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.