(4 days, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I beg to move,
That this House has considered COP30 and global food system transformation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I appreciate the chance to have this debate, which is of critical importance, both globally and in our country, where the hottest summer since records began is pushing our farmers to the brink. The harvest of 2025 was the second worst harvest on record, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That comes on the back of over £1 billion of lost income for our farmers, following the extremely wet winter last year. All of that threatens our food security and pushes up food prices.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. She is absolutely right that we must support our farmers on food security and farm sustainability, but poor returns are threatening their viability right now. The dairy industry has contracted by 6% in the past year, and prices have dropped significantly; it was announced that they would go down by almost 20% in November. Some farms are going to be closing their gates for the very last time. Does my hon. Friend agree that to secure a fair deal for our farmers, the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator and the Groceries Code Adjudicator must be combined and given real teeth to enforce properly?
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I applaud her constant advocacy in Parliament on behalf of farmers.
The second part of the debate is about the conference of the parties and how we can bring about legally binding obligations that translate into exactly the kind of measures my hon. Friend talked about. In just a few weeks, world leaders will come together at the global climate summit, COP30, which will be held in Belém, Brazil, in close proximity to the Amazon rainforest. It is being held there deliberately to symbolise the Amazon rainforest’s critical role in global climate stability.
In the lead-up to COP30, I hope this debate today will allow us to consider why this summit is expected to finally be billed as the nature, food and climate COP, putting food systems at the heart of the climate agenda for the first time, and rightly so, because the way we grow, produce and consume food is one of the biggest drivers of the climate and nature crises and one of the most powerful levers we have to solve them. At the same time, climate change is one of the most significant threats to our food production and national security.
Why does COP matter? We have come a long way since the Kyoto negotiations in 1997. That was the first time that countries around the world agreed global governance arrangements to address the shared challenge of global warming. At the time, we were hurtling towards a catastrophic 4°C or even 5°C world, so what a feat it was, unknown in any other sector or on any other issue, to create a framework agreement between 198 parties—197 countries or states and the European Union—to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that could help to prevent dangerous human-induced disruption of the climate system. Through dialogue, negotiation and finance, the COP process has brought about legally binding agreements—the Kyoto protocol and then the Paris agreement in 2015—where we all agreed that we have a common and interdependent future, and that we need to do everything possible to keep global warming below 1.5°C.
The Amazon rainforest has been called the lungs of the planet for its ability to capture and store carbon. Yet, right now, the rainforest is gasping for breath as we perilously approach the tipping point where the Brazilian rainforest switches from being a huge sponge, store and carbon sink to being a source of carbon emissions, due to massive deforestation and degradation through land use change. That is why, now more than ever, we need to ratchet up our collective ambition.
I know that rainforest well, and I know what it means to the many indigenous and local communities that depend on it, having worked professionally on climate and nature negotiations for more than a decade in South America, in the countries that share the Amazon: Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Brazil. I was part of the UK’s largest international climate policy programme in the region, and latterly I worked as the global team lead for the UK’s international £100 million climate and nature programme, the biodiverse landscapes fund. Since 2010, I have seen at first hand the internal workings, impacts, successes and failures of three relevant UN COP processes—the climate COP, the nature COP and the avoiding desertification COP—working alongside Governments and non-state actors such as businesses, scientists, local communities and local governments.
I know how long people have argued for food systems to be a central pillar of the climate framework. Our own independent Climate Change Committee, in its seventh carbon budget, highlighted the importance of agriculture and land use change in meeting our climate targets. I therefore want to make three points today. First, the transformation of food systems is essential for climate action, food security and nature restoration. Secondly, this transition must be just, supporting our farmers and animal welfare as we change how food is produced. Thirdly, the UK must show renewed leadership at COP30 by leading from the front, with the Prime Minister, and by committing to sign a new global declaration on food systems.
Why does food system transformation matter? The EAT-Lancet Commission announced that even if fossil fuels are phased out, the world will breach 1.5 °C because of emissions from food systems alone. Unsustainable food systems are driving deforestation, soil degradation, water pollution and marine biodiversity loss. Globally, agriculture and land use are responsible for almost 60% of biodiversity loss.
Exeter University research revealed this week that we have now reached the first catastrophic tipping point, with warm water coral reefs facing irreversible decline, threatening nature, food security and the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people—a moment many of us hoped we would not reach. Closer to home, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit recently found that wheat lost to storms and drought over the past five years could have produced more than 4 billion loaves of bread—the equivalent of an entire year’s supply for the UK.
There has been a strong build-up to COP30 in Belém, which is expected to produce a declaration on food systems, building on discussions at the Bonn climate conference and the COP28 declaration on sustainable agriculture, resilient food systems and climate action, which the UK signed.
COP30, as with past COPs, requires us to be more sustainable, and that includes food production, as the hon. Member said. In Caerfyrddin, we have a public farm producing vegetables for schools and residential homes, so public land is being used for public benefit. Why can all local authorities not follow suit, supported as we were by shared prosperity fund funding, and use public funds and public land for the public plate?
No, it is not a speech. Thank you, Mrs Harris; I appreciate your guidance. Does the hon. Member agree with that sustainable and seasonal way of reducing food miles by using public land?
I will perhaps come back to that a little later, but I agree completely about the importance of the SPF, as well as the sustainable farming incentive. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, we have public land—council land—working on regenerative agriculture with farmers, to provide the food we need. We need the stability and certainty of the SFI for our farmers.
The priorities it is anticipated will be negotiated at COP30 include deforestation-free supply chains, nature-positive farming, support for family farms and sustainable fisheries. This transformation has to be just, and that is as important here at home as it is globally. Farmers have always been on the frontline of climate change, as stewards of our countryside and producers of our food, and because they are struggling with the unavoidable impacts we now face. They must be at the heart of our solution.
The Liberal Democrats have been clear that the transition to sustainable farming cannot be done to farmers; it must be done with them. However, progress has been slow, and the uncertainty surrounding the sustainable farming incentive risks undermining the confidence and stability that farmers need if they are to continue to invest in regenerative agriculture, local food networks and diversified protein crops, as proposed by the National Farmers Union. Improving soil health, supporting pollinators and keeping farm businesses viable makes business sense too. As Martin Lines—the chief executive of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, who farms in Cambridgeshire—says, nature-friendly farming plays a “vital role” in building resilience to weather extremes. He says:
“Practices like improving soil health, using cover crops, and integrating habitats into fields are helping farmers stay productive while cutting back on inputs.”
We also call for a just transition in food and farming, as does World Animal Protection. At home, we must match words with action. The Liberal Democrats would accelerate the delivery of the long-promised land use framework, aligning food, farming and biodiversity policy. We would protect and strengthen the sustainable farming incentive and deliver it now. We would support a just transition for farmers and animals, reduce food waste across the supply chain and champion local, sustainable food production to boost rural economies and resilience.
Those points are all very welcome. Does my hon. Friend accept that global food systems already produce more than enough food to feed the world, but the problem is distribution and fair trade? As my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said earlier, the Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to be beefed up. We need to make sure that the supermarkets and the large retailers do not bully our primary producers to such an extent that they are wasteful in trade systems.
Absolutely, and that is where the just transition must come in. We must make sure that this works at home. In fact, when we look at the amount of food being produced, we need to talk about nutritional security rather than food security.
Finally, the UK must lead at COP30. Belém will be a turning point. Negotiations are already under way for a new COP declaration on food systems.
I praise the hon. Lady for getting this really important debate going today. She is absolutely right, and I am confident that Britain will be among the most ambitious nations at COP30. However, will she, as I do, take a second to reflect on the fact that, thank God, we have a Government going there who believe in climate change and recognise that we need to get the rest of the world to be more ambitious, rather than a Conservative Government who would be going there to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008, or Reform turning up to say that climate change is entirely bogus?
I could not agree more. I have worked internationally for 20 years, and I have seen that when Britain leads, other countries follow. Our Climate Change Act was the first in the world, and 60 countries immediately followed it. Other countries followed the independent Climate Change Committee. I have seen emerging economies work with their Governments, looking at how they do economic development and leapfrogging by learning from us. When Britain leads, others follow, and that is why I ask the Minister to make sure we confirm that the Prime Minister will be at COP30, to show that we continue to lead from the front.
I also ask the Minister to ensure that we sign up to the COP30 declaration on food systems and support all the work that has been done up until now to make sure that food systems are central to the climate change negotiations at Belém. I cannot emphasise more the impact, both here and across the world, of the U-turn—the turning of their back—of the Conservative Government, and Reform right now, on climate issues. I have worked alongside countries and communities ravaged by climate impacts that are waiting to see us take that leadership once again.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) on securing this important debate.
For any of us with a farming constituency, there is no doubt what a difficult year this has been. Drought has led to lower yields, especially in arable farming—I have a mix of arable and animal farming in my constituency. When we talk about lower yields, we are not just talking about grain or the size of potatoes; we are talking about things like straw. The stalks have been much shorter this year, which will have a knock-on effect. And that is on the back of a very wet year last year, which created its own problems. There is no doubt that the farming industry is under enormous pressure. Sustainable farming is an important process that has been supported by many Governments across many countries in many different ways.
I will discuss climate change and what we need to do on renewables, but we must also recognise that, although there are appropriate places to put solar farms, it is not appropriate to put them on good-quality farming land. I am constantly fighting solar farms on farming land in the Vale of York in my constituency that is very productive but is now being sold off for solar farms. There has to be a balance between what we are trying to achieve in moving to renewable energy and what we have to achieve in sustainable farming.
The Liberal Democrats are quick to attack the Conservatives, but I remind them that it was Nick Clegg who stood at the Dispatch Box and cancelled a nuclear power station project, saying: “I am not willing to spend money on things that will not happen until 2022.”
I think the hon. Lady might be rather upset if—[Interruption.]
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberI start by thanking the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for introducing the Bill and for giving me the opportunity to serve on the Bill Committee.
I rise to speak in favour of my amendment 4, which goes to the very heart of what the Bill is all about: dignity, compassion and choice at the end of life.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that compassion and fairness for those who are terminally ill are rightly at the heart of the Bill. Does he agree with my constituents who would like to see it extended to those terminally ill with motor neurone disease and neurodegenerative disorders, to give them choice and dignity, too, by extending the eligibility period? [Interruption.]
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It was really interesting how the debate was conducted on Second Reading and in Committee, and how we were meant to be having that respectful debate, and it is disappointing to hear comments from opponents already.
Amendment 4 seeks a simple yet crucial change to extend the eligibility period for those with neurodegenerative conditions, from six months to 12 months, something that is already reflected in legislation in five of six Australian states. My amendment mirrors the wording used in that legislation, and it is based not on conjecture but on medical reality, international precedent and, most importantly, the lived experiences of those facing some of the most harrowing diseases imaginable.
Amendment 4 would not expand the Bill’s reach beyond terminal conditions; it simply acknowledges that for people with conditions such as MND and other neurodegenerative diseases, the current six-month prognosis requirement creates a cruel and unnecessary barrier.
(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is an honour and privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for securing this critical debate.
Together with other Members speaking today, I have just returned from a cross-party visit to Israel and the west bank—a journey that brought us face to face with the human cost of war and violence for Israelis and Palestinians. We met so many people of all ages, from all sides and at all levels of power, who are working daily to try to bring about the conditions for a lasting peace in spite of the unspeakable and ongoing trauma. On the one hand are the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October, killing over 1,200 people and taking hundreds of hostages, with 60 still held captive. On the other hand is the brutal war in Gaza, killing 45,000 Palestinians, including 18,000 children, displacing thousands and imprisoning many.
A different kind of violence extends to the west bank. It is not new and it did not start on 7 October. It has been ongoing and escalating since the ceasefire agreement. During our visit, we were witness to the impacts of daily violence by extremist settlers in the occupied territories and of the policies that continue to erode the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people. That includes the rights of the young Palestinian schoolgirl and her family, whom we visited in their village of Susya. She told us how, on a nightly basis, she is woken up terrified by marauding settlers who have set up their outpost nearby. Just a couple of nights before we arrived, late at night, she heard the sound of stones being thrown at the window of her home. That night, the settlers also smashed the window of her father’s car and slashed the car tyre. She can name them, describe them and point to where they live.
We visited the nearby primary school, built with UK and European aid funding, that had been completely demolished by the settlers. Desks were mangled and educational picture books were strewn in the rubble. Through a remaining window, we had a clear view of the settler outpost. From there, a quad bike came rushing towards us with two settler youths, grins on their faces, swagger in their steps and a sub-machine-gun slung over their shoulder. For us, it was just harassment. As anyone can imagine, however, for Nasser’s daughter and the families in the village, it is a terrifying ordeal.
That is why many people, Israeli and international, offer to provide what is called a protective presence for Palestinian schoolchildren in the rural areas in their villages to try to ensure that they have the basic right of safety as they walk to school. They also provide a protective presence for Palestinian farmers to harvest their crops.
That same night, after we left the village, between 3 am and 5 am there was a settler incursion during which the neighbour’s car was torched with a petrol bomb. The police attended at the request of the village, but the main outcome was that two of the internationals, staying overnight as a protective presence, were arrested. They were then in Jerusalem with a two-week ban on visiting the west bank.
There is impunity for the perpetrators, and the removal of the equal rights of Israelis and Palestinians in the law and in the protection of the police. In fact, since 2005, only 3% of investigations into ideologically motivated crime against Palestinians in the west bank led to a full or partial conviction. It is not just the violation of Palestinian rights through the actions of a few extremist settlers.
There has been a huge increase in settlement and settler violence since the Hamas attacks on 7 October. With attention focused on Gaza and the hostage crisis in Israel, it has given settlers an opportunity to attack with increasing impunity. At least 1,860 incidents of settler violence in the occupied west bank were recorded.
The suffering we witnessed compels us to act, speak out and ensure that the rights of those who have long been marginalised are protected. The face and future of Nasser’s daughter at the mercy of marauding extremist settlers haunts us. We also heard from Roni Keidar, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned, whom we met at Netiv HaAsara. On the day we met, Roni had just received the English translation of her new biography. I remember her words so vividly—that either the Israeli and Palestinian people find a way to live together, or they will die together.
I ask the Government to reassure us with, first, a clear and public renunciation of President Trump’s Riviera proposals as ethnic cleansing—the forcible transfer of the over 2 million people of Gaza would constitute a crime against humanity; secondly, the UK Government’s recognition of a Palestinian state and commitment to a two-state solution, because everyone needs a political horizon to have hope; and thirdly, extending the sanctions that the UK already has to regional councils in the west bank, which are responsible for funding the construction and the supply of services to illegal and violent outposts.
(10 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Indeed. I am conscious that I have less than four minutes left, so I will keep it moving.
The second petition, which received 107,316 signatures, demands the revocation of arms export licences to Israel. Under international and domestic law, the UK is required to prevent the transfer of military equipment and technology where there is a clear risk of it being used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law.
Between 7 October 2023 and 31 May this year, 42 export licences were issued for military goods to Israel. The Campaign Against Arms Trade has stated that the UK has granted arms export licences worth £576 million in total since 2008. Fifteen per cent. of the components that make up each F-35 aircraft used to bomb the Gaza strip were produced in Britain. In December last year, the then Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron decided not to suspend any export licences, stating that he was
“satisfied that there was good evidence to support a judgment that Israel is committed to comply with IHL.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unjustifiable to continue the sale of arms to Israel, especially now that there are concerns about its compliance with international humanitarian standards? The United Nations Relief and Works Agency cannot deliver desperately needed aid to Gaza because of the aggression of the Israel Defence Forces towards its aid workers, and we need to deal with that.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
In September 2024, the new Foreign Secretary announced the suspension of around 30 export licences to Israel, including components for military aircraft, helicopters and drones, as well as items that facilitate ground targeting.
A constituent wrote to me to say that although this is a national and international issue, it feels profoundly local to them, because there are factories producing military components for export to Israel in Cheltenham, Bishop’s Cleeve, Ashchurch, Tewkesbury and Swindon, which are all close to my constituency of South Cotswolds. My constituent went on to say that they do not believe it is right for the south-west to be so heavily complicit in crimes for which the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for violations of international law, and that Amnesty International has concluded to be tantamount to genocidal in intent and impact.
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI thank the hon. Member for his ongoing commitment to freedom and peaceful relations and his interest in keeping the UK’s reputation for supporting democracies so alive in this House. Our mission in Tbilisi will be watching or reading this urgent question, including his concerns and questions. It is so important to support Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations, in line with the strong will of the Georgian people over the past few years, particularly in the light of the conflict in Ukraine, which is in its neighbourhood. That is why we have been such a strong supporter of democratic reforms over many years, working with Parliament, civil society, independent media and the Government to support reforms and Georgia’s continued progress towards membership of the Euro-Atlantic community.
The mission in Tbilisi is well resourced. We have excellent professionals there, working very closely to understand the exact investigation into the irregularities of the election, trying to see what is happening with the formation of the new Government post-election, calling for restraint so that those battles on the squares do not turn into any form of police brutality, but retain that vision of freedom and democracy.
I have met young Georgians here in the UK who are watching with desperation, fear and depression as legislation on foreign influence restricts their rights, the media and organisations dealing with all sorts of development rights. They are also seeing their colleagues brutally repressed on the streets as they try to have freedom of association and to keep what is enshrined in their constitution—movement towards EU accession—as it is being ripped away from them. What can the Minister say to those young people? Will she and the ambassador be open to meet them? They are in a terrible state of anxiety right now.
I thank the hon. Lady for her concern. I thank her, too, for her impassioned plea for peaceful expression of political views and for the UK to play its role in supporting not only that vision for freedom, but a stable assessment following the election, acting on the information and investigation material that have come forward from the report. Of course we supported the election observers, so we need to listen to what they say as a result of those investigations. Let me also thank the hon. Lady for her condemnation of the brutal and excessive force used against protesters and journalists. I will certainly pass on her exhortation to be on the side of those with vision and those who wish to freely express their point of view.