Farming in Wales and the UK

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Hywel Williams

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered farming in Wales and the UK.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and to have the opportunity to raise the concerns expressed in rural Wales in particular, but seeing that there is an honourable turnout from Members from all constituent parts of the UK, I suspect we will hear about the concerns of other farmers across the UK.

Feelings are running at fever pitch in Wales, and last week a mass protest converged on the capital city of Cardiff. For those in the rural heartlands of Wales, Cardiff is not the easiest place to get to. My hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) will attest that it is easier to get to London than to Cardiff from Caernarfon.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

It is easier to get to Dublin.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Yes, it is even easier to get to Dublin. The turnout was extraordinary and showed the strength of feeling that has erupted over recent weeks. I was listening to the Wales podcast on the BBC on the train down over the weekend, and it said it was the largest demonstration that the Senedd has ever seen. That is testament to the strength of feeling in rural Wales.

Although I do not come from farming stock directly, my father and his brother were raised on Ffos y Ffin farm in Capel Dewi following the death of their father from tuberculosis. He got involved in the local young farmers movement, and his best friend was David Woods, who farmed Waunyryddod in Cwmfelin Mynach in the west of Carmarthenshire, near Whitland. Some of my fondest memories as a child include visiting the Woods family at their farm on weekends, watching my father and Mr Woods milk the herd, and helping out as I got a bit older. I witnessed at first hand the unwavering dedication of our farmers and grew a huge appreciation for their work and for the pride they feel in being food producers for the general population.

The pressures farmers work under are considerable. They are open to hugely fluctuating costs and prices while their payments largely flatline, and they work on extremely small margins. One of my first meetings after being elected was with a dairy farmer, who explained the huge financial difference that a 1p increase or decrease in the price of milk would cause his business. The inflationary pressures squeezing our economy are hitting farmers particularly hard, with skyrocketing input costs severely impacting their income. Last year, I received a justifiably angry message from a constituent complaining that fertiliser costs had doubled in less than 12 months. He was talking about having to drastically cut back on production. The inflationary pressures have driven up costs across the industry, yet farmers have not had the option of passing those costs on to consumers due to their position in the supply chain.

Mental health has become a major issue in the agricultural community. Suicide rates are far higher than those of the general population. Economic pressures undoubtably play a role, as do the insular nature of the job, the relentless hours and the demanding schedules. A recent survey revealed that over a third of farmers experience clinical depression and nearly half struggle with anxiety. I have been there myself on many occasions, and it is absolutely no joke. Being in that state of mind while working in an extremely dangerous workplace obviously makes matters even more serious. I know of a farmer who has had his struggles over the years. Recently he walked into a slurry pit before snapping out and phoning the emergency services, which thankfully got there in time. Mental health in farming should be a priority for policymakers, and I pay tribute to charities such as the DPJ Foundation, based in Carmarthen, for their work in providing advocacy and raising the profile of those issues.

From an economic perspective, agriculture is comparatively more important to the Welsh economy than that of the UK as a whole. Take out farming and other sectors will be severely hit. To further make the point, National Farmers Union Cymru recently hosted a meeting with over 100 stakeholders who are worried about the new sustainable farming scheme of the Welsh Government. A wide range of organisations and companies were represented, including agricultural contractors, vets, academic institutions, farming charities, legal firms and trade associations, as well as major meat, milk and food service companies based in and operating in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his passion and his support of the farming industry. I do not want to write his election leaflet for him, but I will certainly be concentrating on Welsh Government policy further on in my speech.

Earlier this month, 3,000 farmers converged on Carmarthen market under the protest banner “Digon yw Digon”, which translates to “Enough is Enough”. I pay tribute to my constituents Gary Howells and Aled Rees for mobilising so many farmers in my home county. Indeed, protests have been erupting across Wales and England. As an aspiring historian in a past life, I have to mention that those massive protest meetings have parallels with the Rebecca rioters’ mass gathering at Mynydd Sylen, near Pontyberem, in the summer of 1843—I had to get that in. What we are witnessing today, however, is colossal discontent in the agricultural community. Thankfully, organisers and the unions have done a great job in ensuring that matters have remained peaceful and within the law.

Much of that anger has been growing since the EU referendum, as farmers have witnessed the destructive approach taken by policymakers to the development of post-Brexit agricultural policy. There is no doubt that leaving the European Union has been a disaster for Welsh farming. They were promised sunlit uplands by the leave campaign but have been let down, and in the post-Brexit trade deals that have been signed, the interests of our farmers have been sold down the river by the UK Government. I acknowledge that there seems to have been a slight change of approach with the current deals, such as the one with Canada. However, that is too little, too late in relation to some of the previous deals.

The Welsh Government calculate that, for the period 2021-25, rural support funding will be £243 million less than had we been under EU farming support policy, and that figure does not account for inflation. The difficulty faced by the Welsh Government in managing an overall budget declining in real terms perhaps explains some of the unfavourable policy approaches that we have seen towards agriculture over the last few years. If the UK Government have left themselves open to accusations that they have neglected agriculture, the Welsh Government are open to accusations of hostility.

[Hywel Williams]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate; he is making a fine speech. He points to the double whammy facing Welsh farming. It is not only Brexit and the subsequent disaster—of course, the Canada deal is far from settled; a cruel pantomime is going on at the moment, as we shall see later in the main Chamber—but there is also the incompetence and lack of understanding and listening from the Welsh Labour Government, as witnessed at the very large protests last week. Clearly, we need a change.

[Jonathan Edwards]

My hon. Friend’s point about the Welsh Government is well made. I do not know of any farmer who votes for the Labour party, and I suppose one can understand why the Labour party takes the approach it does. But it is disastrous for agriculture to have a Government who are open to the accusation of being hostile to farmers.

One of the most emotionally difficult meetings I have had as an MP was on the case of the farm that was struck down with bovine TB. It is difficult to explain the mental health impact on those affected. Earlier this month, “Ffermio”, an agricultural programme on S4C, unmasked those horrors graphically on the Castell Howell farm of Mr and Mrs Davies in Capel Isaac in my constituency. The family had to witness their cattle herd shot in front of them, one by one. It was absolutely harrowing for the viewer and utterly despairing for the family. It has become a tipping point for the emotional outpouring we are witnessing in rural Wales at the moment. It was an incredible piece of filmmaking by the “Ffermio” programme team, led by my constituents Ellen Llewellyn and Meinir Howells.

The failure of the Welsh Government to get to grips with bovine TB, and the continued faith in the policy of destroying cattle herds, has become a perfect metaphor for the unsympathetic environment farmers face from their own Government. I am glad that the Welsh Government committed to reviewing their policy on farm slaughter last week, but there should be a wholesale review of policy, including dealing with TB in wildlife.

To compound matters, the Welsh Government partnership parties have acted with blatant disregard on changes proposed to school terms and the potential impact on the Royal Welsh show, one of the marquee events in the Welsh national calendar. Proposed school term changes could see the show fall outside the traditional summer holidays, with the organisers warning that they will face a £1 million-plus shortfall, making the event unviable. Last week, the Minister hosted an event by the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society in the very room where the idea to form it came to fruition, Committee Room 12, to celebrate the 120 years since that initial meeting. England has lost its royal show, and we in Wales now have the most successful, and possibly the largest, agricultural event in Europe. Yet the event operates on small margins, and a £1 million operational loss could be fatal. The Welsh Government need to sit back and think this policy through, and make sure that the Royal Welsh show and the National Eisteddfod are protected.

The all-Wales blanket approach to nitrate pollution by the Welsh Government has irked farmers further due to its disproportionality and the estimated cost of £400 million to the industry. Everybody acknowledges the need to reduce agricultural pollution. However, why the Welsh Government feel the need for a sledgehammer approach is beyond me. Coleg Sir Gar’s Gelli Aur Agricultural College in my constituency has been pioneering slurry treatment technology that separates waste into two reusable products by separating the water. Water can then re-enter the environment safely or be reused on the farm, with the remnants being a dried product that can be used as fertiliser with little pollution risk.

Instead of coming down on farmers like a ton of bricks, why are the Welsh Government not providing grants for farming businesses to upgrade their waste systems? That could be done on a collaborative basis among farmers. One system could service a number of farming businesses and would potentially provide an income source from a waste product. It ticks all the boxes.

There is huge innovation in Wales. Aled Davies and his company, Pruex, also based in my constituency, is pioneering using natural bacteria to disinfect chicken and cattle sheds from ammonia pollution instead of chemicals. The results I have seen look very impressive. I was delighted to receive an email last week from Mr Davies saying that he had secured a research contract from the Welsh Government—I will give them a bit of credit for that. That shows what can be achieved if the Welsh Government work with the sector. Wales can pioneer change.

Unfortunately, that brings me to the new sustainable farming scheme for agricultural payments proposed by the Welsh Government. Their own assessments indicate that the scale of job losses in the agricultural sector would be around double the expected steel job losses in Port Talbot. Unamended, the new policy would also lead to a loss of £199 million to farm incomes and an 11% reduction in livestock numbers—that is the Welsh Government’s own figures. The knock-on effect on the wider rural economy would be catastrophic.

Page 6 of the partnership agreement between Labour and Plaid Cymru endorses the SFS as a commitment in which both parties will develop the new agricultural support regime.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; indeed, that is the criticism of the SFS coming from farmers. The Welsh Government made a statement last week saying they were going to review it, which is a positive step forward in response to the protests. However, reviewing is one thing; what we want is policy implementation. The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made, and it is often made to me by my farmers in Carmarthenshire.

Returning to what I was saying, it is worth reading out the section on the SFS in the partnership agreement, so that it is on the record. It says that both parties will work together to:

“Introduce a transition period as we reform the system of farm payments so stability payments will continue to be a feature of the Sustainable Farming Scheme during and beyond this Senedd term. We will agree the longer-term arrangements for Welsh agriculture, recognising the particular needs of family farms and acknowledging ecologically sustainable local food production.”

It pains me to say this, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) will not be too happy with what I am about to say, but it seems to me that Plaid Cymru has been completely outmanoeuvred by the Labour party in the partnership agreement. They have effectively been lead down an endless 20 mph road to nowhere by Labour.

There is a clear case that the farming community has a vital role in helping the Welsh Government to reach their environmental targets, especially in terms of carbon sequestration—to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). The alternative is letting the speculators buy up Welsh agricultural holdings—as has been happening—and planting trees on productive Welsh farming land. As always, the Welsh Government would be better advised to take farmers with them on a journey, as opposed to dictating and imposing. Just to reiterate the point I made in response to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, there has been a Welsh Government statement saying that there will be a review, but what we really want to see is action.

My understanding is that in Scotland the SNP aim to enable farmers to continue to access a level of basic payments, which seems to be a better approach. In Wales, we would do well to rethink the SFS, look at what Scotland is doing and meet the demands of the farming unions for a new universal baseline payment. As my constituent Ian Rickman, the president of the Farmers’ Union of Wales, has said:

“The reality is that if the scheme remains in its current form, and if the modelling report is correct, farmers uptake will be minimal and everyone will lose out—Welsh farmers, the environment, the public and ultimately the Welsh Government. There is a real worry that even under a scenario where scheme payments come nowhere near to compensating for the loss of the Basic Payment Scheme, there will be some farm businesses that will have no choice other than to participate in the SFS. This will, no doubt, place further pressure on farmers’ workload and mental health.”

He continued:

“The Sustainable Farming Scheme must be accessible by all, and provide long-term stability for farming businesses and the wider rural economy that relies upon agriculture. The SFS needs to provide a meaningful income stream which properly rewards farmers and underpins the importance of a high quality food supply chain, produced here in Wales.”

The deadline for the final stages of the Welsh Government’s consultation on the SFS is later this week, and I will be sending them a copy of this speech. As Ministers and negotiators on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Government consider the responses, I urge them to tread very carefully before announcing their final plans. Conceding reviews is one thing; what matters is the policy environment that will be implemented, and unless concerns are addressed, the protests that we have witnessed to date will be magnified.

[Hywel Williams]

May I just say that the hon. Gentleman does a slight disservice to my party by lumping Plaid Cymru in with the Welsh Labour Government. We do have an agreement, as he knows full well, having been involved in discussions on this issue in past times, but that is far from being jointly responsible together as a coalition—as some parties have recently titled it.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention because what he said is what a lot of the public discourse around the protests has been. However, I read out the actual partnership agreement—

[Hywel Williams]

Which has since developed.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Yes, there is a negotiation going on, and the hon. Gentleman is aware that his colleague in Arfon is the lead negotiator. I think she has been blindsided by the Labour Government.

He will like this bit now, though—

Media Bill

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Hywel Williams

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case, and the events of the past week involving the commission vindicate the position he has taken. The recent difficulties in S4C have been very damaging for the channel. My firm view is that if the matter had been in the hands of Welsh Government Ministers and the Senedd, which can provide scrutiny and accountability, we would not have got to the damaging state we are in.

[Hywel Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, with which I entirely agree. Even Welsh Conservative Members concede that the arguments for reserving powers over broadcasting have been undermined by what has happened, and by the Department’s actions—or inactions. We are concerned about S4C, and its funding has plummeted since 2010. The decision to fund it through the licence fee led to a 40% reduction in staff. In 2015, its chief executive officer, Ian Jones, warned about the effects of huge funding cuts and called for “tegwch” or fair play. That was a valuable contribution from him.

S4C’s independence is clearly at stake. We need to remember that there was a substantial and hard-fought campaign during the 1970s to establish the channel. Indeed, we had a discussion about that in Committee, in which the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) made some interesting points. I had the opportunity in the interim to consult the Cabinet papers, which I obtained from The National Archives. They show how the threat by the then Plaid Cymru leader Gwynfor Evans to go on a hunger strike was integral to the then Prime Minister’s decision to change course and allow the people of Wales our own channel. The Cabinet papers are very interesting to read, and I hope you will indulge my quoting briefly from them, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Hywel Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point; that is what I am coming on to. However, a further argument arises from that unhappy episode, as I will show by quoting from the Cabinet papers. They state that the then Home Secretary, the late Willie Whitelaw, said that the Government

“would withdraw its plans to share Welsh language programmes between two television channels. Instead the programmes would, for an experimental period of three years, be broadcast on one channel as had been proposed in the Party Manifesto.”

That is the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.

What is more interesting is that the papers say that Willie Whitelaw

“still thought that the previous plans were preferable but he had agreed to change them in response to representations, put to him by Lord Cledwyn and others, of the views of informed and responsible people in Wales.”

The interesting point is the reference to

“the views of informed and responsible people in Wales.”

In fact, in the same Cabinet meeting, the Secretary of State for Wales said:

“Gwynfor Evans, the leader of Plaid Cymru, was threatening to go on what he called a ‘hunger strike’”,

before going on to say that there could be

“much tension and unpleasantness in Wales later in the year, if he persisted in this intention, and there would be a danger that Plaid Cymru would fall into the hands of extreme left wing leaders”,

mentioning no names. However, later on in the Cabinet papers, the Secretary of State for Wales said that it had been made clear in the press that the change been made in response to

“moderate opinion following very wide consultation in Wales.”

That is the point I want to make. The argument I am making for a Welsh broadcasting authority reflects settled and responsible opinion in Wales. As I said, the constitutional convention has met and taken evidence very widely over two years, and has come to the conclusion that broadcasting should be devolved to Wales.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for giving us a history lesson on the hard work of Gwynfor Evans. Anybody who is interested in this period in the history of Wales should watch the great drama that S4C recently commissioned on the life of Gwynfor Evans, and this campaign in particular. I was at Crymych rugby club at the weekend with Rhodri John, the actor who portrayed Gwynfor in the drama.

[Hywel Williams]

I can indeed recommend that production for anybody to have a look at; it is very interesting. I can also recommend the biography of Gwynfor Evans, which makes similar points.

The media industry in Wales is more than S4C. We have fantastic production companies, including Cwmni Da in my constituency, news outlets and radio—all kinds of things. The proposed authority would unite the media landscape in Wales under one regulatory roof and safeguard it from harms, including from large conglomerates. It would also focus on areas that are important to the people of Wales. The Labour Welsh Government’s expert panel on a shadow broadcasting and communications authority for Wales proposed that public interest journalism, sports and children’s media be areas of specific focus due to their cultural significance, position in relation to Welsh language ambitions and impact on long-term sustainability, among other reasons. The Welsh Government therefore propose a shadow broadcasting and communications authority for Wales. I look to those on the Labour Front Bench, as potentially the next Government, to give us reassurance that it is their intention to establish that authority, as well as the intention of the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff.

Wales needs to have a say on its own media landscape to ensure that what works for us is what we get. Prominent commentators such as Professor Tom O’Malley and Mike Birtwistle have said that S4C should be built on shared principles of social partnership, public interest and democratic pluralism; that is, as they say, the Welsh political tradition. An independent regulator for Wales would be better equipped to regulate, defend and promote our national broadcasting and media industry in Wales and ensure that those values are represented. That is my argument in favour of a broadcasting authority.

I will say a few words on the prominence of S4C on the selection services—a point that I also raised in Committee. S4C’s content must be readily discoverable and prominent on television services, but I seek assurances that the “appropriate degree of prominence” will not lead to the limiting of S4C’s coverage to specific audiences, thereby depriving people of a wide range of broadcasts. This language matches that of the electronic programme guides code, which allowed S4C to be on channel 166 on Virgin Media in Wales until 2021. The Government should provide clear principles to guide Ofcom in drawing up the new prominence code, so that public service broadcasters’ designated internet programming services appear prominently and are easily discoverable on screens.

Global Britain: Human Rights and Climate Change

Debate between Jonathan Edwards and Hywel Williams

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Global Britain, human rights and climate change.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am delighted to have secured this debate—a timely debate, given the circumstances—which will consider the interacting and integral relationship between the Government’s declared ambition for developing a global Britain, universal human rights and the ramifications of climate change, which are obviously global in their nature. I hope that today’s debate will further our shared hopes and wishes for the forthcoming COP26 summit, and that it will be a meaningful success. I think we all wish the Government well in that enterprise.

More than 20 years ago, the Government proposed the idea of what was then called an ethical dimension to foreign policy, famously announced by Robin Cook. I was a Member at the time and I remember Robin Cook on the steps of the Foreign Office declaring that there would be an ethical dimension to foreign policy, I suspect, to the dismay of some of his colleagues and possibly also to some of the professionally straight-faced officials standing behind him. I hope I am not being too sceptical in saying that.

That policy made it explicit that in the modern world

“foreign policy is not divorced from domestic policy but a central part of any political programme.”

Robin Cook said very clearly:

“Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension and must support the demands of other peoples for the democratic rights on which we insist for ourselves.”

That must be the yardstick, must it not? What we would want for ourselves is what we would want for other people.

Those are fine words, and I do not need to entertain the Chamber with the outcome, or perhaps the lack of outcome. Tellingly, looking at the four priorities that Robin Cook outlined, I have picked out some words that give something of a flavour. He used words such as “security”, “disarmament”, “prosperity”, “exports” and “jobs”. He talked about improving the quality of life in the UK and the quality of our environment, and as I said a moment ago, said:

“Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension”.

We can see the direction of travel in his remarks.

Looking at the present, with a commitment to delivering unparalleled socioeconomic change by achieving net zero by 2050, it is clear that domestic policy is, at least rhetorically, geared towards fighting climate change. Yet, the Government and UK foreign policy in general have unfortunately undermined the climate effort, tarnishing the UK’s international credibility and, in some instances, exacerbating rather than lessening the decarbonisation challenge.

I have to concede that many other countries are doing no better. There was a report today from the Clean Air Fund that noted that between 2019 and 2020, Governments in the world gave 20% more in overseas aid funding to fossil fuel projects than to programmes to cut air pollution, which those very projects cause. However, it is the Government who have delivered unprecedented cuts to our international aid budget. It is also the Government who have continued support for hydrocarbon projects that undermine our collective climate goals, and it is the Government who have largely missed the unique opportunity of being both the COP26 co-host and president of the G7. That challenge, which has largely been missed, is one of delivering leadership and securing climate action in a decade that will make or break our collective future. It is, indeed, an emergency.

From addressing climate change to the debacle in Afghanistan, it is quite clear that we must revisit the aims and the claims of global Britain, which is in the title of this debate. We must ask fundamental questions about what the UK Government’s foreign policy priorities are and how they intend to deliver them.

Against the backdrop of the climate crisis, rather than sending gunboats or aircraft carriers overseas, or securing some fairly marginal trade deals at present, the Government should revisit the notion of an ethical human rights-based foreign policy. By beginning with such a policy framework we can capture the human rights challenges posed by climate change; we can establish responsibility and frameworks for action. We can use existing international law and thus promote and enable collective buy-in by the global community. It is an extremely practical way to start.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I am glad he mentioned Afghanistan, because I believe it was a turning point for our thinking on global Britain, whatever than means. The US is going towards a more isolationist position, which leaves the UK somewhat stranded. The rational course of action is to improve our links with Europe, especially on security and defence. Does he share my concern that the incumbents of very important Ministries in Whitehall are probably the last people to rebuild those important bridges?

[Hywel Williams]

We are in danger of going off on somewhat of a tangent, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As far as our party was concerned, when the votes came in on the invasion of Afghanistan and the military action there, I was one of the 17 who voted against. I think I am the last person standing of that group. The point that we made at the time was that we should internationalise the response to the conflict by drawing in actors who were not involved in military action in the first place. That is a fine aim for action on climate change—drawing people in is obviously the way to do it, rather than sending gunboats.

The climate crisis has been described as the biggest threat to our survival as a species, and is already threatening human rights around the world. Rising global temperatures are driving unprecedented harmful effects, from drought to floods, rising sea levels to heat waves, extreme weather events and the collapse in biodiversity and all ecosystems. In both its scale and its devastation, climate change is the ultimate threat to the freedom and rights of human kind and to our environment—they all come together.

Most directly, environmental instability threatens basic human rights—the right to life, the right to health and the right to development. The World Health Organisation believes that between 2030 and 2050 alone, climate change will cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths every year. That is the scale of the effect. Those deaths will occur from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress—a multitude of effects with one overriding cause: climate change.

Life will be harder for millions of the most vulnerable people in the world, especially children. By 2040, one in four children—around 600 million—living in areas of extremely high water stress, will be vulnerable. The World Bank believes that an additional 100 million people could be impoverished by 2030 due just to climate change. The potential for increased migration is obvious, and our response needs to develop. In the short term, we have our strategies, debates and disputes, but we must look properly at development in-country and in neighbouring countries.

Other freedoms, including the right to self-determination and political freedom are also threatened. It is no surprise that in some of the countries which are most threatened by climate change there are the most despotic regimes and the most conflict, death and disease.

Rising sea levels, which take no account of sovereignty, so prized by the Government, now affect the very existence of several island countries. That is the scale of the problem. Conflict is made more likely by climate change, as I said a moment ago. In Syria, sustained drought brought about by changing weather patterns is widely seen to have been a substantial contributing factor to the brutal civil war there; a conflict that has claimed 500,000 lives and has already led to mass displacements and migration. I concede and congratulate the Government—the previous one, at least—on the huge spending that the UK made in response; there was 500 million almost immediately. That is certainly a very good thing but, again, it provides an idea of the scale of the problem.

I am glad that these dangers are recognised, and I welcome previous ministerial comments calling on countries to ensure that climate action complies with human rights obligations. I hope that in his closing remarks the Minister will expand on these comments and detail how the UK Government are seeking to hold countries to their climate change commitments in a manner that respects and builds on human rights, especially given the UK’s current status in world affairs.

It is clear that we simply cannot say any more that we did not and do not know the consequences of our actions, which have become abundantly clear, if we continue to degrade the environment and pollute our atmosphere. As the UN Secretary-General has noted, we are

“on a code red for humanity”.

We must act accordingly, yet I fear that the Government are failing to meet the challenge. Prime Ministerial slogans about world-beating global Britain have not generated significant success ahead of COP26 and the UK’s performance as president of the G7 has been disappointing. One such failure was the inability to secure a definitive ban on the use of coal by the world’s largest economies at the G7 summit in Cornwall, and the promise of $100 billion climate-change assistance for developing countries has been largely unfulfilled.

More reports abound about the isolation of the Prime Minister in his own political group. His recent policies, ranging from international aid cuts to promoting domestic coal production, have gravely undermined his diplomatic efforts ahead of the summit in November. The Foreign Secretary yielded to the Chancellor with his savage cuts to the UK’s aid budgets, and actual world-leading programmes crashed because of fiscal circumstances—that was the real effect. However, as leading commentators have noted, the Chancellor managed to increase the UK’s defence budget, including finding money for nuclear weapons.

Worryingly, the UK has pledged £720 million of UK exports finance to support an offshore liquid gas project in Mozambique, at the same time as hosting COP26 and chairing the G7. Taken together with the domestic climate-change record and continuing Back-Bench opposition to net zero commitments, the Government have largely failed to present a credible climate-change action strategy to outside partners, which could be leveraged to inspire global action at COP26.

To close, as we head into the final straits before COP26 in November, the UK’s diplomatic efforts compare poorly with, for example, the French, who co-ordinated the Paris agreement. Their co-ordinated Government-wide approach led to the global success of the Paris agreement in 2015. The French-negotiated agreement could be the basis and the solution for this Government’s performance, and the reason for that is quite obvious.

The 2015 Paris agreement was the first universal, globally agreed, legally binding climate-change agreement explicitly to include human rights, requiring parties to “respect, promote and consider” their human rights obligations as they address climate change. That is why today I urge the Government to revisit the concept of an ethical foreign policy, particularly after the bloody events in Afghanistan, and for the Government to become an actual green force for good.

The public understand and value human rights, international law provides definitions, obligations and parameters, and existing international organisations can be a guarantor. The frameworks and the opportunities to do the right thing are there. This Government just need to seize them.