3 March 2009 : Speech

Latin America debate

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I shall try to keep my remarks to 20 minutes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on initiating the debate, which is timely, and I thank him for his generosity in giving way so often. I also pay tribute to Baroness Gibson, Anne Gibson, in the other place, who chairs the all-party group on Latin America and does an excellent job in that role.

The hon. Gentleman, in his concluding remarks, mentioned the word “exploitation” and of course none of us in the House, whatever our political views, would want to see the exploitation of a single person in Latin America, but even if there has been exploitation by some Governments and some states in Latin America, that should not be replaced by exploitation involving the private sector. We need an end to exploitation from whatever quarter.

That leads me to renationalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is right to say that renationalisation of assets is not only illegal in most cases; it also sends a negative message with regard to future investment. It creates a negative investment climate that international observers, with many places to shop around, might decide to avoid and which would put off would-be investors. The hon. Member for Islington, North himself said that in relation to his trip to Bolivia. There is a big unanswered question in relation to future exploration. It is okay to renationalise assets, but what do people do once they have them? That applies to many countries, not only in Latin America but across the world, once they have taken back state assets. One might even argue that it even applies in this country more recently. What do people do once they have such assets, and how is future investment encouraged?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) seemed to think that the whole nationalisation debate was about a virility symbol and whether sovereign countries have the right to take those assets. Of course they have that right. The question is whether it is wise to deploy it. If the private sector sees assets being taken with no money being paid for them, that affects not only the minerals sector, which is directly affected, but the whole economy, because other countries will not want to invest in those economies and therefore the standard of living of those peoples suffers as a result.

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as he always does. The other relevant point is that there is a direct impact on constituents in Islington, Shropshire and everywhere else represented here, because there are pension investments in those countries and for every industry that is nationalised, there is a direct impact on pension funds in the City of London as well. It is a very worrying step that President Chavez has taken deciding to move into food production and food supply and, as we have heard, to renationalise rice production in his country.

That leads me to land reform which, of course, is needed in Latin America—I accept that. Redistribution of land is needed, but it must be both legal and fair. A sensible period of consultation is needed with the people whose land will perhaps be taken back to the state. A right of appeal is also needed. So often in Latin America we have not seen that. We have seen just the heavy hand of the state moving in and the state saying, “We’re taking land back from you.” There is no consultation or compensation. It is illegal most of the time and it certainly is not fair. Again, that sends the wrong message about Latin America as a continent. Unfortunately, there is a negative halo from certain countries in Latin America, which impacts on the whole continent when other countries are wanting to do the right thing, even with land redistribution and—dare I say it?—renationalisation.

The same applies to free trade. Some countries want global free trade. Some want regional free trade and, indeed, free trade with north America. If those countries, which have elected Governments, want to have a free trade agreement with north America, they should be entitled to do so. They should not have to deal with meddling, either political or through other, more sinister means, by countries that take a different ideological view, as that is unsettling and destabilising for the region. If countries such as Colombia and Peru want to trade with north America, they should be entitled to do so. That is not to suggest that they do not want to trade internally, within the borders of Latin America. I believe that they want to do that as well, but if they want to do both, they should be able to do so without having political machinations set upon them by neighbouring nations or others on the continent.

That is why it is important, as we have heard today—I hope that the Minister will note this—that there is cross-party consensus on real concerns about UK diplomatic representation in Latin America. It was a backward step for the Paraguay embassy to close. Paraguay is a huge country; Argentina is large as well, and to try to run operations in both countries from Buenos Aires is very difficult. If I was, for example, a Paraguayan Transport Minister wanting to construct three new bridges and there was a French embassy and a Germany embassy but no British embassy and there was a trade counsellor in those embassies, who would I be more likely to call and want to nip round to see to talk about that investment project? From a political, diplomatic and trade point of view, the United Kingdom is losing out for every diplomatic mission that it closes around the world, including in Latin America.

It was rather sad that when the Serious Organised Crime Agency took over from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, it took a different view of the role of drug liaison officers working with Governments in Latin America. I hope that the Minister will speak to her counterparts in the Home Office to ask this question: given that Latin America is still one of the major providers of drugs that end up on our streets and impact on all our communities, and given that there has been a change since SOCA replaced HMRC on this important issue, are we confident that the current level of drug liaison officer support for our embassies and for Governments in Latin America is adequate? I am conscious of time, but I want to touch on two more issues. What would be helpful to you, Mr. Amess? You saw how many people rose to their feet wishing to speak.

Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Certainly two other hon. Members wish to speak, and there are just 13 minutes left until the winding-up speeches.

Mark Pritchard: To be helpful, Mr. Amess, I shall speak for just three more minutes, first on animal conservation and secondly on human rights. I hope that the Brazilian Government will consider illegal logging. We have seen the demise of the giant otter, squirrel monkeys and macaws. There is also the issue of the illegal shipping of mahogany. According to Nature Conservancy, only 7 per cent. of Brazil’s Atlantic forest remains. Excessive commercial ranching causes deforestation. I am very concerned about illegal logging in Peru, which I visited a couple of years ago. I am especially concerned about the Tahuamanu rain forest. I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the WWF campaign to save the declining turtle populations in Colombia, Guyana, Ecuador and Peru. In Chile, the kodkod, one of Latin America’s smallest wild cats, has become endangered, as its habitat is being destroyed.

I hope that the Government will consider the pet trade in this country. I introduced two Bills on the issue in this Parliament, but they were rejected by the Government. One was on the sale of endangered animals on the internet. Endangered animals from the countries that we are discussing are still being sold on the internet in this country and being homed and housed in this country, which is wrong. The Government also rejected my Bill on the sale of primates as pets. Some 3,000 primates are being kept as pets in this country. Many of them were sourced from Latin America. Latin American countries, along with the UK Government, need to do far more if they care about their environment and habitats. Eco-tourism may be a motivation: why should people come to the diminished rain forests—albeit that some of them are saved—if there is no wildlife to see there?

Human rights are improving in some countries, for example, Colombia. I welcome the decline in the number of homicides and kidnappings in Colombia and in the homicides of union leaders. More needs to be done and each killing is unacceptable, but I want to put on the record my recognition of the efforts of the Government of President Uribe. Cuba has not been mentioned. One could argue that it is not really part of Latin America, but it is for the sake of the work of Amnesty International and Christian Solidarity Worldwide. I hope that the Foreign Office will look urgently into the case of Church leader Pastor Robert Rodriguez—previously the national president of the Interdenominational Fellowship of Evangelical Pastors and Ministers in Cuba—whose trial was due to be held in the past 72 hours. I believe that the charges against him are trumped up and that there should be a fair trial. If Raul Castro is serious about changing Cuba, one of the best things that he can do is allow freedom of speech and freedom of religion and set an example by allowing a fair trial for this pastor, who is seriously ill in prison. All that Pastor Rodriguez does is preach the gospel, serve the poor and help his community.

10.20 am

...

MARK'S OTHER INTERVENTIONS IN THE SAME DEBATE

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Latin American immigrants and migrants to this country from other parts of the European Union make a real contribution to this nation and its economy, but is he saying that he is at odds with his Government’s position and the introduction of the new points-based migration system? Does he agree with the system or not?

Jeremy Corbyn: We are dealing with two issues here. One is the position of migrant workers in Europe. I personally strongly support the “Strangers into Citizens” campaign as the right way forward, because it recognises that people have been here a long time and that they seek to work and to contribute to our economy and society. That path makes for a more cohesive society. I do have a number of concerns about the points-based immigration system, not least its effect on poorer countries throughout the world. Such a system often sucks out the most skilled and able people when they are most desperately needed in those societies. We must look at that aspect.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Jeremy Corbyn: I stress that this is a debate not about immigration but about our relations with Latin America. However, since the hon. Member who wishes to intervene represents the area where I grew up and learned many of my political skills, such as they are, I cannot resist the temptation to give way to him again.

Mark Pritchard: The hon. Gentleman knows that we get on very well. I do not agree with much of what he says, but at least he is consistent and believes what he says. There is a lot to be said for that in this place.

Jeremy Corbyn: That is what I learned in Shropshire.

Mark Pritchard: And Adams’ grammar school is an excellent grammar school—and partly fee-paying, just for those people on the left of the hon. Gentleman’s party to note.

I am a little confused. A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman appeared to argue against the Government’s position of resettling people in and asking people to return to Latin America. In a second point, however, he contradicted himself by saying that migration to Europe sucked out the best brains from Latin America. Which is it? He seems to be confused.

Jeremy Corbyn: indicated dissent.

Mark Pritchard: The hon. Gentleman did make those two separate points.

Jeremy Corbyn: I made two separate points in response to a very gentle intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who is trying to divert this debate from its true purpose. I do not intend to be diverted. That is the sort of tactic they use in Adams’ grammar school’s debating society, so I am not prepared to go any further down that road. I have made my views clear, but, if he doubts them, he can read Hansard tomorrow.

...

Mark Pritchard: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right, while the British Prime Minister is in Washington talking to world leaders about avoiding protectionism, to call for protectionism in Latin America when almost all Latin Americans, whether in Bolivia or Venezuela, want free trade—albeit fair free trade—to improve their life chances?

Jeremy Corbyn: I do not remember calling at any time for protectionism in Latin America. I was talking about investment to ensure that hydrocarbon and other mineral resources are properly developed and that anti-poverty programmes strengthen the internal market and internal buying power of people in Bolivia, and about the development of intra-Latin American trade, rather than Latin America’s tradition of exporting raw materials to other parts of the world. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that a considerable body of opinion throughout Latin America is trying to develop the Latin American economy and internal trade. Bolivia’s trade pattern is increasingly with Brazil and Argentina rather than with other parts of the world.

Mark Pritchard rose—

Jeremy Corbyn: I will give way once more, but I think the hon. Gentleman may be preparing to make a speech.

Mark Pritchard: Not at all. I am merely trying to be helpful. Every export that might be prevented could have an impact on British imports. Brazil is our biggest trading partner in Latin America, and any hint of trimming exports or imports would have an impact on both Brazilians and the United Kingdom.

Jeremy Corbyn: I do not know whether I am missing something here, but I have said nothing of the sort. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman’s point is. There is terrible poverty in Bolivia and in most Latin American countries. The whole political imperative and process of an anti-poverty strategy is to liberate people from the oppression and depression arising from poverty and from lack of opportunity, education and health care. We should be pleased to witness that, and to support it.

Click here for Hansard