Israel: West Bank

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I have already stated the Government’s position and I am happy to restate it. We believe in a two-state negotiated peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, the Israel Attorney-General’s office has warned the Israeli Prime Minister that annexation could trigger an International Criminal Court investigation into senior army officers and others. Will the Government co-operate if such an investigation occurs?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am not going to speculate on what may or may not happen. It remains very clear that we support a negotiated settlement between both sides, as I have said. As for anything which the ICC brings forward, we are supporters of the ICC, as the noble Baroness will know.

Syria

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is not here. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

What realistic assessment has been made of the incidence of the coronavirus in Idlib and in Syria as a whole, and how can testing be increased? Does the Minister agree that an urgent, comprehensive and co-ordinated emergency response plan is now required?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, if I heard the noble Baroness correctly, I stand with her in condemning the actions taken by different groups on all sides on the ground, which have caused great suffering to people in Syria. We continue to work to alleviate the human suffering there. I share with the noble Baroness that because of the fragile ceasefire, there is a glimmer of hope—35,000 people have returned to the region—but we also continue to investigate, including with the OPCW, events that have taken place in the past, including the 2017 attack. Again, I reassure the noble Baroness that anyone responsible should be held to account by the international community.

Covid-19: Repatriation of UK Nationals

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. First, I thank him and all the FCO staff for their tireless efforts to support those stranded. I know from the cases I have referred and raised how committed they have been to help, and it has been much appreciated. However, it is difficult to fully grasp the scale of the repatriation still required. Even if we consider only those who have reached out to their MPs, the issue is clearly an enormous one.

There used to be a system for recording data on UK citizens abroad, but it was scrapped. Last month, in questions to James Duddridge, my honourable friend Stephen Doughty asked that, at the very least, medical or vulnerable cases should be recorded immediately, so that they could be prioritised at a later stage when repatriation started. Sadly, that did not happen. Can the noble Lord confirm that the FCO is now fully recording numbers, and will he publish these at regular intervals, so that we can better understand progress? In the absence of data at present, is he able to estimate how many UK nationals are currently stranded abroad, or is the 57,500 estimate from Monday still applicable?

The chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee reported yesterday that it has been conducting a survey asking people about their experiences of being repatriated to the UK. The main issue it found is the difficulty some people encountered with communications when they were abroad, or the inability to receive communications, with one problem area being the High Commission in India. What is the FCO doing to address this issue, both in the short and the long term?

The announcement that 19,000 people have been brought back on 93 charter flights is welcome, but Germany, for example, had repatriated 60,000 citizens on 240 charter flights by early April. I appreciate that the noble Lord will be keen to stress that more than a million have returned to the UK on commercial routes, but when we consider IATA’s estimate that air traffic is currently down by 90% over Europe, it is clear that we can no longer rely on commercial flights. Will the Minister therefore commit his Government to urgently scale-up the number of chartered flights available? In response to reports of UK nationals being priced out by the cost of flights home, can he offer an update on the recent steps taken to remove that financial barrier?

Many UK nationals have been unable to travel to the airports which are still operating, due to either ill health or problems with internal travel, and so require consular support to help them in this journey. The Foreign Office must be equipped and prepared to support any UK national abroad in any aspect of their return home. I welcome what the Minister said about that support, but we need to address the issue of isolated people.

When UK nationals arrive home, it cannot be considered “job done”. If the Government are to contain the virus, there must be rigorous testing, tracing and isolation. It is therefore regrettable that the Government have yet to confirm any intentions to test or quarantine arrivals to the UK, despite press reports suggesting that such plans are in the pipeline. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether UK nationals, and others, will be asked to quarantine on arrival in the UK and, if so, for how long? Can he also confirm whether the Government will introduce testing of those arriving in the UK?

Finally, I very much welcome the pledge of support to Gavi. I hope that the Minister will be able to advise noble Lords what that pledge means for encouraging others; we do need more. I also welcome the commitment to, and investment in, CEPI. On Tuesday, I met its chief executive in a seminar, and I welcome its efforts to establish a vaccine. However, time is short, and action is necessary now.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I welcome the financial contributions to Gavi, the WHO and others, whose efforts are clearly vital in this crisis. As we know, their work saves lives. I also welcome the contribution to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, something which no Government after this must neglect. I pay tribute to the huge amount of work undertaken by the FCO, DfID and our embassies and high commissions during this crisis. However, we seem to be behind other countries in getting people home.

On 27 March, the EU had brought home half a million citizens. The United Kingdom chartered six flights for 1,000 British citizens through the EU crisis scheme; Germany chartered over 100 flights for over 20,000 German citizens. On 1 April, the Independent reported that Air France had flown more than 200 rescue missions but that

“the UK has yet to reach double figures in government-sponsored repatriation flights.”


By mid-April, only 5,000 out of 20,000 UK citizens in India had been brought back. Why did we lag so far behind our EU colleagues? The Government emphasised —and still do—that they were working with other countries, yet we seemed particularly unwilling to work with our EU colleagues. Why was that? Looking at where we are now, can the Minister answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins: how many more people need to be brought home?

The Minister mentioned Nigeria in the Statement. I am sure he will know that there has been a surge of deaths in Kano state, an indication that coronavirus may be more widespread there than the Nigerian authorities are admitting. Are we making quarantine plans for those who come back from Nigeria?

The Minister mentioned that we have tripled our capacity in consular centres. That is obviously welcome, but we have brought home many diplomats and their families from countries with weak health systems. Are we working jointly with the EU to maximise our capacity? There have been many complaints about inadequate capacity and communication.

The Minister mentioned PPE. Again, we all knew from reports on Twitter, if nowhere else, that the United Kingdom had been invited to join the original EU scheme. No one can say that we did not know about it. So why did we not? The Minister will know that the Government’s latest Statement on this is not persuasive.

However, I am very glad to hear that we intend to act globally. Some countries appear to be using the cover of this crisis. Some are taking authoritarian measures. In Hong Kong, human rights campaigners such as the esteemed lawyer Martin Lee have been arrested. What will we do to challenge these actions? Israel has just formed a coalition Government who may now plan to annex the Occupied Territories. Can the Minister assure us that we will make it plain that this is contrary to international law and will be resisted? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their questions. I start by thanking them for their kind remarks acknowledging the work that has been done. As a Minister responsible for a particular part of the world—south Asia—that has seen thousands and thousands of British travellers being impacted, I am acutely aware of the challenge that has been posed by the repatriation efforts. Again, I commend the efforts of our diplomats on the ground, and the consular efforts being made through countless numbers of emails and telephone calls. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned the ramping up of consular support. We have certainly seen this in the inquiries made by parliamentary colleagues on behalf of their constituents and in response to direct cases. The current level is circa 3,000 calls—to put that in context, around 45% of those calls cover south Asia. A substantial number of calls are coming in for that part of the world.

I acknowledge the support of both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the issue of vaccines. This remains a key priority. We are all watching closely the recent developments in Oxford and we wish well everyone around the world who is seeking a solution. I am proud that, notwithstanding the domestic challenges posed by the Covid-19 crisis, the support that we are giving to Gavi and CEPI underlines the United Kingdom’s commitment to standing up with partners in the global fight against coronavirus, as well as against other viruses.

I took part in a multilateral conference organised by our German and French colleagues—the Foreign Ministers of both countries—which, again, underlines the level of co-operation. Picking up on a point made by the noble Baroness about working with our EU partners, the UK will be hosting a joint conference with the EU on our response to Covid-19. Whether on repatriation or our general response internationally, I assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we will continue to work with our EU partners as well as other international partners on this global crisis.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the various communication challenges with various posts. He mentioned India specifically. I put on record my thanks to our acting high commissioner, who has taken to her task in an admirable fashion. I know the volume of British nationals that she has been challenged with repatriating. It is notable that with 52 charter flights from India we will have returned more than 10,000 British travellers to the United Kingdom. That is no small feat. It is down to our consular efforts in India and to the support that was subsequently given. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord mentioned that we started our charter flights later than other partners. As a former Aviation Minister of two years standing, I know all too well the challenges posed by securing charter permissions. I stand by our actions, as does the Foreign Secretary, when we sought to keep using commercial routes where they were viable. A good and notable example of that was Pakistan, from where we were able to return more than 7,500 people on commercial flights because the national carrier PIA continued to operate.

On pricing, which the noble Lord raised, as it relates to some commercial carriers, we have addressed this directly with the airlines. For example, PIA has restarted its flights and its current charging is reflective of the charter flights that we are deploying from Pakistan. We will continue to employ these flights. We have extended flights to other countries, including Bangladesh. Through charter flights, we have returned 800 people from Nepal and, on commercial flights, 600 people from the Maldives. That gives an example of how a combination of commercial operations and charter flights has resulted in the substantial success thus far of the policy.

However, I am not complacent. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord raised the issue of British travellers who are still abroad. There are a large number, running into the thousands, in India alone, as well as in Pakistan. It is a patch I know well. I assure noble Lords that we are working around the clock to ensure that flights are laid on. Some people are undoubtedly making decisions to stay in-country. They are looking at the domestic profile of the coronavirus spread in the UK compared with in the country they may be visiting, or where they may be staying with friends or family. We are stressing to anyone who has booked a charter flight that, once they have booked it, they should get on that flight; otherwise, they will be denying an opportunity to someone else to return.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and issues of repatriation, communications and commercial routes, which I have already addressed.

The noble Baroness asked about partnership and working on the issue of PPE with all partners. I have referenced a couple of countries, including in my patch of south Asia, that we are sourcing PPE from. The Foreign Secretary has made this a priority. We are part of the EU scheme. I think that the misunderstandings that arose have been addressed directly by the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office in his response to the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I also assure both noble Lords that we are dealing tomorrow with issues surrounding the development response. I will seek to update them regularly to ensure that all noble Lords, particularly those serving on our Front Benches, are fully versed in the numbers and challenges that we face. I have been a Foreign Office Minister for close to three years now, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, keeps reminding me, but I have never faced a challenge like this. There have been crises, but this is unprecedented. When we say that, it is probably an understatement. But I assure noble Lords that we are leaving no stone unturned and we are undoubtedly learning lessons from the challenges that are being posed.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked what more could be done, and we are learning lessons, such as on the vulnerability of individuals who are visiting countries. That is why, with the Foreign Secretary’s approval and at my direction, countries, certainly in the areas that I looked after, opened up registers before the charter flights started to ensure that we could identify the most vulnerable and those with underlying medical conditions so that they could be returned as soon as possible on the earlier charter flights. The charter flights continue, and we will continue to update the House regularly on this important issue, which I know is of concern to all noble Lords.

Integrated Security, Defence and Foreign Policy Review

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, in response to the first question, Her Majesty’s Government’s biological security strategy draws together our work on building national resilience to natural, accidental and deliberate risks from biological agents. I concur with the noble Lord that there are countries around the world which still engage in the activity he described. I reassure him that we work very closely with international partners to strengthen co-operation against potential biological threats, including through the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention and the UN Secretary-General’s Mechanism. To make this very topical to the current crisis, the FCO and Her Majesty’s Government are working very closely with their diplomatic network to monitor the spread of coronavirus throughout the world. We are working with international partners to tackle this global challenge.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, for years, there have been warnings about pandemics? Did he note that, in the 2015 review, there was a declared need to tackle threats that did not recognise borders? On epidemics, it said:

“No single nation can act alone on such transnational threats.”


It also stated:

“We have detailed, robust and comprehensive plans in place and the necessary capacity to deal with infectious diseases, including pandemic influenza”.


Does he agree that, once we are through this crisis, we will need to pay close attention to not only the health but the economic and social implications of our interconnectedness, and that poverty in one part of the world and the practices rooted in it can quickly affect all of us? This must be part of the upcoming review.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that the current crisis and the challenges it imposes have asked us to redefine all relationships. If there is one conclusion we can draw from where we are today—we are still on the cusp of the crisis here in the United Kingdom—it is the sheer interdependency of humanity. This crisis does not know borders, political differences or geographical space. It knows one thing: that it will affect us all in some shape or form, as we are seeing. Once we are over this crisis, it is important that, not just as a nation but collectively through international partners and the relationships we have, we learn lessons and share experiences so that when this kind of pandemic hits again, we are even better prepared.

Refugee Crisis: Greece and Turkey

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I am sure I speak for everyone in your Lordships’ House—we have all seen the images and pictures from the border—in saying that the situation is deplorable, with desperately vulnerable people seeking refuge and security. I am sure our thoughts are with those who have suffered, particularly those currently on the border. He rightly raises the issue of UK support. Last week the UK announced a new package of £89 million in humanitarian aid to save lives and protect Syrians at increasing risk of violence in Idlib. This includes tents, foods, medical care and, particularly, support for women and girls.

The noble Lord is right to raise the importance of working with key partners across the piece, including the EU. As I said in my Statement, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with the Greek Foreign Minister and we are working closely with the Turkish authorities, who are crucial in this respect. President Erdoğan is visiting Brussels and the purpose of those meetings is specifically to address this issue; I will update the House accordingly. Last week my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was in Ankara, where this issue was raised directly with the President of Turkey.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. The refugees are clearly in the most desperate situation, being bombed out of Syria, pushed out of Turkey and pushed back from Greece. Does he agree that this plays into the hands of people smugglers and is yet another crisis that must be tackled multilaterally?

Speaking of crises that cross borders, neither Turkey nor Syria has yet declared any cases of coronavirus. Does the Minister think this is plausible, given the situation in Iran, and does he agree that refugees and those in the camps will be especially vulnerable to the virus? What analysis is being made of its potential impact?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Then noble Baroness raises a very valid issue. Indeed, when I was being briefed, that was a specific question. As she will appreciate, the situation is fluid. While immediate medical attention is being provided, there is no exact figure for the numbers who may be caught up in the coronavirus crisis. As she will be aware, part of the issue is that Turkey has closed its border with its near neighbour Iran, for containment reasons. However, a specific assessment of the numbers has not been made. On the wider point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, we of course continue to lead. For the past three years, the UK has been the leading nation, with close to a quarter of the refugees who have taken safe haven across the EU coming to the UK.

Organ Trafficking: Sanctions

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I note and pay tribute to the noble Lord’s work on this. I assure all noble Lords that the whole purpose of the scope of the sanctions regime is to ensure that we hold individuals who abuse human rights to account for their actions, whatever the basis of those human rights—indeed, I remember many a debate in your Lordships’ House on this legislation—and whatever the abuse.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, the China Tribunal has concluded that China’s forced organ harvesting constitutes a crime against humanity. I know the noble Lord takes his responsibilities as Minister for Human Rights seriously. Has he read the China Tribunal’s report? A draft was out about six months ago, and it has now been finalised. If he has, does he agree with it? I note that he did not raise this issue at the Human Rights Council the other day.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, on that final point, as the noble Baroness will know from her own experience as a Minister, when you are at international fora you are very much time-limited on all the issues, and the exclusion of a particular issue does not mean that there is not a focus or priority attached to it. She will know that the final report was issued yesterday; it is 562 pages long. I have not yet read it, but we are considering it and I will respond to her in detail once we have done so more fully.

Israel and Palestine: United States’ Proposals for Peace

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for securing this extremely important debate. We have heard some very moving accounts, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Mitchell.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, spoke, I retrieved a quote that I saw the other day from Bernie Sanders that is really worth quoting. He draws on his own family background and goes on to say:

“I see Israel as having the capacity to contribute to peace and prosperity for the entire region, yet unable to achieve this in part because of its unresolved conflict with the Palestinians. And I see a Palestinian people yearning to make their contribution … yet crushed beneath a military occupation that is now over a half-century old, creating a daily reality of pain, humiliation and resentment.”


It is quite sad. So we come to his competitor, as it were, President Trump, and the plan of his son-in-law, which has been described as the deal of the century. From what we have heard in this debate, it does not look like it is quite that deal.

President Trump revealed the plan on 28 January 2020, alongside the Prime Minister of Israel. As others have noted, no Palestinian was present—not a good omen. As it turns out, the plan does not affirm that Palestinians have rights. Israelis have rights; Palestinians have obligations. The plan would be for Israel to annex the Jordan Valley and most of Area C, amounting to about 30% to 40% of the occupied West Bank. There would be a Palestinian state but with very limited sovereignty. Israel would have “overriding security control”. All entry and exit points would be controlled by Israel. Jerusalem would not be a shared capital. The state would have no airport, and no independent port. All the 150 settlements and over 100 outposts in the West Bank would be annexed to Israel. Israel would be free to expand in the annexed areas. The World Bank identifies 227 individual Palestinian areas in the West Bank, with “contiguity” given simply through a series of tunnels and corridors that might allow Palestinian transport. All these could be closed down if required by Israel. A similar corridor would connect the West Bank to Gaza—I note what my noble friend Lord Palmer said about defending that territory. Israel would be granted “sovereign” control of Gaza’s territorial waters, including Gaza’s offshore gas. Israel would retain overall control of the water supply.

Once the plan was announced, there were immediate fears that Israel would start annexing lands which the United States, not the UN, had taken it upon itself seemingly to grant it. So how was it that the United Kingdom responded so warmly to this plan? The Foreign Secretary stated:

“We welcome the release of the United States’ proposal for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. This is clearly a serious proposal, reflecting extensive time and effort.”


He encouraged the parties to give it “genuine and fair consideration”. That was on the very same day that he stated:

“Today, the UK and our international partners have collectively sent a message to Russia that we do not and will not accept its illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol. We will impose serious costs through active maintenance of sanctions on those who seek to incorporate Crimea and Sevastopol into Russia.”


Could the Government not see the irony in the two statements they made on 28 January?

The following day, 29 January, when there was an Urgent Question in both Houses, this was added to the Government’s position:

“The United Kingdom’s position has not changed. Our view remains that the best way to achieve peace is through substantive peace talks between parties, leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.”—[Official Report, 30/1/20; col. 1516.]


By 31 January we have:

“The United Kingdom is concerned by reports of possible moves toward annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel. Any such unilateral moves would be damaging to renewed efforts to re-start peace negotiations, and contrary to international law. Any changes to the status quo cannot be taken forward without an agreement negotiated by the parties themselves.”


Any contribution that the noble Lord the Minister played in that shift in the Government’s response to the Trump plan should be welcomed. I noticed that the noble Lord has a bit of a cold, and I hope that coronavirus will not remove him from his current involvement in this and other issues; he has a key position. Like other noble Lords, I seek categoric assurances from him that we will continue to adhere to our support for international law and opposition to the annexation of settlements.

The Arab League has unanimously rejected the Trump proposal. It has stated that there will be no co-operation with any implementation of the plan, which it was expected to fund. However, Israel’s Prime Minister has now said he would reopen a project to build 3,500 homes for settlers in one of the most sensitive areas of the occupied West Bank.

There is talk of realities on the ground, but these must be subject to the rule of law. It is worth thinking about the examples of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which the USSR illegally and unilaterally occupied, then incorporated in 1939. For several decades the reality on the ground was that they were part of the USSR, but international law said otherwise. Britain therefore continued to recognise them as independent, sovereign states, even though they had been forced to become Soviet republics. When the USSR collapsed, these states resumed their independence. Stalin could not unilaterally change international law—nor can Trump.

The international consensus for decades, rooted in international law, is that a proper, workable and sustainable basis for negotiations is a two-state solution, with a shared capital of Jerusalem, based on the 1967 lines. We cannot allow President Trump to rip up a cardinal principle of international law, the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through war. If we turn a blind eye to that, how will Russia interpret this in relation to Crimea, or Turkey in northern Syria, or China in its region?

As my noble friend Lord Oates so brilliantly expressed, it is essential—absolutely vital—that it is recognised that this plan is simply not in Israel’s interests. It would surely mean the end of the two-state solution, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and others have said. A one-state solution has major implications for Israel, which rightly points to its history of democracy. That democracy must be based on equal rights for all its citizens. It is worth thinking through the implications for Israel.

It has become urgent that Palestine should be formally recognised as a state, as others have said. Almost 140 countries have now done that; it is time the United Kingdom did so. In the letter to which noble Lords have referred, 50 former European leaders and Foreign Ministers have expressed serious concerns about the Trump plan. They point out:

“Instead of promoting peace, it risks fuelling the conflict – at the expense of Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike, and with grave implications for … the wider region.”


They urge the international community to

“prevent such a scenario from unfolding”

for the future of the Palestinians, the Israelis and the international rules-based order. The EU has already said:

“Steps towards annexation, if implemented, could not pass unchallenged.”


Now that we have left the EU, what position do we take on this? What will we do? What actions will we take with our allies if the Israeli Government take the opportunity, which they may see as time-limited by November’s US election, and annex the lands that Trump’s son-in-law has offered them? How do the Government prove that we are not in a weakened position, out of the EU and needing a trade deal with the United States? What action will we take if the Israeli Government do not adhere to international law?

Syria

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I shall take the last question first. I am sure that the noble Lord shares—indeed, all noble Lords will do so—the sentiments that we pay tribute to the courage and sacrifices made by the Kurds in particular. We pay tribute to the work of the SDF in successful efforts that were made against Daesh in Syria. I assure him that we remain very much committed to the fight against Daesh and regard the SDF very much as a partner in this fight.

The noble Lord asked about the practical steps we are taking. First, on 5 February, the former Minister for the Middle East and North Africa visited Ankara to discuss the situation specifically in Idlib with Turkish government Ministers. Last month, the United Kingdom hosted a meeting of special envoys of the small group on Syria, which includes Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, ourselves and the United States, to discuss the situation in Syria, including specifically the need for de-escalation in Idlib. As I said in the Statement, we have repeatedly used our position at the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council to call on Russia and the regime to end the offensive, adhere to specifically agreed ceasefires in Idlib and, importantly, respect obligations under international humanitarian law, which was the first point that the noble Lord raised, particularly with reference to the Assad regime. I am aiming to travel to the UN Human Rights Council tomorrow, and my statement will reflect those concerns.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord for his response. The IRC and others have described what is happening in Syria as a humanitarian catastrophe—and it clearly is. He has expressed his frustration in terms of what can be done to assist. We have the extraordinary situation of joint Russian-Turkish military patrols in north-east Syria and, at the same time, Russian planes bombing Turkish positions in Idlib. As to what can be done, addressing food prices is of critical importance. They have increased by 60% since September. Even then, an estimated 6.5 million Syrians were already food insecure. Can the Government review sanctions to see if there are ways in which they could mitigate the impact on ordinary civilians? Also, into this comes coronavirus. What assessment is being made of the risks that it may pose to those with reduced immunity who are crowded together in terrible conditions, as well as to those seeking to help them?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness makes some practical points, and I will write to her on her last point on the assessment made on coronavirus. That is a valid concern, particularly given the current situation regarding humanitarian aid. The noble Baroness will be aware that we are deeply concerned that at the UN Security Council, when a resolution was discussed on the humanitarian corridors, it was with great regret and disappointment that two countries—namely, Russia and China—chose to block the resolution. That has resulted in the loss of two of the four crossing points for humanitarian aid. We continue to press, and we support the UN mandate and mission there. As regards sanctions policy, I will take her point back.

Bahrain: Mohamed Ramadan and Hussain Moosa

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend makes a helpful suggestion, but we are seeking to do more. In this respect, judges from Bahrain have visited Crown Courts and magistrates’ courts in the United Kingdom and we continue to engage with the judiciary on this point.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, in the past hour the UN has called on Bahrain to prevent the execution of these two men, saying:

“Admission of evidence obtained under torture into any proceeding violates the rights to due process and fair trial and is prohibited without exception. If carried out in these circumstances, the death penalty would constitute an arbitrary killing.”


Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am aware of those reports, but I have not seen the full detail. On a previous occasion last year, when the death penalty was also passed, I made a direct intervention. Unfortunately, that death sentence was not reversed. Subsequently, at the Human Rights Council, we made specific reference under Item 2 on the death penalty and will continue to do. I will review the report the noble Baroness mentioned on my return. It remains the consistent position of the United Kingdom Government that the death penalty should not be part of sentencing policy. We continue to make that case with Bahrain and elsewhere.

Middle East Peace Plan

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, this plan goes contrary to international law. It is an annexation plan and would give the Palestinians no control over their borders, water or security, no port and no airport—to mention just a few points. Yet the Government’s press release—I notice the Minister has added a few words to the end of it—welcomed this as “a serious proposal” that should be given “genuine and fair consideration”. How can the Government claim that in leaving the EU we will be better placed to fight for the rules-based international order and human rights? If annexation goes ahead, what will the Government do to protect international law?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the noble Baroness suggested that I added certain lines. Just for clarity I should say that, as she knows from her own experience, that is not how government works. I have stated the Government’s position, which again restated that, as far as we are concerned,

“the best way to achieve peace is through substantive peace talks”.

She is right to raise concerns about annexation. We have always retained and sustained, and I reiterate again, that any annexation of any lands would be against and contrary to international law.