Healthcare Development: International Partnerships

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work on strengthening global health partnerships and championing collaboration, as well as to his role as a patron of Global Health Partnerships; I will come back to his Myanmar example later. I echo his words on how our health sector is world-leading with extraordinary reach, as I think he said. That is the foundation of the development partnerships, which we and—to go back to the point from the noble Earl, Lord Courtown—the previous Government have pursued with such principle and vigour; I pay tribute to them as well.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. So many of your Lordships have such valuable experience in the area of health partnerships—experience that I have not had. I wish the son of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester good luck, and I thank the right reverend Prelate for his story about his son’s experience.

Our approach to development is having to modernise, as noble Lords know, with the aim of having a greater impact abroad and achieving better value for money at home. That is not an easy combination. It is based on four shifts: from donor to investor; from service delivery to system strengthening, on which I very much take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, about the sustainable development of new systems, rather than just transitory ones, being crucial; from grants to expertise; and from international intervention to local leadership.

In health, this means an approach that is increasingly rooted in partnership by listening to countries, responding to their priorities, combining UK expertise with local knowledge and building relationships based on mutual benefit—as we have heard about today from various noble Lords’ experiences—in order to strengthen health systems, build sustainable capability and support locally led approaches. I refer again to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester about the gift relationship and cultural humility—I, too, am a Richard Titmuss fan—as well as the idea that knowledge transfer is not just one-way. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, spoke very movingly about how it changed his life; I will come back to the programme that he talked about in a minute.

Unless exceptional circumstances or a crisis require a different approach, we see our role as not to deliver services on behalf of others but to work alongside partners in order to strengthen their own institutions, capabilities, and systems. To support this, the Foreign Office has established a community of expertise for health, which brings together expertise from across the UK and around the world and makes it available to our international network. Its purpose is to help partner countries strengthen their health systems, improve health security and deliver better health outcomes, particularly for women and girls—another thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, rightly highlighted as an oft-neglected dimension of development work. A fundamental principle of this community is that it is demand-led and not donor-driven.

This brings me to today’s Question. Let me answer the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, directly on what we are doing. We support healthcare development by working with Governments, health ministries and local organisations. We focus on the priorities that countries have identified for themselves, rather than imposing our own. We focus on areas where the UK has expertise to offer, while drawing on local knowledge.

Of course, there are occasions where more direct support is required, and one such example is the current Ebola outbreak, which the noble Lord asked me to comment on. The outbreak on 15 May has been declared an Ebola outbreak—the 17th. We are allocating up to just under £80 million to support an Africa-led response, and we are helping the WHO, the United Nations and NGO partners to strengthen surveillance, support front-line workers, improve infection prevention and control, and support access to life-saving care. I thank all those who are taking part in the collective effort to respond to this crisis as we speak.

The UK was among the first international partners to commit funding to the Africa-led response and is providing up to £80 million through the WHO, Africa CDC and the United Nations. Together, we are helping to strengthen surveillance, support front-line workers, improve infection prevention and control, and accelerate access to vaccines, treatments and diagnostics.

In all our activities, we are working through a range of partnerships, including partnerships at home with the NHS, universities and professional bodies. We supported health system partnerships in countries including Ghana, Malawi, Nepal, the Philippines, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, which draw on UK expertise, including from NHS England, and create opportunities for health professionals to improve their quality of care and experiences. We have heard today many examples of successful partnerships supported by this and the previous Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Oates, discussed the Global Health Volunteer Fellowships programme and gave some quite moving examples. He responded to some of the challenges put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester of embedding training in specific contexts rather than expecting skills to be transferred without bespoke training. I want to thank the doctors who take part in that, who provide their valuable time and skills on a volunteer basis. As explained by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, the programme provides clinical support through placements for doctors in partner countries but also encourages mutual learning between practitioners from different countries.

I am not aware of DHSC financial plans for this programme but I will make it my business to try to find out for the noble Lord. The experience and evidence that it generates will clearly be valuable, whatever programme develops in the future. I will get back to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on anything I can discover in advance of the spending review.

We also provide flexible technical assistance. We help partner Governments access the expertise they need to address their priorities and strengthen their health systems. Good examples include Bangladesh, also brought up by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, where we are supporting efforts to improve services for women and girls, and Somaliland, where we are helping the Ministry of Health strengthen health financing and planning. Alongside this, a recent £19 million DHSC programme has operated in several countries across Africa, linking NHS organisations, universities and royal colleges with counterparts overseas, helping to strengthen the health workforce through learning and collaboration.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned Myanmar and the fantastic work done by what I think became known as the UK Health Partnerships for Myanmar after the military coup five years ago. This involved a UK coalition, which the noble Lord mentioned in some detail, of more than 50 institutions, including royal colleges, NHS bodies, universities, parliamentarians and local clinicians, which developed teleconsultations, GP support, quality improvement, a nurses’ college and virtual clinical support—a real flagship example of what health partnerships can do.

I also want to draw attention, parochially, to my own department, the FCDO, whose principal health partnership programme since 2023 is the Health Systems Connect programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, rightly pointed to the importance of having multiyear programmes rather than single off-one grants or more fleeting forms of financial assistance. This is a four-year initiative, delivered through the NHS Consortium for Global Health, which connects partner Governments with expertise from NHS England, UKHSA and other bodies. The partnership work aims to accelerate progress toward improved healthcare systems and universal access.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, asked an important question about the impact of recruitment in the UK on the supply of health professionals in low-income and middle-income countries. This is obviously a complicated question. As she pointed out when talking about the GHP report that she discussed, the Government’s health plan aims to reduce reliance on international recruitment by reducing it to under 10% by 2035. That said, a continuing reliance on overseas recruitment will still be there. It is important, therefore, that we approach this in an ethical and sustainable way that supports, rather than undermines, the UK’s wider development objectives. As the noble Baroness knows, our code of practice for the international recruitment of health and social care personnel is the foundation of these ethical standards, which prohibits active recruitment from red-list countries, as she mentioned. We will continue to invest in partnerships that strengthen national health workforces in countries facing the greatest health system challenges.

All these efforts sit alongside our major investments through multilateral institutions and global health initiatives. Through partnerships with organisations such as the World Health Organization, the World Bank, Gavi and the Global Fund, we are helping to strengthen health systems more broadly. The Government seek to ensure that their support for healthcare in partner countries starts by listening to partners and supporting their priorities. We work alongside the Governments, civil institutions, organisations and local workforces on which health outcomes truly depend.

Lastly, I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on this debate and the work that he and the GHP have championed. I thank all noble Lords for the experiences that they have shared today.

Committee adjourned at 4.06 pm.

Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor: Citizenship

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have made representations to the government of Israel regarding the citizenship of documentary film directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)]

My Lords, we support freedom of expression, including artistic freedom. We have not made representations to the Government of Israel, but we expect any action affecting an individual’s citizenship or civil rights to be conducted in accordance with the rule of law and with due process. Democracy and the rule of law are among Israel’s founding values. These are vital to a secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, not least because I know of his long-term commitment to the arts in general and filmmaking, I think, in particular. I wonder how we remind ourselves, let alone persuade friends and allies, that in a democracy dissent is not disloyalty but the test of democratic values. Given the excellent debate on the first Question, on G20 priorities, can my noble friend say a little more on Foreign Office work and priorities around promoting rights and freedoms in general?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question and pay tribute to her long-standing commitment to rights, freedoms and the rule of law for many years. She is absolutely right that dissent is the test of the health of democracy, and we remain concerned about reports of threats and intimidation directed at journalists, filmmakers and others. I am pleased to say that the Foreign Office takes media freedom extremely seriously. We chair a coalition on media freedom. My ministerial friend Chris Elmore talked about this issue to the Foreign Affairs Committee in recent months. It is going to continue to be a priority, not just in the Middle East but elsewhere.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, should know better before submitting such Questions. Any revoking of Israeli citizenship requires the Interior Minister, the Attorney-General and a court to independently agree, and the noble Baroness knows that no such proceedings have been opened. Does the Minister agree, as the film itself received a 25-minute standing ovation in Venice, and the filmmakers were free to make and screen a film fiercely—and I say fiercely—criticising their own Government, that this episode shows the strength and well-being of press freedom and democratic debate in Israel and should be praised by all noble Lords and His Majesty’s Government?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I start by wishing the noble Lord and all other Jewish Members of our Chamber a happy new year. He is right that Israel, for example, is a signatory to both the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, as we are. I note that the Israeli Prime Minister last night made remarks about possible future legislation, but we do not comment on that; we will see what transpires. The noble Lord is also completely right that there is a venerable and admirable tradition of robust free speech and exchange, and we hope that that tradition remains in place.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will agree that it is indeed inappropriate to focus on a state where there is a stringent judicial process—we do not want discrimination. On the international front, things are even worse. In a few days’ time, the United Nations Durban conference will be marking the 25th anniversary of the World Conference against Racism, which turned out to be an antisemitism and anti-Israel conference. Can the Minister confirm—because I have written to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister about this—that Britain will not participate in the upcoming Durban conference?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I will have to return on the question of participation in future conferences. On the broader question of government action on antisemitism, I explained in the House last week that over £300 million has been committed to attacking and addressing antisemitism at home. Antisemitism is unacceptable. It is a scourge of any society, especially democratic society. At UNGA, in our upcoming event hosted by the Foreign Secretary in New York, we are going to focus more on this, and there will be more to say from the Government in due course on antisemitism.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, the Israeli military initially responded to “NAZA” by saying that it categorically rejects the allegations, but, in a later statement, it said that

“the allegations required a detailed, evidence-based response rather than a blanket dismissal”,

which I think most people would agree was the correct response. But is there not a danger for Israel in having a Minister who has suggested that he is going to move to remove citizenship? If that happened and it was challenged in court, would there not be a real danger that the personnel in the movie, who are anonymised at the moment, would be identified, and that would discredit the process and, indeed, embarrass the Government of Israel?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a number of complex hypothetical issues around this, and they may or may not transpire, but they are matters for Israeli courts, Israeli politics and Israel in general rather than for me.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, building on the question from my noble friend Lord Polak, as the noble Lord acknowledged, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It has robust rule-of-law provisions. I wonder what steps the Government are taking to establish those exact provisions in the rest of the Middle East, including Iraq, Iran, Syria and all these other Arab countries.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I am not sure whether he remembers the announcements made last week about taking extremely robust action: sanctions against the financing arm of Hezbollah, and further sanctions actions against Iran in the transport, energy and other sectors supporting its attempted nuclear programme, and on vessels that transport materials for it. In other states where there is terrorism and hostility to the UK and our allies, we are taking robust action in the hope that, in the future, democracy may take root.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, last month, the union of Palestinian journalists documented 108 attacks by Israeli forces and settlers on journalists and media workers in the occupied West Bank. Those attacks included detention, beatings and seizure of media equipment. Will my noble friend the Minister support the Palestinian trade union of journalists in calling for all media workers to be able to work free from intimidation and violence and for those responsible to be held accountable?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. She is absolutely right that attacks on all journalists are a matter of grave concern. We are very concerned by the high death toll of journalists in Gaza. Reporters covering conflicts should be and must be afforded protection under international humanitarian law. Access to conflict zones is vital for the media to carry out their role effectively—a role that we all depend on.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister rightly recognised that, in Israel, independent filmmakers can and do produce work that is highly critical of their own Government. Are the Government taking any steps to ensure that independent filmmakers can do precisely that in Gaza, the West Bank or any other state without suffering appalling consequences? Can I also recommend to the Minister and, indeed, to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the new fifth season of the award-winning Israeli drama “Fauda”, which deals with the appalling events of 7 October and their aftermath?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I am a “Fauda” fan, and I have not got to the fifth season yet, but I will do; I appreciate the pointer. On establishing freedom for artistic expression and freedom of speech in the West Bank and Gaza, there is, unfortunately, limited ability for us to influence what is happening at the moment in Gaza, but in the West Bank we are working with the Palestinian Authority to help cement reforms and support the development of democracy and the rule of law.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am non-affiliated, so it is my turn. Notwithstanding the due process referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, does the Minister agree that, when a senior member of a Government threatens to withdraw citizenship, that can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and, indeed, artistic expression? I would like to widen this slightly further: will he now take action against the Turkish Government for arresting LGBT activists and LGBT people merely for expressing their right to live and exist?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I have raised the issue on LGBT activists with my Turkish counterparts. On the general question, I do not think it is appropriate to respond to individual comments of politicians in other countries. At this stage, I will leave it at that.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the choice of who forms the Israeli Government is for the Israeli people and them alone. Our foreign policy is for our Government, and our legislation is for this Parliament. No British Jewish person should be held to account for the actions of another Government—an Israeli Government. Antisemitism, at too high a rate, is utterly repugnant and has no place in our communities. I reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions, and I hope that the Minister might take this forward: there should be the highest-level cross-party talks on increasing measures to tackle this scourge in our country.

That said, I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s comment in his Statement that the Labour Government have not done enough in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. Therefore, these Benches welcome the actions taken by 12 countries, including the United Kingdom, to act on ensuring that there is no impunity for the comprehensive disregard for the rule of law in the West Bank.

The Foreign Secretary referred to the time of the Oslo accords and the number of those who resided in the illegal settlements. That number is very high. But I want to go a little bit further back and quote the first speech by Lord Carrington, as Foreign Secretary in the Thatcher Government in 1979, in this Chamber. In this speech, he said of the West Bank that:

“The objective here must be full and genuine autonomy for these areas as a step towards determining their final status. Nothing would do more to help these negotiations, to build trust in the area, and to win the consent of the Palestinians than for Israel to cease the expansion of its settlements in the occupied territories”.—[Official Report, 22/5/1979; col. 240.]


Then, there were not much more than 15,000 settlers in the illegally occupied areas. Today, there are more than 750,000. The challenges ahead are enormous, but Lord Carrington got the prescription of the problem exactly right.

I have seen the impunity both for those who are in the illegally occupied territory and for those in the outposts. In September 2024, I visited the area and saw part of the destruction and the intimidation by illegal settlers in outposts in the West Bank that are illegal under Israeli law. Our sanctions will not make any difference there. On my return to this House, I called for action and an end to the impunity, because settler violence was the worst on record in the year leading up to 7 October, and it has got worse since.

If the established view across all parties in this House is that outposts are illegal under both Israeli and international law, and that settlements are illegal under international law, surely it is a natural position that UK law should not facilitate trade and investment with those illegal outposts. I do not understand those who are saying that we should not have our law respecting Israeli law.

Further, it is surely a natural position that, for those who facilitate settlements and outposts that are illegal under Israeli law, our law should ensure that both finance and violence by intimidation should also be illegal. My first-hand sight of the intimidation was on a particular occasion where the settler was South African and had secured and formalised his Israeli citizenship on the flight from South Africa.

Unfortunately, actions to ensure that there is no peace in Gaza and the West Bank are happening through a systematic approach by some of those outpost communities. Lord Carrington was right that the outposts and settlements were a hindrance and block to peace.

I ask the Minister how we in the United Kingdom will ensure that Hamas gangsters are prevented from being part of governance. We called for the IRGC to be proscribed and were, on occasions, frustrated that the previous Government refused to do so. We welcome this Government’s proscription of it.

We have also been supportive of the recognition of the state of Palestine. But, on the balance of ensuring that Hamas is not part of the governance, we need to ensure that there is good governance for Palestine, and that is why we were critical of the Government cutting development partnership support for the very governance and transparency for Palestine that we will need in the future.

The previous Government perpetuated a cut of 80% to ODA for Palestine, which this Government are continuing. I hope that the Minister might review this, to ensure that the UK’s support for good governance increases and does not continue to fall. The travesty of the Trump Administration’s failed humanitarian agency shows the need for there to be clarity, law and order, and good governance.

Finally, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the sanctions regime that will be put in place will ensure that all those involved in circumvention of the sanctions regime will be caught within it, so that there is no impunity for those within this country, under our law, to continue to support the expansion of outposts that are illegal under Israeli law.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Purvis, for their comments. I will answer their questions in a minute, but I think it might be helpful to give a little bit of context that will help me provide some of the answers they are looking for.

This Government think that the situation in Palestine is a moral emergency. We all know—we can see with our eyes—what the Israeli Government have inflicted on the people of Gaza. It is an outrage. There is increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed in Gaza, and we are witnessing unprecedented violence, including settler terrorism, in the West Bank.

What the Foreign Secretary announced yesterday was a decision not to stand by and let this happen. We are going to be stronger in standing up for what is right and bolder in the action we take.

What is striking is that all parties—the Liberal Democrats, Conservative and Labour, at the very least, but others as well—support the two-state solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, eloquently stated at the outset of his remarks: freedom, security and self-determination for both Palestinian and Israeli people.

This action is designed to defend this policy at a time when the already diminishing prospects for that solution are under serious threat. That is why we have concluded that Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, in line with the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion in 2024. That is why we have brought in the various sanctions regime measures that the Foreign Secretary talked about yesterday. I am happy to talk about those in more detail in a minute in response to some of these questions.

Turning to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, it is striking that he started his remarks by supporting our policy but is unwilling to support the means by which we prosecute our policy at a time when it is needed most. He asked whether our actions would undermine influence. How Israel responds is a matter for Israel, just as our foreign policy is a matter for us. We have very strong and continuing security co-operation with Israel. That will continue. It is in the interests of our country, Israel, the wider region and the West in general.

The noble Lord also asked about support. We have support most notably from the Palestinian representatives of the people whom these measures affect most. We also have support directly from France and Canada, which aligned their policies yesterday, the day that the Foreign Secretary announced our new approach, and 12 other countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, which are going to support economic measures to pursue the same goal.

The noble Lord asked about legislation for sanctions. It is a good question. There is a series of separate things. We are taking immediate action under existing legislation to target individual settlers—an action that the Conservative Government also took against individual settlers a few years ago. We are going to extend the global human rights regime to include violations of humanitarian law. We expect that to be brought into force in the next few weeks. In the longer term, as the noble Lord said, it will take six months or more to develop a new, targeted approach to companies that assist or profit from the expansion of settlements. There are challenges in bringing that about. There is no doubt about it. There will be tough cases, particularly as we are committed to protecting the integrity of trade with green-line Israel. But we are confident that we have a sophisticated sanctions regime, with various institutions that have played a part in applying sanctions elsewhere. I have taken decisions in my short time in this job with regard to Russia, for example. We have sophisticated co-ordination between HMRC, OTSI, OFSI and other bodies that we are confident can deliver a manageable regime.

The noble Lord asked about timing in advance of the elections. The elections, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said more eloquently than I could, are a matter for the Israeli people. Our responsibility is to our country and to advance a policy that defends the commitments that are shared not just across parties but, we believe, across the country.

On Hamas, let me be absolutely clear that there should be no place for Hamas in the future governance of Palestine. We have taken strong action on the proscription of Hamas. We will continue to take strong action against Hamas in funding and also against individuals. At the moment, the priority is to support the United States’ 20-point plan. That is a crucial plank for achieving the restoration of order and peace in the region. However, we will not hesitate to use the powers we have to target Hamas individually and collectively in the future.

The noble Lord asked about the Chief Rabbi’s comments. I have huge respect for the Chief Rabbi, but I disagree with his conclusion. Antisemitism is a scourge not just in our country but elsewhere. It is something that everyone should take hugely seriously and do the utmost to stamp out, but the Government have to be able to take decisions about the foreign policy of another Government. They have to have the freedom to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, again eloquently said, we should all condemn eliding the distinction between British Jews and the responsibilities they have and the Israeli Government and the responsibilities they have. We should deny that connection.

I turn now to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who supported much of yesterday’s announcement, and I am very grateful for that. He is right to point to the number of countries that have co-ordinated in aligning themselves with the Foreign Secretary’s new approach yesterday—and he is also right to point to the cross-party routes of action against settlers. The quote from Lord Carrington shows that action against settlers is not a new part of Labour Government policy; it is a consistent theme that goes back to distinguished members of both parties, and other parties, for a very long time.

I, too, have visited areas where—let us be honest—settlers have wreaked havoc and caused misery and destruction. I went with the Foreign Secretary, when he was leader of the Labour Party, to the E1 area, where we met and dined with a Bedouin community who had been there for decades and were being forcibly expelled by settler violence. The noble Lord put his finger on the key rationale here: once you take a position on the legality of the occupation, as we have done, our trade policy aligning with that is not just an extra but a duty. That is the policy that was announced yesterday, and it is why we are targeting not only those who perpetrate settler violence but also, in future, individual companies that will seek to assist settlement expansion and profit from it. He is right also to point to the need to ensure Hamas is not involved in future Palestinian governance arrangements, and to say that the UK needs to play a strong part in supporting good governance in Palestine. My noble friend Lord Barber plays an important part as an envoy on Palestinian governance, and we have a range of support measures that we will continue to provide.

On the last point about sanction circumvention, the noble Lord is absolutely right that a regime that is not easily evaded needs to be devised. The regime will be based on postcode declarations, an established mechanism that is used elsewhere. There is a combination of activity by HMRC, the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation and the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which have worked together in many ways for a long time. They will continue to do so to ensure that this regime is as watertight as we can make it.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we go on to the next 20 minutes, which is for Back-Bench questions only, if we have short questions and not statements or speeches, we will be able to get in as many noble Lords as possible. Bearing that in mind, we will start with the Conservatives and work around the Chamber.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answers to the two Front Benches, and note the proud tradition of the Conservative Party —not just Lord Carrington, who called out the E1 settlement which was the trigger here, but successive Conservative Prime Ministers also. I declare my interests in working for organisations that have been resolving conflict in the Middle East. I have two practical questions to ask the Minister.

In response to British sanctions—and I agree with him that the Conservative Government initiated the sanctions regime to which he refers—what are the practical consequences of the closure of the consulate in Jerusalem in terms of Palestinian representation? Also importantly, what engagement do we directly have with the Israelis—because many in Israel wish to see a final agreement and settlement so there is security and peace for Palestinians and Israelis—to ensure that this vision, which has gone on for far too long, turns into a working, practical reality?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. He is right that we were disappointed that the Israeli response was to close the UK consulate in East Jerusalem, with a 30-day notice period. We will continue to endeavour to provide in other ways the kind of activities that the consulate provided. There are other measures that Israel responded with, though none affecting security. It is, of course, its right to respond in the way it sees fit. The noble Lord is also right that there has to be dialogue with those forces in Israeli society who want peace and see cross-community co-operation as the future. That is something that this Government are going to support, and the Foreign Secretary is very keen to support it as well.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. In that context, we unequivocally oppose the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and condemn settler violence. Those responsible for the violence should face the full force of the law. However, the Government’s decision to ban trade with settlements is, in my view, the wrong response at the wrong time. Announced just before the Israeli elections, which are next month, this strengthens the far right of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who claim that Israel is under siege, pushing voters away from the less hard-line parties and weakening Israelis’ hope for change. Britain should refrain from acts that will influence Israeli elections, which, as I say, are next month. We would not like it if a foreign country were doing that during the course of the UK elections. We should be supporting moderates. The Minister mentioned—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord like to sit down, please? He has had ample time to make his point.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. He obviously speaks with great authority and passionate interest in this subject. I agree that we should be supporting moderates—not intervening politically to support them, but supporting moderate voices across Israeli society and within the Palestinian Authority. Serious reform needs to be done in the Palestinian area as well.

I want to be clear that, while obviously a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet are in place, the reason for the timing of this announcement is a sharp rise in settler violence; an accelerating expansion of settlements; a new tender process in the E1 settlement area that was issued in August—which, by the way, completes a week before the Israeli election; and a consistent failure by many of those in power in Israel to hold those who perpetrate violence to account. That is the explanation for the timing.

Israel’s elections will proceed according to Israeli law, and we will not intervene in Israeli politics. We have to make decisions based on the facts that we see. The new Government have come in and made an assessment, and that is why we responded when we did.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Will the Minister recognise the wisdom of the statement yesterday by the much-respected president of the State of Israel, Isaac Herzog, who said that what is needed in this context is constructive dialogue, not gesture politics. Is it not therefore most unfortunate that, since the appointment of Prime Minister Burnham in July, he is yet even to speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu?

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. Dialogue is, of course, fundamental to the way forward in this as in any comparable crisis, and in any complex situation like this. President Herzog urged dialogue. When it comes to the expansion of settlements, though, there seems to be precious little dialogue going on domestically to restrain an accelerating and deeply disturbing trend. I will give the House some statistics: as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, there were about 250,000 settlers in 1993 at the time of Oslo, but in 2026 there are 750,000. There are six settler violence incidents per day, with 65 Palestinian communities expelled in their entirety since 2023. I absolutely agree with the need for dialogue, and I think dialogue should be the first port of call between Israel’s Government and the settler community.

I am sorry, I forget the second part of the noble Lord’s question. I do apologise.

[Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Statement by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, particularly the tone in which he delivered it. I truly believe that the calling out of the illegal occupation, and the sanctions on the illegal settlements, is a game-changer in progressing towards peace in the region. While that is happening, and the implementation is key, can my noble friend the Minister say what actions the Government are taking to bring force to bear on some of the other actors in the region, such as Iran and its proxies?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. It is absolutely right that the action we took yesterday, in announcing a new policy on sanctions with regard to the West Bank, was accompanied by further strong action against Iran, in particular by taking action against the supply chain for its nuclear programme. The Labour Government have already—last year—reapplied the snapback mechanism, as some noble Lords know, for United Nations resolutions. We yesterday announced further actions targeting the financial trade, energy and transport sectors, and are targeting financial assistance and the banking of Iranian companies, for those companies connected to the nuclear programme. We are going to expand the sanctioning of vessels involved in activities supporting the nuclear programme. We also took action yesterday in proscribing al-Qard al-Hassan, the financing arm of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Taking strong action against Iran and its proxies, as my noble friend said, is a crucial part of ensuring that Israel remains secure.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, like others in this House, I came face to face with settler militia and the impact on settlements while visiting the south Hebron hills last year. Therefore, with many on these Benches, I welcome this Statement. We have called for such principled action over many years. We believe that these measures are just, necessary and, frankly, overdue, although we also want to emphasise that, in acting against specific policies of the Israeli Government, we of course remain unreservedly opposed to the evils of antisemitism, here in the UK and everywhere. I have a specific question. Does the Minister accept, given the E1 tenders—E1 has already been mentioned, but I think tenders are coming up on 19 October and are about to be opened—that further measures are needed to deter Israeli banks from guaranteeing such bids?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the most reverend Primate for those comments. He is right that the E1 settlement tender process finishes on 19 October. Our announcement yesterday is a signal that any company which wants to take part in any of the construction-related processes in that tender should think twice, because we are bringing forward steps that, although not a blanket services ban at all, are targeted measures to focus on any company that assists or profits from the expansion of settlements. I appreciate also his comments at the beginning about broad support for this policy. I should also point out that it is not just Muslim Palestinians who are the victims of settlement expansion. Palestinian Christians have seen terrible suffering, including arson attacks and attacks on churches. In Taybeh, I believe the fifth-century St Peter’s Church was attacked. They have seen their land taken away, so this is action in support of Palestinians of all descriptions who have experienced those horrors in the face of settler violence.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

Absolutely not. There is and must be no connection between the actions of the Israeli Government and any attribution of responsibility to British Jews. That is a connection that we totally deny. The new Prime Minister has shown his commitment. The reason why this investment needs to be provided is because there has been, over time, a shocking rise in antisemitic incidents. Everyone can see it. Just last week we commemorated the upcoming anniversary of the appalling Heaton Park attack. That was followed by antisemitic attacks in Golders Green, including on the Hatzola ambulances. Antisemitic incidents are, shockingly, on the rise, not just here but across countries. That is why we will provide over £300 million, in fact, over three years to protect Jewish communities and tackle antisemitism. That is why the Foreign Secretary is meeting the J7, the group of countries with the largest Jewish populations, in October. It is a priority for the new Prime Minister; he has made that clear already. That commitment will remain absolute, and I hope it enjoys cross-party support.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s Statement. Ever since Mr Rabin’s tragic death in the mid-1990s, the Palestinians have been strung along with the hope of an independent state, and people such as Mr Netanyahu have done everything possible to hinder it. This E1 is the final straw that will break the camel’s back. I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments around our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime, which has enabled us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or elsewhere. Will that be extended to Mr Netanyahu or Mr Gallant, for whom there are already arrest warrants, or to those individual soldiers seen on various videos committing crimes against humanity, whether in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank, where settlers and the police are colluding to target and shoot dead innocent Palestinians?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those questions. He is absolutely right that the cause of the overwhelming majority of decent Palestinians has been neglected for too long. I hope this starts to correct some of that. On global human rights reforms, we are beefing up the existing regime—by the way, this is a universal regime rather than targeted on specific countries—to include not just those who abuse human rights but those who violate international humanitarian law in Palestine and throughout the world. That does not stop us using existing global human rights regimes to target individual settlers. That is why five individuals were targeted yesterday.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, do the Government consider that the Government of Israel have the right to order us to close the consulate in east Jerusalem, given that it is situated in east Jerusalem, which is recognised by the United Nations and practically all its members as being occupied Palestinian territory over which Israel does not have sovereignty? Can he say whether we are going to contest the attempt to order us to close the consulate, which is both disproportionate and ultra vires?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, knows much more about this than I do; I feel like I am in my introductory day at the Foreign Office, trying to work out difficult questions. He may have a point; it is an interesting point on the legality. De facto, Israel can prevent the operation of that consulate, which is why we are endeavouring to ensure that the consulate’s functions will be provided in another way.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord give us some examples of where the Palestinians have accepted a two-state solution? Israel has accepted it. As a British Jew, I would welcome it. The Government must know—if they do not, they should, I hope, take note—that the Jews in this country have felt under attack and under pressure from the double standards that seem to be applied to the only Jewish state in the world, which is surrounded by enemies and trying to defend itself, while the Palestinian Authority is getting aid and still supports the “pay for slay” policy. Will the Minister please explain how these double standards can be acceptable?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question; she has great interest and expertise in this issue. The two-state solution is expected on all parties—Palestinians and Israelis. It is something we expect the leaders of the Palestinian Authority and of Israel to support, and we want their actions to match their commitment. On both sides, symmetrically, where actions fall short, we will take action with our foreign policy.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the Foreign Secretary on both the tone and content of his Statement on the West Bank and Gaza. Moreover, I regret the hypocrisy of those opposite who claim to support a two-state solution yet refuse to endorse actions against the Israeli Government, whose settlement policy is making such a solution impossible. I also wonder why they do not condemn their continual breaking of international law on occupation. As so often, the Israeli Government have over-reacted, including by deciding to close the British consulate. More than one speaker has raised this issue. Will particular care be taken to ensure that Palestinians wishing to get visas to come to the UK, who would normally do that through the consulate, will be able to do so? Finally, will the Government make it clear to the Israeli Government that the measures produced yesterday have the overwhelming support of the British population, as demonstrated by polling information? That should be taken into account in any constructive dialogue that takes place.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions; she has raised an important point. Down the line, I would be interested to find out whether the Conservative Party agrees with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 2024. We have made our decision; I would be interested to find out what the position of the Conservatives and other parties is. On the provision of consular services, including visa provision, as I said earlier, we will endeavour to provide functional replacements for what was provided by the consulate in East Jerusalem, once it is forced to close after 30 days. On the last point, about public support, I strongly believe that, while the position the Foreign Secretary outlined yesterday clearly does not express everyone’s view—this is an issue that sometimes divides in passionate ways—it expresses a broad majority support for taking action against some of the violence and turning of a blind eye by the Israeli Government, particularly in settler areas.

Nepal: Flooding

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as Deputy Colonel Commandant, Brigade of Gurkhas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by saying that I am sure that the thoughts of everyone in this House are with all those affected, including the families and loved ones of British nationals missing in this tragedy. The impacts of flooding in Nepal are devastating, as we all can see. The Question is about Nepal, but I remind noble Lords that China is also affected.

In response, the UK Government have provided £5 million in immediate humanitarian assistance. We are looking at how else we can help the response effort. In support of British nationals and their families, Foreign Office staff and our embassy teams are working round the clock. Rapid deployment teams have been sent to Nepal, which will bolster our ability to support British nationals and their families. We have also sent specialist humanitarian experts to support the response. We continue to be in very close contact with the Nepalese Government. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Nepali Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal on Thursday; he expressed Britain’s solidarity with Nepal and offered our deepest condolences. Our thoughts are with all those affected, and we will continue to support both the people and the Government of Nepal.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for his reply and echo his comments: the thoughts of your Lordships’ House are with the friends and families of those affected and we thank all our staff at the embassy in Kathmandu, many of whom I know, who are doing a fantastic job. I have three quick questions. First, will the Minister pay particular attention to the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority? This fledgling unit in the Nepalese Government is co-ordinating all the international support. If it needs further assistance, I hope that we will give it.

Secondly, looking beyond the immediate crisis, Nepal’s biggest test is yet to come: how to build back differently and not replicate the vulnerabilities that this disaster has exposed. Drawing on UK strengths in science, risk modelling and climate finance, will the Minister commit long-term support to help Nepal become a global example of how countries understand, manage and finance climate risk while growing their economies?

Thirdly, I make a very personal plea, perhaps on behalf of the Brigade of Gurkhas. Its members would not forgive me if I did not express their desire, as they did after the earthquake in 2015, to deploy and support their fellow countrymen in the rebuilding of their country. I recognise that is down to a request from Nepal and to HMG.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, not just for his lifetime of service in military and government occupations and political roles but for his passion and commitment to Nepal, and the Gurkhas in particular. On his first point, he is absolutely right that Britain has supported Nepal on disaster risk, and we should definitely continue to support the authority that he mentioned. The £5 million package that I mentioned builds on about £100 million of UK support, which has developed Nepal’s climate resilience over the past 10 to 20 years with strengthening resilience funds, a climate smart development fund and a resilience adaptation fund. There is strong partnership in those dimensions, and it will continue.

On his second point, I very much like the way the noble Lord expressed the ideal of helping Nepal build back differently. As he said, we have the science, business and political capacity to provide the kind of support that would enable that.

Thirdly, I pay tribute to the Gurkhas and I appreciate the noble Lord’s reference to them. As he said, the support we are offering has to be led by the Nepalese Government and partners on the ground. I assure noble Lords that the support we are continuing to provide is changing as the needs change in the development of this crisis and as the kinds of challenges that the Nepalese are facing evolve.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his post and I wish him the very best in carrying out his role. I know that he has visited Nepal and that he will be acutely aware of the impact of this disaster. I associate these Benches with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. We support the efforts of the Government and our embassy staff in offering support.

I will ask the Minister a broader question on the crisis reserve. In 2017, the OECD reported that the UK humanitarian crisis reserve stood at £500 million. In March this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, told the Commons International Development Committee that it currently stands at a fifth of that, at £100 million, as a result of UK development assistance cuts. Will the Minister, in his new role, work with colleagues to try to restore the party consensus that existed before the development cuts to ensure that at least one area that can be restored would be the humanitarian crisis reserve? We know, regrettably, that that will be needed in the future.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the welcome, and I very much look forward to working with him. I also take the opportunity, based on the noble Lord’s remarks on our Foreign Office staff, to thank them personally for the amount of work that they are doing. They are working round the clock to support British nationals and their families in incredibly confusing and difficult conditions. I pay tribute to them and thank them for that.

On the crisis reserve, I would love to establish a cross-party consensus. It is a matter of public record that the Government have made tough decisions on ODA. I am pleased to say that the response of the UK Government in the past week on Nepal has been full and comprehensive. It is in partnership and observes all the principles that a good crisis response should. Yes, there are financial challenges, and I am sure that we will return to those. Of course, there are issues that arise from the budget decisions that have been made, but I am pleased to say that the UK Government’s crisis response has so far been exemplary and of huge help to the Nepalese Government.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, we all welcome what the Government are doing in terms of responding to the tragedy that has unfolded over the last few weeks in Nepal. Could the Minister take back to his colleagues in the FCDO the question of Bhutan? It shares many of the same characteristics as Nepal, but we have no permanent diplomatic representation in Bhutan, and it sometimes gets overlooked. When they are undertaking these studies, particularly around preventing these things and the early warning equipment that Bhutan has very little of, could he please discuss these matters with his colleagues?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. It is an extremely important point. Sadly, this will not be the last incident of this sort, and there are lots of countries that share geographical, climate and economic features that we can learn from. Cross-referencing the successes and shortcomings of how the world has responded to this is an important issue across countries, including Bhutan.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, mentioned the Gurkhas. Our thoughts are with all those who serve in British forces and with their families in Nepal. Could the Minister say what support is being given to the Gurkha Welfare Trust and other organisations that support Gurkha veterans in Nepal?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord; I do not have details on that. I will definitely come back to him with more details on the kind of support that we are offering.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, I was brought up with the Gurkhas from birth, and my late father, General Bilimoria, was president of the Gurkha Brigade in India. To follow on from the previous question and what the major-general, the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, what specific help are the Government giving to the Gurkhas in this country whose families have been affected by this awful tragedy, including the Gurkha Welfare Trust? Are the UK Government working with the Indian Government, because there are many pilgrims, including pilgrims from here, who have gone from India to Mount Kailash and have been tragically affected by this? Are we co-ordinating with India?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

Let me say a little bit more about the kind of support that we are offering. We have deployed consular staff to the region, who are providing 24/7 assistance and advice to family and friends worried about loved ones in Nepal, China and the UK. UK policing is also supporting the response through the deployment of family liaison officers to the families of those affected. They are providing dedicated support to affected families in the UK.

[Lord Camoys (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. I declare my interest as chair of the UK charity Nepal Nature Trust, and as a member of the governing board of Nepal’s National Trust for Nature Conservation. The UK Met Office previously helped Nepal develop flood early-warning systems. Will the Government now build on that work and help develop the Himalayan equivalent of a tsunami warning system that would work across borders and would be capable of detecting sudden glacial collapses such as that seen last week, which current systems were not able to deal with, giving downstream communities precious minutes to reach safety?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. He points to an important element that I referred to in answer to an earlier question about lessons that need to be learned not just by consular, political and other bodies but by scientists. The Met Office will, I am sure, play a huge part in this because of the international collaborations that it already has and will continue to have.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, according to many international organisations, including the national development programme, India and Pakistan are among the nations at the highest risk of cloudbursts and glacier bursts. What are our Government doing to help those countries to put in early warning signs and other measures to deal with these catastrophes when they happen?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. Part of bilateral assistance includes climate support across the piece regularly, including to India and Pakistan. I think it is fair to say that as a result of this catastrophe, which is what it is, there will have to be a focus on updating the kind of support that will need to be provided, not just by the UK Government but by partners across the world, for countries that may face similar challenges, and I am sure that that is work that we will be leading and are looking forward to.

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, we have a very special relationship with Nepal, especially the Gurkha soldiers serving the British Army for the last six decades. What happened was tragic and I welcome the financial support that the Government are giving, but I think we need to give more. They need food and medical supplies, they need emergency shelter and, particularly while a lot of bodies are still under mud, rescue, logistics, temporary reconstruction of housing and, of course, infrastructure restoration. I am sure that we can do more than we have done so far. Can the Minister please take it to his office and discuss and debate this to see what more we can do to help Nepal in this difficult time?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I think this is a good opportunity for me to say a little bit about the kind of support we are providing. We are providing up to £750,000 through the Red Cross movement for emergency humanitarian assistance—for clean water, shelter, first aid and supplies—up to £1 million through Start Fund Nepal for local organisations that are delivering life-saving assistance, and up to £250,000 to deploy UK humanitarian experts and strengthen co-ordination efforts.

On top of that, of course, there are the contributions of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, to which we are contributors, so there is a lot of support. I want to reassure the noble Lord, who is completely right to say that a bewildering variety of needs will have to be served, that we are in close contact with the Nepalese Government and authorities about the kind of support that we can offer: where it is complementary to what they are providing, where it is being provided anyway, and where there are gaps that in future will need to be filled. Those are exactly the conversations that are ongoing, with a view to exactly the priorities he discussed.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Rajendra Dawadi, the head teacher who saved 900 schoolchildren from the floods, and hundreds more by alerting the bus drivers so they did not deliver them to the school? It is an example of individual heroism that I think we should acknowledge.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that example; I do join her in that. Like other noble Lords, I have been struck by the extraordinary human stories over the past week. I think it is worth saying again that we can only imagine the horror and terror of family members who have no idea where their family members are at this moment. It is a tragedy that is full of extraordinary heroism, but also deep horror and confusion, and I am glad that the UK Government are playing their part in supporting as much as possible.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his contributions and his update on this devastating event that happened in Nepal. I also join other noble Lords in sending our condolences to the families of the victims and our support for those responding, whether as part of our diplomatic service or from other countries, and the Nepalese people. However, we have heard a lot about what has been happening in Nepal, but I wonder whether the Minister can contribute a little more about what is actually happening in Tibet and under the Chinese authorities. Are there any British nationals who are facing difficulties there, and have we any idea of the number of British nationals in that part of the world?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that statement, which I agree with, and for raising the issue of China. This has been discussed as a Nepalese issue but, as we know, partly because of the pilgrimage that a lot of people were on, this is a passage that goes across the Nepalese and Chinese border. To give an update on numbers, we have 36 British people currently unaccounted for. We are working with the Chinese authorities as well as the Nepalese authorities. It would be unfair to say anything more about the individual cases of British nationals, but those are the cases that the British consular authorities and British support are catering to at the moment.

Saudi Arabia: Nuclear Power Programme

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of the United States of America about their proposal to help the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia develop a nuclear power programme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK Government regularly discuss civil nuclear matters with the United States Government, including through our representations to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. The proposed agreement is a matter for the Governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia. The United Kingdom supports the expansion of civil nuclear energy, both in the UK and internationally, alongside robust safeguards, safety, security and non-proliferation measures overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, may I be the first from this side of the House to congratulate the Minister on his appointment? Our Select Committee is left all the poorer by his elevation. Have the Government been able to see the full text of the agreement between Saudi Arabia and America, which is very profitable for American business but, if reports are to be believed, does not contain similar safeguards to those in other treaties applied in that area of the world? For example, press reports indicate that there are no safeguards for independent international inspection and no mention of uranium enrichment or the additional protocol of the non-proliferation treaty. Surely the safeguards applied in the past to countries such as the United Arab Emirates ought to apply equally to an agreement with Saudi Arabia.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those kind comments. It is a real pleasure that the first Question I answer is from, if not my noble friend then my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. On his Question, as the deal has not been published, we cannot comment on the nature of the detail. However, it is reassuring that the United States and Saudi Arabia are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Saudi Arabia has a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, so there is reason to have confidence that the process in place will provide the safeguards that the noble Lord looks for.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Does he agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that this agreement would be greatly strengthened if it made it quite clear that it would not cover enrichment or reprocessing of spent fuel, both of which would be a serious risk to non-proliferation and likely to lead to even greater proliferation in the Gulf?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that and share with him a concern in general, of course, that all parties to the non-proliferation treaty exercise their obligations. The UK has long supported strong and effective safeguards arrangements, including the IAEA additional protocol, which the noble Lord mentions. We do not know what the nature of this deal is because, as I said before, it has not been published and we cannot really comment on it, but in addition to the fact that both parties are states parties to the NPT, and that Saudi Arabia has a comprehensive safeguards agreement, we know that there are bilateral safeguards agreed as part of this deal.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, given that Russia is building nuclear power stations in Turkey and Egypt, is not the concern about proliferation real? Is not the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, right to say that the problem with this agreement is lack of transparency, compared with the UAE agreement, which has no processing and no nuclear enrichment? Is that not the model which should be followed? Should not the UK be using its influence to try to persuade the Americans to publish the agreement and abide by those safeguards, and not encourage another nuclear arms race?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point about transparency. The UK works extremely closely with the United States across a wide range of issues, including civil nuclear co-operation. But to go back, this is an agreement that will be lodged with the IAEA. There are bilateral safeguards, as well as a general obligation that comes from the comprehensive safeguards agreement. Those are the due processes that should be in place when civil nuclear co-operation deals occur.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I also extend my welcome to the noble Lord in his new role. I look forward to working with him and am sure that we will have lots of fruitful and mutually beneficial exchanges across this Dispatch Box. We have a long-standing and important relationship with Saudi Arabia. Our principal focus in the region at the moment should be re-establishing free and open navigation of the Strait of Hormuz. Can the Minister say what progress is being made towards that end?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those welcoming remarks—stretching “fruitful” too much, perhaps, but I hope not. I look forward to engaging with and working with him. We continue to believe that a diplomatic settlement around the Strait of Hormuz is the only way of not only resolving the economic dislocation that has resulted from the conflict but preventing Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and our position on its nuclear programme remains unchanged. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and others in the Government are playing their part in trying to ensure that a ceasefire holds and that a diplomatic resolution is the ultimate result of what happens in the Strait of Hormuz.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I also welcome my noble friend to his position. We might be in a better position to exercise influence in the nuclear sphere, in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, if we had the capacity to be able to sell to them. Small modular reactors might give much better control, but we can do that only if the department of energy and others get a move on with the British model, particularly the Rolls-Royce, which has been pre-selected and preferred. If we get that going then we will have something to sell to them. That will also help us to enable a safer use of nuclear power for the future.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. In my first few days in my job, I had many discussions with my counterparts across countries talking about British leadership in SMRs—small modular reactors. I agree that it is an exciting area for the future. We support responsible expansion of civil nuclear power and work closely with the Saudis in nuclear co-operation and dialogue on this issue. There are opportunities for British companies, not just in Saudi but elsewhere, in particular in the areas that the noble Lord discussed.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, is it not a matter of concern that the United States is helping a country that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks—one that dismembered a dissenting journalist, carries out the death penalty on minors and discriminates against women—to develop this nuclear capacity, while threatening another equally odious regime, assassinating its leader and threatening to bomb its people into the Stone Age? Is this not a matter of concern?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. We speak freely and honestly with the Saudis on human rights and a range of other issues, and we will continue to do so. However, the Saudis are, of course, commercial partners and important security allies. The key thing for reassurance on issues such as this is the international treaty framework within which such treaties will be conducted. The reassurance comes from the fact that both the US and Saudi Arabia are parties to the NPT; that the IAEA will be in receipt of the treaty, which includes bilateral safeguards; and that both countries have comprehensive safeguards agreements in place.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, have the Government had any conversations with the Sultanate of Oman?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

We have regular discussions with all our Gulf partners. I will leave it at that.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, with the Chief Whip’s permission, and drawing attention to my interests on the register, I welcome the noble Lord to his position and look forward to working with him. In the context of the responses he has given, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the Mecca agreement—a further agreement between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye that was signed recently—in relation to the overall issue of stabilisation and security in the region?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I am afraid that I am unsighted on that, for which I apologise. I am still getting my feet under the desk. I will get back to the noble Lord with feedback on that.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to his position. He said, quite rightly, that the United States has not yet shared the text of the treaty. However, since that treaty has been signed, what conversations has his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had with counterparts in the US Government to understand, in general terms, what is inside the treaty?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Foreign Secretary has met with Secretary of State Rubio twice in the first four weeks of his job: once at the ASEAN summit and once when he flew to Washington. They discussed a range of issues and will continue to do so. The treaty itself has to go through a rather complicated congressional procedure, which will be conducted in secret. As I said, we do not have the text and it is difficult to comment on the details, but I hope noble Lords who have shared concerns are reassured by the process that is already in place.

Food Insecurity: England

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the causes of food insecurity in England.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, food prices are driven by many factors, including agricultural and manufacturing costs. We take food insecurity seriously, monitoring household spending on food closely and working with industry to mitigate any friction in the supply chain that may drive up prices. The Government are of course aware that food price increases are playing a part in a wider rise in the cost of living. Recent increases in energy prices, however, which are the predominant pressure on households, mean that people have less money to spend on food, regardless of its price.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that answer. The recent Food Foundation report on food insecurity was truly alarming. Over seven million adults, over 2.6 million children and nearly half of all families on universal credit have experienced food insecurity in recent months. The Government have the free school meals scheme, the Healthy Start scheme and the holiday activities and food programme to enable a very targeted way of providing a nutritional safety net for the children who are most in need. Can the Government promise to increase funding to these targeted programmes to ensure that the shocking emergence of a generation of poorly fed, poorer children does not become endemic in our country?

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on her excellent maiden speech and to welcome her to this House. She brings an extraordinary array of talents, including, I am pleased to see, academic and musical distinction, and a unique set of experiences as a member of a persecuted church in Iran. We heard how she suffered huge family trauma at the time of the Iranian revolution, arrived in the UK as a refugee and then built a life of service in the Church here. As I am sure noble Lords agree, we will learn a lot from her contributions, and it is a privilege to follow her in today’s debate.

I start by paying tribute to Nazanin’s husband Richard. I have never met Richard, but I have learned a lot about tenacity, courage, honesty and devotion from watching him fight for the release of his wife—his daughter Gabriella’s mum. I send my very best wishes, as I am sure other noble Lords do, to Richard and Gabriella today.

I want to ask the Minister about one issue, which is that raised by all former speakers, of the debt of approximately £400 million. I realise this is sensitive, given the other things going on, but we know that this debt stems from a weapons deal with the Shah of Iran in the late 1970s, for which Iran paid £600 million and received only a fraction of the vehicles ordered. The culture of secrecy around this issue is extraordinary. To some extent, it is understandable but, beyond that, it is extraordinary.

We do know a number of things about this, however. First, the FCDO has been told on numerous occasions by Iran that the settlement of this debt is vital for securing the release of Nazanin. Secondly, in the course of 20 years of arbitration in the Hague, the UK lost both a claim against it by Iran for payment and its own counterclaim launched in 1996. It also lost a final appeal against these rulings in 2009. This debt is therefore clearly owed by us to Iran, and the law requires it to be paid, whatever our private views on the issue might be. Thirdly, as my noble friend Lord Collins eloquently set out, we know of many former Foreign Secretaries’ views, and we know in particular that Jeremy Hunt came to the view that this money was not an illegitimate demand or an attempt at extortion but an unpaid debt. Fourthly, we know that in September 2020, the UK Defence Minister Ben Wallace wrote to Richard Ratcliffe to say that the Government officially acknowledge that this is a debt that must be paid.

This is what we know. Beyond this, the Government tell us—and, more importantly, have told Richard Ratcliffe and his family and supporters—precious little. So, my main question for the Minister is: can he explain give us a very simple reason why this debt has not been paid? Jeremy Hunt said recently that the reason for holding back payment is now about practicalities, not principle. Can the Minister confirm that is true? If it is because of practicalities, could he explain which practicalities are most relevant? Is it because the Iranian Government were made a sanctioned entity in 2008 under EU law, for example? Though, of course, since Brexit, we have famously taken back control of our own sanctions policy. Irrespective of that, since 2008, a UK court has ruled that the debt should be paid, and Iran has asked for it to be repaid via the central bank of Iran, which is not a sanctioned entity. I understand that the UK has never formally responded to that request; can the Minister say why? Perhaps the practicality is that any UK bank involved in any financial transfer would be subject to US Treasury secondary sanctions, which would be a legitimately serious obstacle. Is that the practicality blocking resolution?

Or is it a more straightforward explanation—that UK Ministers just cannot abide the idea of handing over such a substantial sum to an Iranian Government, given their appalling domestic human rights records, their involvement in atrocities abroad and the complexity of issues around the JCPOA, for example? As my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Dubs said, other countries have successfully negotiated release. Similarly, various imaginative ideas have been proposed for circumventing some of the practical problems in the repayment of our debt—paying the debt in kind through medicines, for example, or insisting on explicit Iranian undertaking to use the money for certain agreed purposes. The Government have not engaged—or publicly acknowledged that they are privately engaged—with these ideas. Why not?

One response to this may be that we should not discuss this at all, as it will disturb the sensitivities around negotiations and disrupt the plan. But the problem is that those closest to this issue, the family and supporters of Nazanin, no longer believe there is any plan at all. That is the most concerning thing—that after so much unjustified suffering, the family of Nazanin not only do not know what the strategy is to end her detention but do not believe that there is anything resembling one. That is why Richard Ratcliffe said during his recent hunger strike of the current Government’s approach to his wife’s release:

“The policy is one of managed waiting, waiting for Iran to do the right thing, for a diplomatic solution. There is no strategy to get Naz home, which I said very bluntly to Liz Truss last week. That’s why I’m camping on the street, because after five and a half years that’s really clear.”


For the sake of Nazanin and her husband and daughter, more than any of us, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide at least some clarity about this issue today.

Beijing Winter Olympic Games 2022

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

The noble Lord, as I have become accustomed to, makes a very pertinent and important point about the investment that is made in a person’s training for the Olympics. One look at me and noble Lords will know that I have never aspired in that respect—but, on a serious note, I totally hear the noble Lord, and of course I will take his sentiments back to colleagues within government.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, the IOC is bound by the Olympic charter and last year it committed not only to strengthening its human rights strategy but to considering an amendment to the charter regarding members upholding human rights. Do the Government support the incorporation of stronger human rights commitments in the Olympic charter, and would they also support strengthening human rights obligations in future host city contracts?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

Again, in principle, I see no reason why we, as a Government, and I, in my capacity as Human Rights Minister, would not be supportive of both points that the noble Lord makes.

Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Wednesday 29th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the regulations and congratulate the Foreign Office on its leadership in finally producing them.

The regulations focus on the most egregious breaches of human rights, as many noble Lords have said. In doing so, they are welcome and essential and provide at least the capacity for the UK to exercise, for the first time, unilateral action against individuals, thus targeting the worst criminals in positions of significant economic and political power. But in focusing on those larger crimes, their scope is relatively restricted. Can the Minister assure the House, first, that the regulations will not simply be used by the UK to reinforce targeted sanctions already imposed by the United States, but will be supported by a rigorous independent assessment here in the UK?

Secondly, as other noble Lords have noted, the first designations contained no one involved in the ongoing human rights atrocities against the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province in China. The USA, with whom the UK works closely on this issue and others, has placed two leading officials from the Xinjiang autonomous region and two security and police chiefs on their Magnitsky list. When will we take corresponding action? Thirdly, when will the Government look to expand the range of offences eligible for targeted sanctions—for example, to include kleptocrats and those perpetrating gross corruption?

One final point: taking action against the financial assets of foreign violators of human rights requires us to know where those assets are. However, the property market in the UK, and especially London, is known the world over as a safe haven for criminal proceeds of the global criminal elite. Over 90,000 properties in the UK are anonymously owned by firms registered in tax havens, and 40% of them are in London.

The Government have long promised a register of beneficial ownership, to enable transparency about who owns what and who benefits from ownership; it has been delayed again and again. I understand that a Bill is ready to go now, but it has yet again been delayed. Can the Minister tell us when it will finally be introduced? I am sure the Minister agrees that placing Magnitsky sanctions on individuals who may own property in the UK would be a farcical situation.

Taiwan

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I have already said that we continue to engage with Taiwan. The most recent visit was by a Trade Minister, so we engage with Taiwan at ministerial level.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether it is the Government’s policy to achieve a bilateral trade deal between the UK and Taiwan, as urged by the Foundation for Independence, a think tank very close to senior figures in this Government?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, we continue to work on important common themes with Taiwan, and trade is one of them. Obviously my colleagues at the Department for International Trade will continue to see how we can further strengthen our ties with Taiwan.