Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action: Iran

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this excellent debate. It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about Sir David Amess, who I worked closely with on Iran. I miss him, too, and I am reminded of the wisdom and eloquence that he would bring to a debate such as this.

I have always been sceptical about the JCPOA because I feared that the Iranian regime could not be trusted to comply. Reluctantly, I came to accept the view that at its best it might buy a decade in which we could hope to slow Iran’s potential for developing a nuclear weapon, while the search for a better political alignment across the middle east could be pursued.

I am not sure about the wisdom of the Trump presidency’s decision to withdraw from the deal unilaterally, but I do think there were already many questions at that time about Iran’s compliance. The deal, as we have heard, involved a 15-year period over which it said it would reduce its stockpile of uranium and limit its work on centrifuges. We now know that by May 2019, and probably earlier, it had decided to lift the limits on its stockpile of enriched uranium, and that by September 2019, and probably earlier, it had also decided to lift limits on the research and development of centrifuges. By August of this year the IAEA was able to verify that Iran has produced enough enriched uranium metal for some to believe a bomb is imminent.

We are now in a position where Iran says it wants to resume talks on the JCPOA, but appears to be doing everything it can to prevent any real progress while continuing its nuclear weapons programme. Since the summer of this year we have also witnessed, as we heard earlier, the coming to power of Ebrahim Raisi, the mass murderer behind the massacre of political opponents and many others back in 1988 who refused to accept the regime’s extremism. It seems almost certain that he has lost none of his ambition to purify Iran of internal dissent and bolster the position of the IRGC, the brutal and sinister Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

We know Iran is tempted back into talks because of the dire state of its economy and the fear of the impact of further sanctions. We must not give too much too soon and we should be wary of the advantage of a new JCPOA that once again fails to tackle the role of Iran in producing ballistic missiles, and fails to address the regional threats resulting from its arming of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen.

There will also come a point where any gains from the JCPOA will become meaningless if Iran’s research and development passes the threshold beyond which the original agreement was designed to hold it. I do not say that our Government should not continue to work towards a new agreement, but I hope we will make it clear that it does not exclude international bodies from pursuing Raisi for his crimes against humanity, and it must be clear this time that the regime’s enrichment programme must be stopped completely and its nuclear sites closed. There must be verifiable inspections anytime, anywhere. It must also address regional activities and ballistic missiles, and it cannot ignore the behaviour of Iran when it comes to democracy, human rights or hostage taking, like Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It cannot ignore the regime’s view that Israel does not have a right to exist.

Our Government should not agree to any conditions that seek to protect the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which I believe should be proscribed in its entirety under our terrorist legislation, as previously recommended by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.

Draft Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see in you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. The official Opposition will of course not be opposing this statutory instrument, because it simply forms the standard process around events of this nature, as the Minister set out. I do, however, have some questions, particularly given some concerns around the organisation of the conference and covid regulations, and because is important to understand the legal privileges and immunities.

The Minister set out the categories included in the order. Will he say how many attendees will be covered by the categories of UN officials, delegations and observers—“the parties”—and the CDM, the Adaptation Fund and others? He will also be aware of the concerns expressed by the Least Developed Countries Group as recently as 10 September. This was not only about their demands at this COP for fair and ambitious action to meet the 1.5° pathway and mobilising scaled-up support for many of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, which are right and substantial, but their ability to participate in the conference, which is crucial to ensuring that their voices are heard and that pressure is put to bear on some of the world’s bigger emitters. If we are seeking the ambitious outcomes that the Government and the COP President have set out, how will we ensure that that group is able to participate?

The group stated on 10 September:

“We need assurances from the UK that COP26 will be fully inclusive and fair. Our countries and our people are among the worst affected by climate change – we must not be excluded from talks deciding how the world will deal with this crisis, determining the fate of our lives and livelihoods.”

The Minister will be aware that 20 countries from the group are currently on the UK’s travel red list, which comes with significant legal implications if red list quarantine rules are broken. Will he set out what support is being given to ensure that delegations can be both covid-safe and not excluded from participation? What methods are being put in place for other methods of participation? What support is available for quarantine arrangements and fees? The costs for small delegations that do not have the monetary resources at their disposal that we would have when sending a delegation to the G7 or other conferences will be substantial.

The 20 countries in the group includes many in sub-Saharan Africa, which comes under the normal portfolio that the Minister and I cover and includes crucial countries affected by climate change, such as Mozambique, Malawi, Lesotho, Burundi, the DRC, which is critical given its rainforests and the implications of climate change, and also Afghanistan. Is the Minister aware of whether any Afghan delegation will attend the COP given the indeterminate status of its current regime? We have heard what the Foreign Secretary has said about that, so what are the implications for the types of immunities and privileges being granted under this order?

What proportion of the official delegations does the Minister believe are attached to NGO or activist groups? That could include those who have diplomatic status or others.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I do not want to delay proceedings, and I understand the need for this draft order. I was going to ask the Minister this question, but he was too quick for me, so I thought I could ask it through my hon. Friend.

Most people will remember the disquiet in this country around the death of Harry Dunn and the fact that Anne Sacoolas was able to claim diplomatic immunity and return to the States without facing any consequences. Am I right in thinking that the provisions around immunities and privileges under article 5 would mean that if there was a serious road traffic incident, perhaps resulting in a death, the individual responsible would be secure from any consequences? Is that what we are approving?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I have referred to covid laws and regulations, but the order applies to the conduct of delegations in many other respects, so I hope that the Minister will answer that question.

My last question relates to the delegations from the British overseas territories. Concerns have been raised with me by several overseas territories about the size of their delegation, and they feel that they could be more included in the COP process. I assume that they will not come under one of the categories of exemption because they are a part of the UK family, but clarification on that from the Minister would be useful. What does he understand to be their status at the conference?

Our overseas territories not only play a critical in terms of our contribution to global environmental and sustainability targets, particularly given the often pristine marine environments of these island states, but will be directly affected by climate change. In last week’s Westminster Hall debate I mentioned the British Virgin Islands, which suffered seriously during the hurricane of 2017, but it has lost as a result of Brexit some funding for climate change adaptation and resilience. However, it is likely that the islands will, tragically, face more hurricanes because of our warming environment.

Finally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s message is clear, and the unequivocal evidence is that we are in an emergency. It is right that the summit has an ambitious agenda, but that requires the participation of the countries and individuals who are most affected by climate change and will live with the consequences the longest. As I said, the Opposition will not oppose this draft order and its broad principles, but I hope the Minister will be able to answer my detailed questions.

Deforestation in the Amazon

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I have been asked to remind Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. The timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. Members participating physically and virtually should arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate.

Members participating virtually, Mr Speaker has asked me to remind you that you must keep your camera on for the duration of the debate and should be visible to each other and to those of us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks at [e-mail]. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall, along with the usual practices.

Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move into the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can only speak from the horseshoe where there are microphones. Members who are not on the call list but wish to intervene can do so, but only from the horseshoe. I remind Members that those on the call list have priority for spaces on the horseshoe, and those wishing to intervene should not prevent a Member on the call list from speaking.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered deforestation in the Amazon.

I called this debate because of what I see as a mounting crisis in the battle to protect the Amazon rainforest, which is one of the world’s most important biomes, if not the most important. The Amazon is thought to be home to 10% of known species on earth, including 16,000 species of tree, 3,000 species of fish and more species of primate than anywhere else on earth. It is one of the last refuges for jaguars, harpy eagles and pink river dolphins and is home to sloths, black spider monkeys and poison dart frogs. It is a really important part of our global ecosystem.

For decades, large swathes of the Amazon were cleared to make way for agriculture, but the Amazon was not only place affected in that part of the world: areas such as the Atlantic forest in Brazil have also largely disappeared, all too often to leave space for agriculture, and all too often agriculture that uses up the fertility of the land in a few years and leaves behind sparsely used and degraded land. In recent years, the impact of deforestation has become clearer and clearer, and international efforts to halt it have grown. I could speak for much longer than I have available today on the need to increase those efforts, to protect essential habitats and biomes, and to produce a global strategy to begin restoring some of the areas that have been lost, but that is not what the debate is about. It is about what is happening right now in Brazil, which in my view is tragic and cannot be accepted by the rest of the global community.

For many years, it seemed as if progress was being made in slowing the loss of the rainforest. Brazil committed to sharply reduce deforestation, introduced new legislation to strengthen environmental protections, and worked with soy traders to end the purchase of soy from illegally cleared areas. At the Paris climate change conference, it agreed to end illegal deforestation by 2030. However, the Brazilian Government have reversed that progress. I say that with great sorrow and dismay, because Brazil is a friend of this country, but we have to speak truth to friends, and the reality is that the Government in Brazil have reversed the process. Despite warm words to the international community, the situation is now going from bad to worse. The loss of rainforest in the Amazon is now acute, with 2019 and 2020 being disastrous years for the Amazon. In a 12-month period, an area the size of Israel was cleared. In 2020, the loss amounted to 4,281 square miles—and that is a Brazilian statistic. Despite the pandemic, the situation continues to look bleak. Current estimates are that deforestation has actually accelerated this year, with the loss of an area the size of the Isle of Man in just one month. Despite warm words internationally, this clearly has official sanction.

Instead of taking steps to halt deforestation, the Brazilian Government are now pushing legislation through the Congress that will have the opposite effect by regularising the rights of people who have cleared and occupied forest areas illegally. At the same time, a presidential decree has reduced the likelihood of environmental criminals being punished for past actions. I cannot think of any step more likely to encourage those who have been breaking the existing protections and clearing areas illegally than letting them off the punishments that they might have been expecting, or deciding to allow them to stay on those sites legally. What clearer message could there be that they will be allowed to get away with it if they try it again? It is no surprise that environmental groups are up in arms. They rightly see this as a clear route to further illegal forest clearances.

There are also plans to open up to commercial mining interests lands that enjoy existing protections—lands that are those of the indigenous peoples. I suspect that we will hear a bit more about that later from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who has been champion of indigenous peoples and the protections they need.

New environmental assessment rules for road building do not take deforestation into account, opening the way for large-scale road building through the Amazon, and the inevitable consequence of more clearances for mining and other uses, as remoter areas become more accessible. Those are not policies that come from a Government who are taking their environmental responsibilities seriously. The Brazilian Government claim that they are victims of misinformation, but I am afraid that simply is not true. The reason we know it is not true is because they told us themselves: at a recent meeting, the Brazilian Environment Minister was caught on video threatening to use the pandemic as a smokescreen to run the cattle herd through the Amazon, change all the rules and simplify standards. Heaven help the Amazon if that is the real policy of the Brazilian Environment Minister.

My message today, and the reason for calling the debate, is to say to our Government and the Minister that the international community really act on this issue, and the UK has to take a lead, along with other nations, in making that action happen. The reality is that other countries in that part of the world are working on this—for example, Colombia is starting to get to grips with the issue—but, sadly, the Brazilians are not. The first battleground has to be over trade, but it will not be easy. China has become a huge market for Brazilian exports and Brazil’s reliance on European and north American markets has been reduced, but that is not a reason for us to avoid action. It now looks unlikely that the provisional trade agreement reached between the European Union and the Mercosur trade bloc in South America will be able to go ahead in the agreed form because of what is happening in the Amazon. In the European Parliament, steps are already being taken to block the deal, and several EU Parliaments have voted to oppose it. It certainly gives the impression of being dead in the water.

As colleagues know, I do not always believe in following the example of the EU, but I definitely make an exception in this regard. The UK should not countenance even starting discussions with Brazil about a free trade agreement while the current situation continues. There must be no trade deals with Brazil while it continues to allow wholesale clearances in the Amazon, and we need a very clear message from our Ministers to their counterparts in Brasilia that this is the case. We cannot simply treat this as if it is not happening. Unless the situation changes quickly, I think we actually have to go further than that and deal with the issue in a very direct and robust way. Given the mood in Brussels and the changes in the United States, we can work internationally to tackle the issue directly.

It is very hard to work constantly to identify which products come from sustainable sources and which do not. For example, retailers in the UK tell me that it is hard to tell which soy used in their products has sustainable origins, given that the major dealers mix their supplies together in big batches. We now have to look very seriously at international action to impose tough tariffs on relevant Brazilian food exports unless and until there is clear evidence that the Government there are taking serious steps to protect the Amazon. That might seem strange coming from a strongly profree trade Conservative, but it is essential if we are to put the kind of pressure on Brazil that will stop this deforestation while we still have time. We cannot simply let the exports and imports flow if they are increasingly coming from more and more areas of the Amazon that have been cleared.

There is also a debate in the United States at the moment about whether President Biden and his climate change envoy, John Kerry, should even engage with the Brazilian Government, and in particular meet President Bolsonaro. I think they should, and I think our Government should be engaging as well: we should be having discussions and trying to strengthen relationships, but we have to be absolutely clear all along that future partnerships and future trade agreements are conditional on deforestation stopping. Of course, there is the issue that other countries are close trading partners with the Brazilians—the Chinese, for example. We should be clear with the Chinese Government that, as major importers of its produce, we need them to be part of putting the pressure on Brazil. Although the Chinese are making clear commitments themselves—they are chairing the COP on habitat and biodiversity later this year—they need to be putting that into practice and putting pressure on the Brazilian Government as well.

Protecting our natural ecosystems must become a central responsibility of all countries on Earth. Of course we need development, of course we need homes and jobs for a growing global population, and of course we understand the economic challenges that the Brazilian Government face, but none of the things that need to be done to remove poverty risks and improve the lives of citizens can be allowed to happen at the expense of key biomes and the habitats of endangered plant and animal life. A smart approach to land management and smart technology can help us to reverse the damage that has been done and start to rebuild the natural environment around us, but that work has to start quickly, and the loss of key habitats must stop now.

We, the United Kingdom, will be chairing the COP summit on climate change this autumn. We will, I hope, be the drivers of a new agreement on climate change and environmental improvements. This year, Ministers have already taken a lead role in the pre-discussions happening ahead of that meeting. As a Government, we have taken some really quite significant steps to address environmental challenges, both domestically and internationally, so I think we are as well placed as anyone to say, “We are willing to take a lead, but we need the help of others to follow.” In my view, there is no greater environmental need than this, both because the Amazon rainforest is key to dealing with the challenge of climate change and because it is such an important habitat—such an important home—for so many species and for indigenous people. It is a global asset, it is globally vital and it must be protected, but we are now facing a situation where a Government of a friendly nation is allowing policies and actions to go ahead that are accelerating the destruction of that global asset.

My message to the Minister today is very simple: the UK has to act on all of this. We have to be saying to Brazilian Ministers and others in Brazil, “We are your friends. We are going to carry on being your friends, but we cannot just stand idly by while this happens. We will take action. We will take action with the international community to put pressure on you if you do not listen and if you do not act.” It is in the interests of every Brazilian citizen, as it is in the interests of every citizen around the world, to deal with these environmental issues. Brazil has perhaps a bigger responsibility and a bigger burden than most, because it is home to such an important asset, but that responsibility has to be shouldered none the less, and this problem has to be addressed. As such, I say to the Minister and, through her, to colleagues in Government that this is something on which the UK Government have a duty to act. This year, we have a duty to lead, and if that means tough action and very tough words, we have to do it, because it is a historic responsibility that we cannot and must not shirk.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

We can probably get away without imposing a formal time limit if people confine themselves to about six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this debate, because the issue is not talked about as much as it should be. It is right that we talk frequently about developing electric vehicles and renewable energy, but we do not discuss deforestation enough, so I am glad to have this opportunity to make a brief contribution.

During the recess I had the pleasure of visiting the Eden Project, which, as Members know, is expertly run by David Harland and his team in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). The project clearly demonstrates the importance of rainforests, particularly the Amazon rainforest, in terms of biodiversity, insects, birds, animals, plants and perhaps other forms of life that have not been fully discovered. Very simple research demonstrates that although rainforests cover 6% of the world’s surface, they host half of the world’s plant and animal species.

It is also important that rainforests generate so much of the earth’s oxygen. Given all those facts, it really is important that we talk much more about rainforests, particularly the Amazon rainforest, because its deforestation is one of the great crises facing the world. We talk about the climate change emergency, quite rightly, but contributing to that is the rainforest emergency, and we need to address the issue urgently. The process of deforestation adds to the carbon dioxide emissions that the world suffers from.

We source a number of products from the rainforests, but the production of palm oil is perhaps the main issue in encouraging people to deforest. Palm oil is important to many people, including small-scale farmers in developing countries. The countries that are causing deforestation are themselves developing. The problem is not easy to solve, especially as the research shows that growing palm oil substitutes could require even more land. This is not an easy problem.

The UK has played its part in addressing the problem and moving towards the use of sustainably produced palm oil. It has to be a Government initiative, because, although I am certainly in favour of consumer responsibility and putting as many warnings on packaging as we possibly can, there are more and more requirements for packaging and it is getting rather crowded, which could lead to people ignoring the messages. It is up to the Government to ensure that what we import is produced sustainably.

Of course, like climate change itself, we in the UK cannot solve all the world’s problems, but we certainly need to give a lead. I am pleased that we are doing that, but we have to take the rest of the world with us if these problems are to be solved and we are to protect the planet in the way that we want and need to.

Helping countries that might otherwise cut down forests and helping those countries that benefit from the importation of cheaply produced palm oil might be a very important role for us to play, and it might be a very good use of part of our aid budget. As Bill Gates said:

“People cut down trees not because people are evil; they do it when the incentives to cut down trees are stronger than the incentives to leave them alone.”

I might add that they do it when the incentives are also more immediate, because if people are starving, they are understandably more concerned about that than what they see as some distant concept of climate change.

For other products that we source from around the world, the fact that we can now negotiate our own trade deals provides us with the opportunity to try to stress to other countries how seriously we take these issues, just as negotiators from all developed countries should do.

The solutions are not simple. An emphasis on sustainability is one way forward. The possible development of synthetic palm oil might be another way forward, but I really believe that it has to be accompanied by help for others if it is to work.

We in the UK have enjoyed relative prosperity since the industrial revolution, and we have polluted the planet as we have gone along. We need to help others to reach the same level of prosperity without their polluting the planet in the way that we have. Perhaps I might suggest that that is another reason for us to maintain our aid levels at 0.7%. Perhaps this is yet another example of how doing so ultimately benefits the UK. As I say, we cannot do it all on our own. COP26 provides an ideal opportunity for us to set out a structure within which we can lead the world on this issue.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, Mr Law, are you experiencing some technical difficulties there? As I said at the start, Mr Speaker was very clear: people appearing virtually should have their cameras on throughout and should be present throughout.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]]

I have had some internet instability, but it seems to be okay now, Mr McCabe.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Thank you. I call Alex Sobel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing the debate and on laying out clearly and convincingly the reality of the situation in Brazil today. Although he painted a bleak and depressing picture, what he said needed saying, and I thank him for saying it.

We all recognise the importance of the rainforest and the disaster that would follow from its destruction, but it seems that, rather than doing everything possible to save it, the Government of Brazil have effectively given a green light to criminal networks to pursue illegal logging, mining and cattle ranching, thereby accelerating the destruction of the forest. It is right that President Bolsonaro is called out, as he has been in this debate, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we are blameless in all this. We are not, because, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) says, on our doorstep—in this city—financial institutions are complicit in the destruction of the rainforest. The Guardian revealed in 2020 that British banks and finance houses had given more than $2 billion to Brazilian beef corporations implicated in deforestation.

Of course, although the implications of the Amazon’s destruction affect the entire planet, they are most keenly felt by the indigenous peoples whose territories are being stolen and destroyed and whose human rights are being routinely violated. The Brazilian Amazon is home to approximately 25 million people, but it is also the poorest region in Brazil, with the worst socioeconomic indicators. Since coming to power, President Bolsonaro has scaled back enforcement of environmental laws, weakened the power of the federal environmental agencies and removed many of the protections and rights of the indigenous people.

As Sônia Guajajara, the leader of the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil, said recently:

“He is committing one crime after another against the peoples of the forest and against the environment.”

She says that he is not only a risk to indigenous peoples but that

“it has turned into a global problem, because what he’s doing here has an impact on the planet”.

As the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, so fearful are the indigenous people of Bolsonaro and his policies that they have petitioned the International Criminal Court, asking that an investigation be opened into allegations of human rights abuses.

Sadly, across the world, indigenous people are among the most marginalised groups in society. They have historically faced systematic discrimination in everything from healthcare to education and from work to legal rights. They often have little or no political representation. Routinely, their lands have been seized and they have been forced to relocate when others have decided that they have to. All too often, they face persecution and violence and the destruction of their culture, language and traditional way of life. And the people of the Amazon rainforest are no different.

As Myrna Cunningham, a Nicaraguan woman and president of the Centre for Autonomy and Development of Indigenous People, says:

“Indigenous peoples have a different concept of forests. They are not seen as a place where you take out resources to increase your money—they are seen as a space where we live and that is given to us to protect for the next generations.”

Unfortunately, Myrna Cunningham’s concept and vision of what the forest is and how it should be used is not shared by everyone. As we have heard, President Bolsonaro, since coming to power, has actively pursued policies that erode protections for indigenous land and the indigenous people of the forest, and make it easier for non-indigenous Brazilians to carry out economic activity in the Amazon. He has attempted to shift more authority away from agencies whose job it is to protect indigenous rights, and handed it over instead to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, which has a vested interest in expanding development in the rainforest. During Bolsonaro’s first year in power, there was a staggering 135% increase in illegal invasions, illegal logging, land grabbing and other infringements in indigenous areas. According to the Brazilian Government’s own figures, the level of deforestation of indigenous land is now higher than it has been in a decade.

Of course, there is a terrible human cost for those communities seen to be standing in the way of so-called progress, as forest clearings frequently result in violence, forced eviction, harassment, intimidation, death threats, arbitrary arrests of community leaders and even murder. Human Rights Watch reported that illegal deforestation and violence in the Amazon were largely being driven by criminal gangs. Twenty-eight people have been murdered, four have faced murder attempts, and there were more than 40 cases of death threats in 2019 alone.

One indigenous reserve that has suffered more than most is the area of the Yanomami, which in one year saw deforestation soar by almost 1,700%, and where there are no fewer than 536 current requests for mining rights. I will conclude with the words of Davi Kopenawa, a spokesman for the Yanomami people, who said,

“The Whites cannot destroy our house for, if they do, things will not end well for the whole world. We are looking after the forest for everyone, not just for the Yanomami and the isolated peoples. We work with our shamans who understand these things well, who possess wisdom that comes from contact with the land.”

I just wish more shared that wisdom.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I am going to shave a few seconds off each of the Front Benchers’ speeches to give Mr Shannon a chance, but I ask him to wind up at 3.31.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I last spoke on the topic of deforestation in the Amazon less than two years ago, in a Westminster Hall debate prompted by a petition signed by more than 120,000 people. I welcome the fact that we have another opportunity to raise the issue, and I thank the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for presenting this important debate.

Back in 2019, Extinction Rebellion had just begun its two-week protest in and around Westminster. The shared message that day from MPs in the Chamber, protesters on the streets and the thousands of our constituents who put their names to the petition was that deforestation in the Amazon is one of the great man-made tragedies of our time and that urgent action was required to stop it spiralling out of control.

Sadly, as we have heard in the debate, the urgent action required has not materialised; rather, the situation has become more perilous, with deforestation rates in Brazil hitting a 12-year high in 2020. Many of the fears expressed two years ago that the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro would, for economic gain, cause environmental destruction have now become reality. It is being reported that deforestation during his Administration is today more than double than in the same period under his predecessor, and just last month deforestation soared by two thirds from the same month last year, according to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research. Furthermore, professors at the National Institute of Amazonian Research have expressed concern that legislative changes currently before the Brazilian Parliament could result in increases in unsustainable deforestation that would have previously been illegal. The World Wildlife Fund has warned that the proposed changes

“will destroy the legal framework that has enabled Brazil to control deforestation in the past, making it impossible to control deforestation in the Amazon for the next decade”.

That matters to us all. The Amazon rainforest is invaluable to our environment and fragile ecosystem, producing as much as 20% of the world’s oxygen and acting as a natural carbon capture for vast amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation threatens the 30 million people who live there, including up to 400 indigenous groups, and many thousands of plants and animal species. It also threatens to fundamentally hinder attempts to tackle climate change, reversing any progress made so far and contributing to rising global temperatures, with all the devastation that that will bring.

The Scottish Government declared a climate emergency in April 2019, followed a month later by the UK Parliament. It is therefore imperative that we collectively do all that we can to combat environmental destruction of natural habitats such as the Amazon rainforest. If we are serious about the climate emergency, we must use every tool available to us to ensure that we lead the international pressure to end this destructive deforestation in the Amazon.

At the leaders’ climate summit hosted by US President Joe Biden in April, Jair Bolsonaro vowed that Brazil would become carbon neutral by 2050 and recommitted to net zero deforestation by 2030. However, as we know, that empty rhetoric does not reflect reality. In the first six months of Bolsonaro’s term, enforcement measures to protect the Amazon, such as levying fines and destroying logging equipment in protected areas, fell by 20%, and inspection requirements for timber exports have been significantly relaxed. Enforcement agencies have been underfunded and sabotaged, and the 2021 federal budget for the Ministry of Environment and agencies was cut by nearly a third compared with last year. One campaign group put it bluntly, stating:

“The Amazon has become an open bar for land grabbers, illegal loggers and miners.”

The Brazilian Environment Minister said the country would need $1 billion in foreign aid to support efforts to reduce deforestation in the Amazon, while President Biden has previously stated that foreign Governments should provide Brazil with $20 billion. Will the UK Government therefore reduce their aid cuts and ensure that no projects to prevent deforestation in the Amazon are cancelled and in fact ensure that support is increased? Sadly, we probably know the answer.

We learned just last week that the UK Government cannot be trusted to maintain their commitment to projects vital to our planet’s health. Just weeks after the UK’s COP26 President visited Indonesia and called on it to move forward with plans to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office cancelled a green growth programme designed to prevent deforestation in the Indonesian Papuan provinces three years into a five-year programme. We urgently need to know the Government’s rationale for cancelling that project, what impact assessments have been undertaken and how serious Ministers are about tackling deforestation across the globe. This is a completely scandalous decision that once again highlights the real-life impact that UK aid cuts are having and demonstrates the UK’s failing as a leader on the world stage. As with Bolsonaro, this UK Government’s rhetoric does not reflect reality.

We need to hear how the UK Government plan to tackle deforestation in the Amazon and how they are co-operating with other Governments around the world to do so. What recent discussions have UK Government Ministers had with their counterparts in Brazil? Will they publicly condemn increasing deforestation, the deliberate underfunding of agencies tasked with protecting the environment and the continued attacks on indigenous people and their land? In any trade talks and agreements with Brazil, will protection of the Amazon be put front and centre to ensure that the UK does not share in the profits of the rainforest’s deliberate destruction? Furthermore, do the UK Government agree with several US Senators that any funding provided to the Brazilian Government should be contingent on their having a clear plan to curb deforestation, including significant and sustained progress in reducing deforestation and, importantly, ending environmental crimes and acts of intimidation and violence against forest defenders? Given the importance of the Amazon rainforest to us all and its role in lowering the global carbon emission footprint, was this even discussed at the recent G7 summit? Will the UK Government commit to this as a priority at COP26 in November?

As Scotland will host COP26 this year in Glasgow, I will now turn my attention to domestic policy and reforestation on these islands. Due to a better, more efficient grant system and strong political will to meet targets, the SNP Government lead the way in the UK on tree planting, with Scotland planting 22 million trees last year alone, making up nearly 85% of the UK’s mainland tree planting in 2020. Around 9.5 million tonnes of CO₂ are removed from the atmosphere each year by Scotland’s forests. The first quantitative study of its kind in the UK evidenced the natural capital benefits of planting new woodlands in our green recovery, which will help to meet Scotland’s goal of net zero by 2045. Given that Scotland is unrivalled in the UK nations for tree planting and environmental protections, the other UK nations ought to follow Scotland’s lead and demonstrate to the world through their own practices just how important the protection of forests is to all of us.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Law, you are into your last minute. I am sorry to interrupt you, but the debate is about deforestation in the Amazon. I ask you to come back to that to conclude.

[Chris Law]

Thank you, Mr McCabe. As the UK Government encourage others to follow suit, they have to do enough domestically to protect the environment and to make sure that we reforest, as well as talking about deforesting. Deforesting will inevitably lead to a need to reforest, because there is a balance, to which we may not be able to return.

Finally, I do not want to have to make these points again in yet another Westminster Hall debate in two years’ time, and nor do I want to hear further reports of increasing rates of deforestation, logging, resource mining, tree burning for farming and cattle-raising, or—last but not least—land seizures from indigenous people. I want to speak positively about successful global efforts to protect the Amazon and the people, flora and fauna who call it home. I want to hear about the protection of forests throughout the world and to celebrate reforestation projects across these islands. However, that will happen only if each and every nation takes its responsibilities on reaching net zero and protecting the environment seriously, and if we are vocal and forceful in tackling deforestation head on, not just in the Amazon but everywhere else too. We all know that the Amazon rainforest serves as the lungs of all nations across the world. Therefore, it is imperative that we urgently address this climate emergency together. No nation should be allowed to participate in, or be a bystander to, this self-inflicted damage to the planet.

Israel and Palestine

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for the reasonable and conciliatory tone with which she introduced the debate. Like her, I am committed to a two-state solution as the only way that the Palestinian and Israeli people can hope to live in peace and security.

It is my view that, following the recent conflict, we cannot just settle for a ceasefire and another stalemate. We should take advantage of events such as the formation of the new Government in Israel, the Abraham accords and President Biden’s support for an international peace and reconciliation fund as an opportunity to push for fresh peace negotiations. It would be really heartening to hear from the Minister that, following the G7, the UK will commit to playing our full part as a member of the international peace and reconciliation fund.

I say to colleagues who disagree with me that, like them, I want a viable and democratic Palestinian state, but I doubt the wisdom of willing it as a unilateralist gesture. I remind those who are keen to use international law in such debates that conditions for statehood in international law include an independent Government who exercise control over a defined territory. Those conditions are not met. The reality is that there are now two Palestines—one under weak Palestinian Authority control, and the other under Hamas military occupation.

What exactly are we being asked to recognise? Hamas has already taken advantage of the weakness of Abbas. What is the incentive for a negotiated outcome, if we capitulate to them now? Are those who push for sanctions saying that they oppose Israel’s right to defend itself? Is it okay to live each day with the threat of an air raid siren? How would we feel if a bomb shelter was part of everyday planning requirements for a new home? How would we feel about going to bed with the threat of a tunnel attack occurring in the night?

Those who deny the threat from Hamas and the existence of its propaganda, and who fail to acknowledge the actions that it engages in, are making excuses for it. They are too willing to condemn Israel, and too ready to turn a blind eye to Hamas atrocities. We need a better approach to this. We need an approach that is diligent, serious and designed to bring about proper and lasting peace.

Counter-Daesh Update

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is important that we have a team effort in the struggle against Daesh, partly because of the severity of the threat that it poses and partly because of the amorphous nature in which it can appear. It is therefore important to have cohesive international collaboration and this is a very good example of that.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]]

Notwithstanding the threat from Daesh, Iran’s support for terrorist activity across the region and in Europe, as we have learned from the Assadi trial, also poses a real threat. Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that Iran’s aggression and support for terrorism will be included in any discussions on a revamped Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that is a key aspect of addressing and dealing with Iran. I was in Paris recently not just with my French and German opposite numbers—we also had a virtual meeting with the US Secretary of State, Tony Blinken. Clearly, we are all agreed—so there is an element of transatlantic solidarity and cohesion, which has been reinforced—not just on the importance of nuclear compliance and getting Iran back to systemic compliance rather than non-compliance, but on dealing with its wider destabilising activities, including those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

UK Relations with Qatar

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in your place and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this debate before us today, and on a speech with which I am in almost total agreement, with the exception of the idea that Aberdeen is Scotland’s premier university when everybody knows it is Stirling—it is important that we get that on the record. But on Qatar at least, we agree. Qatar is an important friend of Scotland and of the United Kingdom, an important player in the Gulf region and an important player, potentially, in building peace in the wider region.

Qatar is a friend and, as friends, we need a dialogue based on honesty and frankness. As we have heard, Qatar has a number of close links with the United Kingdom and with the EU, but, on political reform and respect for human rights, it has a way to go. It is important that we acknowledge progress, but it is also important that we call for more, to build on that success.

Rightly, Qatar was warmly praised in 2018 when it joined the international covenant on civil and political rights. That was very welcome. But in January 2020, a subsequent law amending the Qatari penal code authorised the imprisonment of—I will quote this—

“anyone who broadcasts, publishes, or republishes false or biased rumours, statements, or news, or inflammatory propaganda, domestically or abroad, with the intent to harm national interests, stir up public opinion, or infringe on the social system or the public system of the state”.

That could mean almost anything, and that is a poor piece of legislation that I think deserves criticism.

We have heard also about Qatar’s attitude to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. As a gay man myself, this issue is close to my heart. The Qatari Government say that everyone is welcome at the World cup in 2022, and the eyes of the world are watching to ensure that that is the case. There has been progress, but there is a lot of progress yet to be made.

At the time of the World cup in 2022, the eyes of the world will be on Qatar and on the middle east. It is an opportunity for Qatar to shine and an opportunity also for the middle east to shine, and, as a friend of the middle east, with close connections to it, I really, truly hope that it does. However, there remains concern about labour rights in Qatar. The concern is less, perhaps, about the laws themselves, because a number of progressive pieces of legislation have been passed. The issue is, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the patchy enforcement of those laws, particularly where there are powerful, family-run corporations that need to step up their behaviour.

Amnesty International estimates that perhaps 1,000 migrant workers could have died. We do not know, because there has been a lack of transparency about the numbers, but we do know that many more have worked in appalling conditions without pay for many months, so there is a need for the Qatari authorities to step up and for Qatar to enforce the laws that it has and to be more transparent in that.

I say this to our Qatari friends, who will be paying attention to today’s debate, and I say it as a friend of Qatar: it is very much in Qatar’s interests to abide by and enforce the rule of law, because that will strengthen its case in claiming its own rights against the illegal embargo by Saudi Arabia. We have heard a very powerful—

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. I am very sorry, but I am advised that there is a Division in the main Chamber and, in fact, there will be three Divisions, so I will have to suspend our proceedings for 35 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

The debate may now continue until 3.35 pm.

[Alyn Smith]

Thank you, Mr McCabe. I have only my concluding remarks left, as I had largely finished my speech before the Division bell rang.

I had been talking about the blockade—the illegal blockade—of Qatar. This is an area where there is a real role for the UK to play, as interlocutor and intermediary between Riyadh and the various other parties. A functioning Gulf Co-operation Council is in all our interests right now; the GCC could play an important role in cohering the region and dealing with other places.

We have seen that the rights of Qatari nationals have been infringed in this situation and what is particularly concerning for me is the infringement of their religious rights; we have seen infringements of their right to travel into Saudi for Hajj and for Umrah. That is very much to be regretted. The blockade is illegal and also to be regretted. It should stop and we can help with that process. The Kuwaitis are doing some heavy lifting in that process, and I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that we support those efforts and an outline of what we are doing to help them in the discussions that they are having.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for his reply, and all Members who have taken part in what has been a very good and balanced debate. It is clear that the relationship is strong, and that there is still much work that can be done. In the time that I have engaged with Qatar, it has been fascinating to see the way in which the country has developed and continued to look outwards. That is not an accident. It is down, almost exclusively, to the influence of His Highness, the Emir, right from the top. If that commitment continues, then I have no doubt that the strength of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Qatar will continue to grow, and that we will continue to see the progress we all so devoutly wish for.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered UK-Qatar relations.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I am going to suspend for two minutes to allow the safe exit of Members.

Government Policy on Iran

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) both on securing this debate and on an excellent speech. I found himself in agreement with most of what he said.

My view is simple: not only does Iran support terrorist groups and foment unrest across the middle east, but its strategic aim is an arc of influence from Tehran to the Mediterranean sea and the border with Israel. It is currently fitting global positioning systems to its Zelzal-2 missiles for that purpose. Iran recently showed on state television pictures of one of its missiles, with the words along the side in Hebrew: “Israel must be wiped out.” Iran is absolutely clear about its objective. Its supreme leader said in 2015 that it was his intention that Israel be destroyed within 25 years, with or without a nuclear agreement. Iran’s ideology is simply riddled with a hatred of Jews.

Iran is not content with suppression at home or turning the middle east into a cauldron. We have heard, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, that Iran’s agents are active across Europe. I think that it was last year that our own security services found a Hezbollah bomb-making factory in north London. And in Belgium at the moment, we are witnessing scenes that could come from a John le Carré novel, with Asadollah Asadi, a diplomat from Iran’s embassy in Austria, on trial for both planning and facilitating an attack on an opposition rally in Paris. Apparently, when questioned, he threatened reprisals from the regime if there was any attempt to take action against him. Also, of course, Foreign Minister Zarif has recently conceded that Iran is interested in prisoner swaps, which possibly explains why innocent dual nationals are being seized; they may be insurance against further terrorist attacks.

This is a regime that I say we cannot negotiate with. If there is any attempt to negotiate with it, President-elect Biden should not go back to the joint comprehensive plan of action. And if we have any influence on the President-elect, I hope that the Minister will say that we must stick with what the President-elect himself said during the primaries—that we need a stronger and longer arrangement, which must include Iran’s terrorist activities and ballistic missile programme. And we should certainly proscribe the IRGC, because it is a terrorist organisation and should not be allowed to operate anywhere in Europe, let alone in this country.

International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

It is good to see you in the Chair once more, Mr Efford.

I thank my hon. Friend for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing the debate and for an excellent speech. Like others, I believe that an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace would aim to help any future peace process by promoting co-operation, dialogue, joint economic development and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. As the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I am delighted that we are able to have this debate today; this is something we have argued for for some time.

It is important that the concept of an international fund, as we have heard, has been designed by the Alliance for Middle East Peace, because it is an independent organisation with extensive experience in this area. Therefore, I think some of the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) about other group initiatives would not apply here, because ALLMEP has an almost impeccable record in this field.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), I am pleased that the UK became the first country to endorse the concept of an international fund when, in 2017, it introduced the People for Peaceful Change project after lobbying from LFI and others.

[Theresa Villiers]

There have been several mentions of LFI, and I welcome the work that has been done on promoting the idea of funding peaceful co-existence projects. However, does the hon. Gentleman not find it sad that the leading MP who championed this idea, Joan Ryan, then MP for Enfield North, felt so intimidated and bullied by people in the Labour party, especially on the antisemitism issue, that she actually had to leave the party? We cannot ignore that significant problem within the hon. Gentleman’s party when referring to the LFI.

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that, because it is probably as well to clear this issue up once and for all. LFI battled through the whole of the crisis of antisemitism in the Labour party, and I certainly do not want to in any sense pretend that it did not happen or that it was not a dark stain on our history. What I would say about my former colleague Joan Ryan is that I am immensely grateful to her for the work she did during that period. I hope that the changes that Labour is experiencing under a new leadership will herald the day when someone like Joan will feel perfectly comfortable sitting alongside me once more.

While I welcome that UK Government programme, it is important to acknowledge that, astonishingly enough, the UK Government had spent nothing on supporting co-existence projects prior to that programme. The US bipartisan and bicameral proposals, the middle east partnership for peace, is now making real progress. It aims not just to grow economic development, but to tackle the incitement and dehumanisation that has plagued both sides of this conflict. The legislation establishes a fund to improve economic co-operation and people-to-people exchanges. I think that is how we breathe life into the two-state solution. ALLMEP should be congratulated on its success in building an enormous, unprecedented coalition of support, making the fund one of the only bipartisan Israel-Palestine priorities in Congress.

In February 2018, the then Middle East Minister Alistair Burt announced the UK’s support for the concept of an international fund. However, since then the Government have failed to follow up on their warm words. The Biden Administration now present a huge opportunity for the UK to seize this moment and play a crucial part in this multilateral initiative. Our experience in development finance and in Northern Ireland means that we are ideally placed. We have heard about how we could claim one of the two international seats and use our experience to good effect.

This September, in response to a parliamentary question about plans to allocate funding to support the US fund, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa said:

“We welcome efforts towards peace…We will continue to monitor the People-to-People Partnership for Peace Fund”—

as it was then known—

“as it progresses through the US legislative system.”

It is making great progress. Let us act now, to show that we are determined to get involved. Without funding from Governments and private philanthropy, co-existence projects can have only a limited impact but, operating at scale and properly funded, they can build powerful constituencies for peace, forcing politicians to return to meaningful negotiations.

As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North and for St Helens North, Northern Ireland has shown that this work can provide vital underpinnings for any future agreement. That civil society dimension of peacebuilding is about practical politics, building and embedding public support for any future agreement and ensuring that it can weather the challenges ahead. Just as we found in Northern Ireland, broad-based popular support is a prerequisite for any successful peace process.

The International Fund for Ireland spent about 8% more per head daily than is currently available for grassroots co-existence work in Israel and Palestine. Over the two decades since the signing of the Oslo accords, a growing network of NGOs has worked at grassroots level to foster values of co-existence, peace and reconciliation. The international fund would bring together public and private donors, nations, corporations and private foundations and individuals. It would focus work on supporting joint initiatives and co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians and between Arabs and Jews. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, it would lead to empowerment, civic activism and a host of other activities. It is envisaged that that $200 million per year fund would receive contributions from the international community, including the Arab world, but importantly it would be independently managed and additional to any existing support already provided directly to either the Palestinian Authority or Israel.

This work is more critical than ever because, as elsewhere in the world, Israel is suffering the economic as well as health consequences of the pandemic. It is about to enter its first recession in more than two decades. The economic crisis in the west bank is even deeper, as it was already in recession. The Palestinian economy has shrunk by an estimated 7.6% during the pandemic, pushing an existing recession into a deep depression. This raises the prospect of increased tensions, which suits those who have no investment in building for peace.

The peacebuilding sector provides essential services to many communities, but it is dependent on global donors and support from foreign Governments. We must develop greater co-ordination among major funders so that donor states improve their efforts with regard to civil society. Increased co-ordination will lead to a more efficient and effective use of resources, as well as opportunities for cross-pollination and deeper partnerships. That is why this international fund is so important and why this country must play a leading role.

As we have heard, there is a growing body of evidence showing the benefits of co-existence projects, even though most of this work has been achieved in the face of considerable challenges, most notably the collapse of the peace process and the second intifada.

Four years ago, Labour Friends of Israel was proud to launch its campaign “For Israel, For Palestine, For Peace” in pursuit of the very international fund that is now within our grasp. I acknowledge the important intervention of the British Government with the people for peaceful change fund, but I urge the Minister to build on that today by confirming that we will play a leading role in supporting this international fund.

Sudan

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I want to mention a few things. I will not go through the whole routine, but you are advised to wipe the microphones, observe social distancing and speak from the horseshoe. Only people on the call list can be called. If people use their time sensibly and modestly, we could possibly get through this before the Divisions at 4 pm, which I think would help everyone.

Occupied Palestinian Territories

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

As chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I welcome recent news from the middle east, while acknowledging the challenges facing a two-state solution and an end to conflict. LFI has repeatedly made clear that we oppose annexation in the west bank, and we welcome the fact that, as part of its historic agreement with the United Arab Emirates, Israel has abandoned such plans. The decisions by the UEA and Bahrain to normalise relations with Israel is a cause for optimism. I hope others will follow so that Israel can live in peace with its neighbours and play its part in creating a stable and prosperous region.

As Dennis Ross, veteran of the Clinton and Obama peace efforts said,

“The UAE example can be used to foster a resumption of diplomacy that can change the stalemated reality between Israelis and Palestinians.”

The international community should facilitate that, but only Israel and the Palestinians can find peace. Settlement building is an obstacle—that is why LFI called for a freeze on new settlements—but it is not insurmountable. Israel has previously withdrawn from Sinai in 1981, and Gaza and the northern west bank in 2005. Since Oslo, all negotiations have included land swaps.

Settlements are not the only obstacle. Hamas denies Israel’s right to exist, and terrorises the people of Israel and Gaza. Iran’s proxy army, Hezbollah, has around 140,000 rockets and missiles, and an army of 45,000. Tehran has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction, pledging, in the words on Ayatollah Khamenei’s website, a “final solution”. In their classrooms and in their policy of paying salaries to terrorists and their families, the Palestinian Authority incite and glorify violence—a policy aided and abetted by international donors, including our own Government. That does nothing to advance peace. I am disappointed that this problem, which has been recognised on both sides of the House, continues and I urge Ministers to act.

I am also disappointed that the UK has cut all funding to peacebuilding co-existence projects that foster conflict resolution and improve relationships. I appeal to the Minister to look at what is happening in the US House of Representatives and join the call to build a peacebuilding fund.