Middle East and North Africa

Lord Goodman of Wycombe Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What he said was wrong. As to whether different decisions would have been made at an earlier point, I cannot answer. Maybe the point at which to have made a different decision would have been the point at which he was awarded citizenship, but this Government were not responsible for that choice. Once citizenship has been given, to remove citizenship—abhorrent though the things he said clearly were, and he has rightly apologised for them, I am not clear that they would have been sufficient cause to deprive someone of their citizenship, even though we fundamentally disagree with what was said. I think the noble Lord can appreciate the complexities around that.

On the issue of aid agencies and personnel, the Israeli Government are requiring the disclosure of the names of individuals working for aid agencies. We disagree with that. Other people will agree with it, but we do not. We think that is the wrong way to conduct access for aid agencies. We just think the Government of Israel are wrong on this point, and we will continue to make that case to them and explain why. These agencies are very effective at getting aid to people who need it desperately. The depth of need is still there. Things have improved somewhat—the latest IPC assessments of hunger show that things have improved a bit—but an awful lot more still needs to happen. Thousands of traumatised children are having difficulty with speech and language at school, accessing education and healthcare, and getting sufficient quality food. These are all things that I know everyone in this Chamber would want to see resolved, and we think the best way to do that is to allow the agencies to do their job.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

Returning to Alaa Abd el-Fattah, Paul Ovenden, who was until recently the Prime Minister’s own director of strategy, wrote the following remarkable paragraph:

“What I knew of his plight during my time in government was largely down to his status as a cause célèbre beloved of Whitehall’s sturdy, clean-shirted diplomats and their scurrying auxiliaries. They mentioned him with such regularity that it became a running joke among my colleagues: a totem of the ceaseless sapping of time and energy by people obsessed with fringe issues”.


He went on to complain of a stakeholder state that has gripped Governments of both parties. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s former director of strategy and, if so, what does she think should be done?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Paul is a very good friend of mine. I have worked with him for many years and I enjoyed reading his assessment of his time working in Downing Street. I think he was using that case to illustrate the point—and I think he is right—that there are often certain issues that are of concern to people who work in the Diplomatic Service, and who may have cause to be interested in human rights and other such issues, that may not be the concern of members of my family in the north-east or many others. That does not mean that diplomats should not care about them. Paul expresses his views in a characteristically straightforward and colourful way. I respect very much his right to do that. He makes a very good point, one that many of us in government can recognise, but does that mean that we should not do our jobs when it comes to British nationals being held overseas? Of course not.