Beijing Winter Olympic Games 2022

Debate between Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

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.

Taiwan

Debate between Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

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.

Covid-19: Repatriation of UK Nationals

Debate between Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises a specific issue about Pakistan. First, the figure of 2,000 that I quoted relates specifically to the charter flights. We have been running charter flights from Islamabad and Lahore, because that was where the main demand was. However, I can assure him that, as I speak, there is a flight returning from Karachi as well, in response to demand.

In addition, because we were committed to working with the national carrier, PIA, which continued to operate commercially, we returned over 7,500 people through that channel. The noble Lord will be aware that PIA has recently restarted its flights as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, underlined in her remarks that we are not relying on the national carrier alone and are continuing to run charter flights. That will continue.

On the support we are providing, all British travellers coming back to the UK on charter flights are being provided with information as they board the plane about the necessary steps they need to take and the issues that may confront them when they arrive. If any of them show symptoms while on the flight, the flight is held, as has happened in a number of cases, and those people are provided with support as they land in the UK. They are also being advised very clearly.

We continue to advise people to stay at home to protect themselves and others. Each traveller who returns is given that valuable advice.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the openness with which he has answered the questions so far. I would like to ask about British people stranded abroad who have medical needs—primarily those whose needs are not Covid-related. Are our embassies and consulates providing active assistance to those who, wherever they are, might need to source drugs for long-term conditions, for example?

Secondly, on the issue of commercial versus charter flights, the Government clearly made a choice early on to ask individual passengers to contact airline companies and fly home on commercial flights when possible. There was obviously also a lack of co-ordination between the Government and the flight operators and airlines. We have all heard lots of stories of people who found themselves facing vast costs, cancelled flights or companies refusing to reimburse payments. Was it not a mistake to opt so clearly for commercial over chartered flights when this co-ordination was lacking? Are the Government providing any assistance to people who are now back home and have financial implications from having to take flights at raised prices, so that they can pursue these cases?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, taking the noble Lord’s question on medical needs, we have asked all our missions to prioritise this. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I talked about vulnerable individuals. We have been collecting data on people returning home. When people have been waiting because the numbers have been high, particularly in places such as south Asia, they have been provided with support on places where they may be able to get prescription medicine.

We are also providing loan facilities for the most hard-up people. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that many have paid thousands of pounds for flights or were unable to finance the cost of their return flight. There is an interest-free loan facility available to Brits around the world. They need to approach the high commission or embassy which can process it. It gives them an interest-free loan and six months to pay upon their return. That is now operational.

We are looking to extend this support. We have a range of facilities, both pastoral and financial, that we are offering to people who remain in-country while they wait to return to the UK, to address specific needs. I once again emphasise that we have been prioritising the most vulnerable, to ensure they can return as soon as possible.

On the issue of flights and co-ordination, I have already made it clear that I think it was the right decision to stand by commercial operators, particularly when you look at the sheer numbers. To again use the Pakistan example, we returned 7,500 people. I fully accept the criticism that a couple of flights were cancelled and some were delayed, but I assure noble Lords that we were working very closely with the airlines and with Governments to ensure that flights remained operational. While there were challenges for people returning home, the fact that we were able to return over 7,500 people through that route demonstrates that it was the right decision. We stand by that. Pakistan is just one example; Australia is another.

We have operated charter flights when needed, as we did in India and Nepal. We are continuing to run an operation in India that we hope will return all the British nationals seeking to return. I add this, and I cannot emphasise it enough. A lot of noble Lords have been dealing directly with people coming to them individually. This message needs to get out there: if you are booked on a flight, get on the flight, because there are individuals who choose not to turn up at the airport. Unlike commercial operators, we cannot operate massive waiting lists. For those people who can come to the airport in quite a short time, we address that practical problem by facilitating and, in places such as India, ensuring their passage by picking them up directly so that they can get back as soon as possible.

There are issues with people now approaching us about airlines that have not refunded and are offering Air Miles, et cetera. Airlines need to look very hard at the people they serve. I share the noble Lord’s concern. People want compensation for the routes they did not use. Airlines need to step up to ensure that they can deliver on that. However, as we all know from the recent announcement from British Airways, airlines themselves are now extremely challenged because of the economic impact of Covid-19.

Hillsborough

Debate between Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for those questions. We have learned lessons from every element of the inquiry, and from the panel in particular. We will take forward all the issues, particularly good governance. We have set up an ongoing relationship with the former Bishop of Liverpool. On the issue of press regulation, as I have said already, we are waiting until the Government can look at the second part of the Leveson report to ensure that a comprehensive response can be given. On press regulation and review, we live in a very different world now from that of 27 years ago—indeed, of 10 years ago—and the press, along with everyone else, need to reflect on their responsibilities, particularly when reporting such tragedies as Hillsborough.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said earlier that we would have to wait until criminal cases had finished before we—to use his phrase—“consider” phase 2 of Leveson. However, I remind him of what the Prime Minister said after phase 1 of Leveson in November 2012:

“When I set up the inquiry, I also said that there would be a second part to investigate wrongdoing in the press and the police”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/12; col. 446.]

He went on to say:

“It is right that it should go ahead, and that is fully our intention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/12; col. 458.]

I understand why criminal cases have to proceed before phase 2 can begin. However, can the Minister assure us that it will begin once those cases have finished, and that the Government will not then reconsider whether it should happen at all?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It is quite right that we ensure that any ongoing criminal investigations are completed, and the Prime Minister has given a commitment.

EU: European Justice and Home Affairs Powers

Debate between Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Monday 15th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, if we take the Labour Benches and then we will move back to the Cross Benches and the government Benches.

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

My Lords, in the event that we opt out and then persuade 26 other EU countries of the importance of us opting back in on an individual item, would the act of opting back in trigger a referendum under the Government’s own legislation?