Food Insecurity: England

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the causes of food insecurity in England.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, food prices are driven by many factors, including agricultural and manufacturing costs. We take food insecurity seriously, monitoring household spending on food closely and working with industry to mitigate any friction in the supply chain that may drive up prices. The Government are of course aware that food price increases are playing a part in a wider rise in the cost of living. Recent increases in energy prices, however, which are the predominant pressure on households, mean that people have less money to spend on food, regardless of its price.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that answer. The recent Food Foundation report on food insecurity was truly alarming. Over seven million adults, over 2.6 million children and nearly half of all families on universal credit have experienced food insecurity in recent months. The Government have the free school meals scheme, the Healthy Start scheme and the holiday activities and food programme to enable a very targeted way of providing a nutritional safety net for the children who are most in need. Can the Government promise to increase funding to these targeted programmes to ensure that the shocking emergence of a generation of poorly fed, poorer children does not become endemic in our country?

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on her excellent maiden speech and to welcome her to this House. She brings an extraordinary array of talents, including, I am pleased to see, academic and musical distinction, and a unique set of experiences as a member of a persecuted church in Iran. We heard how she suffered huge family trauma at the time of the Iranian revolution, arrived in the UK as a refugee and then built a life of service in the Church here. As I am sure noble Lords agree, we will learn a lot from her contributions, and it is a privilege to follow her in today’s debate.

I start by paying tribute to Nazanin’s husband Richard. I have never met Richard, but I have learned a lot about tenacity, courage, honesty and devotion from watching him fight for the release of his wife—his daughter Gabriella’s mum. I send my very best wishes, as I am sure other noble Lords do, to Richard and Gabriella today.

I want to ask the Minister about one issue, which is that raised by all former speakers, of the debt of approximately £400 million. I realise this is sensitive, given the other things going on, but we know that this debt stems from a weapons deal with the Shah of Iran in the late 1970s, for which Iran paid £600 million and received only a fraction of the vehicles ordered. The culture of secrecy around this issue is extraordinary. To some extent, it is understandable but, beyond that, it is extraordinary.

We do know a number of things about this, however. First, the FCDO has been told on numerous occasions by Iran that the settlement of this debt is vital for securing the release of Nazanin. Secondly, in the course of 20 years of arbitration in the Hague, the UK lost both a claim against it by Iran for payment and its own counterclaim launched in 1996. It also lost a final appeal against these rulings in 2009. This debt is therefore clearly owed by us to Iran, and the law requires it to be paid, whatever our private views on the issue might be. Thirdly, as my noble friend Lord Collins eloquently set out, we know of many former Foreign Secretaries’ views, and we know in particular that Jeremy Hunt came to the view that this money was not an illegitimate demand or an attempt at extortion but an unpaid debt. Fourthly, we know that in September 2020, the UK Defence Minister Ben Wallace wrote to Richard Ratcliffe to say that the Government officially acknowledge that this is a debt that must be paid.

This is what we know. Beyond this, the Government tell us—and, more importantly, have told Richard Ratcliffe and his family and supporters—precious little. So, my main question for the Minister is: can he explain give us a very simple reason why this debt has not been paid? Jeremy Hunt said recently that the reason for holding back payment is now about practicalities, not principle. Can the Minister confirm that is true? If it is because of practicalities, could he explain which practicalities are most relevant? Is it because the Iranian Government were made a sanctioned entity in 2008 under EU law, for example? Though, of course, since Brexit, we have famously taken back control of our own sanctions policy. Irrespective of that, since 2008, a UK court has ruled that the debt should be paid, and Iran has asked for it to be repaid via the central bank of Iran, which is not a sanctioned entity. I understand that the UK has never formally responded to that request; can the Minister say why? Perhaps the practicality is that any UK bank involved in any financial transfer would be subject to US Treasury secondary sanctions, which would be a legitimately serious obstacle. Is that the practicality blocking resolution?

Or is it a more straightforward explanation—that UK Ministers just cannot abide the idea of handing over such a substantial sum to an Iranian Government, given their appalling domestic human rights records, their involvement in atrocities abroad and the complexity of issues around the JCPOA, for example? As my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Dubs said, other countries have successfully negotiated release. Similarly, various imaginative ideas have been proposed for circumventing some of the practical problems in the repayment of our debt—paying the debt in kind through medicines, for example, or insisting on explicit Iranian undertaking to use the money for certain agreed purposes. The Government have not engaged—or publicly acknowledged that they are privately engaged—with these ideas. Why not?

One response to this may be that we should not discuss this at all, as it will disturb the sensitivities around negotiations and disrupt the plan. But the problem is that those closest to this issue, the family and supporters of Nazanin, no longer believe there is any plan at all. That is the most concerning thing—that after so much unjustified suffering, the family of Nazanin not only do not know what the strategy is to end her detention but do not believe that there is anything resembling one. That is why Richard Ratcliffe said during his recent hunger strike of the current Government’s approach to his wife’s release:

“The policy is one of managed waiting, waiting for Iran to do the right thing, for a diplomatic solution. There is no strategy to get Naz home, which I said very bluntly to Liz Truss last week. That’s why I’m camping on the street, because after five and a half years that’s really clear.”


For the sake of Nazanin and her husband and daughter, more than any of us, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide at least some clarity about this issue today.

Beijing Winter Olympic Games 2022

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

The noble Lord, as I have become accustomed to, makes a very pertinent and important point about the investment that is made in a person’s training for the Olympics. One look at me and noble Lords will know that I have never aspired in that respect—but, on a serious note, I totally hear the noble Lord, and of course I will take his sentiments back to colleagues within government.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, the IOC is bound by the Olympic charter and last year it committed not only to strengthening its human rights strategy but to considering an amendment to the charter regarding members upholding human rights. Do the Government support the incorporation of stronger human rights commitments in the Olympic charter, and would they also support strengthening human rights obligations in future host city contracts?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

Again, in principle, I see no reason why we, as a Government, and I, in my capacity as Human Rights Minister, would not be supportive of both points that the noble Lord makes.

Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Wednesday 29th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the regulations and congratulate the Foreign Office on its leadership in finally producing them.

The regulations focus on the most egregious breaches of human rights, as many noble Lords have said. In doing so, they are welcome and essential and provide at least the capacity for the UK to exercise, for the first time, unilateral action against individuals, thus targeting the worst criminals in positions of significant economic and political power. But in focusing on those larger crimes, their scope is relatively restricted. Can the Minister assure the House, first, that the regulations will not simply be used by the UK to reinforce targeted sanctions already imposed by the United States, but will be supported by a rigorous independent assessment here in the UK?

Secondly, as other noble Lords have noted, the first designations contained no one involved in the ongoing human rights atrocities against the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province in China. The USA, with whom the UK works closely on this issue and others, has placed two leading officials from the Xinjiang autonomous region and two security and police chiefs on their Magnitsky list. When will we take corresponding action? Thirdly, when will the Government look to expand the range of offences eligible for targeted sanctions—for example, to include kleptocrats and those perpetrating gross corruption?

One final point: taking action against the financial assets of foreign violators of human rights requires us to know where those assets are. However, the property market in the UK, and especially London, is known the world over as a safe haven for criminal proceeds of the global criminal elite. Over 90,000 properties in the UK are anonymously owned by firms registered in tax havens, and 40% of them are in London.

The Government have long promised a register of beneficial ownership, to enable transparency about who owns what and who benefits from ownership; it has been delayed again and again. I understand that a Bill is ready to go now, but it has yet again been delayed. Can the Minister tell us when it will finally be introduced? I am sure the Minister agrees that placing Magnitsky sanctions on individuals who may own property in the UK would be a farcical situation.

Taiwan

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I have already said that we continue to engage with Taiwan. The most recent visit was by a Trade Minister, so we engage with Taiwan at ministerial level.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether it is the Government’s policy to achieve a bilateral trade deal between the UK and Taiwan, as urged by the Foundation for Independence, a think tank very close to senior figures in this Government?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, we continue to work on important common themes with Taiwan, and trade is one of them. Obviously my colleagues at the Department for International Trade will continue to see how we can further strengthen our ties with Taiwan.

Hong Kong: Human Rights

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, China’s national security laws imposed on Hong Kong are wrong for two important legal reasons. First, Hong Kong has not consented to these measures. Its governing authorities tried to pass an equivalent law in 2003, but the proposal fell after mass protests. Article 23 of the Basic Law clearly requires Hong Kong’s consent, as a constitutional requirement, as the Hong Kong Bar Association resolutely maintains. Secondly, these measures are a clear violation of the Sino-British joint declaration, which in paragraph 3 pledges that Hong Kong will

“enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs.”

I support the Government’s suggestion of visa offers to Hong Kongers with BNO status, but I want to ask finally about the Huawei decision, as did my noble friend Lord Campbell. Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong are not the reason to revisit that decision, but they provide evidence about the readiness of Beijing to ignore boundaries between the Chinese central state and other entities to pursue national security. Given this, I cannot see a justification for the Government to continue their plan, and I hope that they will revisit the decision urgently.

Covid-19: Repatriation of UK Nationals

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises a specific issue about Pakistan. First, the figure of 2,000 that I quoted relates specifically to the charter flights. We have been running charter flights from Islamabad and Lahore, because that was where the main demand was. However, I can assure him that, as I speak, there is a flight returning from Karachi as well, in response to demand.

In addition, because we were committed to working with the national carrier, PIA, which continued to operate commercially, we returned over 7,500 people through that channel. The noble Lord will be aware that PIA has recently restarted its flights as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, underlined in her remarks that we are not relying on the national carrier alone and are continuing to run charter flights. That will continue.

On the support we are providing, all British travellers coming back to the UK on charter flights are being provided with information as they board the plane about the necessary steps they need to take and the issues that may confront them when they arrive. If any of them show symptoms while on the flight, the flight is held, as has happened in a number of cases, and those people are provided with support as they land in the UK. They are also being advised very clearly.

We continue to advise people to stay at home to protect themselves and others. Each traveller who returns is given that valuable advice.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the openness with which he has answered the questions so far. I would like to ask about British people stranded abroad who have medical needs—primarily those whose needs are not Covid-related. Are our embassies and consulates providing active assistance to those who, wherever they are, might need to source drugs for long-term conditions, for example?

Secondly, on the issue of commercial versus charter flights, the Government clearly made a choice early on to ask individual passengers to contact airline companies and fly home on commercial flights when possible. There was obviously also a lack of co-ordination between the Government and the flight operators and airlines. We have all heard lots of stories of people who found themselves facing vast costs, cancelled flights or companies refusing to reimburse payments. Was it not a mistake to opt so clearly for commercial over chartered flights when this co-ordination was lacking? Are the Government providing any assistance to people who are now back home and have financial implications from having to take flights at raised prices, so that they can pursue these cases?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, taking the noble Lord’s question on medical needs, we have asked all our missions to prioritise this. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I talked about vulnerable individuals. We have been collecting data on people returning home. When people have been waiting because the numbers have been high, particularly in places such as south Asia, they have been provided with support on places where they may be able to get prescription medicine.

We are also providing loan facilities for the most hard-up people. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that many have paid thousands of pounds for flights or were unable to finance the cost of their return flight. There is an interest-free loan facility available to Brits around the world. They need to approach the high commission or embassy which can process it. It gives them an interest-free loan and six months to pay upon their return. That is now operational.

We are looking to extend this support. We have a range of facilities, both pastoral and financial, that we are offering to people who remain in-country while they wait to return to the UK, to address specific needs. I once again emphasise that we have been prioritising the most vulnerable, to ensure they can return as soon as possible.

On the issue of flights and co-ordination, I have already made it clear that I think it was the right decision to stand by commercial operators, particularly when you look at the sheer numbers. To again use the Pakistan example, we returned 7,500 people. I fully accept the criticism that a couple of flights were cancelled and some were delayed, but I assure noble Lords that we were working very closely with the airlines and with Governments to ensure that flights remained operational. While there were challenges for people returning home, the fact that we were able to return over 7,500 people through that route demonstrates that it was the right decision. We stand by that. Pakistan is just one example; Australia is another.

We have operated charter flights when needed, as we did in India and Nepal. We are continuing to run an operation in India that we hope will return all the British nationals seeking to return. I add this, and I cannot emphasise it enough. A lot of noble Lords have been dealing directly with people coming to them individually. This message needs to get out there: if you are booked on a flight, get on the flight, because there are individuals who choose not to turn up at the airport. Unlike commercial operators, we cannot operate massive waiting lists. For those people who can come to the airport in quite a short time, we address that practical problem by facilitating and, in places such as India, ensuring their passage by picking them up directly so that they can get back as soon as possible.

There are issues with people now approaching us about airlines that have not refunded and are offering Air Miles, et cetera. Airlines need to look very hard at the people they serve. I share the noble Lord’s concern. People want compensation for the routes they did not use. Airlines need to step up to ensure that they can deliver on that. However, as we all know from the recent announcement from British Airways, airlines themselves are now extremely challenged because of the economic impact of Covid-19.

Cyprus

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for this debate. For 40 years we have seen moments of opportunity come and go but very little progress towards a settlement in Cyprus. Now, as many speakers have said, we have a moment of opportunity that we have not had since the Annan plan of 2004—the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, referred to that—and possibly a moment we have not had since 1974.

The people of Cyprus deserve a settlement to bring stability, peace, settlement of long-standing grievances and issues, and the possibility of prosperity. The failure to achieve a settlement in Cyprus, however, also undermines the search for security in a crucial region that is a hinge between Europe and the Middle East. Instability in Cyprus continues to affect the function of the European Union and the ability of the European Union to co-operate effectively with NATO.

For our part, as many speakers have said, the UK has a special responsibility to be a supportive force for resolution because of our colonial past, because of our pivotal roles in the European Union and NATO, and because we are a guarantor power. This year it seems we have a moment for very cautious optimism but, as always, we need optimism grounded in realism.

I will make a few remarks about the principles of our party’s approach to achieving a settlement in Cyprus, to assess the progress in the process that began with the February declaration and to look at the wider issues that any successful process needs to address.

I will start by setting out our party’s approach. We are committed to a just and lasting settlement for the whole of Cyprus. That settlement has to be based on a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation. We strongly believe that, to use the formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, a settlement has to be negotiated by Cypriots, for Cypriots and under the auspices of the UN. Only then will it be acceptable and provide for a just and sustainable solution.

While we do not support recognition for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Turkish Cypriots have interests, aspirations and a burning desire for peace that are as valid as those of Greek Cypriots. Cyprus’s population is about 800,000, of whom 80% are Greek Cypriots and about 11% Turkish Cypriots, but, despite this numerical asymmetry, any just settlement must be based on the principle of equality of treatment of the two communities.

While peace has to be negotiated by Cypriots themselves, we believe that the UK has a privileged role. We are the main export market for Cyprus, and Cyprus punches above its weight as a destination for UK exports. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has reminded us, our historical role has been, to put it mildly, a chequered one. Britain took administrative control of Cyprus after the Congress of Berlin in 1878—a Disraeli special—and declared Cyprus a British colony in 1915. Under the terms of the 1960 treaty, we remain one of three guarantor powers.

Of course we have another role, as about 3% of the island of Cyprus is comprised of UK sovereign bases. In government, we proposed that about half the land in bases in Cyprus would be made available to a united island once a resolution was found. Will the Minister tell us the coalition Government’s position on that proposition now that negotiations have begun again?

Recent developments have given us some cause for hope, particularly the joint declaration process that started in February. The declaration signed by representatives of both communities marked the most significant breakthrough that we have had for at least 10 years. There are encouraging signs in the declaration of principles that can form the basis of a lasting settlement. The declaration confirms the unacceptability of the status quo. It commits to the integrity and identity of both Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. It affirms respect for democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedom. It states that,

“any settlement will be based on a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with political equality”,

to form a single, sovereign Cyprus inside the European Union. It envisages a federal constitution,

“composed of two constituent states of equal status”,

legitimised by separate and simultaneous referenda.

These are all encouraging shared commitments. It is further encouragement that, although progress has been slow, there have been further meetings, most recently at the beginning of last week. The meeting seems to have made some limited progress—I am being more optimistic than my noble friend—on mutual confidence-building, and ended with a five-step road map being submitted to the Greek Cypriots by the Turkish Cypriot leadership and an agreement to meet again later this month.

I want to ask the Minister about reports that the Turkish Cypriot side has suggested a meeting with the guarantor powers, including the UK, at some point this year after discussions have begun on the highly vexed issue of territory on the island. Are the Government involved in discussions on participating in such a summit? What is the Government’s response to the Turkish Cypriot leader Eroglu’s proposal that the referenda take place before the year’s end?

The progress in negotiations is welcome to all of us, but we know that agreement has proved elusive in the past for good reasons. There are significant areas of disagreement and difficulty—issues that have sabotaged previous plans for the past 40 years.

First, there is the bundle of issues around territory, property and displaced persons. The legacy of both the violence of the early 1960s and the Turkish military intervention in 1974 is a complex set of issues around the need for land swaps, restitution of property, the status of areas such as Morphou and Famagusta, and church property on the island. It is estimated that around 200,000 Greek Cypriots were forced to leave their land in Northern Cyprus after 1974, and the issue of repatriation of new Turkish settlers on the island was a key factor in the unravelling of the Perez de Cuellar plan in the mid-1980s. These issues are the most sensitive of all and demand more than any other—

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

I apologise for interrupting, but I did not pick up what the noble Lord said. Did he say that Greek Cypriots had to abandon their territory and did he fail to mention the fact that Turkish Cypriots—for example, on the site of the present airport in the south—had to abandon theirs? Did he overlook that point?

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

No, absolutely not. The noble Lord is absolutely right: Cypriots of both communities have had to leave land. Working out a final agreement on settlement and property restitution affects both communities. These issues demand more than any other a spirit of pragmatism, compromise and trust between the representatives of the two communities.

Secondly, there are the issues around the Cypriot economy and trade with the European Union and the neighbourhood. On the Greek side of the island, Cyprus has seriously suffered from the fallout of the financial crash and a bailout—or rather a bail-in, to be more accurate—of Cypriot banks which imposed a levy on depositors, in banks that were supposedly covered by a deposit insurance scheme. It was a move which in my view the EU would not have countenanced for the larger members of the EU but which was seen as okay for smaller ones.

Meanwhile, Turkish Cyprus continues to have no direct trade relations with the European Union. Ten years ago, the EU proposed giving more than €260 million to the Turkish Cypriots for infrastructure spending and to open up trade with them, but, sadly, very little progress has been made on this front in the past decade. I would like the Minister’s view on whether there is any prospect with the advent of a new Commission and a newly elected European Parliament for any limited progress in the next few months in that area.

Lastly, there is the question of constitutional arrangements. Prior to 1974, Cyprus had a constitution that one expert called,

“unique in its tortuous complexity”.

Of course, any constitutional arrangement that provides rights of self-government for two communities, as well as rules for decision-making at the federal level, is bound to be complex, but so-called consociational arrangements for countries with a history of conflict between two or more communities can take root and endure. I appreciate that these solutions take time, but can the Minister tell us whether any thinking is going on in the Government about offering assistance in the form of constitutional expertise to the communities?

There is a line in the February declaration that reads that,

“nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.

It is a simple maxim, but a crucial one. If 2014 is, as the communities’ leaders seem to want it to be, the year in which a successful negotiation is concluded, they have to provide a credible and legitimate way through on all these issues and not just on some.

It is said of Aphrodite, who was born in Cyprus, that because of her beauty, other gods feared their rivalry over her would interrupt the peace among them. Surely it is time for us all to combine our efforts to ensure that peace and stability in Cyprus are interrupted no longer.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, the situation on the ground continues to change. That is why I have stood at this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions over the past 12 months and said that this provides a unique opportunity to try to make progress. We support the discussions that Secretary Kerry is leading, and we urge both sides, who have said that they are still prepared to talk, to get back to the table to try to achieve a resolution.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

What explanation have Her Majesty’s Government received from the Israeli Government about why they did not release the fourth group of Palestinian prisoners last week?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord will be aware that this was the fourth tranche of the prisoner releases that were agreed last year. The first three have taken place; the fourth has been delayed. The noble Lord will be aware that there is a difference of opinion about how these matters are seen. Israel felt that these prisoner releases were directly linked to the peace talks. The Palestinians believed that they were directly linked to no further action at the UN. Clearly, the discussions that took place at that stage were vague. I take comfort from both parties having indicated that they are prepared to come back to the negotiating table because that is where progress will be made.

Crimea

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, the Government’s position, supported by the Opposition, has always been to try to de-escalate the situation and ensure that diplomatic contact is the way that this matter is resolved. The matter is continuously changing. My noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford updated the House by repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement earlier this week. I can inform the noble Lord that further meetings are planned for tomorrow and we are doing all we can to persuade Russia that the annexation of Crimea and, indeed, the referendum, which we see as illegal and illegitimate, should not go ahead.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask for clarification of the Government’s approach to this crisis. The UK is a signatory to the 1994 Budapest memorandum, which protects Ukraine’s territorial integrity. What is the Government’s legal understanding of what action that commits the UK Government to in the event that another signatory, such as Russia, violates its terms? Is the UK Government’s position that the aim of talks between Ukraine and Russia, which we all hope will take place in the near future, is to reaffirm the commitment to the Budapest memorandum or to supersede it with a new agreement?

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, the Budapest agreement is very clear. It basically lays out Russia’s obligations in relation to respecting the territorial integrity and independence of the state of Ukraine. We believe that Russia’s actions are in breach of that. That is why we have made it clear that it is important that we try to resolve the matter by de-escalating what military activity is happening on Ukrainian soil and through talks.