Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights and Political Situation
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(5 days, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the human rights and political situation in Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir; and what representations they have made to the government of Pakistan regarding recent restrictions on civil liberties and protests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the United Kingdom monitors developments in Pakistan-administered Kashmir closely. We are concerned by reports of unrest, loss of life and injuries. We support freedom of assembly and expression and encourage peaceful dialogue. We understand that restrictions on communications have been especially concerning for British nationals and members of the diaspora who are seeking contact with friends and family. The United Kingdom currently advises against all but essential travel to the area.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome the efforts to mediate. A number of individuals have tried to mediate between the action committee and the Governments of Kashmir and Pakistan, including the chair of the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation, Syed Qamar Raza. There has not yet been a resolution. As the Minister points out, the guidance from the Foreign Office is against non-essential travel, but I can tell him from my personal experience that a lot of people, probably in the thousands, will be travelling over the summer holiday period to visit family and friends. Will the Minister continue to lobby the Government of Pakistan to at least open internet access so that loved ones can maintain contact with each other—and, if possible, to lift some of the blockades in terms of lockdowns and the closure of shops and other essential facilities?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We welcome the recent reports that dialogue is ongoing between the affected parties to find a resolution. It is good news. I reassure the noble Lord that, during Minister Falconer’s visit to Islamabad in June, he discussed the situation with his Pakistani counterparts, including Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi; and that we continue to monitor the situation and the impact on British nationals.
Historical Forced Adoption
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I sincerely thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating this Statement and taking the time to read it out today, as the Prime Minister did in the House of Commons. We on these Benches associate ourselves fully and without reservation with the apology that the Statement contains.
The scale and pain of the harm are impossible to comprehend. Some 185,000 children were taken between 1949 and 1976—perhaps more; the Prime Minister fears that the records understate the number—from mothers who were coerced, bullied or misled into giving them up. Imagine the brutality of mothers being stitched without anaesthetic as a punishment and being told that they deserved it. Think of the nearly 200,000 children across our nation who grew up believing that they were unwanted. Some who have given evidence, such as Debbie Iromlou, were raised with racist attitudes towards their own family of origin. Grief has followed all of them through a lifetime of everyday cruelties. The Prime Minister spoke of mothers who still dread the simplest question: “Do you have children?”
The damage is irreparable. That there has been an apology at all is down to the mothers and the adopted children who have campaigned tirelessly over decades to raise awareness of the scandal. I pay tribute to their courage, particularly that of the founder of the Movement for an Adoption Apology, Veronica Smith. Sadly, she died before she could hear the words that she fought 16 years for. I also pay tribute to those who repeatedly had to give evidence and relive their trauma before the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee. Their testimony was among the most harrowing that this Parliament has ever heard.
The Prime Minister was candid that an apology is not enough, and I agree. The measures that he announced, however, are genuinely welcomed—the records platform, the consultation on retaining records for 100 years and the undertaking to help locate the graves of babies who died in the homes. It is so awful to say—and it is so little, so late. As the surviving mothers are now in their 70s, 80s and 90s, time is of the essence. We need to know that these steps will happen promptly.
The Lord Privy Seal will understand that I have some questions about these matters. On the records platform, the Prime Minister said in answer to questions that it would happen as quickly as possible. Can the Lord Privy Seal give the House a meaningful timeline? Data helps nobody who does not know that it exists. Some of those affected have never yet spoken, from shame, about what happened to them. Can the Lord Privy Seal help the House with how the Government will communicate that this information may be available to them? Many babies were sent to homes across our internal borders between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. How will information be tracked between the devolved nations and where many records sit at the moment—and how will they be communicated?
On support for victims, there is to be funding of £4 million over three years, which we welcome. But the need will be lifelong. The Education Committee recommended a dedicated mental health support pathway, while the package offers guidance for clinicians instead. Why was that recommendation adopted instead of the mental health support pathway? What will survivors be offered in its place? On redress, the Prime Minister told the other place that the Government are looking at redress schemes. These too we would welcome. Can the Lord Privy Seal expand on what is meant by that, what is being considered and when any appraisal will be published?
We are, yet again, shamed as a nation. Giving evidence to the Education Committee in March, Ann Lloyd Keen, already quoted by the Prime Minister, asked a question of her own:
“Do you know why we have to keep repeating our evidence?”
The Prime Minister, when answering questions on his Statement, identified the reason. He said:
“We got this wrong as a state. So often we circle the wagons and protect the decision makers and wrongdoers instead of asking ourselves the question, ‘Where is the injustice here, and how do we put it right?’ That has to change, because it has happened in this case and others”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/26; col. 1052.]
All those words are the Prime Minister’s, and I agree with them wholeheartedly.
The Prime Minister is right. This House knows only too well the scandals: infected blood, where the risks were known from the 1940s; the Post Office, which prosecuted 1,000 innocent people; the grooming gangs, where 16 years of recommendations were unactioned; and Nottingham, where a statutory duty of candour has bound every NHS trust since 2014, yet here we are again with the Ockenden review finding 10 days ago that 520 mothers and babies suffered potentially avoidable harm, 162 died and nearly half the trust’s senior directors simply refused to engage. It seems, as with this terrible scandal, that codes, duties and even laws are not enough to stop this institutional rot. Even with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I fear that deeper cultural change is needed.
I ask the Lord Privy Seal, in a collaborative and supportive spirit: what are the Government going to do to change the culture, attitudes and behaviours of our public sector employees so that they start by asking the Prime Minister’s question, “How do we put this right?”, instead of, “How do we protect the decision-makers or the wrongdoers?” Nothing that the state does now can ever right the profound wrongs done to these mothers, their children and their families. But we can and we must deliver the support that they still need. I look forward to Lord Privy Seal’s response.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. It was particularly moving to hear the examples of the parents and the mothers. It was a difficult thing to hear, particularly those young mums who were basically stitched back together again without any help or support—it is really moving. It is a dark period in our nation’s history that we have to acknowledge.
We on these Benches warmly welcome the Government’s apology. It is long overdue. For decades, thousands of mothers, children and families have lived with the pain of what happened. Women were made to feel ashamed simply because they had children outside of marriage. Many were put under enormous pressure, as we heard earlier, to give up the babies they loved and wanted to keep. At a time when they needed compassion and support the most, too many instead faced judgment, coercion and silence. The state actually helped create the conditions in which this happened, and it is right that this has finally now been recognised.
I also want to pay tribute to the mothers, adoptees and campaigners who never gave up and fought for years to have their voices heard and their experiences acknowledged. They have shown remarkable courage in speaking up about events that caused them lifelong grief and trauma. Sadly, some of them are no longer with us. However, they have long campaigned for this, and it is a reminder of how long justice can sometimes take, and that an apology matters. It is an important step, and it will mean a great deal for many people, but it cannot be the end of the story.
It must be followed by practical actions that help those still living with the consequences of those historical wrongs. We welcome the measures announced, including improvements to access to adoption records and better support from the NHS. Those are positive steps, and we hope they will make a real difference to people who have spent decades searching for answers and trying to reconnect with their families.
I have some questions for the Lord Privy Seal. First, on mental health support, many of the people affected have lived with the trauma for more than 50 years. Some have struggled with anxiety, depression and unresolved grief throughout their adult life. Others may now feel able to come forward only because the Government have finally acknowledged what happened to them. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what dedicated funding will be available for specialist trauma-informed mental health support? Just as importantly, how will the Government ensure that survivors can access that support wherever they live, rather than being left to rely upon overstretched local health services?
Secondly, on the adoption records, we know that many mothers and adoptees still face long delays and unnecessary barriers when trying to find information about their families. Records remain scattered across local authorities, charities and voluntary organisations, many of which are already under significant pressure. Can the Lord Privy Seal say a bit more about the Government’s ambitions for a properly funded, centralised digital system that will bring records together, making it easier and more consistent for families to access information and where possible reconnect?
Finally, the Joint Committee on Human Rights encouraged the Government to consider the approach taken by other countries, including Ireland and Australia, where financial redress has been introduced. We recognise that decisions on compensation are ultimately for the Government. However, can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that Ministers will continue to examine the experiences of those countries carefully and keep the question of financial redress under active consideration?
This was a deeply shameful chapter in our history. It affected not only mothers but children, fathers, grandfathers and whole families whose lives have changed for ever. Although we cannot undo the suffering that was caused, we can ensure that those affected are treated with the dignity, compassion and respect they should always have received. The Government’s apology is an important milestone; this should also be the beginning of a wider commitment to justice. Survivors deserve support, straightforward access to the truth about their own lives and confidence that the Government will continue to work with them in the years ahead. This is how we can begin to rebuild trust and ensure that this painful chapter is never forgotten and never repeated.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments and their welcoming of the Statement. The noble Lord is quite right: the apology is the start of a process. I think we all agree that everyone has waited too long for this.
Whenever I read about this or speak to women I know who have been affected, I always go back to that frightened young woman who finds that she is pregnant, and society and, often, her family are not willing to support her. Society as a whole was complicit in this, in the way that we, as a whole, treated women who were single, young, scared and did not know where to turn. The very organisations they thought could help them were the ones they suffered most at the hands of. We have just to hear these stories. I think we all felt quite emotional hearing some of those tales; just imagine living through them. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are right to pay tribute to those women and the adoptees for what they went through.
There are a number of issues to address. The noble Baroness talked about behavioural change in public sector employees. It was not just public sector employees; this was across society. I remember speaking to one lady who told me that her relationship with her mother never recovered because her mother allowed her—indeed, forced her—to go into a home. The repercussions have gone through family life through generations. There is nothing you can do or say that can change the hurt that has been done, but we can try to do something to make a difference.
The noble Lord is right to challenge us on records. Records are held in different formats by different organisations across the country. Bringing them together will be quite something to achieve. To get them in one place is crucial.
The noble Lord asked about compensation and redress. We are led by those who have been affected. There are three big things in this package of support. One is improving access to and safeguarding adoption records, getting them into one place so that they can be accessed. There is also expanding access to specialist services, including mental health services, but also to reconnection services to help those who want to trace their families, and improving access to NHS services. This is not about individual compensation. We are seeking to give the people the support they need. I do not think there is any money in the world that can address the hurt and problems that have been caused by this.
The noble Baroness asked what the support is. Some of it is in place already. FamilyConnect is already expanding the use of the national advice line, because there is no point having information available if it is not easy to access. We are funding intermediary services —in effect, we are funding family-finding services for historical adoption cases, because people need support and help to navigate their way around the information. The more we can get it into one place, the easier it will be to access. Also, through FamilyConnect, we will have a national peer and support group offer, for the support to be there.
On trauma services in the NHS, the noble Lord references a specific kind of trauma. We will get this through guidance in the NHS and specific tools to recognise the experience of those affected by historical forced adoptions, so that clinicians can better understand the impact, because it impacts different people in different ways. We need to give clinicians that information and set up a range of support that may be relevant. There needs to be consistency of care through GP services.
Something that has always been a problem for those who are forced adoptees is knowing the family medical history, because that will be so important. They may have a medical condition later in life, and knowing their family’s medical history beforehand is crucial. We are going to give the option of a marker and of putting that marker, as the person wishes, on their NHS record so that clinicians can take it into account.
All this has to be led by and have strong input from those who are directly affected. We can all stand here and say what we think is appropriate but, if you are part of the cohort, whether you are a mother or an adoptee, you will know how you have been affected and you need to lead on what is needed.
Another important part is testimonials, so that people who want to tell their story, either to be acknowledged personally or to do so privately, can be recorded. Look at the mood in this House: when I read out the Statement, we felt the temperature lower. Anyone who heard it in the House of Commons last week will have seen an unusual degree of support across the House, particularly when women gave their personal stories. To be able to do that and bring people together is important. The testimonials are an important way forward.
This is the start of a process to recognise the hurt, apologise for the state’s role in it and do whatever we can to try to bring all the measures I have spoken about into being as quickly as possible. There will be absolutely no delay. I do not think that was what the noble Baroness was hinting at. She will know from the tone of the Statement and the work that went on before it was brought forward that there is a determination across government to ensure that we do what we can now to address this and try to give some redress for the problems and wrongs of the past.
Middle East
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. He is absolutely right that Pakistan has done a great service on this, and the role of the Prime Minister and other leaders in Pakistan must be recognised. Our Prime Minister did that and has thanked and praised them for their work in not the easiest of circumstances.
The noble Lord is right about the longer-term partnerships with Bahrain and other Gulf states. The Prime Minister is in regular contact with and recently met various leaders. That is an important relationship, because they are the ones who are also talking to us about the protection of their own safety and security. I can give an assurance that those are long-term relationships that are valued by us and other countries.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the comments of my noble friend Lord Purvis, particularly on the West Bank. To follow up on the point made on Pakistan by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, since the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday there is news now that Donald Trump is hopeful that, potentially in the next 48 hours, there could be a breakthrough. What contact have we had with Pakistan, in particular with Field-Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif? I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to get world leaders here later this week, but if the talks resume in Pakistan, we may have to ensure that we are at least hooked in to the Pakistani Government to make sure that British interests are served during those talks.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
We will fully co-operate with Pakistan and give it support with the valuable work that it is doing. There are different strands of discussion going on in different areas. It was probably optimistic for people to think that in one set of talks a conclusion would be reached that would solve all problems and issues. I remember from my days as a Northern Ireland Minister that you would often have talks about talks before you even had the talks. There were 21 hours of talks. It was an ambitious programme. I hope that we will see further talks—there are optimistic signs that talks could continue. The Pakistani Prime Minister will be crucial in convening and hosting those talks and negotiating. If we can find a way forward where stages of progress can be made, that makes it easier to take the next step. If you are trying to climb a ladder, it is one step before another, one foot in front of another. All of us would want to see every effort made. Those diplomatic efforts for talks would be very supported. Let us just take one step forward and see what changes can be made.
Middle East
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments and agree completely with him. When the Foreign Secretary presented her Statement in the other place, I think she said that we must redouble our efforts in focusing on and supporting a two-state solution. I acknowledge the work that my noble friend undertakes to support the Palestinian Authority. We made that support clear, which is why we took the decision to recognise Palestine, because we need to ensure that that is the focus.
The Foreign Secretary responded to a number of things. When I last visited the West Bank, I saw the groups of thugs—I do not call them settlers—who sit on top of the hills above Palestinian villages. They do not just harass people: the most horrendous case that we saw this week was a family returning from the shops, and young children being shot. We have made representations and are asking for clear investigations into this. The rule of law applies to Palestinian people too. They deserve the opportunity to be able to live and work in peace.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, particularly around how conflicts abroad should not result in hate on our streets. I fully back his call for a cross-party meeting of senior Members of your Lordships’ House to look at how we can work together to ensure that antisemitism and Islamophobia are not allowed to spread, given what is happening in the Middle East.
I also wholeheartedly back the Minister’s comments about what is happening in the West Bank. Those incidents, such as individuals being attacked, are heartbreaking. Often it is not just the young but the elderly who are brutalised and beaten up for no reason other than the fact that they live there. Your Lordships’ House should be very clear that the Government of the United Kingdom will take strong action against anyone who is involved in that, including sanctioning further individuals.
One point that has not been mentioned so far is the Houthis in Yemen. At the moment they have stayed out of this conflict, but what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made about the impact, particularly on trade, if the Houthis were to enter this conflict? There is huge attention on fuel at the moment, and the fact that energy prices are both affecting us domestically and, as I mentioned in the earlier debate, affecting energy-intensive industries such as steel, in places such as south Wales, south Yorkshire and Scunthorpe.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
On the comments about the rise of antisemitism and Islamophobia, we all have a duty, across political parties, to ensure that we focus on greater community cohesion. That is fundamental, because there is no doubt that there has been an increase in both Islamophobia and antisemitism, and we need to address that. My noble friends across Whitehall have been working on how we can work across government to deal with that issue. The idea of discussions is something that the usual channels could look at; it is certainly worthy of consideration.
The noble Lord discussed Yemen. We have seen a huge humanitarian crisis there as a consequence of the actions of the parties, particularly the Houthis. We constantly review the situation and work with our allies: we have had discussions with Saudi Arabia in particular, but our focus at the moment is on the whole region. This conflict is destabilising the whole region; we need to ensure that we give support to our allies so that they can defend their position.
US Department of Justice Release of Files
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been mentioned. One of the most disturbing things is this network of powerful people who seemed to think that they were above the law so it would not apply to them or they would not be found out. It is hard to know what is in somebody’s mind when they behave in this way. The noble Lord will be aware that he has been stripped of his titles and is moving out of royal accommodation to alternative private accommodation. His Majesty has been very firm on this and we support the way he has dealt with it. There are issues around the use of the Royal Lodge that are being looked at by the National Audit Office and work is being undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee.
Nobody can be above the law. Lord Mandelson has resigned from this House, the King has agreed with the Prime Minister that he should not be a privy counsellor and we are looking at legislating so that people in this position should not keep titles. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has lost his title and his privileges. This shows people that no one is above the law. That is important. The voices of the victims of powerful men and sometimes women were not heard when they should have been, and I hope that these actions go some way to ensuring that, in future, more notice will be taken of those who want to bring forward complaints.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
The Leader of the House referred earlier to powerful individuals. We have to say it as it is. It was predominantly powerful men abusing not only women but children. We have to be very careful about language. I want to follow up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised around the sharing of sensitive information by Lord Mandelson with Jeffrey Epstein, particularly around Poland and Russia. Have the Government assessed whether any further information was shared with other states and intelligence agencies? If so, will they disclose it? If that assessment has not been made, will they commit to carrying out that assessment as soon as possible to see whether other sensitive information was shared with other Governments across the world, friend or foe?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. His point about powerful individuals cannot be made often enough, and the impact this has had on the lives of very young people that will stay with them forever. On the sharing of sensitive information, he is right. This is a betrayal, not just of those whom Lord Mandelson was working with but a national betrayal. We do not know what damage could have been done, but certainly damage can be done when such information is shared. It is probably too early at this stage, with so many documents to go through and so many sources to try to retrieve documents from, to say exactly everything that is in there, but the Government are committed to transparency on this. We all need to know exactly what has happened. The documents in the public domain make unedifying reading. For those who were working in those areas at the time, to know that the conversations they had, the documents they signed and the decisions they took in the public interest were being relayed to somebody outside the very small number of people who should have known about them is a gross betrayal.
China and Japan
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not aware of any discussion specifically on the treaty. On the issue of wider security in the region, certainly in China and Japan, that was an important part of the Prime Minister’s visit because the security of that region is important to us. But I could not say absolutely that Chagos was part of the discussions.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, can I press the Leader of House on an issue that my noble friend Lord Purvis raised around human rights in particular, regarding any future potential trade arrangements and ensuring that human rights chapters are included in them? I am concerned that if we do not do so, we will be on a slippery slope every time we negotiate with any nation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Yes, it is an important part of trade deals that we have the highest standards possible, and human rights are often part of discussions that take place. If one looks at the trade deals that have been done already, one can see that those discussions have taken place and, in many cases, borne fruit.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I rise, after a very heavy day of debate, because it is important to reflect on what I have heard, not only in interactions with colleagues and friends across your Lordships’ House but, more importantly, from the public. They are looking to us to do our role: to scrutinise legislation. I have sat through some fantastic debates, particularly watching the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, on the other side of the argument. However, I have canvassed colleagues on this side of the House—we are not whipped either—and some of their comments are, “I am not supportive of your position, but I am frustrated by the lack of progress”. That is a consistent message across your Lordships’ House and out among the public.
There is a lot of scrutiny on your Lordships’ House at the moment—on what we do, whether we deliver value for money, et cetera. There would be a massive negative reaction from the public, regardless of what side of the argument they are on, if we do not get through this legislation. I join the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in urging the Government and the usual channels to support us, as suggested by the Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. We owe it to the public, who will be watching us, to do our best to make sure that we do our duty and send this Bill back to the other place for it to do its duty as well.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I too support the idea that this Bill needs extra time. It is entirely unsurprising that that is the case given that, notwithstanding the fact that it is a Private Member’s Bill, it is dealing with such a matter of substance. For example, if you compare the process that was put before the House for the Mental Health Bill—an important but arguably less significant piece of legislation—by the time we got to the Lords Committee stage, we had already had an independent commission, a White Paper, a public consultation, draft legislation and pre-legislative scrutiny. All of that is in effect being done by your Lordships through this process, so it is not surprising we need extra time. The suggestion that, just because this has been introduced as a Private Member’s Bill, democracy requires that we give it less scrutiny than a government Bill is an unpersuasive argument.
It is also the case that, over the first few days of Committee, some pretty significant matters of substance have arisen. We are not going to rehearse them now, but they are around capacity, choice, vulnerable groups and eligibility. While agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the sponsor, that we need to find a way of coming to some judgments on these questions, what process does he envisage for that? The guidance that those who have put down probing amendments in Committee have got back from the Government—precisely because the Government do not want their fingerprints all over this Bill—has been, shall we say, Delphic or elliptical. The phrasing that Ministers have used time and again has been, “If you are contemplating coming back with an amendment such as that on Report, then you will need to do further work to make sure it is fully workable, effective and enforceable”, but then there is no subsequent work to bring that about. If we are going to have a substantive debate on Report, so we can get these safeguards in place, we are going to need to see that.
Finally, I would like to ask a question of the Government. For those of us who have concerns about the interaction between this legislation and the state of the health service, social care and palliative care, it would be very helpful if we could have more clarity soon from the Government on how they see those interactions happening. Yesterday, in the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee, the Minister responsible for palliative care said that the Government would not publish their detailed modern framework for palliative care until, in effect, after this Bill had supposedly already passed through Parliament, which seems to me a dangerous reversal of the timetable that we require. It would be excellent to hear from the sponsor of the Bill and from the Government how they can help the House constructively engage on Report on some of the safeguards which are, in my judgment, clearly needed.
Starvation as a Weapon of War
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, for securing this timely and profoundly important debate. I also support wholeheartedly the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Oates, powerful as they were.
Today is World Food Day, when we commemorate the creation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 1945, born out of the ashes of the Second World War. It stands as a reminder that access to food is not a privilege but a fundamental human right, one that the international community vowed to protect when it said “never again” to the suffering and cruelty of total war. Yet across the world, right now, rights are being violated and weaponised. Food, water and even humanitarian aid are being turned into instruments of war and tools of political coercion.
In Sudan, as we heard earlier, more than 24 million people face acute food insecurity. We also heard earlier about Gaza, where the United Nations has warned of famine, declaring that almost every child under five is suffering from nutrition. In both places, civilians have been deliberately deprived of food, medicine and clean water, not by accident but by design. This is not a tragic consequence of conflict; it is a method of war, and it is expressly prohibited under the Geneva conventions, the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, and UN Security Council Resolutions 2417 and 2573, yet impunity reigns. The law exists but the will to enforce it has withered.
Food is not the only weapon. We are witnessing the growing weaponisation of water through the destruction of infrastructure, the blocking of access or the manipulation of rivers that sustain entire nations. Water is life itself, yet it too is being politicised and withheld. The recent decision by India to suspend co-operation under the Indus Water Treaty and divert flows from the northern rivers that feed Pakistan should concern us all. For decades, that treaty has stood as a model of cross-border co-operation, even in times of tension. To undermine it for political leverage is to risk regional instability, deepen food insecurity and erode a vital humanitarian norm: that access to water must never be used as a weapon.
This is where the United Kingdom must rediscover its voice. After the horrors of the Second World War it was the UK, with its allies, that helped to forge the rules-based international order: the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva convention and the principle that the strong are bound by the same laws as the weak. These were not abstract ideas; they were the moral foundations of a world rebuilt from ruins. That legacy places upon us both a moral duty and a strategic obligation to defend those principles today, to uphold the rule of law when others abandon it and to lead by the strength of our example.
So, what should the Government do? First, the Government should ratify the 2019 amendment to the Rome statute, extending the prohibition of starvation as a weapon of war to all conflicts, whether international or internal. Secondly, the UK must deploy every diplomatic, legal and economic tool available to hold violators to account—whether state or non-state actors, allies or adversaries—including targeted sanctions, as we heard earlier, against those who obstruct humanitarian access or manipulate essential resources such as food and water.
Thirdly, as we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, we must restore our commitment to international development in nutrition, food security and climate resilience. The cuts to aid in recent years have not only cost lives but diminish our nation’s moral authority. Reinvestment in those programmes is not charity but a reaffirmation of who we are and what we stand for.
Finally, our voice must be consistent and principled. International law cannot be applied selectively. We cannot condemn war crimes in one region while turning a blind eye in another. Our credibility and our conscience demand that we speak with one standard, guided by law and humanity. Starvation and the denial of water are not tactics of war; they are crimes against humanity and an affront to the conscience of the world. The United Kingdom, as one of the architects of the post-war order, must not stand silent as these norms are eroded and these crimes repeated.
Let us, on this World Food Day, reaffirm that no person anywhere should ever be starved or denied water as a weapon of war. Let us stand for the principles our forebears fought to defend: for the rule of law, for human dignity, and for the belief that the measure of a nation is found not in its power but in its moral courage to uphold what is right.
Middle East
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point: that our actions should not be only in international diplomacy but should look at our communities at home and how we bring them together. It is also important that we ensure that all our communities are safe, and that is why we are taking every possible action, particularly against malign states who intend to intervene. He is right that we should focus on community building and ensuring that the terrible conditions do not provoke people into taking the kind of horrendous actions we have seen in the past.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the Minister and urge the Government not to follow the drumbeat of escalation and to learn the lessons of Iraq in 2003. On the understandably delayed UN conference initiated by the French and the Saudis, and now that we have this window of opportunity with the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, what actions are the Government taking to bring forward as soon as possible the date for that meeting? It is urgently needed; we cannot take our eye off what is happening in Palestine, particularly in Gaza.
Israel and Iran
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the Government fully understand that, which is why the Prime Minister has ensured that we are moving towards protecting those assets. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Before the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—who is not in his place—asks me a question, of course we are urging all parties to comply with international humanitarian law. That is quite clear, too.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, what is the Government’s thinking on the day after? We have observed this question a lot of times in the last 18 months in terms of the conflict in Gaza. Has any thought been given to the lessons learned, particularly from Iraq, about the day after? If the regime falls, what are the Government’s thoughts and plans for bringing stability to that region, given that the oil that travels through the Strait of Hormuz will have a huge impact not just in that region but all across the world, and particularly for ourselves here in the United Kingdom?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As I said in my answer to the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I will not speculate on the consequences of, or reasons for, these. Our objective is to stop Iran having a nuclear capability. We are absolutely working with all our allies to achieve that. The means to do that, as President Trump has made clear, is through a deal. There cannot be a long-term military answer to that question.
To come back to the point made earlier, we should not take our eyes off the situation in the Occupied Territories and Gaza. It is very sad that the consequences of these actions resulted in the postponement of the two-state solution conference, which was going to bring Saudi Arabia and others together to look at the situation of the day after: “What next?” We need to ensure that the international community is absolutely focused on that, and we will be supporting and putting all efforts into a reconvened conference to ensure that that is the focus for the next steps.