(4 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for securing this debate and for her introduction to it. As she said, she has very personal knowledge of this regime. As she knows, I knew her brother when we were both students together. I remember still his return to Iran, thinking that he was safe.
It was with a sinking heart that I heard about these new cases in Iran. The battles that we had over Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was wrongly detained for so many years, seemed to go on for ever. I am sure that she and her family thought the same. It was very clear that Iran was using her as a pawn—a hostage—to secure what it wished. The same was clearly true of Anoosheh Ashoori, as it was for citizens of other countries. And, as the right reverend Prelate has said, those in Iran are themselves under great pressure. We are glad that both of our dual nationals were finally released, but they lost years of their lives. We were always told that publicity did not help and to leave this to the diplomats, but it was Richard Ratcliffe’s efforts that brought his wife home.
It seems we do not know how many British nationals, including dual nationals, are being detained in Iran. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, over 60 foreign and dual nationals may have been detained there since 2010, 16 of whom apparently had British or dual British nationality. Could the Minister update us on the numbers of British citizens the Government believe are currently detained there?
The Iranians standardly accuse those whom they have detained of spying. Now we have the cases of Craig and Lindsay Foreman—tourists who trusted that they could safely explore the wonders of Iran on their journey to Australia. The FCDO rightly advises against such travel; one supposes that people may think that they are just ordinary citizens and that the Iranians are friendly people, so surely they will be of no interest to the country’s leaders, but innocent citizens can still be seen as useful pawns to such a regime.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has considered several cases in recent years, identifying “systemic arbitrary detention” in Iran and describing this as
“a serious violation of international law”.
We know that Iran has been under serious pressure in the current Middle East conflict, as have its proxies in neighbouring areas. Seizing innocent citizens of other countries may seem an easy way of securing leverage.
I ask the Minister for an update on the Canadian-led initiative, which we have discussed before and he was involved in, which seeks to tackle such hostage-taking by regimes. I note that this has now been endorsed by 80 countries, but what actions are recommended and what strategies are proposed? There is always the tension that ransoms paid, in whatever way, can encourage further taking of hostages. Other countries, though, go about the release of their citizens differently from how the UK approaches it.
When we were talking about Nazanin’s case, as the Minister will doubtless remember, there was discussion of the use of Magnitsky sanctions against individuals who played a part in her detention. Without going into particular sanctions, is this a route he still regards with favour? We knew that the revolutionary guard drove the taking of such hostages; what is the present Government’s view of the revolutionary guard?
As the cases dragged on in Iran, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquired in 2023 into such hostage-taking. It criticised the then Government for being
“too slow—or entirely unwilling—to call out countries guilty of state hostage taking”.
Among other things, it recommended the appointment of a director of arbitrary and complex detentions to advocate for detainees and their families. The then Government rejected this proposal. However, the new Government, in their manifesto, stated that they would strengthen support for British nationals abroad. They also promised to introduce a new legal right to consular assistance in cases of rights violations, which Redress and Prisoners Abroad have advocated. Can the Minister tell us when this will be introduced?
In November last year, the Foreign Secretary said that he hoped to announce the appointment of a special envoy for complex detention cases. However, he could not give a date for this. Several months on, will the Minister, facing this debate, now announce this?
Clearly, in the latest case, because these are not dual nationals, the UK should be able to get consular access, which Iran denies to dual nationals. Is that being granted?
We are in a world where the allies on whom we thought we could rely are now allying with those whom we identify as a threat to global stability. It is a topsy-turvy world, except that this is perhaps too warm a description. As international order is under threat, our citizens, as well as the national citizens of Iran who we have heard about, are potentially at greater risk. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the new Government are addressing this.
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble Lord is absolutely right. The ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern. We urge all countries to support it and we urge them to sign the Rome treaty. We know that the US, whether it has a Democrat or Republican President, has refused to do so, but that does not stop us focusing on how we deal with these crimes and how we can build alliances to ensure that they do not happen again. The noble Lord is absolutely right about the rabbi. We do need international law, we need international law to be upheld and we urge all countries to do so.
My Lords, on the question my noble friend asked just now, can the Minister clarify that he would agree, as his Ministerial colleagues have agreed, that the forcible transfer of the population of Gaza would be a crime against humanity and against international law? I know that he distanced himself from some other elements of what my noble friend said, but, on that, can he clarify the Government’s position?
As the noble Baroness will recall, I absolutely made clear the position of the Government in relation to forcible removal of Gazan citizens, or Palestinians, from Gaza. I made that very clear in the recent repeat of the Urgent Question and I reassure her that our position has not changed.
(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberMy noble friend makes a good point. We are concerned by increased tensions in northern Syria and the impact that this may have on civilians and stability in the region. Turkey has been playing a critical role there and we have been in regular contact with it, as well as with Syrian democratic forces. Our priority across the board is de-escalation.
My Lords, security and prosperity are vital in Syria. What action is being taken with others to try to halt the spread of revenge attacks? The EU has lifted some economic sanctions. We have always said—and the Minister has always said—that sanctions are more effective if we act together. Why have we not done likewise?
On the latter point, we are reviewing both actions and the Prime Minister has made that clear in the other place. As the noble Baroness knows, we do not comment on future designations or de-designations. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear on that. I think she is right that there are forces within Syria that may stoke sectarian violence and instability. As my noble friend raised, we are trying to work with allies, across the board, to ensure that there is de-escalation, and to take the interim authority at its word and make sure that we monitor it on a regular basis. The noble Baroness is right to point this out.
(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberI join the noble Earl in welcoming the release so far of 21 hostages, including British national Emily Damari and, of course, the UK-linked Eli Sharabi. The Prime Minister spoke to Emily on 31 January and was deeply moved by her personal story. We continue to call for the release of all hostages. The real solution is their release; that is what we want to see as soon as possible.
In relation to UNRWA, that is quite a serious matter, and I know that UNRWA has responded and is calling for an independent inquiry into it. UNRWA was, of course, excluded from those facilities but nevertheless it is important that there is a thorough independent inquiry. We look forward to seeing that when it happens.
My Lords, in the light of President Trump’s totally destabilising statements, do the Government share the view of the German Foreign Minister that Gaza is for the Palestinians, not for Israel, nor for the United States? What communications have the Government had with the leaderships of Egypt and Jordan to reassure them that the UK does not support the removal of Palestinians in Gaza to their countries? Does the Minister agree that the time has come to recognise Palestine as a state before it is too late?
I reassure the noble Baroness that we see the ceasefire as the first step in ensuring long-term peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians and the wider region, bringing much-needed stability. We thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless efforts over the past 15 months in getting us to this moment.
I reiterate our very clear policy: we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states against their will. As we have repeatedly said, Palestinian civilians, including those evacuated from northern Gaza, must be permitted to return to their communities and rebuild. As the Prime Minister has said, we should be with them as they rebuild on the way to a two-state solution. That is the way to ensure peace and security for both Israel and the Palestinians.
In terms of recognition, the Foreign Secretary has made this clear on numerous occasions. We see that as one of the tools for seeking and establishing that two-state solution. We want to be able to use it as strong leverage to maintain that course for a two-state solution, so that when the time is right, we are committed to recognise.
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and her work over many years. Your Lordships have already passed an earlier version of her Bill, and I am sure we will do so again.
As the noble Baroness so cogently laid out, women and girls are disproportionately impacted by conflict, and conflicts are on the rise. Climate change and the migration that it is driving—which is likely to intensify —adds a further threat. Poverty has always rendered women and girls particularly vulnerable, and we know that rape is used as a weapon of war. Internationally, it has been recognised that women have too often not been involved in peace processes, which the UN has sought to address through Resolution 1325 and subsequent resolutions, and post-conflict measures to ensure that, as in Rwanda, women are well represented in parliament.
It is an ongoing struggle, as we have heard. The Bill seeks to ensure that the UK leads in promoting the participation of women in peacebuilding, conflict resolution and prevention efforts, and in protecting women and girls from violence. The United Kingdom is the penholder for women, peace and security at the UN Security Council, and it is therefore right that we take a leading role on this issue.
There has been some criticism of the UK’s efforts in this regard. The merger of DfID with the FCO was a major distraction, and NGOs report that short-term planning focuses on immediate relief rather than the long-term resilience needed to build sustainable peace. That reflects why it is worth putting the Bill into place.
We also see absolutely the lowest depths in Afghanistan, as we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Hodgson. We heard this morning about the treatment of a woman in Iran, who is in a clinic because she would not wear a hijab. We also face an escalating backlash against women’s rights and gender equality, as we saw in the American elections. We know about the right-wing push-back on sexual and reproductive rights, and the way in which such groups are actively curtailing women’s rights in Africa. What will now happen with the US programmes? Trump took them backwards in his previous Administration and looks set to do so again. Respecting the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls is vital to their overall position.
Even the annual meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women has to battle every year not to go backwards. Can the Minister outline how SRHR is addressed in conflict situations? Can he assure us that the UK still adheres to the principle that abortion services should be offered in cases where international humanitarian law trumps local laws—for example, where a woman has been raped in conflict? We established that over a decade ago and I trust that our policy on this is unchanged. Can he update us on what support is being given to women and girls in Afghanistan? We also hear terrible stories from Sudan, so can he update us on what support is being provided there? What support, if any, is being offered to women and girls in the terrible conditions now pertaining in Gaza?
I wish the noble Baroness success with her Bill. I hope that she will see it speed through the Commons. As a result of what she said, I expect the Minister to say that the Government will now back this Bill. I look forward to his response.
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for putting down this subject for debate and for his continuing advocacy for the SDGs. As he mentioned, the millennium development goals made significant progress by their end date of 2015, with the halving of extreme poverty. The sustainable development goals had the ambitious target of ending extreme poverty while leaving no one behind. It was not to be a matter of averages. There were 17 goals and ambitions within each; it was comprehensive.
The UK played a key role in the development of the SDGs. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was one of the conveners, and Michael Anderson, from DfID, was the key person, turning the discussions and commitments into an agreement. At the time, the UK was meeting the UN commitment of 0.7% of GNI for development. It was part of the coalition agreement. The last piece of legislation that went through Parliament in the final days of the coalition put that into law. It was part of our soft power, and of the UK playing a global role.
What then happened? That commitment was abandoned, as we heard. Then, without warning or consultation, and clearly lacking awareness of what he was doing, damaging even the UK university sector, including the Jenner Institute at Oxford, Boris Johnson destroyed DfID, theoretically merging it with the FCO, despite their different aims and expertise. That merger has still not fully settled, but we have lost a lot of development expertise and lost our leading place on this in the world.
Where are we now, and where is the world in achieving those SDGs? As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, pointed out, we are just a few years from 2030. The UN reports that escalating global conflicts and increasing climate-related crises have badly affected the world’s ability to achieve those SDGs.
We know that investment in development is not only right but in our interest. As Bill Gates wrote in the Times this week,
“we see every day … how events in one part of the world have ripple effects, whether that’s through food prices, migration, or the spread of a disease like mpox”.
As he rightly argues, assisting countries to develop lifts everyone. Think of the populist exploitation of migration and the division caused in western societies by this, let alone the benefit to all of us of growth in the global economy.
The UN puts the lack of progress, and even reversal in some areas, down to the pandemic, conflicts, climate shocks and economic turmoil. Climate change is surely the most fundamental of all these challenges. The UN’s Global Humanitarian Overview 2024 stated that climate-related disasters are rising sharply—we all know this. It noted that 2023 was the hottest year on record, with drought in the Horn of Africa, wildfires in Canada, floods in north Africa, Europe and China, and heatwaves across the world. It noted a significant increase in the number of displaced people as a result.
Climate change will increase threats through extreme weather, sea level rise and natural disasters, which are likely to result in mass migrations, social and economic disruption, hunger, the spread of disease, water and food insecurity, and conflict over land, water and other resources. The World Bank estimates that over 200 million people could be forced to move by 2050.
There is increasing awareness of the health threat of climate change. That is particularly so for older people, young children and vulnerable people, and, as we have heard, the risks increase for women and girls. The UNFPA notes that climate-related emergencies cause major disruptions in access to health services and life-saving commodity supply chains, including contraceptives. Additionally, it warns of displacement, resulting in an increased risk of gender-based violence and harmful practices, including child marriage. Heat also worsens maternal and neonatal health outcomes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, just said.
Can the Minister spell out how developing countries facing the effects of climate change will be further assisted, and whether, in particular, the Government will increase funding to support women and girls, including supporting sexual and reproductive health and rights and combating gender-based violence, as well as looking at the insidious movement of right-wing organisations which are seeking to undermine in this area?
Children are particularly vulnerable, of course, due to climate change and conflict. Save the Children points out that children may not only face severe injury or death but are often deprived of their education, healthcare, family support networks and food. It reports that, globally, almost 800 million children are living in poverty and exposed to high climate risk—a situation magnified by rising conflict.
According to the World Food Programme, a quarter of a billion people are facing acute food insecurity or worse. Good nutrition is fundamental. The UK’s global nutrition budget was cut by 60% following the aid cuts in 2021, and yet malnutrition is the leading cause of death in children under five. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, used to rail against the previous Government on this. Could he update us on the actions he has now been able to take?
The Prime Minister recently addressed the UN General Assembly and emphasised the importance of conflict prevention and peacebuilding. He called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, peace initiatives in Sudan, and support for Ukraine. He pledged to restore the UK’s 0.7% development commitment. He pledged to meet net-zero targets by 2030, increase climate finance, and support global adaptation efforts. That no doubt sounds very familiar to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.
Where is the reality in this? The conflict in the Middle East is intensifying further. The loss of life and hope in the region is likely to foster even more conflict, which is in no one’s interests. Can the Minister update us on the actions that the Government are taking? Conflict in Sudan and the Horn of Africa is causing untold human suffering. What action are the Government taking to increase aid to this area? The Government urgently need to return to 0.7% and to reduce the amount of ODA being spent on in-country asylum costs; currently, as we have heard, it is a third of the aid budget. When will this happen?
Ahead of the Autumn Budget, there are reports that the aid budget will fall; we hear depressing accounts from within the department as to plans that might need to be made. Can the Minister confirm that the figure will not fall but will in fact rise, as the Prime Minister seemed to pledge? Surely the Government must recognise that it is both right and in our interests to play a key role in development and meeting the SDGs. We heard the warm words from the Prime Minister at the UN, but they are not enough if there is no action behind them.
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I welcome the Minister to his position. It was wonderful to work with him when we were in opposition; it is his turn now, and we expect a lot from him. What percentage of ODA goes into research? It was vital in terms of support for, say, the Jenner Institute and the preparations that we made for the pandemic. Could he tell us what support for UK research is ODA money?
I may have to follow through in writing. By the way, when we first worked together the noble Baroness was in government and I was in opposition, but despite that we worked collaboratively then. ODA is spent on AMR. I mentioned the Fleming Fund, and I think the previous Government spent £400 million on that support. But broadening it out to other aspects of research—they are not exclusive, as other research can benefit the fight against AMR— I will write to the noble Baroness with more detailed information.