Global Britain: Human Rights and Climate Change

Hywel Williams Excerpts

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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I thank all hon. Members who took part. The debate has been a rich source of comment, analysis and points for action. In fact, the debate should be of interest to anyone who is concerned about climate change. That should be everyone, not just anyone.

I cannot summarise what has been said in just one minute, but there is a breadth of interest, knowledge and information, from the Council of Europe to Madagascar to Fairbourne. That should give people pause for thought. I am glad to give credit where credit is due, of course, but the burden of my speech was that we should start from a specific point and that should be human rights, from which other actions will flow. We are in the Westminster Hall Chamber and outside, in the other Westminster Hall, there is a plaque that people look at every day as they pass. That is the spot where Sir Thomas More stood trial and, of course, was condemned. He is famous for lots of things, but he is famous for five words: “no man is an island”. No island is an island, for that matter, so let us have some action from this island.