Sudan: Aerial Bombardment

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

11:42

Asked by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent aerial bombardments in the war in Sudan.

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

The increasing use of aerial warfare, including drones, is inflicting devastating harm on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Sudan, killing over 1,000 civilians in the first half of this year and contributing to the growing risk of famine in the country. The UK, both publicly and in our diplomatic engagements, is urging the warring parties to protect civilians, comply with international humanitarian law and facilitate safe and unhindered humanitarian access. At the UN General Assembly, the Foreign Secretary and Minister for International Development convened international partners to co-ordinate action to protect civilians in Sudan and issued a communiqué on behalf of the UK-convened coalition for atrocity prevention on the impact of drone warfare on civilians.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he tell us what response we have received from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons about credible allegations concerning the use of chemical weapons in Sudan and the bringing to justice of those responsible, along with the quartermasters whose actions have led to an estimated 400,000 deaths in Sudan? That includes terrible atrocities in El Fasher in Darfur, the displacement of some 14 million people and 19 million people facing acute food insecurity and famine. As penholders in the Security Council, will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify reports that the UK intends to support a candidate to become Secretary-General of the United Nations who has dismissed the findings of the UN’s own panel of experts about the involvement of the UAE in arming RSF paramilitaries? What convoluted message would this send on seeking an end to the world’s most deadly and catastrophic war?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that and pay tribute to him; no one inside or outside this House does more to keep the spotlight shining on what is the worst humanitarian crisis facing the world in the 21st century, and I thank him for that. On the chemical weapons issue, we take any alleged breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention very seriously. As Sudan is a state party to that convention, we expect all those in Sudan to abide by the prohibition on developing, producing, processing, transferring or using chemical weapons. We have consistently raised concerns about allegations of weapon use by the Sudanese Armed Forces, including at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. I hosted the director-general of the OPCW a couple of weeks ago in this very building and discussed exactly that, and we are using our national and Sudan-specific statements at the OPCW’s executive council to further this agenda. On the issue of the United Nations Secretary-General, I urge everyone in the House not to believe wild speculation in the newspapers on any UK preference for any candidate; we do not comment in public on that, and that is how we will continue to approach this issue.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The actions that the UK has taken on the credible information on the use of chlorine gas on civilians is that it has asked the alleged perpetrators to investigate their own actions. This is wholly insufficient. Under Articles IX and X of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the UK, as a state party, can take actions to demand independent investigations of this credible information on the use of gas. As the UN Security Council penholder for Sudan, why have we not taken this action?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. We are engaging on a number of strands of this issue with the OPCW. He is absolutely right that part of that is urging Sudan to conclude the investigation that is under way. We have a range of discussions at the OPCW and at the UN in our role as penholder, across the community of nations, about ways to address the issue and take allegations seriously. As I think the noble Lord and everyone else in the House know, the OPCW has enjoyed strong support from the United Kingdom for a number of years, and we take it extremely seriously as the primary vehicle to investigate serious alleged breaches.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, given the extent of the humanitarian crisis in Sudan over the past number of years, like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I again ask my noble friend: will he, along with international counterparts, put some diplomatic pressure on President Trump to persuade him not to allow control of the UN to go to the UAE, as it funds the rebels in Sudan who have committed immeasurable atrocities in Darfur, including El Fasher?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to point to the role of external interference in this conflict and the way it fuels the conflict. We have been clear from the start that all external support for either side serves only to fuel the bloodshed and prolonged violence and must end. That is why we have imposed an arms embargo on Sudan. With reference to the United States, that is why we are not just continuing to call for compliance with the United Nations arms embargo on Darfur; we are also working with the US and others to support efforts to strengthen the scope of that UN embargo.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

Further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, it was exactly a year ago that the RSF attacked El Fasher and 6,000 civilians were killed. A similar appalling atrocity was committed in El Geneina a few months later. These are vile, wicked and evil crimes committed by people who are beyond being reproached. What more can be done to bring them to justice?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord—as I think everyone will—on the vileness of the actions in El Fasher; the events were horrific. Earlier this week, the Minister for International Development and the All-Party Group on Sudan held a joint event in Parliament to remember the victims. On the first anniversary of the RFS assault on El Fasher, we announced a new round of sanctions on suspected perpetrators of sexual violence and other atrocities. The answer to what can be done is: a whole range of things. Frustrating as this is, I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom is leading on both humanitarian support—providing £146 million a year—and on justice and accountability, through leadership of the Coalition for Atrocity Prevention and Justice for Sudan. We are also using our penholder status at the United Nations for a variety of activities.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome what my noble friend the Minister had to say about our continuing support, and particularly the humanitarian response. Can he update the House on the processes that are being led by the US through the quad? In addition, because these quad processes and other statements and UN processes have so far been unsuccessful in preventing the grim atrocities that we continue to see, can he commit the UK to playing a leading role in the painstaking work of working with civil society and local political civilian leadership in order to bring about a lasting peace?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My noble friend knows what she is talking about on this; she played a leading role in responding on it for a number of years, and I work with officials who are extremely grateful for all the leadership that she provided on it over a long time. She is absolutely right that the UK must play, and continues to play, a leading effort in not just formal multilateral fora but informal environments. Recently, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was in Istanbul for an—excuse the acronym—E3+R4 meeting, which engages countries with different kinds of access to involve parties in ways of trying to find ways through on the range of difficult issues that are involved in the Sudan conflict.

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords, churches have been widely used as shelters over the course of the conflict in Sudan, particularly in the Nuba mountains, from where the majority of Sudanese Christians originate. Attacks on places of worship and religious leaders have been widely documented, and both sides have used places of worship for military purposes. In the light of these developments, can the Minister say what assessment the Government have made on the situation of freedom of religion in Sudan and what steps particularly they are taking to ensure that the urgent humanitarian assistance that he has already referenced is also reaching vulnerable and historically marginalised religious communities, including in the Nuba mountains?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right to point to issues to do with freedom of worship and the use of religious buildings, such as churches and other locations, by parties to the conflict. On the guiding principles of the humanitarian support provided—it is not just about the amount, £146 million a year, which we are pleased to say is reaching millions and millions of people—one of the developments, the evolution of which I think my noble friend was partly responsible for, is that we are providing help to local responders using NGOs and local organisations, including religious organisations, as partners and destinations for funding. That is an important principle in the humanitarian response that the right reverend Prelate asked about.