member not agree?

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, who has a great deal of experience in this area. As a country, we are leaders in the field. We should be proud of our role in creating the WHO and fighting the pandemics that have happened in recent years. It is also the case that, as with all treaties, there is an opportunity for parliamentary intervention. That is already established, and the Government have committed that any subsequent domestic regulations would need to be passed before the treaty was ratified.

As we have already heard, we can, if we so decide, opt out, so there is no question that this is something that will be done to us. As a sovereign nation we have the opportunity to say no. Given the amount of time that this House has spent debating questions of national sovereignty over the past five or six years, would we do something that would give away sovereignty? There are important principles about parliamentary accountability that we need to bear in mind. It would be unfair to allow some of the wilder conspiracy theories to overshadow legitimate concerns about any potential infringement on our sovereignty and democracy.

On the specifics of the treaty, as I have said already, the key point to note is that it has not been finalised yet, but we do know the broad parameters of negotiations set out in the latest “zero draft” published in February. From that we can see that the guiding mission is:

“to prevent pandemics, save lives, reduce disease burden and protect livelihoods, through strengthening, proactively, the world’s capacities for preventing, preparing for and responding to, and recovery of health systems from, pandemics.”

I would be very surprised if anyone objected to that as a set of guiding principles, but it is reasonable to ask what the definition means in practice, what the procedure is for declaring a pandemic, and what safeguards will be in place to ensure individual liberty and rights are protected.

Those questions and that ambiguity have been seized upon by those who want to undermine global co-operation. They state fears that the treaty will restrict freedom of speech to the extent that dissenters could be imprisoned, that it will impose instruments that impede on our daily life and that it will institute widespread global surveillance without warning and without the consent of world leaders. In other words, some of the hallmarks of totalitarian Governments are to be combined with supercharged lockdown measures, which are all, of course, already in the power of the Government under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. Under this treaty, those things will apparently be done without our Government having a say.

If those claims had any basis in fact, we would all be rightly concerned, but they do not stand up to scrutiny. Fact checkers have consistently stated that the WHO would have no capacity to force members to comply with public health measures. A WHO spokesperson said:

“As with all international instruments, any accord, if and when agreed, would be determined by governments themselves, who would take any action while considering their own national laws and regulations.”

The idea that we would allow our citizens to be imprisoned by a third party for expressing an opinion on something in this country is absurd. It is just not going to happen. We live in a liberal democracy and I know that Members from across the House are determined to keep it that way. It is those nations that want to undermine western liberal democracies and to create disarray that are pushing the narrative that there is an unaccountable, unelected, global group of people seeking to take control of our lives.

We can both protect our values of freedom and democracy and work more closely with other countries in the face of a global threat. Those two aims can be entirely consistent with one another. Creating a global treaty is an entirely reasonable and responsible course of action. One of the most important messages to emerge from covid-19 was that we need to be better prepared for the next pandemic. We have learned that global co-operation is crucial to success, whether that is by co-ordinating measures to suppress transmission or conducting vaccine roll-outs. It took the world far too long to understand that in a pandemic no one is safe until everyone is safe.

To my mind, the question is much more about whether this Parliament and this Government are up to the task of dealing with another public health emergency in a way that ensures that democratic accountability and public confidence are maintained. As someone who spent many hours dealing with public health regulations during the covid pandemic, I think there is much to be done to improve Parliament’s role. We know that, at times, decisions had to be taken quickly, but far too often covid regulations were debated weeks or even months after they were introduced. As the pandemic progressed, I felt that no effort was being made to ensure that regulations were debated before they came into force. On numerous occasions, there was no objective reason why that needed to be case. Indeed, sometimes the rules were made publicly available on the Government website only minutes before they became law. Trying to obtain clarity about which measures, individually or collectively, were considered likely to lead to an increase or decrease in transmission rates was mission impossible.

When we were able to see the minutes of meetings of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—in the early stages of the pandemic, we were not—there was often very little correlation between them and the measures being debated. Sometimes, there was no statement in the explanatory memorandum that the measures being put forward in the regulations had even been considered by a scientific adviser. Often, there were no SAGE minutes that stated that these matters had been considered either. Often, what SAGE recommended did not even make it into regulations.

I am sure that many of us can remember the contradictions and the confusion about some of the measures: around why an area was in a particular tier, the lack of clarity about how areas moved in and out of tiers, the decision to close pubs—

ODA Budget

Steve Brine Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The awful scenes we are seeing in India are obviously having a deeply personal and human impact there, but they are for many here too. People are dying right now and, as we know from our experience, rising case numbers can mean only one thing. They cannot breathe. The UK may have committed £330 million per year to Gavi through to 2025, which is good, but it is a drop in the ocean. What more can we do, through the Minister’s good offices, to export our vaccine miracle to our historical good friends in India who really need us right now?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. India remains a long-standing and close friend of the United Kingdom. It has come to our aid in times of difficulty and it is absolutely right that we reciprocate that now. I am very proud of the fact that the UK Government have moved quickly to help to supply oxygen-related technologies. We are also committed to ensuring that the scientific breakthroughs that the teams at Oxford University have created, alongside AstraZeneca, will be shared globally around the world. We are assessing what more we can do to support one of our very longstanding friends around the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Brine Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

We are having discussions with the Biden Administration on the approach to the proposed US withdrawal or drawdown from Afghanistan. It has to be linked to violence on the ground and to the wider peace talks and the agreements that have been made in Afghanistan between all the local parties, and it has to be based on the delivery of those conditions.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

  Given that covid-19 is reported to have killed more than 120,000 of our fellow citizens it is reasonable, in time, to understand where lessons can be learned domestically, but surely it is our moral duty to establish the origins of the virus and how it spread as an international community. So may I ask the Minister: what is the British Government’s view on where this came from and on the efficacy of the World Health Organisation’s current fact-finding mission to China?

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

My hon. Friend asks a very sensible question. The UK co-sponsored the World Health Assembly resolution in May 2020 that agreed an investigation into the origins of covid. It is important that that investigation is given the time it needs. The field mission to Wuhan was a key early step in the investigation. Of course we cannot pre-empt findings, but we will look closely at the field mission’s report when it is published. We have been clear that the investigation must be robust, open and scientifically rigorous.

British Citizens Abroad: FCO Help to Return Home

Steve Brine Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the Singaporeans have introduced fresh restrictions. That is why at 8 o’clock this morning I was on the phone to the Singaporean Foreign Minister. We talked about the need to act reciprocally, and the understanding was very clear that we would work together to make sure British nationals can get back via Singapore—not just those travelling in Singapore but those who use it as a transit hub.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I have a couple of constituents stuck in New Zealand who are intensive care unit doctors. For obvious reasons, how can the Foreign Secretary help, please?

[Dominic Raab]

We are working to get all the Brits in New Zealand back home. I have updated the House in some detail about the measures we are taking. If my hon. Friend has any problem getting his constituents the advice that the high commission is providing, please get in contact with me and we will make sure that we personally make that happen.

UK Telecommunications

Steve Brine Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend has particular expertise in this area. We can consider the cap and the issue of phasing at the point of legislation, but it is important that we take these measures as swiftly as possible to show we have a decisive fork in the road that is able to meet the challenges of both investment and security.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The logic of what the Foreign Secretary says about the limited choices is that if he could make this decision on roll-out without Huawei, that is exactly what he would do. As he addresses the domestic telecoms market and the market failure—let us be honest, it is a domestic market failure—will it be possible for us to ease out this high-risk vendor, or will we be in too deep? Is it only for the future that he is addressing that failure?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. No, it would not just be for the future. The reality is that with a 35% cap, which could be changed over time, and with the investment initiatives we need to take in order to diversify supply, we should start to grapple with the domestic challenge as soon as possible—I cannot give him a precise date—as well as considering what we do afterwards in regulatory terms. The reality is that the more trusted home-grown supply we have, the less we will need to rely on high-risk vendors.

Britain's Place in the World

Steve Brine Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Ind)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). I agreed with what he said about 0.7% of GDP for UK aid. He is dead right. That is one of the great achievements of this Government since 2010. I was interested in his point about working out the detail before a referendum has happened instead of in its last weeks. I wonder whether we will hear from the SNP before the next independence referendum the detail on whether it wants to keep the pound and what its plan is to keep the pound. I would be happy to take an intervention on that from its leader in the House.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I am most grateful and I commend the hon. Gentleman for the tone of the start of his speech. Let me give an absolute cast-iron commitment that when the SNP brings forward its plans for independence, as it will very shortly, we will set out in exact detail the kind of country we want and have an open discussion with friends and opponents on what kind of society we want to live in.

[Steve Brine]

I take that as no answer on the pound.

I warmly welcome yesterday’s Queen’s Speech and the fact that we have at least opened a new Session of Parliament. We have 26 Bills to be getting on with and all the more immediate Brexit endgame stuff to play out. I will not labour them all, but I want to touch on a few, not least as a former Health Minister. I welcome plans for an independent NHS investigations body—the health service safety investigations body, or HSSIB, which was talked about when I was in the Department—to look into serious healthcare incidents. There are other measures relating to adult social care and medicines policy. As a former Minister with responsibility for medicines, I look forward to scrutinising that policy.

I very much welcome the ambitious new policies on criminal justice. It was good to hear the Prime Minister yesterday talk about the rehabilitation of offenders during his remarks in the House. Far from the environment being an afterthought in the Queen’s Speech—I did not see it that way at all—I am delighted to see a new Environment Bill that promises to set legally binding targets to reduce plastics, cut air pollution, restore biodiversity and improve water quality. As promised, the animal welfare Bill to outlaw the proceeds of trophy hunting will be very welcome. I only wish we could outlaw the actual act as it happens in other countries, which shows a darkness in the heart of man that we should leave firmly in the past. These are good measures on the environment. My “Green Winchester” campaign, which I have run since before I was elected, will look forward to getting stuck in to all that. I know there will be a lot of interest from my constituents.

I want to touch on three points. First, I have spoken about Brexit and citizens’ rights in this Chamber many times since the referendum. In my opinion, Britain cannot have any secure place in the world if it is not a secure place that welcomes citizens from anywhere in the world. It is, of course, good news that the Queen’s Speech contains the immigration Bill. It will make clear that resident European citizens in this country and in my Winchester constituency, who have built their lives in and contributed so much to the UK, have the right to remain.

Indeed, I note that the Gracious Speech said that the Bill will include measures that “reinforce this commitment”, which is excellent. When the Minister responds to today’s debate, I would like to hear a little bit more about that. I am quite clear—many of my constituents will share this wish—that this is not something that we should be getting around to in late 2019 or early 2020. The previous Government—the Prime Minister said this at the time—should have legislated right away to end the uncertainty that our EU friends and neighbours living here have felt since June 2016. Many of my constituents have contacted me to express that view.

Secondly, Britain is known for many things around the world and it is rightly looked up to. As a Health Minister, I was fortunate to represent our country at G7 and G20 meetings. The experience of travelling wearing that NHS badge was that so many countries are envious, and rightly so, of our NHS. We are probably its harshest critics here domestically. Perhaps that is how it should be, but when we talk around the world about our primary care, GP and cancer services, our screening programmes —we are the first country in the world to implement the faecal immunochemical test, or FIT, bowel cancer screening programme—and the immunisation programme we have in our country, we should remember that there are many things for which Britain is rightly looked up to.

Sure, the 2016 referendum was unusual for us as a country. We do not need to rehearse all the arguments about how a parliamentary democracy such as ours has struggled to reconcile an exercise in direct democracy, but I really do believe that we should not overthink how others view us and how this episode has had an impact on our place in the world. It has been said many times and it is worth repeating: this House actually represents our country very well right now, divided as it is. We will see again on Saturday how divided our society is outside this building.

Ours is a working democracy and centuries of precedent and tradition, in my view, do not go bad in the space of three—although very long—years. I do not share the view, therefore, that we need to tear this House down, find our founding fathers and write a constitution—not yet anyway. Surely, the challenge of our current impasse has far more straightforward origins. As any student of politics learns in their first module about the House of Commons, this place works, and the Prime Minister’s power derives from, having a majority in this place. Whether I or we like it, there will have to be a general election sooner or later. Whether that produces a result of any clarity is another matter.

Finally, turning back to Brexit, we have to be honest and say that Brexit presents challenges and opportunities for Britain’s place in the world, but I suspect that how depends entirely on how this ends. I voted remain in 2016. I came to that conclusion because of the way I see our country: as part of something greater than even Great Britain. I am young and generally internationalist in my outlook. I have no issue with freedom of movement. As a Health Minister, I saw every day how our NHS needs the supply of labour.

I am not hung up on ceding an element of sovereignty to be a member state of the European Union. We do that as a member of other multinational organisations, including NATO, which, after all, has article 5 as the cornerstone of its foundation, stating that an attack on one is an attack on all. While I realise that this is anathema to some in our country and perhaps even in this House, when I see the British Prime Minister sitting around an EU summit table flanked by the big nations of Europe—being a big nation of Europe ourselves— I feel pride, not regret.

However, our country made a choice that we asked it to make. I may regret the result of the 2016 EU referendum, but I respect it and we must carry it through, and we will make it work. I realise that opponents of moderates have the luxury of taking a position from either of the spectrum. We have the Brexit party with its “Get Brexit Done”, saying that a clean break would just allow us to move on and put Brexit behind us. That is plain wrong. It would resolve nothing and is a recipe only for much further uncertainty. Equally, the Liberal party’s view—sadly, its Members are not in the Chamber; what a surprise—is that we can just revoke article 50 and pretend, like Bobby Ewing coming out of the shower in “Dallas”, that it never happened, but as one constituent put it to me last weekend, that is just not cricket. We have to move forward from where we are in life and not from where we wish to be.

My view is that Britain’s place in the world is strong, and I think that it will remain so. It is changing, that is for sure, but I suspect that when my children are my age—perhaps standing in this House one day—this current time will just be one part of the story that is this ongoing, successful United Kingdom.

Amazon Deforestation

Steve Brine Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Ind)]

It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I hope it will not be another 10 years before she makes a speech on this subject. I enjoyed her contribution and found it educational, and I thank her for it. I thank the Petitions Committee for holding this debate—as a former Minister who responded to many Petitions Committee debates, it is nice to be on the other side—and the just over 300 of my constituents who signed the petition; I think I know them all. I thank the schoolchildren, from every school I visit and all those that visit me here, who raise this subject with me, and my own two children, who also raise it with me. I also thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for setting out the issue so clearly. I do not want to speak for long, and will make three brief points.

First, and personally, as I have droned on to anyone who will listen or who has asked me about environmental policy since I was elected, this is the issue that got me here and opened my eyes as a schoolboy, when I was no older than my eight-year-old son is now. I remember seeing it on television and protesting at the television about it, and my parents saying it was no good telling them—that I should tell someone else and do something about it. That opened my eyes to becoming an activist, and led me to a lifetime of activism. It got me to join Friends of the Earth when I was a young man and ultimately to pursue a career in politics.

Ever since I was adopted as the candidate for Winchester in 2007, I have campaigned relentlessly under the Green Winchester umbrella on many issues, but I have always returned to this subject. As a schoolboy, I wrote articles and held debates on it. I even wrote a poem on it for the school poetry competition, which the swine did not let me win. While the rates of deforestation in the ’80s, when I was at school, and continuing into the ’90s were deeply troubling and led to the television coverage that caught my attention and raised my ire, it seems that more recent years have given cause for hope in the Amazon.

Deforestation has been a concern in the region for some years, but I note in the excellent House of Commons Library briefing for the debate that the New York declaration on deforestation published this year said:

“Brazil lost almost 55 million hectares of tree cover at a rate of 5.7 soccer fields per minute. More than 84 percent of this loss occurred in the…Amazon…an area bigger than Norway.”

However, previous Brazilian Governments have adopted a series of legal and administrative approaches aimed at reducing deforestation, which led to a decline in loss rates. As the declaration reports, the

“Amazon has long been hailed as a success story in global forest conservation efforts. In 2012, Brazil recorded its lowest deforestation rate in the last 20 years.”

It is worth repeating that point, which was made in the opening speech.

Soy was mentioned in a previous contribution. The world’s first two large-scale voluntary commitments to reduce deforestation were based in the Amazon: the 2006 sector-wide soy moratorium and the 2009 company-specific Cattle Brazil: forging public-private co-operation agreements. Nearly 50 companies have endorsed the soy moratorium covering 90% of the soy trade in the Brazilian Amazon, while 18 of the country’s 22 largest meat processors have committed to at least one of the cattle agreements. These approaches were successful, yet trends in the slowing of forest loss have been reversed in recent years. In the period after 2012, deforestation has again increased, no doubt generating more young boys and girls shouting at the television or outside in Westminster today. The reversal of the trend for the slowing of forest loss has been particularly acute this year, and that is what worries us all so much. The progress report of the New York declaration on forests, published in September, states that

“tree cover loss in the Amazon began to rise again in 2016 when it reached 3.7 million hectares. While the rate of loss has fallen in the past two years, it is still higher than it had been since 2005. For the Amazon, deforestation rates continued to rise in the first part of 2019 with an alarming 88 percent increase in June compared to same month the previous year.”

It is worth repeating the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that deforestation is increasing in Bolivia and Peru, so it is not just a matter of Brazil—but of course it is mainly Brazil.

Secondly, lots of points have been made about indigenous peoples and ecosystems, and I am not going to repeat them. However, I am a former Health Minister and was the cancer care Minister, and it is often said that the Amazon is the world’s largest medicine cabinet. That is a good point. About 25% of all the drugs that are used today derive from rainforest plants. One point that caused one of my shouty TV moments was this: logically, on the balance of probability, if such a high percentage of the things we know about have come from the rainforest, what else is out there? For those who have been involved with fighting cancer, and the loss of the fight, as many times as I and many other people in the Chamber have, it would be wonderful if we could detect more cancers earlier, as is the Government’s ambition. However, as we will not do that for everyone, we will need medicines and drug treatments. For me, the great question is what else is out there.

My third point is about the response, which is obviously what the petitioners are interested in. I understand President Bolsonaro’s view about sovereignty. Of course, international law would be on his side with respect to the sovereignty of his land, but I argue that sovereignty of the planet belongs to us all. Some 40 years after I was raised into political activism of some sort we are still having the same conversation—and, what is worse, the situation is getting more acute and worrying, because deforestation rates seem to be going in the wrong direction again.

I understand the argument that we need to help Brazil to trade its way out of the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) made his point well, and I listened to him carefully. He has visited the area many times. It is often said that the Amazon basin has a population living in poverty, and that is undoubtedly true, but a lot of deforestation does not stem from poverty. According to the federal Government 32.5% of deforestation in 2016 happened on big farms, and 24.5% on invaded public land, while 30% happened on smallholder agricultural land possessions and 11% inside protected areas that allow for economic activities. So much deforestation, especially on squatted land, is commissioned by people who do not live in the Amazon, including gangs of land speculators and other forms of organised crime. Most of the big farmers and land-grabbers come from São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Paraná and other southern states, attracted by the cheap land and the low level of law enforcement in Brazil. I understand the argument, but it worries me.

As to the response to the petition, at the time of the G20 summit France and Ireland raised the prospect of not ratifying the huge trade deal with South American nations unless Brazil did more to fight fires in the Amazon. President Macron of France said that President Bolsonaro had lied to him about his stance on climate change. Our Prime Minister said:

“The fires ravaging the Amazon rainforest are not only heartbreaking, they are an international crisis. We stand ready to provide whatever help we can to bring them under control and help protect one of Earth’s greatest wonders.”

German Chancellor Merkel called the fire an “acute emergency” that was

“shocking and threatening not only for Brazil and the other affected countries, but also for the whole world”.

I agree with all those statements but, far from arguing that we should withdraw from trade negotiations, I suggest that the deal should explicitly say that countries must commit to tackling climate change. I suggest therefore that all we are asking is that the EU, of which we are still currently a member, should hold Brazil to the commitments in the emerging agreement. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Forty years on from the time I described earlier, we are still having the conversation. If we are still having it after another 40 years it will not be a problem but a bit of history—gone for ever. The medicines that we might have found, which might have produced cures for terrible diseases—the diseases that I have spent many hours answering debates on in Westminster Hall, and that affect our constituents—will not be found. If we were to let that happen it seems to me it would be a stain on humanity. The point about sovereignty needs to be balanced alongside that argument. I ask the Minister—he is an excellent Minister and a good friend—to set out the latest position of Her Majesty’s Government on the EU-Mercosur trade deal, from the point of view of a member state and, presumably, from 1 November, a former member state. Where do we stand? What leverage do the Government propose to put on to Brazil and the neighbouring countries that have been mentioned? I will not be here in 40 years but perhaps my son will. I do not want him to be having the same argument that we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to attend this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on introducing it, and I congratulate all Members who have contributed on what they have said. It may be that we disagree on some of the solutions, but I do not think anyone will disagree with the passion and expertise that has been brought to the Chamber today. I will try to address as many as I can of the points that Members have raised, but to begin I will draw out two points.

The first relates to something that the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said. She mentioned some interesting diversification initiatives, and I am happy to talk to her about some of those. I was on the Energy and Climate Change Committee between 2010 and 2015, and I remember looking at the question of how best to increase awareness and change the choices that drive carbon emissions. We looked at whether it was possible to measure carbon emissions by production or whether it was better to do it by consumption, which Members have mentioned today.

The Committee’s finding was that to go down the route of measuring carbon emissions by consumption and imposing penalties or sanctions or modelling policy around that approach might risk trade conflict, which would hurt not only those who are consuming the goods, possibly in the west, but those who are producing them in low-wage developing economies. That was the view at the time.

I was also struck by the speech of my hon. Friend—I call him a friend—the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who gave a sad story of his poetic limitations. In fact, I thought he had gone away a moment ago to write yet another poem. He made reference to what our policy will be in the future, and he made a veiled reference to Mercosur and our attitude to it, which the hon. Members for Dundee West (Chris Law) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) also referenced. Mercosur will not be signed any time soon, and by the time it is, we will be out of the European Union and it will not be a trade agreement for us to sign. We will be free to develop and model our own trading agreements and arrangements, and how they look, what they feel like and what they smell like will be a matter for the British Government.

Whether there are environmental elements in those trade deals is still to be determined, but I believe—here, again, I take issue with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland—that when tariffs are imposed or are not removed, we hurt poor people. Tariffs on food tend to hurt the poorest, so I would support a wide-ranging free trading policy. I discourage her from channelling her inner protectionist and pursuing a policy that would hurt everybody, including her constituents and indigenous communities in the rainforest.

[Steve Brine]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

Yes. I have only just begun; I have not even got on to my speech proper, rather like the hon. Member for Cambridge.

[Steve Brine]

I thank the Minister for addressing my point. I will not say this in prose, but obviously we will be outside of being a member state and that trade deal will be signed by the remaining members of the European Union. Were the Government to consider a trade deal with Brazil in the future, does the Minister agree that Brazil’s approach to tackling climate change should be a consideration that would be discussed by his colleagues in the Department for International Trade?

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Brine Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

The human rights of Palestinians are quite clearly very close to the top of our list of priorities. The hon. Lady touched on Israel, the annexation of territory and the involvement of the US. Let us be clear. We want to see a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. I hope that makes our position clear.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

At the start of Christian Aid Week, the focus of the organisation is on its maternal health work in Sierra Leone, where, since the Ebola crisis, 10 women die every day in childbirth and one in nine children die before their fifth birthday. Will the Foreign Secretary put Britain’s weight behind the campaign calling on the IMF to write off the loans it made to the African country to fight the Ebola outbreak?

European Union Referendum Bill

Steve Brine Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Partly for the reasons that I have given, and also because I think there is a qualitative difference, which we acknowledged when we introduced amendment 55, between elections held for a constituent nation of the United Kingdom and elections held for local government. We accepted that distinction in the amendment we introduced earlier this week.

If we look at the number of occasions when local elections and general elections have been held on exactly the same day, we find plenty of examples where the public have indulged happily in ticket splitting, sending a Member to this House representing one political party and electing a different political party to run their local authority. The public are able to make that distinction perfectly well.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The Minister and I have discussed this issue before, but I want to place on the record that my constituents, across Winchester and Chandler’s Ford, are quite capable of distinguishing between two elections. When they have one piece of paper for a parish election, for a district election or even for a county election, as well as a parliamentary election on the same day, they seem to manage it.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend puts it very well.

European Union Referendum Bill

Steve Brine Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I need to make some progress.

There are those who will say that this process cannot succeed, that Europe will never change, and that our negotiations will not be successful. Looking at the record of the last Labour Government, I can see why they would say that. Under that Labour Government, there was a one-way transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels. They gave away £7 billion of the hard-fought-for British rebate but got absolutely nothing in return. They presided over a massive increase in the EU budget, they signed us up to the eurozone bail-out funds and they failed to deliver on their promise to give the British people a say before ratifying the Lisbon treaty. Labour’s record on Europe was one of dismal failure.

In the last Parliament, however, we showed what could be done. We showed that, even in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, change could be achieved by adopting a tough negotiating stance and a laser-like focus on our national interest. We cut the EU budget for the first time ever, saving British taxpayers billions of pounds. We took Britain out of the eurozone bail-outs that Labour signed us up to—the first ever return of powers from Brussels. We vetoed an EU treaty that would have damaged Britain’s interests, we brought back control of more than 100 police and criminal justice measures and we secured exemptions for the smallest businesses from EU regulation. Our record in the past five years shows that we can deliver change in Europe that is in Britain’s national interest.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary is taking a lot of noise and advice from those on the Labour Benches, but many of my colleagues and I remember sitting here, Friday after Friday, while they bitterly opposed the European Union (Referendum) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). I presume that my right hon. Friend welcomes the sinner who repents today, but as he takes all that advice will he just remember that if we had taken the advice of Labour, Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat Members, Britain would now be languishing in the euro?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the electorate considers the stated positions of the parties, I would advise them to look not only at the positions they hold today but at the depth of the roots that sustain those positions.