Daesh: Raqqa

Debate between Lord Richard and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

The Minister’s account of what seems to have happened gets curiouser and curiouser. As I understand what he is now saying, we knew this was going on. Presumably the Americans also knew that it was going on. The other members of the coalition knew that it was going on. Did we try to stop it? Did we make representations to whoever was doing the deal that it was not in the interests of the coalition or of the war against Daesh? In short, what did we do except just look at it?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

For the benefit of the noble Lord and the whole House I shall read from the press release put out on 14 October by Jonathan Braga, the coalition’s director of operations. At the end, it states:

“We do not condone any arrangement that allows Daesh terrorists to escape Raqqa without facing justice only to resurface somewhere else. We remain concerned about the thousands of civilians in Raqqa who remain subject to Daesh cruelty”.


It continues:

“Daesh terrorists have been hiding behind women and children”—


I alluded to that—

“for three years, and we are against any arrangement that lets them continue to do so”.

As I said, there were press releases at the time. This was a decision made locally by tribal elders and the Raqqa civilian council. The primary objective behind the decision was to protect women and children. The Daesh fighters numbered not thousands but hundreds, and they continue to be monitored. As to the coalition’s role in any decision-taking, we do not condone any such arrangement, and we continue to ensure that any Daesh fighters, wherever they may be in the territory, are held to account.

EU Nationals: Legal Status

Debate between Lord Richard and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I will certainly take that back. My noble friend has spoken about this before. I assure him and indeed all noble Lords on this point, which has been raised before: before invoking that particular article, it is important that the terms of negotiation are determined and we know exactly what position we are negotiating from. One important thing to retain in all this is that it is clear that the citizens of the United Kingdom as one nation voted to leave the European Union. That is a fact. We need to ensure that we secure the best possible arrangements across the board. I am sure that the protection of the rights of those who live in the UK as EU nationals and those British nationals who live in the EU will be at the heart of those discussions, both from our perspective and from those of our European partners.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, when the Minister was speaking a moment ago, he said we must get the agreement of member Governments. I am slightly worried as to whether the negotiation—because that is what it is going to be—about EU citizens living here and our citizens living in the EU can take place at a European level, or whether we are not going to have to negotiate with each member state of the EU separately about their arrangements for continuing to receive our citizens and for our citizens to continue to live there. In other words, will we not have to have separate negotiations with Spain, France and each other country individually, and are we not likely to get different receptions depending on which country we are negotiating with? If so, how on earth are the Government going to do it?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My understanding, and I think I am clear on this, is that the negotiations we will have across the range of different areas regarding the single market, trading arrangements and so on will be with the EU. We continue to be part of the EU and will continue to have those discussions once we have established our negotiating criteria with the EU.

Drugs Policy

Debate between Lord Richard and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 13th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I do not share the noble Baroness’s view that backs were turned. Indeed, there were specific outcomes from the special session. As the noble Baroness will be aware, the British Government led on action against drugs, in light of new laws on psychoactive substances, and we got some real outcomes on that. Also, while I know that the noble Baroness was disappointed on issues of both drugs health policy and human rights, the UK Government again led both the European Union and 29 other Governments in making a statement to ensure that there will be substantial outcomes from that session.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware—I am sure he is not—that I find myself at a total loss to understand the Government’s policy towards the use of medicinal cannabis? Is he further aware that there is now a mass of medical evidence to show that, in certain cases, it can be useful and helpful? Is he also aware that, in relation to the legalisation of medicinal cannabis, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, Canada, Israel, Mexico, the Czech Republic, Portugal and 24 states in the United States of America have all agreed that the medical evidence is strong and that medicinal cannabis ought to be authorised? Why on earth do the Government not accept the evidence and do the same?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Government do follow the evidence. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that a clear regime is in place, administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, to enable medicines, including those containing controlled drugs, to be developed. I understand that Sativex is the cannabis-containing medicine that is authorised in the UK.

Railways: Swansea to Paddington

Debate between Lord Richard and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 22nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Richard]

The Minister said in his initial Answer that Sir Peter Hendy would look into, among other things, the “affordability” of the project. If funding is not an issue, what on earth is he going to look into?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I must say to noble Lords that I am very impressed by my popularity on the last day of term. The noble Lord nevertheless raises an important point. I mentioned affordability because of course challenges have arisen. That is why it is important to allow Sir Peter to look into all elements of the challenges that have arisen around Network Rail. As I have said already, we will return to this issue in the autumn.

Landlord and Tenant Acts

Debate between Lord Richard and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 29th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I draw attention to my leasehold interests in the register. In terms of information being shared with leaseholders, the Government agree that leaseholders should be made aware of any changes to service charge costs and the costs of insurance that they are required to contribute to. Moreover, they should be consulted about qualifying works and long-term agreements that exist.

My noble friend points to the issue of transparency, which of course is key. The statutory consultation requirements in Section 20 require that landlords disclose any connections when entering into long-term agreements over 12 months.

Finally, it is important for all leaseholders to make sure that their existing rights are protected. They can get free initial advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

With great respect to the Minister, the question is not whether tenants should have this information if they go and look for it—it is whether landlords should be obliged to tell them. Will the Minister kindly deal with that point, which seems to be the essential one? In these circumstances, should not landlords have an obligation to inform tenants of circumstances in which tenants will be very adversely affected as a result of changes of which they know nothing?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The important thing in this area is that a balance is struck between leaseholders’ rights about their homes, and existing legislation provides protection in this respect, including protection from freeholders about proceedings to forfeit the lease due to alleged breaches. The Government continue to welcome suggestions on how residential leasehold can be improved. Indeed, we held a round table last year and I am delighted to inform the House my honourable friend Brandon Lewis and I, together, I hope, with my noble friend Lord Faulks, will host a leasehold round table in the autumn of this year.

Stephen Ward

Debate between Lord Richard and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 16th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend of course speaks with great expertise as a former Minister responsible for this area. He is absolutely correct in what he has just said.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying about files in the public archives, but for the life of me I do not understand why, if evidence was given at the trial, that evidence should not be made public. It was made public in the sense that, at one stage, it was given in public and people could hear it in public. What on earth is the justification now for not producing it?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

While the noble Lord makes the point that this evidence has been heard in an open court, it does not necessarily follow that all relevant transcripts are released. As I have already indicated, and will now repeat, there are certain sensitivities around what was revealed. Indeed, as the noble Lord will know, many people who gave witness testaments at the following Denning inquiry did so on the assurance that their records would be protected.

Overseas Development Assistance

Debate between Lord Richard and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 27th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend raises a very important point. In all DfID funding, this concern has been expressed across the board, by both the previous Government and the current Government. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has taken up this issue personally. Indeed, in his golden thread, he sees the rule of law and good governance within countries as essential features of continuing support. Indeed, we are looking at countries such as Pakistan, where tax collection is very low, to ensure that tax levels and collection rates are improved domestically.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, can the noble Lord say something about the relationship that the Government seem to be proposing between Ministry of Defence expenditure and DfID expenditure? What sort of expenditure is meant to be covered, what sort of events are now meant to be part of the DfID budget as opposed to the MoD budget, what proportion of the DfID budget is covered by this, and how does it affect the overall commitment to funding of 0.7% of GDP?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am delighted to say that, as no doubt the noble Lord heard, my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced yesterday that DfID funding will continue to be at 0.7%. Indeed, we are the only country to do so and we are leading on this, which is something to be proud of. On the issue that he raises of the Ministry of Defence and the FCO, we continue to work across government with DfID to ensure initiatives that can be run and where there are economies. The Building Stability Overseas initiative is a great example of how DfID, the MoD and the FCO work together. However, DfID funding is for DfID purposes and, as my right honourable friend announced yesterday, is being protected at 0.7%.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Richard and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I wish to make three basic points. First, the whole essence of the European Union Bill concerns the transfer of powers and competences. As has clearly been stated by noble Lords before, the amendment does not relate to a transfer of power or competence and so remains firmly outside the scope of the Bill. Secondly, as has been made clear, the amendment, which is on the subject of accession, does not dilute the importance of the British veto, so again in my view it should not be taken forward. Thirdly, I align myself with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on the question that you pose about accession. He gave Macedonia as an example but what if several countries were joining and, having knocked on doors, you found that two people liked one country and one did not like another? What kind of response would you get to that? Therefore, let us put this issue into context. The European Union Bill is important but the amendment should certainly not constitute a key part of it.

[Lord Richard]

I should like to make one or two brief points. I have listened with great care, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Lords on the back row behind me. They have an argument. Within the logic of the Bill, it is perfectly legitimate to argue that, if you are to have a referendum on the powers of the European public prosecutor, it is logical—indeed, it is perhaps more logical—to have a referendum on new entrants to the European Union. I can see that argument, although it does not take us very far because you then have to look at the logic of the Bill. As my view is very firmly that the Bill is pretty illogical however you look at it, that the way in which it is set out is absurd and that its demands of the country in terms of referenda is ludicrous, I cannot possibly support the amendment.