Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

4. What human rights issues were discussed during his recent visit to Saudi Arabia.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with his Saudi Arabian counterpart on the (a) detention, (b) ill treatment and (c) trial of women human rights defenders in that country.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)]

I travelled to Riyadh on 4 March to 5 March and met senior Saudis, including His Majesty King Salman and the Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal. We discussed a whole range of bilateral issues, and I raised human rights, including detained women’s rights defenders.

[Dominic Raab]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her championing of this very important issue. I raised a whole range of cases before the Saudi courts in relation to women’s rights defenders, and also the fact that, having lifted the ban on women driving and taken other measures, that was particularly anomalous. Her concerns have been raised, and we will continue to raise those issues with the Saudi Government.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I appreciate that my question is not about what is currently uppermost in people’s minds, but human rights abuses continue to be committed, even while covid-19 is spreading. What active steps are the Government taking to help to secure the unconditional release of human rights activists?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I was not quite clear whether she was talking specifically about Saudi Arabia, but we raise these issues. Obviously the Government and the jurisdictions are very sensitive about their cases, but we raise these issues because that is what international law requires. We have made the points that she and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) have raised, and we will continue to do so.

There has been an incremental and modest improvement in Saudi Arabia’s human rights situation. In the World Bank’s “Women, Business and the Law 2020” report, Saudi Arabia was ranked as the most improved economy for women’s economic opportunities. We want to encourage that positivity, and also, where there are abuses of human rights—whether in relation to the Khashoggi case, Raif Badawi, which was another case I raised, or the women’s rights defenders—to make sure that that is a part of our bilateral relations. We will keep raising these important issues.

Climate Justice

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the new Member, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), on securing this timely debate. I am sure there will be many more, but it is good to start having the debate as early as possible.

The climate crisis will affect us all, but not everybody will be affected equally. If we allow it to get worse, it will create huge global inequalities on a scale that we have never seen. Some parts of our planet will be much worse hit than others, which will create extreme poverty, hardship, displacement and possibly even war. Those who are worse hit will be those already living in poverty and struggling against extreme weather conditions.

As a Liberal, I care deeply about people from every part of the world. People in China, Argentina, Nigeria and Iran are our neighbours, which is why I try to call out human rights abuses wherever I witness them. The point has already been clearly made that climate justice and the fight for human rights are directly linked. I feel called upon to avert the climate emergency, because it is about justice across the world and, ultimately, the human rights of people who live in areas of the world that will be much worse affected than here.

At our last conference, the Liberal Democrats agreed a credible plan for how the country could cut most of its emissions by 2030 and get to net zero by 2045. Our approach is evidence-based and pro-innovation. We need to put British innovators at the forefront of the fight against climate change. I agree with many hon. Members who have said that we do not need to be doom and gloom, but we do need a plan to effect change. The most important question for this debate is how we do that fairly in this country.

In the context of climate justice, fairness means protecting the low paid, the elderly and the just about managing from higher costs. It means an understanding that if an electric car costs more, only some people will be able to buy one, and thinking about how we can continue to offer choices that are affordable to everybody. Of course, we need to make sure that we build sustainable public transport links and that public transport is affordable—currently, even that is not an affordable choice for many.

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there are opportunities in the housing sector to embed renewable infrastructure in new housing developments and flats, so they are built with renewables and electric charging points in mind, and that we can take the opportunity to embed sustainability in the construction sector in this year of all years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I completely agree, but unfortunately, the path to building net zero homes was stopped under the last Government. As a new Member, the hon. Lady is probably best placed to encourage the Government to make sure that we build carbon zero homes. In fact, our target is for them to be carbon zero by 2021 and at Passivhaus standard by 2025, because that is where we ultimately need to get to. That cannot be the reserve of only those who can afford it, however, so how do we build a sustainable housing programme for social and affordable homes, not just the private sector?

Fairness means that the energy efficiency of social housing and rented property cannot be an optional extra but must be a requirement for anyone wishing to be a landlord, so that it is part of letting a property for social housing providers and private landlords. A fair transition is the only way to fight the climate emergency while protecting the ideals of climate justice. A fair transition also ensures that people buy into the more radical choices involved in climate action. The climate emergency will affect us all, but it will affect some of us more than others. The longer the Government wait to implement meaningful climate action, the more people will suffer. We are running out of time to smoothly switch to a net zero Britain without compromising our health, happiness and freedoms.

At the core of the Liberal Democrat plan to get to net zero is a just transition commission to understand where the biggest economic impacts of changing to a net zero society will be, and to create future jobs before the job losses in fossil fuel industries are incurred. We need to set up citizens’ assemblies to involve all parts of the public in the discussion, so that we formulate together the aims and ambitions for getting to net zero fairly. Most of all, the Government have to set out a credible coherent plan to set the direction for how the UK will get to net zero.

As the country that led the industrial revolution, we have been one of the biggest polluters over time. We as a country have a moral duty to provide global leadership to tackle the climate emergency here and across the world without delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

I agree: we need to go further and faster. Today’s announcement is encouraging. As a former Minister for the automotive sector, I remember working on the “Road to Zero” policy paper, which looked at how we can roll out electric vehicles across the UK even faster than we planned. We were always keen to review the evidence and be guided by the science on how we can move these things forward. I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today on that increasing ambition, but we always need to look at ways to go further. This debate is about climate justice, and air pollution disadvantages disproportionately the most disadvantaged communities in this country. We need to work together and be ambitious. We need to look at decarbonising the whole transport sector. We have been most successful so far in the energy sector, but transport still has a long way to go. I welcome the ambition today, but I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to go further and faster.

We need to invest more in our world-leading expertise, particularly in the north of England, where one in five of all the electric vehicles sold in Europe are made, the world’s biggest offshore wind turbines are being built, and carbon capture and storage is being pioneered. In addition, last week in the House of Commons we introduced the Environment Bill, which sets out how we plan to protect and improve the natural environment in the United Kingdom. The Bill will ensure that the environment is front and centre in our future policymaking. It will support the delivery of the most ambitious environmental programme of any country in the world. That landmark Bill will enhance wildlife, tackle air pollution, transform the way in which we manage our resources and waste, and improve the resilience of our water supplies. The speedy return of the Bill to Parliament following the general election underlines our commitment to tackling climate change and protecting and restoring our natural environment for future generations, as we maximise the opportunities created by leaving the European Union.

We are making net zero a reality as we raise our ambition at home. We will use the opportunity of COP26—officially launched by the Prime Minister earlier today—to demonstrate global leadership on climate action and bring the world together to achieve real progress. As has been said, it is often the poorest countries and people who are the worst affected and least prepared to deal with the impacts of climate change, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. That triple threat threatens to undo decades of progress towards the sustainable development goals. The World Bank estimates that, unless serious and urgent action is taken, 100 million people are at risk of being pushed into poverty by climate change by 2030.

We are committed to supporting the most vulnerable countries adapt and build their resilience and to supporting low-carbon growth and development. We remain the only major economy in the world to put into law our commitment to meet the internationally agreed target of investing 0.7% of our national income on international development. That shows that we are an enterprising, outward-looking and truly global Britain that is fully engaged with the world.

We are committed to transforming the lives of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people by giving them access to quality education and jobs, about which my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire, spoke so eloquently, and by supporting millions in dealing with the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation while promoting Britain’s economic, security and foreign policy interests.

Since 2011, our international climate programmes have helped 57 million people cope with the effects of climate change; provided 26 million people with improved access to clean energy; and helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 16 million tonnes, which is the equivalent of taking three million cars off the road for a year. In September, the Prime Minister committed to doubling our international climate finance to at least £11.6 billion over the next five years, which will make us one of the world’s leading providers of climate finance.

That funding really works. In 1991, a category 6 cyclone hit Bangladesh, killing 139,000 people. In 2007, an even stronger cyclone killed 4,000. That is still far too many deaths, but the incredible 97% reduction was achieved by Bangladesh’s investment in better disaster preparedness, with support from international donors.

UK Government research into drought-resistant wheat varieties has delivered benefits more than 100 times greater than costs, delivering an annual economic benefit of between $2.2 billion and $3.1 billion. Our forestry programmes have supported Indonesia in introducing regulatory changes, including setting up independent monitoring and improving law enforcement. Today, 100% of timber exports are sourced from independently audited factories and forests, and over 20.3 million hectares of forest are independently certified. In Ethiopia, our productive safety net programme helped to prevent 4.2 million people from going hungry when the country experienced severe drought. Our programmes have helped smallholder farmers in Burkina Faso deal with increased rainfall variability and higher temperatures; have assisted with the production of Kenya’s national climate change action plan; developed early warning systems to reduce the impacts of disasters in Chad; improved flood defences in South Sudan; and delivered solar power to clinics across Uganda .

Addressing the contribution from the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the Scottish Government, who have also recognised that the poor and vulnerable at home and overseas are the first to be affected by climate change and will suffer the worst. The Scottish Government’s work—particularly in Malawi, which he mentioned—continues to be cited by the Department for International Development as a really good example. I take exception, however, to the hon. Gentleman’s claim that DFID’s expertise has been reduced in this area. We have made a number of investments, and I hope that he welcomes this Government’s appointment of Lord Goldsmith as a joint Minister for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and DFID, to bring expertise to both Departments and determine how we can better collaborate to tackle the issue.

Turning to the UK-Africa investment summit, which was also mentioned, we may not agree, but energy is essential to economic growth and poverty reduction. Currently, 840 million people have no access to electricity, and 2.9 billion have no access to clean cooking. Our priority is to help developing countries to establish a secure and sustainable energy supply while supporting climate and environmental objectives. Increasing our overseas development support for renewable energy has been the top priority. Since 2011, UK aid has provided more than 26 million people with improved access to clean energy and installed 1,600 MW in clean energy capacity.

We recognise that countries will continue to need a mix of energy sources as part of a transition to a low-carbon sustainable economy, including renewable energy and lower-carbon fossil fuels such as natural gas, which produces significantly less carbon than coal or other commonly used fuels. Our approach to fossil fuels is therefore to support them where there is a clear development need and as part of a transition to low-carbon economies. When assessing new support, we will ensure that assistance does not undermine the ambitions of a country’s nationally determined contributions, and that an appropriate carbon price is used in the appraisal of the programme.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We have about 30 years to get to net zero. How long does it take to develop new fossil fuel industries and then see them as a transition? They will just remain in place even though we have to reach net zero. Does the Minister not recognise that we have run out of time for a proper transition and have to get to net zero as soon as possible?

[Andrew Stephenson]

We have to get to net zero as soon as possible, but we have to do so in a balanced and proportionate way. To give an example, the oil and gas sector contribution to the Scottish economy is £16.2 billion in gross value added, and some 105,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on it. It would be slightly hypocritical of us to continue employing so many people in the oil and gas sector in the UK—we see it as part of our energy transition, using gas in particular to decarbonise our economy—if we were to say that other countries around the world could not use gas as a low-carbon alternative to the dirtier fossil that they use, particularly coal. We take a balanced approach on those matters, but I know that there will be disagreement across the House.

I was pleased that in addition to the £6.5 billion-worth of deals that were announced at the UK-Africa investment summit, we announced £1.5 billion of new DFID programmes to support sustainable growth across Africa. We will continue to work in partnership with African countries as part of our broader strategy for Africa, which has seen a significant uplift in our resources on the continent for the first time in decades.

Successfully tackling climate change will require action from the whole of society: Governments, business, communities and each of us in our individual choices. We know that the impacts of climate change will not be borne equally between rich and poor, women and men, and older and younger generations. At the start of her speech, the hon. Member for Nottingham East said that climate justice means

“addressing the climate crisis in a way that is fair and equitable.”

I agree, and that is fundamental to the Government’s approach.

As an international community, we must renew our efforts to achieve the sustainable development goals and fulfil our commitment to leave no one behind. The UK will not only play our part in that domestically, we will provide global leadership, as we invite the world to Glasgow in November to agree on and increase the urgent action that we need to take to protect our planet.

Amazon Deforestation

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is the important point: the sense of urgency. Of course, this Parliament has declared a climate emergency, not that one would necessarily guess that from the Government’s actions, and actions are what count.

What a marked contrast there is between our Government’s feeble response and the responses of other Governments. Our European partners have called for trade sanctions, with Austrian MPs demanding that their Government veto the EU’s proposed trade deal with South America’s economic bloc, which is currently composed of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. That was due to concerns over workers’ rights, which is absolutely correct, but the environmental reasons are paramount. Similar concerns have been voiced by countries such as France, Ireland and Luxembourg.

Although I have been critical of the Government, I will add a rider, because as a country with an imperial and colonising past, criticism can always be levelled at the UK that, because we industrialised and polluted, it is hypocritical to blame others for doing the same. Brazil could argue that, as a post-colonial industrial country, it should have the chance to develop its economy, as the UK and other European countries did in the past, and it can point to our lack of environmental concerns during that industrialisation. Those sympathetic to Bolsonaro’s argument could point to data indicating that Brazil has historically contributed to around only 1% of global emissions since the start of the industrial age.

To criticise other countries for pursuing industrial development by saying, “We benefited from that kind of approach but now we know more so you should not put your economy first” is a poor argument. However, it is possible to develop the economy in a much more sustainable way if it is not driven just by short-term profit maximisation—that is the answer to the conundrum. The way forward is through international agreements, ratified by the countries involved, to secure a better future approach. Economic avenues could be pursued more sustainably to future-proof Brazil’s industry while maintaining environmental protections and regulations.

Many would argue that there is no need for self-inflicted harm. Greenpeace tells us that indigenous groups across Brazil are calling for global support to protect their rights in their struggle to safeguard the forests that they have inhabited for centuries. Greenpeace argues that environmental governance bodies in Brazil have been dismantled and weakened. For instance, the Climate Change and Forests Office and the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change have been closed, which has impacted policies and deforestation prevention, as well as resourcing. Minister Salles has slashed the budget and staffing of the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, or IBAMA. Highly trained units have reportedly been grounded, and the value of fines imposed for environmental offences has dropped by 43%. In August, the director of Brazil’s National Space Research Institute was forced out of office after the President refuted data on rising deforestation.

Of course, the Brazilian Government have a different account and reject the notion that

“Brazil does not take care of the Amazon, does not take care of the environment.”

People will make their own judgment, but at the centre of the issue is the fact that we are in a climate crisis. If Brazil rejects the chance to reform its practice, recommit to stopping the fires and return to anti-deforestation policies, and if the Brazilian President continues to take Brazil down such an environmentally damaging path, it is right that the international community thinks hard about how to proceed to best protect the environmental jewel that is the Amazon rainforest.

That is hard because it touches on the most basic issues of national sovereignty. Brazil has reaffirmed many times that this is indeed an issue of sovereignty, and it believes that its approach to the Amazon is one of domestic policy, but we cannot look at this issue in a vacuum. As was mentioned earlier, the Amazon spans not just Brazil, but Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela. It is an internationally revered natural treasure, and parts of it that are lost, including some species that are found nowhere else on earth, will not be recovered. That is a global loss.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman has touched on something so important in our current political debate: nationalism is completely the wrong answer to a global crisis. We can solve these things only if we think globally rather than just in our own national interest.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Lady is right. If only we could find a way of achieving that consensual approach.

This is a global loss, and many would conclude that that risk creates a global responsibility to respond. How do we solve this dilemma? Greenpeace has asked that

“all trade talks with Brazil be suspended until the Bolsonaro government changes tack and guarantees the necessary protections”.

It says that should include effective support for urgent action by the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources and other agencies responsible for monitoring and enforcement, to tackle environmental crimes and implement forest protections, with guarantees of necessary funding as well as other measures to improve environmental protections. That is the tough approach.

Our Government seem to hope for the best outcome. The Minister of State has previously told Parliament:

“If we help to ensure that these sensible trade arrangements are made, those fires can be put out and they will stay out”.—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 7.]

That seems to be over-optimistic at best and complacent at worst, but we will await the Minister’s response. If the situation remains as difficult as it currently appears to be, I have to say, I am with Greenpeace. The Amazon rainforest is sometimes said to provide 20% of our terrestrial oxygen, or one in five of each of our breaths. Most of us now recognise that we are in a climate crisis, and that it is time for action and urgency in our approach to both domestic and international policy.

I hope that the Minister will be able to reflect a hitherto undetected ambition and urgency to do what is needed. He could start today by supporting the petitioners in their ambition to secure global action to protect the precious rainforest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will get to what I think needs to be done. Sanctions could play a part, but change in consumption habits could play a much bigger part, and that is something we each have some control over.

In their recent “Risky Business” report, WWF and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds estimate that more than 40% of the UK’s overseas land footprint—nearly 6 million hectares—is in countries that are at high or very high risk of deforestation and of having weak governance and poor labour standards. The more I read about it, the more I see the links between this trade and modern slavery and human rights abuses, with people being displaced from their land, and so on; they are all part and parcel of the same thing.

WWF and the RSPB looked at seven key agricultural commodities imported into the UK: beef and leather, cocoa, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber, soy, and timber. Of those, beef and leather account for by far the largest proportion of our land footprint overseas, despite the fact that we produce almost 80% of our own beef in the UK and import a lot from Ireland. However, the actual picture is much worse, because we must look at animal feed, too. In the EU, around 90% of soy imports are for livestock feed, so it is not just a case of beef from Argentina or Brazil being bad and British beef being fine, as I often hear people try to argue. Yes, there is a case for pasture-fed livestock—I chair the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming, of which the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association is an active member—but that is not what we are talking about.

Every year, the UK consumes around 3.3 million tonnes of soy, more than 75% of which is related to meat consumption, either as imported animal feed or as soy embedded in imported meat products. We must also consider the feed for chickens that lay eggs, and the feed for dairy herds, as well as soya bean oil, which is the second most widely used vegetable oil after palm oil. This has happened to me many times, but I remember the former farming Minister, Jim Paice, trying to tell me that that was all down to more people eating veggie burgers. I assure people that is not the case. That figure may have gone up in recent years, but I think it is still well below 5%—but yes, it is all the vegetarians’ and vegans’ fault, as usual.

It is interesting to compare what has happened with soy bean oil and palm oil. We import nearly three times as much soy bean oil as palm oil, yet it is palm oil that has tended to receive the attention of environmentalists, probably because of the orangutans. Some 21% of global palm oil production is now certified, whereas soy certified by the Round Table on Responsible Soy or ProTerra accounts for only about 2% of global production.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is true that we cannot be sanctimonious or hypocritical and tell developing countries what to do, given that we deforested our country in the past, but we now know a lot more about the consequences. The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. Should not we all adopt a responsible, conscious approach to consumption, and promote that politically, rather than saying, “We don’t really need to do anything about it, and it’s not about sanctions”? We must all understand that we are responsible, too.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I think so. There have been some interesting global initiatives or attempts at global initiatives. When I was a shadow Minister in the foreign affairs team, I remember meeting representatives from Ecuador. Yasuni national park in Ecuador is almost as biologically diverse and as amazing as the Galapagos Islands, but oil has been discovered there. The representatives wanted to raise funds from across the world by saying to people, “We are a poor country. We need to exploit our natural resources. We need to get the finances in. If you don’t want us to do that and you think that is appalling, then give us some money not to do it.” I understand that was not a successful approach; they did not raise any money and they ended up having to exploit the natural resources.

The Seychelles issued an ocean bond, saying it would protect its marine areas and not overfish if people gave it money to do that. Although there are wealthy people in the Seychelles, there is a lot of poverty too. That blue bond was successful; we need to look at such initiatives, because it is not just about sanctions, but about working together. As the hon. Lady mentioned, I think it is the wrong approach for us to say, “You cannot exploit what you have got,” when we have exploited everything we have got, and we have been to many other countries and exploited what they have as well, over the centuries.”

Some 77% of UK soy imports come from the high-risk countries of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. In its recent report “Money to Burn”, the NGO Global Witness identified the financial institutions behind six key agribusiness companies involved in deforesting climate-critical forests in Brazil, the Congo basin and New Guinea. It revealed that UK-based financial institutions were the second biggest source of financing, providing $6.5 billion, so the UK has a huge responsibility to take action to tackle the source of financing for deforestation. I urge Members to read the report, which is powerful. We must have due diligence regulation across sectors and throughout the supply chain, so people know what their money is being invested in. That would send an important message to businesses, and companies would change the way they operate.

In 2009 I held a debate in this Chamber that was prompted in part by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s report “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, which was released in 2006. It made a compelling case for action to tackle the consequences for the climate and for our natural environment of the ever more industrialised and intensive livestock industry. As I said in that debate, growing animal feed is a supremely inefficient use of land; it takes around 8 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef, and there is a huge water footprint, too. It takes almost 21 square metres of land to produce 1 kg of beef, compared with 0.3 square metres to produce 1 kg of vegetables.

Since then, numerous other highly authoritative reports have made the same arguments. They make the headlines and most people agree that something needs to be done, and yet we seem to be no closer to action, apart from people making their own decisions about what they consume.

I finish by expressing my disappointment at the recent report from the Committee on Climate Change on how we reach net zero; it was, frankly, pathetic. At the launch, the chair of the committee said in his opening speech that his least favourite environmentalists were those who expected people to be cold in their homes or to eat disgusting food. I wondered what he meant by disgusting food, but I can guess. This was from the man who fed his daughter, Cordelia, a hamburger at the height of the BSE crisis; I think we know where he is coming from. We were then told that because people could not be expected to eat disgusting food, the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change was for only a 20% reduction in red meat consumption, which was to be replaced primarily with pork, bacon and poultry rather than plant-based meals.

The Committee on Climate Change was meant to be looking at how deliverable net zero was, primarily from an economic point of view; for example, it was looking at whether we could afford to make the transition to electric vehicles. It also looked at behavioural change and how palatable that would be to the general public. I gather that the behavioural scientist on the committee specialises in shifts in transport, rather than diet, but it took his word on what people would tolerate.

I refer again to the people outside the building today, to people I know and to the people who have contacted me, particularly younger people. I think people are willing to play their part and want to know about the damage their consumption habits cause. It is not just a question of them being able to exercise a choice; the market needs to respond. We need more transparency, so people are educated to make choices, and we need the Government to step in to ensure people are in a position to make those choices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the more than 100,000 signatories to this petition, because it seems that more and more it is the people outside who bring the most pertinent discussions to this House.

We are having a good discussion. I am happy to acknowledge what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), and his enthusiasm, which I share, that if we put our mind to it, there are solutions to the climate crisis and we must not be gloomy. We hear increasingly about people who get really depressed about the future, especially young people. That, on top of the challenge that we have, will be devastating if we allow it to continue. The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) is leaving the Chamber, but it was a particular pleasure to listen to what he was saying.

One of my favourite films is “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”. Hon. Members may remember how, at the end of the film, the committee is still debating and Brian is already on the cross. That is what we often do: we debate and debate, and we do not acknowledge the emergency that is actually before us. I share the impatience of everybody who has been demonstrating today and who will continue to demonstrate outside with Extinction Rebellion.

Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), I became a member of Greenpeace—more than 30 years ago, in Germany. This is not a new thing. We knew about it, yet what have we done about it? If anything, we will have to justify to future generations the fact that we knew about this. The chair of the Committee on Climate Change said that we have a “moral duty”, because we know what to do about it, so let us do it.

That is the impetus, and that is the response that I would like to see from the Government. There is an emergency. We know what to do about it. Let us not just say, “Well, we have already done quite a lot.” We have definitely not done enough. That is what these debates are all about. I hope that we can find a cross-party consensus on the fact that it an emergency and that we need to do a lot more. It is a massive challenge; young people are reminding us how big the challenge is. We do not want to be depressed about it, but we need to do a lot more.

I must say that I take a slightly grim view of the Brazilian Government. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, deforestation actually slowed down between 2004 and 2014, or 2013—I cannot quite remember the figures—but it is increasing again, which is disappointing. If we could do that between 2004 and 2012, we need to look at why it has gone backwards. These are the questions that we have to ask ourselves.

Deforestation in the Amazon is a global crisis. The Amazon is the largest carbon dioxide sink in the world; it captures and stores a huge amount of CO₂, doing the heavy lifting for all of us in the fight to stop the looming climate crisis. During the summer, reports emerged about the huge expansion of Amazon rainforest fires. Although wildfires are seasonal and play a role in regenerating wildlife, the fires raging in the Amazon rainforest were much larger than usual. If the Brazilian Government continue to ignore the extent of the damage, those fires will pose a serious threat to the Amazon biome.

I understand the argument that it is a bit rich for us to pontificate if we have, in the past, also deforested and if our economies ultimately profit from what is happening elsewhere in the world. However, responsible Governments see that there has to be something like a carrot and a stick, and I think we need to apply a bit of a stick, not just a carrot. We need global co-operation if we are to have any chance of keeping the rise in global temperatures below 1.5° C. If we continue on this trajectory, global temperatures are currently predicted to rise by about 3° C. That is just not acceptable, and we cannot be complacent. If we fail, we will face an irreversible climate crisis, which evidence suggests will destroy ecosystems, cause the extinction of thousands of species and displace much of the world’s population.

This is one of the wider political problems. The climate crisis and catastrophe will affect the world disproportionately. Some countries, particularly in the northern hemisphere, will be okay—Britain will probably be one of them—but what about Africa and the southern hemisphere? If we think globally, and if we believe that we cannot just let other countries sink into the ocean or have intolerable temperatures so that they cannot sustain human life, our response has to be urgent. It is our global moral responsibility to act, and so far I do not think that the Government have really woken up to this emergency.

The only way we can stop this is by everyone, on every level, doing their bit, from individuals to international bodies that represent groups of nations. Brazilian President Bolsonaro, it seems, has so far shown no interest in averting the climate catastrophe or in putting forward some climate action. I will be very political here: he is a populist leader who uses environmental chaos, social instability and economic disruption for his own political gain. He has no regard for the long-term implications of rainforest destruction. It would be naive to think that Bolsonaro turns a blind eye only for short-term financial success. Burning down the rainforests and literally fuelling the climate crisis is consistent with his disruptive political agenda. It matters that we stand up to these populist leaders who seek to divide people, not only for the people of this world but for the planet.

I fully agree with the petition, signed by 122,578 people across the UK. We cannot afford to sit on the fence and let other countries do the work. If the Government are serious about reaching net zero and about preserving our environment for future generations, we must do more now. Liberal Democrat MEPs have been playing a central role within the EU in challenging Mr Bolsonaro’s policy and in working with other EU partners to figure out how to challenge his destructive agenda. I take the point of the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) that it is no good only to impose sanctions. However, the European Union, which is usually very good on international co-operation, has proposed this path, and I believe that the British Government should fall in line and do the same and really put some stick into their actions towards the Brazilian Government.

International pressure is the way to build incentives for Brazil to protect its rainforest and step up in the fight against the climate crisis. This is where our membership of the EU is central, allowing us to lead the fight against populism and climate destruction. By promising to leave the EU on 31 October, the Government are recklessly putting the UK out into the cold, where our power and influence will be much diminished. The fight to reach net zero and save our planet for future generations will be the biggest challenge we have ever faced. We owe it to future generations to act and do something now.

[Matt Western]

The hon. Lady makes some powerful points. Does she agree—the point was made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—that this is almost like a double whammy? It is not just the fact that we depend on these international organisations to oversee and to show responsibility for these challenges, which are multinational, not national, and that leaving the EU will make things so much tougher for us. To underline the point, as the hon. Member for Winchester was saying, it is also about where we see ourselves, and the opportunities and challenges, and perhaps the threats, of doing global trade deals and free trade agreements with countries such as Brazil when we are in a weaker position. There will be a hint of desperation about our trying to strike an early deal with them. We may seek to get exports to them, but are we prepared to take more beef from them, which of course comes at the expense of the rainforest? Does she agree that it is not simply about international organisations but also our future trade arrangements and the power we have or do not have in them?

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Again, who do we see ourselves to be in the world? Will we support nationalist Governments who, ultimately, when it really becomes difficult, will put up fences, pull up the drawbridge and not let people in anymore, saying, “Well, we are okay; sod everybody else”? Sorry, Mrs Moon.

International solidarity and our humanity demand of us to act globally and not just to do things in our national interest. I have always believed that being a member of the European Union is part of that attitude of being global and thinking co-operatively, not only in our own national interest. Of course, national interest matters, and everybody can discover their national interest at some point, but it is very dangerous to think in that way. We have to solve global challenges globally and be a good global player, and wow, hasn’t Britain been leading the way internationally for so many decades? I have become a proud British citizen because I believe in that sort of Britain, not in a small-minded, narrow Britain.

We cannot get there without global action, and we must respond with one voice when a leader like Bolsonaro fails to take the climate crisis seriously. I hope that the Minister will take on board what has been said so far this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

We are spending £120 million, not £10 million. The hon. Gentleman is a little ahead of me, but I will mention some rather larger figures as my speech develops.

It is important to build an international coalition around our ambition, so we have worked with Germany and Norway to mobilise $5 billion—there is the big number—between 2015 and 2020 to help reduce tropical deforestation in developing countries. Our support helps to improve the capacity of national and regional Governments to reduce deforestation. It incentivises the protection of forests, conserves a way of life for many unique indigenous groups, and enables businesses and communities to build sustainable economies without destroying tropical rainforests, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) eloquently described. He has now gone off to a Delegated Legislation Committee, which is why he is not here for the wind-ups.

One of our programmes supports indigenous Brazil nut collectors to cut out the middleman and sell directly to mainstream buyers. Perhaps that is not such a difficult nut to crack. Furthermore, as a result of our Cerrado programme in Brazil, 38,017 farmers were enrolled onto the rural land registry, representing some 861,000 hectares of land where sustainable practices have now been adopted.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the Minister really believe that the young impatient people out there, and the older impatient people, will find what he has said to be a satisfactory answer to all that we have just heard about this year being the most devastating for deforestation in the Amazon? The Government really need to do better. Does the Minister really think that the people out there who have been campaigning, and who will campaign for the next two weeks, will be satisfied with what he has just said?

[Christopher Pincher]

I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the people out on the streets of London campaigning about the impact of climate change, but it is better for us to work with economies such as Brazil’s, the ninth largest economy in the world, than to work against them in order to achieve the objectives that we all want, which is to see carbon emissions reduced, the rainforest restored and the poorest people get richer.

The United Kingdom is leading the world in the fight against rising temperatures, reducing our emissions by over 40% since 1990 and legislating for net zero emissions by 2050. We were one of the first major economies to do so. Since 1990, our economy has grown by 66%, so I disagree with those who suggest that there is a conflict between better trade, growth in economies and environmental concerns and calls for action.

Hong Kong

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, responsibility for respecting the stability and the economic vibrancy of Hong Kong lies with the Hong Kong Administration and more generally with the Government in China. At the level of business and civil society and in our conduct and dealings with the Hong Kong Administration and the Chinese Government, we will be very clear about where we think their interests lie and the risks of undermining of Hong Kong’s autonomy—its economic as well as its political autonomy. That touches on the issues that my right hon. Friend raised.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

There have been widespread reports that crowd control equipment is being used against protesters in a way that violates their human rights. In the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna), he said that export licences would not be granted in respect of crowd control equipment from the UK to Hong Kong unless assurances are given that human rights will not be violated. Is he therefore saying that he has asked for those assurances and that they have been given?

[Dominic Raab]

I am saying that we have a rigorous and robust system—one of the best in the world—for export licence control and we will keep it constantly under review. We monitor and listen to what the officials on the other side say about importing those goods, but fundamentally we make an objective and independent assessment to ensure that the UK rules are respected.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law)

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I was going to mention the people’s vote, because that is where I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Lady. Apparently, the Liberal Democrats want a people’s vote, although we are now hearing that their position may be moving towards straightforward revocation. The irony is that they have said that if there were another vote and that vote was to leave, they would not abide by it: they would not accept it. Is that democratic? Is it democratic for the Liberal Democrats to say, “Let us have another vote, but if we do not like the result, we will not accept it”?

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I am astonished by the way in which members of other parties proclaim our Liberal Democrat vision. It is simply not true that we would not abide by the result of a people’s vote if we gave them a vote on the final deal. We would give the people the final say on a deal. That is our line; there is nothing about not abiding by the result.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady has turned up for the debate. However, she failed to hear a previous Liberal Democrat statement that if the vote was for leave on a second occasion, they would not abide by it and would not accept it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend was a superb Public Health Minister, and it is good to hear he is still leading by example with his cycling. On maternal health in Sierra Leone, he will be glad to know that our bilateral programme there will deliver health services to 2 million women and children by 2020.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The ongoing tensions between Iran and the US concern many of my constituents, particularly those who would like to see a world without nuclear weapons. Is the Secretary of State considering making the UK a signatory to the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons?

[Mr Hunt]

We are strong supporters of nuclear non-proliferation. We think it is one of the biggest and most important things achieved since the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of 1970. In this area, we take a different approach from the US, and I raised those concerns very openly with Mike Pompeo yesterday.

Human Rights: Xinjiang

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

There are more than 10 million Uyghurs living in Xinjiang. They speak a Turkic language. They are Muslim. In many ways, they are culturally and geographically closer to central Asia than central China. Over the past decade, due to outbreaks of protest and violence, and the subsequent harsh crackdowns from the Chinese authorities, hundreds of lives have been lost in Xinjiang.

A BBC investigation said:

“Over the past four years, Xinjiang has been the target of some of the most restrictive and comprehensive security measures ever deployed by a state against its own people.”

That includes the large-scale use of technology and penalties to curtail Islamic identity, stopping them practising their religion. Uyghurs face severe travel restrictions and are subject to ethnic profiling at thousands of checkpoints. Most alarmingly, as we have heard already, the Chinese authorities are building and operating high-security camps on a huge and growing scale. Testimonies from Uyghurs living abroad confirm that they are detention camps, where inmates are often beaten, terrorised and brainwashed. This is the brutal subjugation of an ethnic minority aimed at crushing their identity.

The detention camps in Xinjiang are the most recent Chinese human rights abuses to draw the world’s attention, but we must not forget that human rights abuses in China are the norm, not the exception, especially for China’s ethnic minorities. Of the roughly 1.4 billion people living in China, over 1.2 billion are Han Chinese. Ethnic minorities with distinct cultures and identities, such as the Uyghurs—and the Tibetans, who are better known—live mostly in the outer regions of China and tend to be seen as threats by China’s one-party state.

Within China a small number of people dare to speak up for human rights, but their voices are invariably silenced. Those of us who have the freedom to do so, therefore, have an even greater moral responsibility to speak up. The Chinese authorities tend to take the line that what happens inside China is not the concern of foreigners, but China is a member of the United Nations, and the belief that human rights are universal is at the core of the UN’s vision.

Of course, there is an argument that our criticism makes no difference, but that is untrue. China’s leaders care a great deal about its reputation and invest huge resources in its global image. The problem in recent years has been that our Government, alongside most other western Governments, have been cowardly about speaking out. Many western countries see China as an indispensable trade partner, and China’s rulers have used its economic power to withhold access to its own huge market from countries that have spoken out on human rights issues. Consequently, almost every country in the world has stopped speaking up on human rights abuses in China.

How can we break the silence? Three things need to happen. First, there must be a domestic political cost for any British Government who do not speak up on Chinese human rights abuses; parliamentarians, the media and the public need to demand action.

Secondly, we must all wake up to the importance of international human rights, because China’s actions pose a threat not only to its own people. The Chinese Government are no longer trying just to crush dissent internally, but to become a global superpower with influence over the wider world. The Chinese Government’s view of the world is not democratic, inclusive or based on the rule of law; they are trying to undermine many aspects of the international order that has existed for the last 70 years. We need to develop a clear awareness that China is a more serious threat than familiar rivals such as Russia, because of its growing economic and military power. The unflinching defence of human rights issues is key to the battle about values that will certainly play out over the next decades.

Thirdly, countries that believe in human rights need to stand together because, apart from the US, no individual country has enough power to stand up to China’s bullying. Collectively, however, we would have that clout.

A practical way forward could be to create policies of reciprocal access. The principle of reciprocity exists in economic trade deals and it could be applied to other areas too. Chinese journalists and officials are free to go anywhere in most western foreign countries, but foreign journalists and diplomats do not have anywhere near the same freedom to travel in China. Last year, the US passed a law that bans officials who are involved in restricting access to Tibet from coming to America. The EU considered similar measures at the end of last year.

Human rights abuses flourish in the dark, so it would make a big difference if journalists and diplomats were free to travel everywhere in China. I encourage the Government to examine reciprocal access policies, alongside their European and global allies. Human right abuses will stop only if we dare to call them out. We must be prepared to defend human rights as the pillar on which our democratic societies and the whole international order are built.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My apologies for hearing only the end of the speech by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), whom I congratulate on securing this debate to discuss the important issue of human rights in Xinjiang.

I declare three interests. First, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary China group. Secondly, for eight years, I was the director of the Great Britain-China Centre. Thirdly, in 1993, I was a member of the first-ever successful crossing of Taklamakan desert in Xinjiang, as part of an Anglo-Chinese and Uyghur crossing by foot. That led me to spend more time in Xinjiang than probably anyone else in the House of Commons, and has left me with a strong affection for that enormous, harsh and beautiful land of different minorities and peoples.

It is worth highlighting the all-party group’s expedition to Xinjiang some two and a half years ago to look into some of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and other hon. Members, and other issues as well. During that expedition, we were accompanied by the Minister’s enterprising now private secretary, who was then with the embassy in Beijing. More recently, the all-party group has had updated briefings in Beijing and London.

I have arrived at five thoughts to share with hon. Members. First, Xinjiang, which means “new land” in Mandarin, was known as East Turkestan for a long time. Although the name has changed, the essential cultural differences of that huge province remain fundamental to the way of life of its residents.

Secondly, the UK, which reopened formal relations with China in 1972—56 years ago—is now an important strategic partner of China and the depth of that relationship allows for respectful differences of view. Although we acknowledge and hugely recognise the vast progress that China has made in the living standards of its enormous population, and its contribution to the world’s economic growth—a consistent 30% for the last three decades—we can also express real concern about specific human rights issues in China and work with her on reforms to the rule of law, including on the death penalty, which has been one of the achievements of the Great Britain-China Centre.

Thirdly, on Xinjiang today, there can be no doubt that relations between the peoples of Xinjiang, by whom I mean predominantly the Uyghur community, but also other ethnic minorities—Kazakhs and people who would normally be found in Kyrgyzstan, the Kyrgyz—have deteriorated considerably. They have worsened recently after a clampdown on the freedoms of expression, gathering and religion, and other freedoms that have been mentioned. Much of the evidence is anecdotal because it is very difficult to access information at first hand either by visiting the province or through journalists and others who have been there.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not the case that we need to ask for a reciprocal access policy? If we can have the same access as Chinese people have when they come to our country, that would be the first step. Ultimately, that would be exactly what we could negotiate.

[Richard Graham]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. It would not be impossible for her or others to go to Xinjiang. The question is what they would see and how genuine it might be. The point I want to highlight is that in recent times there has been much greater use of artificial intelligence and sophisticated control mechanisms to clamp down strongly on what we would regard as the fundamental freedoms of the people living there. The Minister might want to comment on this, but the opportunity is for the UK to try to help China recognise that some of the evidence coming out will not necessarily act in China’s own interests.

Of course, China has considerable security interests. For example, the bombing of the railway station in Yunnan a few years ago by Uyghurs was absolutely unacceptable, just as terrorism in this country is unacceptable. It is important that there are training and skills opportunities available to Uyghurs as there are in other parts of the country. But a large-scale detention policy of large numbers of people, or other repressions of freedoms such as Islamic boys under the age of 18 not being able to go and pray in a mosque, are not justified. Such issues will affect China’s belt and road initiative across central Asia, which is predominantly Muslim in religion, and there are issues that will damage China’s reputation internationally and affect the world’s acceptance of the increasing leadership role that China is taking on a range of global issues.

It is worth highlighting China’s report to the United Nations General Assembly on China’s human rights. In the report submitted in August last year—some 25 pages long—only one paragraph in the entire report is on Xinjiang, as I am sure the Minister knows. The report refers to the year of building people’s livelihood initiative, the disposable incomes of urban and rural residents and free education programmes, all of which are no doubt worthy in their own right, but they do not address the issues that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and others have raised today.

Although China would regard our interest in such matters as fundamentally interfering in her own domestic situation, the truth is that in this House we debate issues across the world for the benefit of all mankind. Today’s debate therefore shines a torch on the fact that we need to work closely with China on how the situation in Xinjiang will develop and on what changes might be made that will benefit the people of Xinjiang, particularly the Uyghur community, and China’s own standing in the world. Our role should be to work closely with her on some of those difficult issues.

Yemen

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is right that this is the biggest geostrategic risk from the conflict in Yemen, but the sense I had when I went to both Riyadh and Tehran is that neither side wants to perpetuate it and both sides would like to see it concluded, if for no other reason than that the appalling humanitarian consequences of this conflict have become all too apparent. I think they feel a sense of responsibility for what is happening to fellow Muslims and want to do something about it.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We are approaching Christmas and I understand that one of the three wise men in the Bible story was the King of Sheba, which is modern Yemen. Christmas is very much a peace story, so it is very significant that we are talking about how we can bring peace to a country that is very disturbed. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his efforts, but I want to ask again, at which point will the Government consider suspending arms trade with Saudi Arabia? The question has been asked before, but I did not really understand exactly what the Government are doing.

[Mr Hunt]

Let me repeat it, then. We have one of the strictest arms control regimes in the world. We also have an independently run process that assesses the risk of a breach of international humanitarian law, and we follow that process.